[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
F_A.&A&MffV F*-T-7 Coastal Zone Information Center Shoreline Situation Report CHARLES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA 771. - IL A 'J, AL 7 _a 77 ,7 lit @@j Qz ISE. 41 9.61 ng fro, T y* 'JAl All 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 49 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 115 of the QH 301 VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE .V852 no. 115 Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 c.2 1976 Shoreline Situation Report CHARLES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA Prepared by: Dennis W. Owen Lynne M. Rogers Margaret H. Peoples U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA Project Supervisors: COASTAL SERVICES CENTER Robert J. Byrne 4 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE Carl H. Hobbs, III CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 Property of CSC Library Supported by the National Science Foundation, Research Applied to National Needs Program NSF Grant Nos. 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 49 Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 115 of the VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE William J. Hargis Jr., Director Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1976 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE PAGE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 FIGURE 1: Shorelands Components 5 1.1 Purposes and Goals 2 FIGURE 2: Marsh Types 5 1.2 Acknowledgements 2 FIGURE 3: Typical River Meander 11 FIGURE 4: Dancing Point 13 FIGURE 5: Dancing Point 13 CHAPTER 2: APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED 3 FIGURE 6: Tettington. 13 2.1 Approach to the Problem 4 FIGURE 7: Tettington 13 2.2 Characteristics of the Shorelands Included 4 FIGURE 8: Westover 14 FIGURE 9: Westover 14 CHAPTER 3: PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF CHARLES CITY 9 FIGURE 10: Mount Airy 14 3.1 The Shorelands of Charles City 10 FIGURE 11: Route 5, Bridge on Chickahominy River 14 3.2 Shoreline Erosion 10 TABLE 1: Charles City County Shorelands Physiography 19 3.3 Shore Use limitations 11 TABLE 2: Charles City County Subsegment Summary 22 CHAPTER 4: SUMMARIES AND MAPS OF CHARLES CITY 21 MAPS 1A-D: Charles City County Summary Maps 1.5 4.1 Segment and Subsegment Summaries 22 MAPS 2A-C: Trees Point to Tomahund Creek 33 4.2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions 24 MAPS 3A-C: Kittewan Creek to Oldfield 36 Subsegment 1A 24 MAPS 4A-C: Buckland Creek to Weyanoke Point 39 Subsegment 1B 24 MAPS 5A-C: Charles Lake to Bucklers Point 42 Subsegment 1C 25 MAPS 6A-C: Turkey Island Creek to Harrison Point 45 Subsegment 2A 27 MAPS 7A-C: Matahunk Neck to Big Marsh Point 48 Subsegment 2B 27 MAPS 8A-C: Watts Point to Parsons Island 51 Segment 3 29 MAPS 9A-C: Morris Creek Area 54 Subsegment 4A 30 Subsegment 4B 30 Subsegment 4C 31 4.3 Segment and Subsegment Maps 33 6 0 D 0 CHAPTER 1 0 Introduction 6 I D 0 0 0 1 CHAPTER 1 Residential, commercial, or industrial county or city level, we have executed our report INTRODUCTION development on that level although we realize some of the in- Recreation formation may be most useful at a higher govern- 1.1 PURPOSES AND GOALS Transportation mental level. The Commonwealth of Virginia has It is the objective of this report to supply Waste disposal traditionally chosen to place as much as possible, an assessment, and at least a partial integration, Extraction of living and non-living the regulatory decision processes at the county of those important shoreland parameters and char- resources level. The Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Chapter acteristics which will aid the planners and the Aside from the above uses, the shorelands serve 2.1, Title 62.1, Code of Virginia), for example managers of the shorelands in making the best de- various ecological functions. provides for the establishment of County Boards cisions for the utilization of this limited and The role of planners and managers is to optimize to act on applications for alterations of wet- very valuable resource. The report gives particu- the utilization of the shorelands and to minimize lands. Thus, our focus at the county level is lar attention to the problem of shore erosion and the conflicts arising from competing demands. Fur- intended to interface with and to support the to recommendations concerning the alleviation of thermore, once a particular use has been decided existing or pending county regulatory mechanisms the impact of this problem. In addition, we have upon for a giv en segment of shoreland, both the concerning activities in the shorelands zone. tried to include in our assessment a discussion planners,and the users want that selected use to of those factors which might significantly limit operate in the most effective manner. A park 1.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS development of the shoreline and, in some in- planner, for example, wants the allotted space to This report was prepared with funds provided stances, a discussion of some of the potential fulfill the design most efficiently. We hope that by the Research Applied to National Needs Program or alternate uses of the shoreline, particularly the results of our work are useful to the planner (RANN) of the National Science Foundation through with respect to recreational use, since such in- in designing the beach by pointing out the techni- the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. The formation could aid potential users in the per- cal feasibility of altering or enhancing the pres- report was published with funds provided to the ception of a segment of the shoreline. ent configuration of the shore zone. Alternately, Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone The basic advocacy of the authors in the prep- if the use were a residential development, we would Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric aration of the report is that the use of shore- hope our work would be useful in specifying the Administration', Grant Number 04-5-158-50001. lands should be planned rather than haphazardly shore erosion problem and by indicating defenses Beth Marshall typed the manuscript. Bill Jenkins developed in response to the short term pressures likely to succeed in containing the erosion. In and Ken Thornberry prepared the photographs. and interests. Careful planning could reduce the summary our objective is to provide a usefultool Lynne Rogers assisted with data reduction. We conflicts which may be expected to arise between for enlightened utilization of a limited resource, would like to thank the numerous other persons competing interests. Shoreland utilization in the shorelands of the Commonwealth. in Virginia and Maryland that have assisted our many areas of the country, and indeed in some Shorelands planning occurs, either formally or work with their suggestions and criticisms of places in Virginia, has proceeded in a manner such informally, at all levels from the private owner our ideas and methods. that the very elements which attracted people to of shoreland property to county governments, to the shore have been destroyed by the lack of planning districts and to the state and federal planning and forethought. agency lcvcl. We -feel our results will be useful The major man-induced uses of the shorelands at all these levels. Since the most basic level are: of comprehensive planning and zoning is at the 2 6 0 I D CHAPTER 2 0 Approach Used and Elements Considered b 0 I 0 0 1 3 CHAPTER 2 the subsegment. Segments are groups of 22@ @se a) Shorelands Physiographic Classification APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED ments. The boundaries for segments also were se- The shorelands of the Chesapeake Bay System may lected on physiographic units such as necks or be considered as being composed of three inter- 2.1 APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM peninsulas between major tidal creeks. Finally, acting physiographic elements: the fastlands, the In the preparation of this report the authors the county itself is considered as a sum of shore- shore and the nearshore. A graphic classifica- utilized existing information wherever pos sible. line segments. tion based on these three elements has been de- For example, for such elements as water quality The format of presentation in the report follows vised so that the types for each of the three ele- characteristics, zoning regulations, or flood haz- a sequence from general summary statements for the ments portrayed side by side on a map may provide ard, we reviewed relevant reports by local, state, county (Chapter 3) to tabular segment summaries and the.opportunity to examine joint relationships or federal agencies'. Much of the desired informa- finally detailed descriptions and maps for each among the elements. As an example, the applica- tion, particularly with respect to erosional char- subsegment (Chapter 4). The purpose in choosing tion of the system. permits the user to determine acteristics, shoreland types, and use was not this format was to allow selective use of the report miles of high bluff shoreland interfacing with available, so we performed the field work and de- since some users' needs will adequately be met with marsh in the shore zone. veloped classification schemes. In order to ana- the summary overview of the county while others will For each subsegment there are two length mea- lyze successfully the shoreline behavior we placed require the detailed discussion of particular sub- surements, the shore-nearshore interface or shore- heavy reliance on low altitude, oblique, color, 35 segments. line, and the fastland-shore interface. The two mm photography. We photographed the entire shore- interface lengths differ most when the shore zone line of each county and cataloged the slides for 2.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SHORELANDS INULUDED is embayed or extensive marsh. On the subsegment easy access at VIMS, where they remain available IN THE STUDY maps, a dotted line represents the fastland-shore for use. We then analyzed these photographia ma- The characteristics which are included in this interface when it differs from the shoreline. The terials, along with existing conventional aerial report are listed below followed by a discussion fastland-shore interface length is the base for photography and topographic and hydrographic maps, of our treatment of each.- the fastland statistics. for the desired elements. We conducted field in- a) Shorelands physiographic classification Definitions: spection over much of the shoreline, particularly b) Shorelands use classification Shore Zone at those locations where office analysis left c) Shorelands ownership classification This is the zone of beaches and marshes. It is questions unanswered. In some cases we took addi- d) Zoning a buffer zone between the water body and the fast- tional photographs along with the field visits to e) Water quality land. The seaward limit of the shore zone is the document the effectiveness of shoreline defenses. f) Shore erosion and shoreline defenses break in slope between the relatively steeper shore- The basic shoreline unit considered is called g) Limitations to shore use and potential or face and the less steep nearshore zone. The approx- a subsegment, which may range from a few hundred alternate shore uses imate landward limit is a contour line representing feet to several thousand feet in length. The end h) Distribution of marshes one and a half times the mean tide range above mean points of the subsegments were generally chosen on i) Flood hazard levels low water (refer to Figure 1). In operation with physiographic consideration such as changes in the j) Shellfish leases and public shellfish topographic maps the inner fringe of the marsh sym- character of erosion or deposition. Tn those cases grounds bols is taken as the landward limit. where a radical change in land use occurred, the k) Beach quality The physiographic character of the marshes has point of change was taken as a boundary point of also been separated into three types (see Figure 2). 