[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Coastal Zone Information Shoreline Situation Report Center ESSEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA 4 7 *7z, ML ILT V. A4. [email protected] 4 -4A ..... ....... . A A '44 Ilk 7qj j tj Ik "(W. VT XV AN @rj It 0 Ir - T N 71 NK 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. 04-6-158-44037 Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Oceanic Engineering Number 135 of the QH 301 VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE .V852 no. 135 Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 c.2 1976 Shoreline Situation Report ESSEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA Prepared by: Lynne M. Rogers Dennis W. Owen Margaret H. Peoples DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA '-OAMALI SERVICES CENTER @4 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE SC 29405-2413 Project Supervisors: Robert J. Byrne property of CSC Library Carl H. Hobbs, III V-) Supported by the National Science Foundation, Research Applied to National Needs Program NSF Grant Nos. G1 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,. M, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant No. 04-6-158-44037 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Oceanic Engineering Number 135 of the VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE William J. Hargis Jr., Director* L Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1976 