4 Fringe marsh is that which is less than 400 f eet in (122 m) of the fastland - shore boundary. The determine general, serviceable class limits, these width and which runs in a band parallel to the general classification is: calculated numbers were rounded to 900 and 11000 shore. Extensive marsh is that which has extensive Low shore, 20 ft. (6 m) or less of relief; with yards respectively. The class limits were set at acreage projecting into an estuary or river. An or without cliff half the standard deviation (500 yards) each side embayed marsh is a marsh which occupies a reentrant Moderately low shore, 20-40 ft. (6-12 m) of of the mean. Using this procedure a narrow near- or drowned creek valley. The purpose in delineating relief; with or without cliff shore zone is one 0-400 yards in width, intermediate these marsh types is that the effectiveness of the Moderately high shore, 40-60 ft. (12-18 m) of 400-1,400, and wide greater than 1,400. various functions of the marsh will, in part, be relief; with or without cliff The following definitions have no legal signif- determined by type of exposure to the estuarine High shore, 60 ft. (18 m) or more of relief; icance and were constructed for our classifica- system. A fringe marsh may, for example, have maxi- with or without cliff. tion purposes: mum value as a buffer to wave erosion of the fast- Two specially classified exceptions are sand Narrow, 12-ft. (3-7 m) isobath located <400 land. An extensive marsh, on the other hand, is dunes and areas of artificial fill. yards from shore likely a more efficient transporter of detritus and Nearshore Zone Intermediate, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath 400- other food chain materials due to its greater drain- The nearshore zone extends from the shore zone 1,400 yards from shore age density than an embayed marsh. The central to the 12-foot (M1W datum) contour. In the smaller Wide, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath >1,400 yards point is that planners, in the light of ongoing and tidal rivers the 6-foot depth is taken as the ref- Subclasses: with or without bars future research, will desire to weight various erence depth. The 12-foot depth is probably the with or without tidal flats functions of marshes and the physiographic delinea- maximum depth of significant sand transport by waves with or without submerged tion aids their decision making by denoting where in the Chesapeake Bay area. Also, the distinct vegetation the various types exist. drop-off into the river channels begins roughly at -o--FASTLAND-4SHOR NEARSHORE The classification used is: the 12-foot depth. The nearshore zone includes any I f tidal flats. Beach Marsh The class limits for the nearshore zone classi- -MLW+ 1.5 Tide Range MLW Fringe marsh, <400 ft. (122 m) in width fications were chosen following a simple statistical Figure 1 - 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 11nbayed marsh, occupying a drowned valley charts at one-mile intervals along the shorelines of FRINGE EMBAYED EXTENSIVE MARSH MARSH MARSH or reentrant Chesapeake Bay and the James, York, Rappahannock, Artificially stabilized and Potomac Rivers. Means and standard deviations for each of the separate -regions and for the entire Fastland Zone The zone extending from the landward limit of combined system were calculated and compared. Al- I the shore zone is termed the fastland. The fast- though the distributions were non-normal, they were FASTLAND FASTLAND land is relatively stable and is the site of most generally comparable, allowing the data for the en- I I material development or construction. The physio- tire combined system to determine the class 11--its. Figure 2 graphic classification of the fastland is based The calculated mean was 919 yards with a sta-n- A plan view of the three marsh types. upon the average slope of the land within 400 feet dard deviation of 1,003 yaxds. As our aim was to 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 Agricultural has two main subdivisions, private and governmen- or more residential buildi.ngs adjacent to one Includes fields, pastures, croplands, and tal, with the governmental further divided into another. Schools, churches, and isolated busi- other agricultural areas. federal, state, county, and town or city. Appli- nesses may be 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 a) Open: Brush land, dune areas, waste- trade and business. This category includes small lands; less than 40% tree cover. d) Water Quality industry and other anomalous areas within the gen- b) Wooded: more than 40% tree cover. The ratings of satisfactory, intermediate or eral commercial context. Marinas are considered The shoreland use classification applies to unsatisfactory assigned to the various subsegments commercial 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 con- able Number) of 70 per 100 ml. The upper limit for trolled, restricted, or regulated by governmental Shore Zone fecal coliforms is an MPN of 23. Usually any count 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- Shelifishing 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 in condiTions. inhabitants. Vir-inia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Code of Virginia ID 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 Re- Quality Standards 1946, amended 1970), they are ness of recent installations. In instances where ports 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 at this time. In general, any waters fitting the thermore, recommendations are given for defenses back to the formal marsh inventory for additional satisfactory or intermediate categories would be in those areas where none currently exist. The data. The independent material in this report is acceptable for water recreation. primary emphasis is placed on expected effective- provided to indicate the physiographic type of ness with secondary consideration to cost. marsh land and to serve as a rough guide to marsh e) Zoning distribution, pending a formal inventory. Addi- In cases where zoning regulations have been 9) Limitations to Shore Use and Potential or tional information on wetlands charact eris tics established the existing information p ertaining Alternate Shore Uses may be found in Coastal Wetlands of Virginia: to the shorelands has been included in the report. In this section we point out specific factors Interim Report No. 3, by G.M. Silberhorn, G.M. which may impose significant limits on the type or Dawes, and T.A. Barnard, Jr., SRAMSOE No. 46, f) Shore Erosion and Shoreline Defenses extent of shoreline development. This may result 1974, and in other VIMS publications. 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 the complete. However, the United States Army Corps The locations with moderate and severe ratings 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 years ware utilized for an assessment maps and should be considered only as approxima- placed at the highest -probable flood level. of more recent conditions. Finally, in those tions. Detailed county inventories of the wetlands areas experiencing severe erosion field inspec- are be 4 g conducted by the Virginia Institute of in tions and ini-i-v'Lews were held with loca Marine Science under the a:athorizatior. of the 7 j) Shellfish Leases and Public Grounds The data in this report show the leased and public shellfish grounds as protrayed 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 judgment 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 a p 0 CHAPTER 3 Present Shorelands Situation 0 p 0 0 0 I 9 I CHAPTER 3 county are generally very thin and often vegetated. River approximately midway between Newport News PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION Few seem suitable for recreational usage. and Richmond. The Chickahominy River forms the OF CHARLES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA No water quality data for Charles City County eastern boundary of the county. Both rivers are 'is available from the Bureau of Shellfish Sanita- relatively low energy water bodies in this sec- 3.1 THE SHORELANDS OF CHARLES CITY COUNTY tion, since the salinity of the James River here tion. However, erosion of the shoreline is evi- Charles City County, located halfway between is.too low to be conducive to shellfish propaga- denced along both bodies of water. Richmond and Newport News, is bounded by the Chick- tion. Data taken from the Water Quality Inventory A primary cause of erosion of the fastland is ahominy and James Rivers. The shorelands reflect (305 (b) Report) of the Virginia State Water Con- waves generated by local winds. The height and the predominantly rural character of the county. trol Board (April, 1976) indicates that while the growth of waves is controlled by four factors: Almost ninety percent of the shorelands are either water quality of the James is generally good, sea- the overwater distance across which the wind used for agriculture or are woodlands. Eight per- sonal and sectional problems do exist. These blows (the fetch), the velocity of the wind, the cent is part of a state owned preserved area. problems are usually caused.by upstream discharges duration of time that the wind blows, and the The county has little industry; over seventy- into the river. depth of the water. The James River at Charles five percent of the employed persons commute to Richmond, Hopewell, and Petersburg all have City County is neither wide enough nor straight neighboring urban areas for jobs. State Route 5, numerous domestic and industrial discharges into enough to have a really significant fetch. With- which runs from Richmond to Williamsburg, parallels the James River which can adversely affect the out a long fetch, erosive wave action is minimized the James River a few miles inland. Much residen- water quality. Flood waters have caused sewer for most of the county. However, elevated water tial development has taken place near to this overflows in Richmond, allowing oxidizable organ- levels associated with storms in the Bay do affect principal highway. Only two percent of the shore- ics and bacteria to enter the James. In late the county's shorelands. Storm surges may be as lands are used for residential purposes. Few 1975, the James River below Richmond was closed much as two or more feet above normal high tide areas of the shoreline are actively used for rec- to all shellfish and finfish harvesting due to levels. Under such circumstances, the easily reational purposes. chemical contamination. At the present time9 the eroded fastland behind beaches or marsh areas can There are 137.0 measured miles of fastland in river is open to the taking of seed oysters. be exposed to direct wave action. Charles City County, ninety-four percent of which The county is also subject to the effects of is either low or moderately low shore (see Table 3.2 SHORELINE EROSION IN CHARLES CITY COUNTY heavy upstream rains. Higher water levels asso- 1). Only two percent of the fastlands are bluff The processes of erosion and accretion are con- ciated with such storms also allow wave actions areas. The county has 121.2 miles of shoreline, tinually affecting the shorelands of Virginia. to concentrate on the vulnerable fastland behind of which eighty-four percent is marsh, fifteen per- The rate and severity of erosion in any one area the buffer zone. cent is beach, and one percent is artificially sta- is dependent upon many variables such as the loca- Erosion in Charles City County is also the bilized. The marsh figure can be further broken tion of the section, the physiography and geology result of downhill rain runoff. This can be of down to twenty-seven percent fringe marsh and fifty- of its shorelands, the depth and width of the particular consequence in high bluff areas. The seven percent embayed and extensive marsh. Marsh water body, and man's use of the shorelands. The washing of the cliff face can effectively under- areas, especially embayed and extensive marshes, many combinations of these and other factors de- mine trees along the shoreline. These trees should be -,reserved, as tll-@cy arc important crosion termine the rate any given area on ti-.Le shoreline eventually fall, carrying with them large amounts and flood control agents and provide habitats for will erode or accrete. of soil suspended in their root systems. Though many species of aquatic life. Beaches in the Charles City County is located on the James few areas in the county have significant bluffs 10 along the shoreline, any wooded gradient can be so critical problem. Many areas have moderate erosion paved roads to these areas seems unjustified for affected. problems, but none are severe and most are located the present. Most development has located along Most of the erosion found along the Chickahominy along unmanaged wooded shorelands. Attempts at the major inland routes, and future trends will River occurs at the bends in the river. The river halting erosion in a given area should be carefully probably follow existing patterns. This seems current is greatest on the outside of the meanders conceived. Professional advice and planning are to be substantiated by the fact that over seventy- and is much less on the inside. The amount and necessary for a successful shoreline defense sys- five percent of the employed persons in the county rate of erosion depends upon the composition of tem. Whenever possible, where erosion affects commute to other areas for work. These commuters the land, the speed of the current, and the matu- several landowners, a joint plan of defense is need quick and easy access to major thoroughfares. rity of the meander. Figure 3 shows erosion and preferred. Not only are costs reduced, but the A major drawback to any large scale development accretion along a typical meander in the Chicka- chances for aggravated erosion nearby is greatly is the county's lack of public water and sewage. hominy River. diminished. Any area has only a limited residential potential without such facilities. EROS ION 3.3 SHORE USE LIMITATIONS Development along some areas of the shorelands ACCRETION The overwhelming majority of the shorelands in is restricted by the present use. Eight percent Charles City County are either unused or are used of the fastland is owned by the State Commission for agriculture. Less than four percent is pres- of Game and Inland Fisheries. This section of ently developed. The rural character of the county the Chickahominy River is preserved, with areas is the result of a combination of factors which to be used as low intensity recreational parks. continue to limit growth in the county and along Three Colonial plantations located along the James its shorelands. River are popular tourist attractions. The sur- Fifty-seven percent of the shoreline is either -rounding lands should be kept in harmony with embayed or extensive marsh (a tidal marsh inven- these historic landmarks. tory for Charles City County is forthcoming). Erosion is not a critical problem in Charles These areas serve as important flood and erosion City mainly because most eroding areas are un- control agents and are habitats for numerous developed lands. Development in these areas and aquatic life. The Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 ensuing attempts at shore stabilization can create restricts development in marshes and strictly con- critical problems for the specific location and trols any proposed alteration of them. Develop- for sites downstream. As stated before, any ment behind marsh areas would have limited and dif- alterations of the shoreline should be done only FIGURE 3. TYPICAL RIVER MEANDER ficult access to the water. with professional advice and guidance. Access to the shoreline of Charles City is also New development along the shoreline in Charles There are other factors which contribute to the limited. State Route 5 parallels the shoreline City County is limited to isolated areas of the erosion rate of a given area. Man's activities approximately two miles inland. Though several fastland. Several sites are zoned for industrial along the shoreline and the frequency of boat traf- roads 'Join areas of the shorelands with Route 5, use. The fastland at the head of Queens Creek fic in the river both have an effect on the erosion most sections have only private lanes to residences has the potential of becoming the major residen- rate. Erosion in Charles City County is not a near the water. The costly process of providing tial and business center in the county. County administrative offices, the courthouse, a school, and various residences are already located in the vicinity. Any shoreline structures should ensure against adding any nutrients or contaminants to the rivers. The county's recreational needs should be par- tially met by the new state owned park on the Chickahominy River (Subsegments 4B and 4C). The park is scheduled to include a public boat ramp and facilities for camping and picnicking. The county's Comprehensive Plan has proposed the creation of four inland neighborhood parks and two regional parks. A community center is located northeast of the court- house. Additional shoreline recreational facilities, though possible, are not expected to be developed in the near future. In summary, the rural nature of Charles City County should be preserved. Few changes in shore- lands use are expected. Though two industrial sites may be developed, most of the shoreline should remain as agricultural or wooded areas. 12 FIGURE 4: Dancing Point, aerial photo. This area has been stabilized with rubble riprap. FIGURE 5: Ground view of Dancing Point. Note erosion of the bluff area not protected by rip- rap. ..... .... .. ... .. ........... . .. ...... . ....... Figure 4 Figure 5 M @r"' vl"@ FIGURE 6: Ruins of dock at Tettington. The area MOM, to the left has good beaches. The shoreline to the -right has various types of rubbTe acting in places like riprap. 7771,_'@," 7 FIGURE 7: Tettington ground view. The beach area here is littered with much debris. -M 'g, m" 'S Figure 6 Figure 7 13 K10 @1-, C, 7, 7 FIGURE 8: Aerial view of Westover. Note the well emplaced bulkhead protecting the entire length of shoreline. ......... FIGURE 9- Westover ground view. The bulkhead is fronted by a pebble beach and some grasses. 4- X U Figure 8 . ........ .. Figure 9 ev FIGURE 10: Marina near Mount Airy, Chicka- hominy River. The bulkhead here is for retaining fill more than for erosion pro- Al tection. FIGURE 11 Aerial view of Route 5 bridge over the Chickahominy River. Numerous residences with their private piers are located on the shoreline in this area. Figure 10 Figure 11 14 77-115' 77-jO0 SCALE OF MILES 3 MAP 7 4A 3 "I MAP 8 ARLES 51@ 4B lk CITY Q., N-j _r%- MAP 9-1 MAP 6 MAP 2A' 3 MAP 3 2B MAP 4 4C 370 ic 15' CHARLES CITY COUNTY IN-1 MAP 2 1A AP Z6 '@AP' 5 @@ 77-115' 77-10d 15 7 7 -115' SCA:LE OF MILES 1 2 3 4 4A FASTL Lo 0 Lo o.* 0 v 0 .0 mc 0, P, SO/ 10 mc 3 N'o v 0 mc 0 b 0 0 0 mc 0 0 -V 0. 1 0 0 Hi@ 0 CHARLES I Scl) 4B 0-k CITY liq Hi jo@ I X v 0 0@t SHORE 0 0 --I- 0 0 0 Be 0,4 0.-0 Fri I;--_ -@,, 0 o 01 -0-0 0\ Ex 2 A ly: 3 ErT 00 Arl 2 B 0 0 0 1 B I 0 0 NEARS 0-0 Na \0 Int 4 C w i % 0 37* ic 0 15' 0 0 CHARLES CITY COUNTY 1 A 77-115' 77-10d 16 TT-1 15' 77-100, 00%1 SCALE OF MILES 0 4 4A "N 3 B/G B R z HARLES 4B CITY % B B 2A% B R 3 1%%, 2B oil %%%% % 1B A 4C 37* ic 15' CHARLES CITY COUNTY \1 Rx z @-R NR A 770115' 77-100' 17 77-100' SCALE OF MILES 2 3 4 4A Iw I w IA I W,\ 3 IA (I RS Iw I I Iw c ]A IRS / ]A IA IA Iw IRS CHARLES 4B 4C w I w X Iw IA 2PR CITY w IA IRS 11 A -1 A IRS Iw Iw lw Iw Iw IRS Iw IRS I I I I A Iw 0 IRC IA IA IA IA Iw Iw 1w Iw Iw I A IRC ---- - --l Iw 1w I A lw Iw 3 PR, 3PR 2A'@ 1A N\ Iw 3 1 A I Iw 3PR 2B i Iw \-,I w 1B lw Iw lw --@l RS 4C 370 ic IA IA I A I A I A 15' CHARLES CITY COUNTY I A A -@l A A J A@ JI"A ILA 77-115' 77-100' 18 TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CHARLES CITY COUNTY SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY, FASTLAND USE AND OWNERSHIP (STATUTE MILES) Physiographic SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY FASTLAND USE OWNERSHIP TOTAL MILES use and ownership classifi- FASTLAND SHORE NEARSHORE cation 0 E-1 Fq >-i F-4 >-4 Fq Fq Fq Iq FTq ITI 11, Fq F-1 11:1 m -4 -:4 0 r4 r@ r,4 r-l 0 Pq 0 @D E-4 F-1 H E-4 Ej Q E-q 0 Eq m E-1 M Fq F-1 E-i r m P'q ca co Pq m PZ1 E-4 Pq El EQ Pq Pq Pq W m m m Pq Pq F-i F-q E-i E-4 P E-i C 0 E-q 00 C5 E-1 E-4 El P4 -0 U) 2@ 0 F-i 0 F-i H H H M " H P4 E-4 >.4 A 0 0 E-4 Subsegment F-q *1 F-1 :2@ F-1 m :E@ M @3: ca P@ Pq P4 PL, 1A 7.7 0.2 4.0 0.8 0.1 1.6 3.6 6.4 1.4 7.7 7.7 5.2 1B 0.3 6.4 o.2 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 2.8 4.4 0.1 3.3 8.1 8.1 8.1 7.3 ic 11.1 8.4 0.5 0.3 1.8 6.7 3.8 2-4 6.6 2.2 9.5 0.2 10.3 20.0 20.0 15-0 2A 0.3 7.3 0.3 0.2 1.4 5.8 1.4 1.9 0.9 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 7.3 8.1 8.1 10.4 2B 11.8 4.1 1.6 0.2 4.4 8.9 1.9 5.0 7.5 10.6 0.2 0.5 1.1 5.1 17.5 17.5 20.5 3 7.8 3.4 0.2 0.9 0.9 1.0 3.7 9.7 2.9 4.5 8.3 0.2 3.7 12.3 12.3 15.3 4A 5.7 3.1 O@5 6.1 0.8 1.9 0.8 2.7 0.2 6.4 9.3 9.3 8.8 4B 4.0 9.1 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.3 5.0 3.7 8.0 1.1 1.2 0.1 1.1 1.2 10.9 13.3 1.1 14.4 9.1 4C 12.4 25.8 1.4 o.6 2.9 18.3 7.8 2.8 1.9 3.1 5.3 10.1 0.3 23.9 a9.5 10.1 39.6 29.6 TOTAL 61.1 67.7 0.2 3.1 1.8 2.7 0.4 1.5 18.3 52.3 16.6 32.6 33.6 15.2 3.1 44.3 0.1 0.4 11.2 0.9 3.0 77.1 -125.8 11.2 137.0 121.2 % of SHORELINE 1% 15% 43% 14% 27%. 34% 13% 3% 100% % of FASTLAND 45% 49% 0 2% 1% 2% 0 32% 0 0 8% 1% 2% 56% 92% 8% 100% us 0@ 1 c a e a a n r t d s s h 0 ip- f n egm t Subs \en 19 CHAPTER 4 4.1 Table of Subsegment Summaries 4.2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions 4.3 Segment and Subsegment Maps 21 TABLE 2. SHORELINE SITUATION REPORT SUBSEGMENT SUMMARY FOR CHARLES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA SUBSEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS USE OWNERSHIP ZONING FLOOD-HAZARD BEACH QUALITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION ALTERNATE SHORE USE 1A FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. FASTLAND: Agricultural 82% and un- Private. Agricultural and Moderate, noncritical. Beaches in this sub- Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Several sections of this subsegment DANCING POINT SHORE: Artificially stabilized 5%, managed, wooded 18%. rural residential. The greatest flood segment range in The area southeast of Lower Trees Point has show potential for becoming low TO LOWER beach 78%, embayed marsh 15%, and fringe SHORE: Low intensity recreational hazard here occurs quality from poor to an historical erosion rate of 1.1 feet per intensity recreational areas. TREES POINT marsh 2 . use. during heavy upstream good. The better year. There is effective riprap at Dancing 5.2 miles NEARSHORE: Narrow 31% and intermediate NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing, rains. beaches are found Point and Tettington. (7-7 miles 69%. and commercial shipping to Richmond around Sandy Point of fastland) and Hopewell. and west of Totting- ton. 1B FASTLAND: Low shore 4%, moderately low FASTLAND: Entirely unmanaged, wooded. Private. Mostly agricul- Moderate, noncritical. Poor. There are Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. The area between Kennon Creek and LOWER TREES shore 79%, moderately low shore with SHORE: Some fishing in the marsh tural and rural This area's greatest thin, strip beaches There is moderate, noncritical erosion at Sturgeon Point has a future p oten- POINT TO bluff 2%, moderately high shore 5%, mod- creeks. residential; some flood hazard occurs throughout the sub- Oldfield and Bachelor Point, where the tial use as a light industrial site. STURGEON POINT erately high shore with bluff 5%, high NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping to light industrial. during heavy upstream segment. historic rate averages from 1.1 to 1.4 feet Other areas have a limited develop- 7.3 miles shore 1%, and high shore with bluff 5%. Hopewell and Richmond. rains. per year. There is approximately 200 feet ment potential due to the lack of (8.1 miles SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2%, of bulkheading at Sturgeon Point. access to the shore. of fastland) beach 38%, embayed marsh 60%, and fringe marsh I%. NEARSHORE: Narrow 44%. The waters of Kennon Creek are too narrow and shallow for classification. 1C FASTLAND: Low shore 55%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agri-cultural 47%, residen- Private. Agricultural and The major flood hazard Poor. This subseg- Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Low. This area is zoned and used 3TURGEON POINT shore 42%, and moderately high shore with tial 1%, and unmanaged, wooded 52%. rural residential. is from upstream ment has narrow, Historically, the areas of most change have for agricultural purposes. No new TO OLDS POINT bluff 3%. SHORE: Some private use but mostly rains. strip beaches. been from Kittewan Creek around Weyanoke Point development has been proposed for 15.0 miles SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2%, unused. (-1.7 to -1.9 feet per year), and Tyler Creek this section. (20.0 miles beach 12%, embayed marsh 45%, extensive NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping to to Milton Light (-1.4 feet per year). A small of fastland) marsh 25%, and fringe marsh 16%. Richmond and Hopewell, some sport area northwest of Weyanoke Point has been NEARSHORE: Narrow 44% and intermediate boating and fishing. accreting at 1.9 feet per year. There is one 15%. The remainder of the shoreline is section of effective bulkheading located south- located along the creeks. east of Olds Point. 2A FASTLAND: Low shore 3%, moderately low FASTLAND - Agri-cultural 4%, industrial Private. Agricultural and As with the previous Poor. This subseg- Slight or no change except for the area The lands at the head of Queens OLDS POINT TO shore 91%, moder-ately high shore 4%, and 2%, recreational 2%, and unmanaged, rural residential; subsegment, flooding ment has narrow, between Olds Point to Queens Creek, where the Creek have the potential to become BUCKLAND CREEK high shore 2%. wooded 91%. some light of the lowlands is strip beaches. historical erosion rate is 1.5 feet per year. a major business center in the 10.4 miles SHORE: Beach 13%, embayed marsh 55%, SHORE: Some private recreational use, industrial. determined by inland county. County government offices, (8.1 miles extensive marsh 13%, and fringe marsh but mostly unused. rains. residences, a school, and several of fastland) 18%. NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping to country stores are already located NEARSHORE: Narrow 8% and intermediate Richmond and Hopewell. Sport boating, here. The Wilcox Wharf area is 11%. The remainder of the shoreline is fishing, and other water related zoned for light industry and will located along several creeks. activities. probably be used as such. 2B FASTLAND: Low shore 67%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 61%, indus- Private. Agricultural. Moderate, noncritical. Poor to fair. The Slight or no change, except at Bucklers Point Any development along the shoreline BUCKLAND CREEK shore 24%, and moderately high shore 9%. trial 1%, recreational 3%, residential Flooding along the majority of the where the historical erosion rate is moderate should remain harmonious with the TO SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1%, 6%, and unmanaged, wooded 29%. river is confined to beaches in this sub- (-1.1 feet per year). There is approximately area's natural resources. Construc- HARRISON POINT beach 22%, embayed marsh 44%, extensive SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the times when heavy rains segment are narrow, 1,000 feet of bulkheading at Westover. The tion should be confined to low 20.5 miles marsh 9%, and fringe marsh 24%. creek marshes. occur upstream, caus- strip beaches. The ferry dock further upstream has cement bag density housing. (17.5 miles NEARSHORE: Narrow 36%. The remainder NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping to ing lowland flooding. area between West- bulkbeading, which is still effective. of fastland) of the subsegment is located along the Richmond and Hopewell. Sport boating over and Berkeley creeks, which are too narrow and shallow and fishing. has pebble beaches for classification. with vegetation. 3 FASTLAND: Low shore 64%, moderately low PASTLAND: Agricultural 68%, recrea- Private. Agricultural. Moderate, noncritical, Poor. There are The area appears stable. The shoreline just To conserve the rural nature of BENJAMIN shore 28%, moderately high shore 1%, and tional 2%, and unmanaged, wooded 30%. except critical for narrow, strip south of Turkey Island Creek has been accret- this area, development should be HARRISON moderately high shore with bluff 7%. SHORE: Mostly unused. Some water- one residence on Epps beaches throughout ing at a rate of 3.7 feet per year. There limited to low density housing and BRIDGE TO SHORE: Beach 6%, embayed marsh 7%, fowl hunting in Epps Island Marsh. Marsh. Flooding the subsegment. are no endangered or shore protective public, open recreational areas. TURKEY ISLAND extensive marsh 24%, and fringe marsh NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping, occurs here during structures. CREEK 63%. sport boating, fishing, and other heavy upstream rains. 15.3 miles NEARSHORE: Narrow 19% and intermediate water related activities. (12.3 miles 29%. The remainder of the shoreline is of fastland) located along several creeks. 22 P TABLE 2 (cont'd.) SUBSEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS USE OVINTERSHIP ZONING FLOOD HAZARD BEACH QUALITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION ALTERNATE SHORE USE 4A FASTLAND: Low shore 61%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 29%, residen- Private. Agricultural. Low, noncritical. There are no beaches The area appears stable. There are no endan- Low. The majority of the shoreline MATAHUNK NECK shore 3354, and high shore 5%. tial 2%, and unmanaged, wooded 69%. There is no signifi- in this subsegment. gered or shore protective structures. will probably remain unmanaged, PO WATTS POINT SHORE: Fhbayed marsh 70%, extensive SHORE: Mostly unused except for some cant fetch in this wooded. A possible use of one sec- 8.8 miles marsh 9%, and fringe marsh 21%. waterfowl hunting in the marshes. area, and all of the tion would be a camping area in the (9.3 miles NEARSHORE: Intermediate 9%. The NEARSHORE: Sport fishing and boating. residences are above vicinity of Graves Landing, where of fastland) remainder of the river is too narrow the 5-foot contour. fishing is a popular pass time. and shallow for classification. 4B FASTLAND: Low shore 28%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 8%, commercial Private and Agricultural. Moderate, critical for There are no beaches The area of greatest erosion is around Old The only section which has poten- WATTS POINT TO shore 63% 1 moderately high shore 5%, and 1%, preserved 7%, residential 8%, and some state. several residences in this subsegment. Neck Creek, where the historical erosion rate tial for future development is EAGLE BOTTOM high shore 4%. unmanaged, wooded 76%. along the shoreline is 4.5 feet per year. The remainder of the around Mount Airy. Care should be MARSH SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1%, SHORE: Waterfowl hunting in the that are below the 5- subsegment has a moderate, noncritical ero- taken to prohibit sewage discharge 9.1 miles embayed marsh 3%, extensive marsh 55%, marshes. The remainder of the shore- foot contour. The sion. Three areas are artificially stabi- into the river. Elsewhere in the (14.4 miles and fringe marsh 41%. line is unused, except around Mount remainder of the sub- lized, there being approximately 200 feet of subsegment there is low potential of fastland) NEARSHORE: Narrow 88% and intermediate Airy, which is used for access to the segment is moderate, bulkhead and 100 feet of riprap. All struc- for future development. 12%. water. noncritical. tures seem effective. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. 4C FASTLAND: Low shore 31%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 13%, preserved Private 66% Agricultural. Low to moderate. Most Poor. Most of the Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. The state owned lands north of EAGLE BOTTOM shore 65%, and high shore 3%. 25%, residential 1%, and unmanaged, and state of the residences are subsegment has nar- The area around the mouth of Morris Creek has Morris Creek are to be used as MARSH TO SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2%, wooded 60%. 34%. above the 10-foot con- row, strip beaches. an historical erosion rate of 2.4 feet per public open spaces. The remainder DANCING POINT beach 10%, embayed marsh 62%, and fringe SHORE: Waterfowl hunting in the tour, except one home There are a few year. Perry Point and Dancing Point have of the subsegment seems best suited 29.6 miles marsh 26%. marshes. at the mouth of Toma- wide beaches, but historical erosion rates ranging from 1.1 to for its present rural agricul- (39.6 miles NEARSHORE: Narrow 9%, intermediate 7%, NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. hund Creek. Here the they are short, 1.9 feet per year. The remainder of the sub- tural composition. of fastland) and wide 11%. The remainder of the flood hazard is restricting any segment appears stable. There are several shoreline is located along Morris and moderate, critical. development for areas of effective bulkheading southwest of Tomahund Creeks. recreational usage. Ferry Point. Dancing Point has several hundred feet of effective rubble riprap. 23 SUBSEGMENT 1A OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are two piers in the SUBSEGMENT 1B vicinity of Tettington, one pier having a boat DANCING POINT TO LOWER TREES POINT shelter at its end. LOWER TREES POINT TO STURGEON POINT, (Map 2) SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Most of the shoreline in (Maps 2 and 3) this subsegment is actively used for agricul- EXTENT: 27,200 feet (5.2 mi.) of shoreline from tural purposes. These areas usually have gen- EXTENT: 38,800 feet (7-3 mi. ) of shoreline from Dancing Point to Lower Trees Point. The subseg- tle sloping elevations of 20 to 25 feet and Lower Trees Point to Sturgeon Point, including ment includes 40,800 feet (7.7 mi.) of fastland. generally have fair beaches. Access to these Kennon Creek. The subsegment includes 43,000 areas is adequate, though no major thoroughfare feet (8.1 mi.) of fastland. SHORELANDS TYPE is near. It is expected that most development FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. in the county will continue to take place close SHORELANDS TYPE SHORE: Artificially stabilized 5% (0.2 mi.), to Route 5, which connects Williamsburg to FASTLAND: Low shore 4% (0-3 mi.), moderately beach 78% (4.0 mi.), embayed marsh 15% (0-8 mi.)9 Petersburg and Richmond. Therefore, the shore- low shore 79% (6-4 mi.), moderately low shore and fringe marsh 2% (0.1 mi.). lands here are not considered prime targets for with bluff 2% (0.2 mi.), moderately high shore NEARSHORE: Narrow 31% and intermediate 69%. expansion. 5% (0.4 mi.), moderately high shore with bluff 5% (0.4 mi.), high shore 1% (0.1 mi.), and high SHORELANDS USE ALTERNATE SHORE USE: The area northwest of Tet- shore with bluff 5% (0-4 mi.). FASTLAND: Agricultural 82% (6-4 mi.) and un- tington has the potential of being converted SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2% (0.1 mi.)9 managed, wooded 18% (1-4 mi.). into a recreational camping spot. This area beach 38% (2.8 mi.), embayed marsh 60% (6-7 SHORE: Mostly low intensity recreational use. has a fairly good sized beach and has reason- mi.), and fringe marsh 1% (0.1 mi.). NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing, and com- able access to Route 5 via Routes 613 and 623. NEARSHORE: Narrow 44%. The waters of Kennon mercial shipping leading to Richmond's deep The major drawback here is the economic feasi- Creek are too narrow and shallow to be classi- water terminals, and to Hopewell's chemical bility. The Holiday Inn campground across the fied. plants. Route 5 bridge in James City County draws the tourist trade to William burg and Jamestown SHORELANDS USE WIND-AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends SE areas. The agricultural lands and several res- FASTLAND: Entirely unmanaged, wooded. There NW in the subsegment. Fetches at Dancing Point ide.nces in this area would have to be bought in are no residences within a mile into the fast- are SE - 2.5 nm, NE - 2.3 nm, and W - 1.7 nm. order to establish this type of venture. land in this subsegment, except for several at The fetch at a point 1-1 miles northwest of Elsewhere, various low intensity recreational Trees Point. The area between Kennon Creek 2 Tettington is SW - 2.0 nm. activities such as hiking,, nature walks, and and Sturgeon Point has been selected by the camping are a possibility. county planners as a possible site for indus- OWNERSHIP: Private. trial development in the future. ZONING: Agricultural - rural residential. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CLAREMONT, Va. SHORE: Mostly unused. Some fishing in the Quadr., 1966; marsh creeks. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), BRANDON, Va. NE&RSHORE: Commercial shipping to Hopewell FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate, noncritical * The greatest Quadr., 1965. and Richmond. flood hazard here occurs during heavy upstream C&GS9 #530, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, rains, as in the case of hurricanes Agnes and Jamestown Island to Jordan Point, 1971. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends SSE Camille. No structures are endangered. NNW from Lower Trees Point to Kennon Creek, PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 12Ju174/0-103-43- then E - W from Kennon Creek to Sturgeon Point. BEACH QUALITY: Beaches in the subsegment range in Fetches at Bachelor Point are S - 3.6 nm, and quality from poor to good, the better beaches Ground-VIMS 13May76/CC-lA/ 7-15. WNW - 1.5 nm. being around Sandy Point and west of Tettington. OWNERSHIP: Private. SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, ZONING: Mostly agricultural - rural residential; noncritical. The area southeast of Lower Trees some light industrial. Point has an historical erosion rate of 1.1 feet per year. FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate, noncritical. Like sub- ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. segment 1A, this area's greatest flood hazard SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is effective comes from the swollen river as a result of riprap around Dancing Point and at Tettington. inland rains. There are no endangered structures 24 along the shore. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 12Jul74/CC-1B/44-55- SUBSEGMENT 1 C BEACH QUALITY: Poor. There are thin, strip beaches Ground-VIMS 13May76/CC-1B/16-20. STURGEON POINT TO OILDS POINT throughout the subsegment. (Maps 3 and 4) SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or no change for most of EXTENT: 79, 400 f eet (15 - 0 mi of shoreline from the subsegment. There is moderate, noncritical Sturgeon Point to Olds Point, including Tyler, erosion at Oldfield and Bachelor Point, where Mapsico, and Kittewan Crreks. The subsegment the historical rate averages 1.1 to 1.4 feet per includes 105,600 feet (20.0 mi.) of fastland. year. Erosion here is a result of both boat wakes and rain runoff. Traffic to Richmond and SHORELANDS TYPE Hopewell often leave considerable wakes in this FASTLAND: Low shore 55% (11.1 mi.), moderately narrow part of the James River. These wakes low shore 42% (8-4 mi.), and moderately high contribute to the undermining of the bluffs shore with bluff 3% (0-5 mi.). here. Heavy rains cause washing of the cliff SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2% (0-3 mi.), face. Trees, undermined by this washing, even- beach 12% (1.8 mi.), embayed marsh 45% (6.7 tually fall, carrying with them large amounts mi.), extensive marsh 25% (3.8 mi.), and fringe of soil. marsh 16% (2-4 mi.). ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. NEARSHORE: Narrow 44% and intermediate 15%. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is approxi- The rest of the shoreline is located in the mately 200 feet of effective bulkheading at creeks, which are too narrow and shallow for Sturgeon Point. classification. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Agricultural 47% (9-5 mi.), residen- SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The county has zoned the tial 1% (0.2 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 52% area between Kennon Creek and Sturgeon Point for (10.3 mi.). light industrial use. The rest of the subseg- SHORE: No organized recreational usage. There ment is virtually unused. These lands are are several piers in the subsegment showing wooded with the only good access being Route 613, private, recreational use in those areas. For which is generally more than one mile inland. most of the subsegment, the shore is unused. These areas are not considered prime targets for NEARSHORE: Some sport fishing and boating, residential or recreational development. These mostly commercial shipping heading to Richmond wooded shorelands should be left in their natural or Hopewell. state. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends NE ALTERNATE SHORE USE: The area between Kennon Creek SW from Sturgeon Point to the tip of Weyanoke and Sturgeon Point has a future potential use as' Point, then SE - NW from Weyanoke Point to Olds a light industrial site. However, any industry Point. Fetches at Sturgeon Point are SW - 1.2 selecting this area should insure against any nm, at Milton, ESE - 1.5 run, and at Weyanoke pollutants or artificial nutrients being added Point, NE - 3.7 nm and NNW - 2.3 nm. to the environment which would worsen the already precarious state of the upper James River. OWNERSHIP: Private. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CHARLES CITY, Va. ZONING: Agricultural - rural residential. Quadr., 1965; USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), BRANDON, Va. FLOOD HAZARD: As with the previous subsegments, Quadr., 1965. the prime flood hazard is from the flooding C&GS, #530, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, river due to upstream rains. One house at Jamestown Island to Jordan Point, 1971. Copeland, and one on Kittewan Creek are low enough (below the 5-foot contour) to be seri- ously endangered by such upstream flooding. 25 For the rest of the subsegment, the flood hazard ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. This area is zoned and is moderate, noncritical. used for agricultural purposes. County planners have proposed no new development for the subseg- BEACH QUALITY: Poor. This segment has narrow ment in their projected land use plan. The strip beaches. marsh areas on Weyanoke Point and along the creeks should be preserved in their natural SHORE EROSION SITUATION state, as they provide flood and erosion pro- EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, tection as well as being habitats for various noncritical. Historically, the areas of most aquatic life. change have been situated from Kittewan Creek around Weyanoke Point, where erosion has aver- MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CHARLES CITY, Va. aged from 1.7 to 1.9 feet per year. The area Quadr., 1965. from Tyler Creek to the Milton light has been C&GS, #530, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, eroding at an average of 1.4 feet per year. A Jamestown Island to Jordan Point, 1971. small area northwest of Weyanoke Point has been accreting at 1.9 feet per year. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 12Jul74/CC-1C/56-84- ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is one sec- tion of effective bulkheading (0.1 mi.) located southeast of Olds Point. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are three piers in the subsegment. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Of the 15.0 miles of shore- line found in this subsegment, 8.8 miles are directly bordering the James River. The rest of the shoreli'ne is along the creeks, with Kittewan Creek containing the most mileage. The area is used primarily for agriculture, though 52% is unmanaged woods. Residential use accounts for 1% of the fastland. The main area of agricul- ture is located on the Weyanoke peninsula. Ele- vations along the eastern side average 5 feet and along the western side 5 to 10 feet. All available land on the peninsula is actively cul- tivated. Any type of development would be at the sacrifice of the agriculture. The lands between Tyler and Mapsico Creeks are totally wooded. The fastland rises to heights of 40 feet about 1,000 feet inland. This area does not have good access and would be costly to develop. South of Olds Point, there are moderately high bluffs (50 to 60 feet) on the shoreline. The fastland behind is used for agriculture. Bluff areas are susceptible to erosion due to rain runoff. Besides the normal runoff erosion, the wooded nature of the shoreline can acceler- ate the process. Trees undermined by the ero- sion eventually fall, carrying with them large amounts of soil. No structures should be built close to the shoreline which is actively eroding. 26 SUBSE14ENT 2A Olds Point to Queens Creek, where it is moder- SUBSEGMENT 2B OLDS POINT TO BUCKLAND CREEK ate, noncritical. This area has an historical BUCKLAND CREEK TO HARRISON POINT erosion rate of 1.5 feet per year. (Map 4) ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. (Maps 4, 5 and 6) SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. EXTENT: 55,000 feet (10.4 mi.) of shoreline from OTHER SHORE STRUCTURE S: None. EXTENT: 108,200 feet (20.5 mi.) of shoreline from Olds Point to Buckland Creek, including Queens Buckland Creek to the bridge at Harrison Point, Creek and Gunns Run. The subsegment includes SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: This area is almost totally including Herring Creek. The subsegment in- 42,600 feet (8.1 mi.) of fastland. unused. Ninety-one percent of the subsegment is cludes 92,400 feet (17.5 mi.) of fastland. unmanaged, wooded. The Queens Creek area has SHORELANDS TIPE the potential to become a residential and com- SHORELANDS TYPE EASTLAND: Low shore 3% (0.3 mi.), moderately mercial center in the county. Charles City EASTLAND: Low shore 67% (11.8 mi.), moderately low shore 91% (7-3 mi.), moderately high shore Courthouse, located at the head of Queens Creek, low shore 24% (4.1 mi.), and moderately high 4% (0-3 mi.), and high shore 2% (0.2 mi.). already contains the county government buildings, shore 9% (1.6 mi.). SHORE: Beach 13% (1-4 mi.), embayed marsh 55% several country stores, and the county high SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1% (0.2 mi.), (5.8 mi.), extensive marsh 13% (1-4 mi.), and school. Nearby, there is the New Hope Camp- beach 22% (4-4 mi.), embayed marsh 44% (8.9 fringe marsh 18% (1.9 mi.). ground. It would seem logical for more residen- mi.), extensive marsh 9% (1.9 mi.), and fringe NEARSHORE: Narrow 8% and intermediate 11%. tial and commercial development to occur here. marsh 24% (5-0 mi.). The rest of the shoreline is found along the The major drawback to extensive development is NEARSHORE: Narrow 36%. The rest of the shore- several creeks in the subsegment, which are too the county's lack of public water and sewage. line is in the creeks, which are too narrow narrow and shallow for classification. Any area can only accomodate dispersed residen- and shallow for classification. tial development without such facilities. SHORELANDS USE Other sections of the subsegment do not have SHORELANDS USE EASTLAND: Agricultural 4% (0.3 mi.), industrial good access and development would be costly. EASTLAND: Agricultural 61% (10.6 mi.), indus- 2% (0.2 mi.), recreational 2% (0.2 mi.), and un- trial 1% (0.2 mi.), recreational 3% (0-5 mi.), managed, wooded 91% (7-3 mi.). ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Most areas in the subseg- residential 6% (1.1 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded SHORE: Mostly unused, except for Wilcox Wharf ment are probably best left undeveloped. The 29% (5-1 mi.). Included in the recreational and the mouth of Buckland Creek where there are lands at the head of Queens Creek are presently usage of this subsegment are two historical several houses. Private recreational usage used for some residences and a campground. The plantations, "Berkeley" and "Westover", which occurs here. close proximity to Charles City Courthouse make are located on the shoreline and are tourist NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing, commer- these lands valuable for potential residential attractions. cial shipping to Richmond and Hopewell. and commercial development. A public water and SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the creek sewage system is needed before any such develop- marshes; mostly unused. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi- ment can materialize. Also, the Wilcox Wharf NEARSHORE: Sport fishing and boating, commer- cally E - W. Fetches at Olds Point are S - 2.8 area, zoned for light industrial use, will prob- cial shipping to Richmond and Hopewell. nm and WSW - 3.3 nm. ably be developed as such. Other developments in this subsegment are not likely in the near WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline in this sub- OWNERSHIP: Private. future. segment trends basically E - W. Fetches at Bucklers Point are ENE - 2.2 nm and SW - 1.8 nm. ZONING: Agricultural - rural residential, some MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CHARLES CITY, Va. light industrial. Quadr., 1965. OWNERSHIP: Private. C&GS, #530, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, FLOOD HAZARD: As with the other segments in Jamestown Island to Jordan Point, 1971. ZONING: Agricultural - rural residential. Charles City County, flooding of the lowlands is mainly determinant upon inland rains and PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 12Jul74/CC-2A/85-87. FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate, noncritical. Flooding flooding. along the river is confined to times when heavy BEACH QUALITY: Poor. The subsegment has thin, rains occur upriver causing lowland flooding. strip beaches. BEACH QUALITY: Poor to fair. Most beaches in the subsegment are thin, strip beaches. The beach SHORE EROSION SITUATION just east of Benjamin Harrison Bridge is con- EROSION RATE: Slight or no change, except from sidered fair, being of greater width than the 27 o,j other beaches. The area from Westover to Berke- ley has pebble beaches, usually with vegetation. SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or no change, except at Bucklers Point, where the rate is moderate, non- critical, having an historical erosion rate of 1.1 feet per year. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is approxi- mately 1,000 feet of bulkhead at Westover. The old ferry dock further upstream has cement bag bulkheading which is still effective. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are two piers south- east of Charles Lake. There are also the remains of a ferry dock just east of the bridge. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The county's future land use plans express the conviction that any future development should be in harmony with the county's natural resource location, especially with its historic landmarks. Two fine plantations are located in this subsegment, thus restricting to a significant degree any development in the im- mediate locality. Extensive and embayed marsh areas, which comprise 53% of the county's shore- line, should not be tampered with. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: As already stated, any de-\,-el- opment along the shoreline should be in harmony with the area's natural resources. In this sub- segment, further development should be confined to low density housing at various locations. The primary use of the shorelands should remain agricultural or rural in character. MAPS: USG-S, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CHARLES CITY, Va. Quadr., 1965; USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WESTOVER, Va. Quadr., 1965. C&GS, #530, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, Jamestown Island to Jordan Point, 1971. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 12Jul74/CC-2B/88-107. Ground-VIMS 13May76/CC-2B/21-29. 28 SEGMENT 3 SHORE EROSION SITUATION BENJAMIN HARRISON BRIDGE TO TURKEY ISLAND CREEK EROSION RATE: Slight or no change. According to an unpublished VIMS report, this area has (Map 6) remained relatively stable over the past 100 years. The area just south of Turkey Island Creek has been accreting at a rate of 3.7 feet EXTENT: 81,000 feet (15.3 mi.) of shoreline from per year. Benjamin Harrison Bridge to 10,400 feet toward ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. the head of Turkey Island Creek. The measure- SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. ment includes Eppes Creek. The subsegment in- cludes 64,700 feet (12.3 mi.) of fastland. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: Several piers past Shirley Plantation. SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Low shore 64% (7.8 mi.), moderately SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The area around Shirley low shore 28% (3-4 mi.), moderately high shore Plantation should not be altered in a way which 1% (0.2 mi.), and moderately high shore with would contrast with the historical nature of the bluff 7% (0-9 mi.). section. Eppes Island is surrounded by an.ex- SHORE: Beach 6% (0.9 mi.), embayed marsh 7% tensive marsh which should not be altered. The (1.0 mi.), extensive marsh 24% (3-7 mi.), and subsegraent is basically rural agricultural in fringe marsh 63% (9-7 mi.). character, which would be costly to change. NEARSHORE: Narrow 19% and intermediate 29%. The rest of the shoreline is composed of creeks ALTERNATE SHORE-USE: No development is planned which are too narrow and shallow for classifica- for this subsegment, according to the county's tion. comprehensive plan. The rural nature of this section should be preserved where possible. SHORELANDS USE Development should be limited to low density FASTLAND: Agricultural 68% (8-3 mi.), recrea- housing in some areas and possibly some low tional 2% (0.2 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 30% intensity recreational areas for hiking, camp- (3-7 mi.). ing, and picnicking. SHORE: Mostly unused with some waterfowl. hunt- ing along Eppes Island marsh. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 M�n.Ser. (Topo.), WESTOVER, Va. NEARSHORE: Sport fishing and boating for the Quadr., 1965; entire length of the segment. Commercial ship- USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), HOPEWELL, Va. ping up the James to Shirley Plantation. Here Quadr., 1969; shiios use the TunkelT Island cutoff. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), DUTCH GAP, Va. J Quadr.9 1969. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi- C&GS, #5309 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, cally ENE - WSW from the bridge to the west cor- Jamestown Island to Jordan Point, 1971; ner of Eppes Island, then S - N to Turkey Island C&GS, #531, 1:20,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, Creek. Fetches at the bridge at Harrison Point Jordan Point to Richmond, 1971. are ESE - 3.9 nm and SW - 4.0 nm. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 12Jul74/CC-3/108-138. OWNERSHIP: Private. ZONING: Agricultural - rural residential. FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate, noncritical, except criti- cal for one house in Eppes Marsh. Flooding occurs here due to heavy upstream rains. BEACH QUALITY: Poor. There is a narrow, fringe beach throughout the subsegment. 2q SUBSEGMENT 4A SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The Charles City Comprehen- SUBSEGMENT 4B MATAHUNK NECK TO WATTS POINT, sive Plan has denoted marshes as conserved areas, WATTS POINT TO EAGLE BOTTOM MARSH excluding them and any land in the flood plains (Maps 7 and 8) from residential or commercial development. Em- (Maps 7, 8 and 9) bayed and extensive marshes comprise 79% of the segment's shoreline. Also, the Chickahominy EXTENT: 46,600 feet (8.8 mi.) of shoreline on the River has been proposed as a Scenic River. EXTENT: 48,000 feet (9.1 mi.) of shoreline from Chickahominy River from the dam at Matahunk Neck Development along the river should be in har- Watts Point to Eagle Bottom Marsh. The subseg- to Watts Point. The subsegment includes 49,000 mony with the natural resources found there. ment includes 76,000 feet (14.4 mi.) of fast- feet (9-3 mi.) of fastland. Development of the fastland is also greatly land. hampered by the lack of access to the subseg- SHORELANDS TYPE ment. SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Low shore 61% (5-7 mi.), moderately FASTLAND: Low shore 28% (4.0 mi.), moderately low shore 33% (3-1 mi.), and high shore 5% (0-5 ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. Most of the shorelands low shore 63% (9-1 mi.), moderately high shore mi.). will probably remain unmanaged, wooded areas. 5% (0-7 mi.), and high shore 4% (0.6 mi.). SHORE: Embayed marsh 70% (6.1 mi.), extensive The Chickahominy River is a popular fishing SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1% (0-1 mi.), marsh 9% (0.8 mi.), and fringe marsh 21% (1.9 area, though most fishing occurs above the dam embayed marsh 3% (0.3 mi.), extensive marsh 55% mi.). on Matahunk Neck. A possible use of one section (5.0 mi.), and fringe marsh 41% (3-7 mi.). NEARSHORE: Intermediate 9%. The rest of the of shoreland would be a camping area near the NEARSHORE: Narrow 88% and intermediate 12%. river is too narrow and shallow for classifica- dam, in the vicinity of Graves Landing. Other, tion. low intensity recreational sites could accompany SHORELANDS TJSE this facility. FASTLAND: Agricultural 8% (1.2 mi.), commercial SHORELANDS USE i % (0 - i mi - ), pres erved 7% (1 . 1 mi. ) 9 . residen- FASTLAND: Agricultural 29% (2.7 mi.), residen- MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WALKERS, Va. tial 8% (1.2 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 76% tial 2% (0.2 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 69% Quadr., 1965; (10.9 mi.). (6-4 mi.). USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), BRANDON, Va. SHORE: Waterfowl hunting in the marsh areas. SHORE: Waterfowl hunting in the marsh areas. Quadr., 1965. Elsewhere, the shore is used for access to the The shore is mostly unused. C&GS, #530, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, water around Mount Airy and. Is mostly unused NEARSHORE: Sport fishing and boating. Jamestown Island to Jordan Point, 1971. for the remainder of the subsegment. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing, and some WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline in this sub- PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS-None. bathing near the shore. segment trends NW - SE. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends NW OWNERSHIP: Private. SE with meanders for approximately 50% of the subsegment, then N - S for the rest of the sub- ZONING: Agricultural. segment. The fetch at Parsons Island is S 5 nm. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. The many meanders in the Chickahominy River in this subsegment OWNERSHIP: Private and some state. plus the narrow width of the river here keep cur- rents moderate and wind at a minimum. All of the ZONING: Agricultural. residences here are above the 5-foot contour. FLOOD HAZABB: Moderate, noncritical, except in BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in the subseg- several places along the shore where residences ment. appear to be below the 5-foot contour. There, SHORE EROSION SITUATION the flood hazard is moderate, critical. EROSION RATE: No historical record. The area BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this sub- appears stable. segment. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data from Watts Point to the OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. pier southwest of Old Neck. For the rest of 30 the subsegment, the rate ranges from slight or SUBSEGMENT 4C the shore fringe. There are, however, several no change to severe, noncritical. The area of EAGLE BOTTOM MARSH TO DANCING POINT fair beaches in the subsegment of moderate greatest erosion has been around Old Neck Creek, width. The short length of these beaches pro- where the historical rate is 4.5 feet per year. (Maps 9 and 10) hibits any development of the areas for recrea- There are several areas of moderate, noncritical tional usage. erosion in the subsegment. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. EXTENT: 156,550 feet (29.6 mi.) of shoreline from SHORE EROSION SITUATION SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are two Eagle Bottom Marsh to Dancing Point. The sub- EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, areas having a total of 200 feet of effective segment includes 209,000 feet (39.6 mi.) of noncritical. Historically, the area of most bulkhead. A hundred feet of rubble riprap is fastland. change has been at the mouth of Morris Creek located near Old Neck. This structure is also where the rate is 2.4 feet per year. Areas of effective at combatting boat wake erosion. SHORELANDS TYPE lesser erosion are around Ferry Point and Danc- FASTLAND: Low shore 31% (12.4 mi.), moderately ing Point, where the historical erosion rate OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: Numerous piers, mostly low shore 65% (25.8 mi.), and high shore 3% ranges from 1.1 to 1.9 feet per year. located between Watts Point and Mount Airy. (1-4 mi.). ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2% (0.6 mi.), SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is almost SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The state has recently ac- beach 10% (2.9 mi.), embayed marsh 62% (18.3 3,000 feet of protective structures in this quired a large area of land on the Chickahominy mi.), and fringe marsh 26% (7.8 mi.). subsegment. The area southwest of Ferry Point River, part of which is located in this subseg- NEARSHORE: Narrow 9%, intermediate 7%, and wide has several areas of effective bulkhead. Danc- ment. This preserved land is to be developed 11%. The rest of the shoreline is located on ing Point has several hundred feet of effective for low intensity recreational use. Other use Morris and Tomahund Creeks. riprap- or development is precluded from this area. Fifty-eight percent of the shoreline in this SHORELANDS USE OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers subsegment is either embayed or extensive marsh. FASTLAND: Agricultural 13% (5-3 mi.), preserved and the Route 5 bridge over the Chickahominy No development is possible for these conserved 25% (10.1 mi.), residential 1% (0-3 mi.), and River in this subsegment. areas. The shoreline near Mount Airy has slop- unmanaged, wooded 60% (23.9 mi.). ing bluffs of 25 to 50 feet which can be eroded SHORE: Waterfowl hunting in the marshes. Else- SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The Virginia Commission of by heavy rains. Also, there are numerous resi- where, walking and fishing from the piers. Game and Inland Fisheries has recently acquired dences already located in the vicinity. Any NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. 1,497 acres of land on the Chickahominy River. development should be in harmony with the rural It is located on the north bank of Morris Creek, nature of the Chickahominy River. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends first excluding that area from the mouth of the creek N - S (along the Chickahominy River), then NE - north 1 mile on the river and almost 2 miles on ALTERNATE SHORE USE: The only section which has SW for the rest of the subsegment (along the the creek. This preserved section is to be the potential for future development is the James River). The fetch at the mouth of Morris developed into a public recreational area. Plans shoreline around Mount Airy. This area already Creek is SSE - 1.7 nm and at Ferry Point S - include a public boat ramp, camping, hiking, and has numerous structures on the shore, most being 3.2 nm. nature trails in both the fastland and the vacation residences. Additional structures marshes. Other development in this section is built one to two hundred feet into the fastland OWNERSHIP: Private 66% and state 34%. prohibited. would not adversely affect the area if care is The existing residences around the bridge taken to prohibit sewage discharge into the . ZONING: Agricultural. and at Dancing Point would make it difficult river. Elsewhere, there is a low potential for for further development to occur there. The any development. FLOOD HAZARD: Low to moderate, noncritical for lands from During Point to Dancing Point are most of the subsegment. There is a moderate all actively used for agriculture. These lands MAPS: USGS9 7.5 Min-Ser. (Topo.), BRANDON, Va. flood hazard in the subsegment when heavy in- usually have 5 to 7 foot elevations near the Quadr., 1965. land rains raise the water level of the James shore and would not be good sites for develop- C&GS, #530, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, River and also, to a lesser degree, the Chicka- ment. Access to the area is also difficult. Jamestown Island to Jordan Point, 1971. hominy River. Residences along the rivers are all above the 10-foot contour, except for one ALTERNATE SHORE USE: The state-owned lands north PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 5May76/CC-4B/142-169. residence 'at the mouth of Tomahund Creek. Here, of Morris Creek are to be used for public rec- the flood hazard is moderate, critical. reation, e.g., picnicking, hiking and camping. Other areas in the subsegment may have some BEACH QUALITY: Poor to fair. Most of the beaches individual residential development, though no in the subsegment are poor, strip beaches along major build-up is forseen. The area seems best 31 suited for its present rural agricultural compo- sition. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), BRANDON, Va. Quadr.@ 1965; USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CLAREMONT, Va. Quadr., 1966. C&GS, #530, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, Jamestown Island to Jordan Point, 1971. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 12Jul74/CC-4C/ 1- 12; 25Jun76/CC-4C/171-204. Ground-VIMS 13Apr76/CC-4C/ 1- 6. 32 76@ '57 _@30- Tre@s PoWt r 4 Tr 20 39 613 e/1 623 IL 0 10 Inv MAP 2A ,.",e JAMES RIVER 0 TREES POINT TO TOMAHUND CREEK JG TOPOGRAP HY AND CULTURE Segments 1A, 113, 4C V. Segment Boundary 12, 0 Subsegment Boundary VIV ek 611 0 ,-q If If /0 15 qv ti 20- 1A. IF @lk 76' _57' 3'0 33 7 57'- 30" N Tre6s P0 1B' Tr 0 20 :0 C, 3 0 0 613 C@ 623.. . .......... 0%: 0 K 0 0 -k -201 Cem 0 - ------ MAP 2B JAMES RIVER 0 TREESPOINT TO TOMAHUND CREEK SHORELANDS TYPES 0 13 0 XSegments 1A, 113 4C %ASTLAND 0 Low Shore -j 0 Moderately Low Shore 1 0 -j SHORE A- 0 Beach L Fringe Marsh 1`11111111111111111111111 0 Embayed Marsh WAn0fflM n 0 Xe ii-n -20 Artificially Stabilized 1A NEARSHORE 0 Narrow 0-0-0-0 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 0 Wide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -T 760 .57' 30" 34 7 @5 7" 3 0 Tre6s Poot 1w Tr \j 39 613 @S 623 IVV 1w 613 All /0 -Vx@" MtkV -20 11 A Cem (j/C MAP 2C JAMES RIVER 1A \TREES POINT TO TOMAHUND CREEK @FASTL 13 AND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION @!@Segments 1A, 1B, 4C /17' 1A WLk USE 0/ @10 Agricultural A Unmanaged Wooded W -w- OWNERSHIP 1A Private 1A EROSION ettingiin 20-- Moderate 1A Slight or No Change No Symbol Accretional + + + + d 761 57' 3 0 '5 5 770 2 30" 0-- a silco-,/ 632 U it '1 (30 it it L/ 6 4 it it 40 It It 40 Z. AA It -- --- -------- 33. % -3u- 0) 2z, /Oj te ... .... MAP 3A,,,-- JAMES RIVER KITTEWAN CREEK TO 0 DFIELD-lr__ ar TOPOGRAPHY AND C ULTURE Segments 1B and 1C A Segment Boundary "0 - Subsegment Boundar v 2" U pper, 7, Braw :)n w A" 1B -A 7 X 1 c ?0 rd I MILE 77' 2' 30'' 36 77, 2 30 K apsico 0 \y- 60 UO 50 f 1,0 p :7n@ Q I I 3 6 4 p L 'i N "o kk 4 2 4 0 Y, -"-30 0 V 30' eod k )0 0 0 '40 7 6 0 30- 0 0 f MAP 3B 0 0 JAMES RIVER 0 01 KITTEWAN CREEK TO OLDFIELD.. 0 SHORELANDS TYPES@@-. Segments 1rE3 and 1 0 FASTLAND Low Shore Moderately Low Shore 1-1-4 0 High Shore. Moderately High Shore A A a A 0/ Moderately Low Shore w U-1 U ith Bluff J_t /0 Moderately High Shore 0 A A A A with Bluff Uppe 0 Bran( High Shore -SHORE',." with Bluff 0 Beach 0 Fringe Marsh 1E A 1C Extensive Marsh NEARSHORE 0 Embayed Marsh 0 Narrow 0-0- Artificially Stabilized -A- _L_ j- -j- Intermediate 0 0 0/ I MILE 7@: 2 @0* 77 2' 30" 0- Y a p,@s ii co 61, - 0 J/ 60 -------- 32 @iw 4,/ '0 -30 60 it L 40 1A 1W -3- . ..... 01 3 1w n 40 -:-40 Y. + + + -7 0 -30 *A MAP 3C JAMES RIVER@ KITTEWAN CREEK TO LDFI L '0 FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION Segments 1B and 1C"..- USE M a-r Agricultural A Unmanaged Wooded W OWNERSHIP Private EROSION 1A \0' Moderate Slight or No Change No SY@bol- Accretional + + + + 1B ic 0- y d . IMILE 770 2' 30" 38 w 770 MILE =3 1.- -4 1 i Jl-@ 4r, If High ch 5 0 % 0 -40 if 50 40 35 31 evis S ore way " I'I'M IN '-M-4 5 7' @X. 0-, 61 \\A 4,5 10 40 A 1z -/0 70 ti 3 A 10 1 co Wh-a r A 2A @p(Mand 'L-- Windmill oint 2B 01 ic ?0 v a set A it CapIR if F I @we r e /0 "A I,0 I- : --H-u- n Weyanok( MAP 4A\' 7 v 14 13 3 o JAMES RIVER@\ A N 14 BUCKLAND CREEK TO WEYANOKE POINT \0 TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE A X// A Segments 1C, 2A, 213', Segment Boundary Subsegment Boundary 1,0 ... -3 4- ic v so -5c@ 40, F@6-4 5' 770 5' -4 MILE C) 50 enw High h It C 5 50" 40"\ it 0 Ik so 40 It jo 3 qwens NN. ---t il S tor\@ It It Ji, to[C-02j5 , X \\\ 0 4 % fil k 45 -A\ j1- js LO 0- N L< 70 It A 10 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- op6jan'd-- 0 2A 0 Windmill 0 @40 oint 4@- 2B 0 0 1 C 0 20 asset A- - Ca -30 F I @w e r e MAP 4B\, 0 _,,--JAMES RIVER\ H-u-n@d "\(3 Weyhnok BUCKLAND CREEK TO WEYANOKE POINT, N o kk SHORELANDS TYPES N 1) --'-'\-Segments 1C, 2A, 213, 0 0 FASTLAND 0 X// Low Shore Moderately Low Shore Moderately Low Shore with Bluff A A A A Moderately High Shore High Shore SHORE Beach 0 OT Fringe Marsh nium inummium Extensive Marsh 0 Embayed Marsh MM806M 0 1C Artificially Stabilized .3- -A- -A- 0 r NEARSHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 F 0 0 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 9 1. 7 70 5 w 7705 MILE 50 V nway 413 Hih % 5 <0, -7- 30 7@_ 1VV 50 5 B tt 3 37 ZQ `7 @2n- B(Yw(ns Stor\e . / @",N - @1@ 0 1w .V@ N@; @N "N 5' 0 @ .50 _1w % 61 b A\ 45 S. % 1A 711 lw;/, /0 0 - w 1A /0 1CID 0 1A, opc@land 2A Windmill oint 2B 1 C 10 20 asset e F I w e r d Vj!! /0 AP 4C (k-- _@740 U- A @d7K_@@, 10 Weyariok JAMES RIVER 1 R S N 4 o BUCKLAND CREEK TO WEYANOKE POINT\' 9\1 3 3- 14 0 ff FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION -0 Segments 1C, 2A, 213@--o X// U SE Agricultural A . .... 1A Industrial I Government G Residential RS Unmanaged 10 Wooded W + Ep- OWNERSHIP Private County 4 4 EROSION 6N Moderate I I I I 1 1 1C Slight or No Change No Symbol Accretional + + + V Fd 770 5 77 0 10 70 SO f 609 LA R 'X8 AOL" F I I FC1 HY NAr@ if B@ 62 CH 35' 38 Bm 64 25 46 '(51, v R 0 C. < 30 C-c,-7 Cl 113erkeley 30 .......... Jordah@ Ha on2 . ........... . . .... ..... Point .............. .... . ..... 27 w Land i ig WesL2 ,),"23 .... ....... . "Tid Hope,NJ Airfield Indian r7- f en 0 CaggiKs Poin .77o 1 0' 42 77 10' 70 0 HARRISON LA NATIONAL FIS @HXFC 120 C) 1 . 11 @,11, - I I 38 0 .35 C4 C@ 64 0 M 25 4/ -50 10 30 W (@30f! V 0 3u 30 429 0 45 C 1,0 C V Yj'@'@[email protected] MAP 5B JAMES RIVER 1 3 CHARLES LAKE TO BUCKLERS POINT -2 H Jordah Point SHORELANDS 27 Segment Wes! ........ FASTLAND Mill Low Shore Moderately Low Shore 0 712 Moderately High Shore A A A A SHORE H Ai ...... .. . .. Beach Fringe Marsh nil 11 111111111ilillill I 4 Extensive Marsh Embayed Marsh Artificially Stabilized 2B.. NEARSHORE Caggin-s Poin Narrow 0-0-0-0 18 770 10' 43 7 7 0 10' 0 T 0 3 H IS N LA NAT N L FIS V 0 BM 2 C), RS 62 -35' 1V C4 0 M 13T4- Cn 1A el 0 46 10-- -/0 7 /30 t\ 1RS mi -@ r1c 1 VV 6-- Q@ 1A v- @71 @'-3o ( - - @-2 -- - 1 R S 3 @V \J Tt, 1w .30 1A- erkeley MAP 5C 1A 1A JAMES RIVER@@,.. a n2 'CHARLES LAKE TO BUCKLE RS POINT 2-7 w FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSIM L nd ... ....... .... . . Segment hQQ West ..... ..... . 'USE ........ .... ... .. . ......... ... ...... ... Agricultural A Recreational RC Residential RS Preserved PR Unmanaged Wooded W OWNERSHIP . . ...... . Private .... . . ..... Federal 2B 2 C aag g i KS County 4 OSION S light or No Change No Symbol ............... 770 10' 44 W W W W W MILE 4 V l@@ 50 it Ing it 31 0? Pickett Wharf Gravel Pit BM Granville .'Grace Cha em 0 q) Presqve Isle Swai,,q) Cem 0) 25 @77.,. (C) TURKEYISLAND 1 0 PRESQUILE NATIONAL WILDLIFE I?EF('(.P, 17AT GIE E EFUGE LaM pt 1 3 0 Tidaj:@f4t 0 -AE A@W-R Presque Isle Swamp Pp N I'- iv a M p TURKEY I S L A N D 50 Om 6 40 r 46 Presque Isle C, 0 MAP 6A \0 JAMES RIVER@ f TURKEY ISLAND CREEK TO HARRISON POINT @TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE Ferry 6008 0 Seg Iment 3 Segment Boundary Subsegment Boundary Shirley -7 B rinuda Hundred 50 N, Sanclpi't'@ Cern statior 25 37 Y00 5 0 0 15 -E-p-Ws-' st E p p e s I s I a n d arnso Pojnt it 3: 15' .[,77@ -1 . -5 I T -I i -7773 MILE A- 24 MAP 6B j'' TURKEY ISLAND CREEK TO HARRISON POINT 7 SHORELANDS TYPES, ,j Segme Pit BM nt 3 Gravel FASTLAND Low Shore ranville I ,0 Moderately Low Shore ..i*....: '..d.- A A 2drace Cha' em Moderately High Shore Moderately High Shore 0 A J rs 1 eS W a ni P with Bluff -SHORE ISLAND 0" 5 'I,DLIFE IMFUGE LE- 56 Beach ATH EFUGE La pt! Fringe Marsh ni Ill I fill 1111111111111 @-3 0:@ 0 Extensive Marsh Ernbayed Marsh 0 -11-W-R - 6, Presque Isle Swamp @0 z C@ tv a m p TURKEY I S L A N D so M 6 0 417 0 @'o A 0 42 46 /Pres'@ue Isle CMA A D 0 0 Q0 0 \F e r ry P 0 J 0 L B rmuda Htindred Shirley - ----- BM 50 0 _-N A 'Ji. 0 Sandpits .,Cem 10 C Station @_j 25 37 0 0 '22 Z. 0 1111.11111411 15 S I a n d E Is r 0 0 P 0 poll . ...... ...... 0 .w 0 .3@ 0 77o 15' IL W 77@ .1 5'- MILE _7@1 it "'.24 :7j it C Q 50 Of W 1 W g MAP 6C@ 1A JAMES RIVER TURKEY ISLAND CREEK TO HARRISON POINT FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION Segment 3 @0 Oranville USE L4 x ftace Cha' rin Agricultural A Recreational RC Isle S1 va m P C@) Unmanaged ISLA N D 5 Wooded W VILDLIFR REFUGH 4r 156 OWNERSHIP + AT1(R4*"4 L pt I I + 14 If 0 0 Private + + EROSION V, -12 C@ Moderate 1A Slight or No Change No Symbol N-W-R Accretio nal + + + + Q Presque Isle Swamp 'POD PIP 80 C@ uyamp T U R K E Y IS L A N D so 1A M 40 i@ 42 46 4@- //Fresq'ue Isle If 0 1A 5 608 it Ferry 2 A ?0 (008 0 1RC B muda Hundred Shirley 3@ --7 it 50 j Sandpits Cern 1 A 5 station 25 37 A -'\V -467- (77, 5 1 W z 1 A 15 S p Eppes I s I a In d -112 arnso Po' .7;+' . .... ..... .. M 770 15' 760 55' IMILE 0 2 14Y v V 73 C em 7 Elbervzef tatio@n -9 \68 7 Cyr V 2 40, Rock-A-Hoc 14 63 N o INJ 0 T 50 AO 50-- x 9-"' 50 1 Pumping Station V C Camping 0 0 Area ik Sandpit" A, taindin -110 43 12 ,sl e mI 4A J-L, I> It % X. A 118 Chiciabaft @0 5 LL 4 A Al@ 2 Gravi4 OD Land'ing tp 27 0 Z, % /v- 2 0 C%@ 11 50, @v Y V S\ _j 0. .38 0 MAP 7A q1,0 A CHICKAHOMINY RIVER' MA AHUNK NECK TO BIG MARSH POIN it 615 c TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE@, 5 egment 4A G Ls N--ljf@ 60 am Segment Boundary 39 ,4, Subsegment Boundary -7 r624) -0 7\n 11 Cem it idal F 36 ....... ... .4* A 40@// 76o 55' Ah qP 76@ 55' 1 MILE 0 @N \Lr T 7:7 Cem U/M 647 5U 71P Z@> ta ioP, ,@7 V CP 46@ 2 iRock-A-Hoe 10 50 AOUEPP@@ 0 8 X @z 8 750 @'\ Pumping Station Camping 50 A Area Sndpit" X \&"o a,hdjn@ 12 r Cem 49 4A --il -JL J 14 0 CN lo 5 4A 50 LA nv @@ng 7 j 6- 50 0 0 C. J)-y "01 MAP 7B r CHICKAHOMINY RIVER 41, MATAHUNK NECK TO BIG MARSH POINT L V H LA 0 ORE NDS TYPES Q3 Segment 4A 641 0 FASTLAND 38 V Low Shore 0 Moderately Low Shore I -A High Shore 0 1(615 0 SHORE D Beach Fringe Marsh niumminnunim 0 7 Extensive Marsh BM 39 Embayed Marsh @o 0 ANEARSHORE 0 Narrow 0-0-0-0 40-- Intermediate 0 0 0 0 0 Ce m 0 idal 36 L Flat 0 -40(/ 760 55' 7_6@ 55' 7 a exa. I MILE 0 2 _F_T x rn tr,l em 6471, _7/ bv@ rl tion IN C, I r 2 4 @@,Roek-A oe & 14 14 @Hoe x, '40 Eq % C@ n ).5 5, A Pumping Station 0 Camping I@) 50 Area V -.00 Sandpit,@@ Fis, (I Lalh JX idin _,o0 3 '12 > C e 4A.. Y a om \C-l @.j hores \o 1w -10 1A 4 A. _@,O@iw 11@122 -Grav Lon ng tp 11 27 ji i W., 4b @\2 4 A R 1w.1 % so V Q@ L J-, N, T / 1A Cem att!g"Po', cj@ "'/MAP 7 6 S RIVER P 0 1 NTT MATAHUNK., NECK TO BIG MARSH FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, ERLJZSIUN 0 h 1RS,-' Segment 4A USE Hol -1 C, (1H6 615 -Agricultural A 'J Commercial C 5 4k- Residential RS V 7 Unmanaged BM 4,@ 39 Wooded W =1RSI1 OWNERSHIP -Private > 4- EROSION No Data m 11 Ce 0 N idal 36 7 at JS 1w 1w S 4 0 0 Q11 76o 55' db 76o 55' -,0) 4" 4B Z 0 @@i k L eM Hol 615 J, _j -50 3 MAP 8A CHICKAHOMINY RIVER .-WATTS POINT TO PARSONS ISLAND- 40 % TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE Segment 413 "J Segment Boundary Subsegment Boundary '-Mourit, % 27 f\ CD 37 v. j6 c- - 10 35 30 623 @o MILE 0 L 76o 55' 51 760 55' C em --j '4B @v/ 0 0 0 C *ka h 0 L Hol A15 0 0 0 3 9 0 -40 CN, 0 C:3 MAP 8 CHICKAHOMIN RI ER 0 WATTS POINT TO PARSONS ISLAND C/ C :,.---SHORELANDS TYPES 0. Segment 413. 0 FASTLAND Low Shore -j Moderately Low Shore 627 Moderately High Shore A A A -A ---- High Shore 'SHORE B M 5 Beach @@37 V Fringe Marsh Extensive Marsh Embayed Marsh 3- Artificially Stabilized NEARSHORE 35 t 0 Narrow 0-0-0-0 . .... ...... Intermediate 0 0 0 0 0 623 0 -35 N, 1 MILE 760 55' 52 76o 55' Cerr 40 --po tts 4B 1A .13 A ra k Ce TH A 5 0 7. 3- IRS -w B A 39 40- rfiR so@ 'IRS kk YL, Ce 1w Mount, -3 1 MAP 8C 36 CHICKAHOMINY RIVER WATTS POINT TO PARSONS ISLAND I VV FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION L 6 7 segment 4B USE A Agricultural /V Commercial C BM 5 37 'J Preserved PR U Residential RS IWI/ Unmanaged Wooded W OWNERSHIP 5 Pri,;ate to 6 County 4 EROSION bzJ Moderate -35 30 Slight o.- No Change No SYmbo Accretional + + + + 14, 1MILE -76-055'- @@l A nl 53 :'76o 55'-' alu 30 3" 4B '3 30 0 6v " @ wj4j L 30 5 X 'Lj I cl) P: !17 35" 3 5 r-, 4c. us@ ck a MAP 9A W. CHICAHOMINY RIVER MORRIS CREEK AREA TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE Segments 413 and 4C Segment Boundary Subsegment Boundary 20 4q- 76o 55' Ah W W W IMF W 1:'76- 55 0 T 0 0 4B 0 0 0 "'o 6 0 0 35 0 623 p 37 + 35. 01 1.(\ 30 5 4C. 0 -us@ ck A A\ 0 MAP 9B -9 CHiCKAHOMINY RIVER -0 r MORRIS CREEK AREA. SHORELANDS TYPES Segments 4B and 4C FASTLAND Low Shore Moderately Low Shore 0 High Shore SHORE Beach Fringe Marsh 1`11111111111111111111111 Embayed Marsh .02098@ Artificially Stabilized A- -J- -A- -A- NEARSHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 intermediate 0-0 0 0 Wide 0 0 0 40 Ilk \0 44) 0 0 4G* T7755' @'76- 5' Ikt E 1 :1 -'F 1w 3PR 'Vk@ 4B 31 1 60 6j 7 ........... yi I 30 5 w or-n 623 d M4 0 + 0% 4 1w ;% ush ck @'PR 'e-e MAP 9C CHICKAHOMINY RIVER . .. ....... MORRIS CREEK AREA FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION Segments 4B and 4C USE Agricultural A Preserved PR 1W., Residential RS Unmanaged Wooded W M1, ' OWNERSHIP Private State 3 1RS, EROSION Moderate .... ...... Slight or No Change No Symbol 1A 4 760-55 Ask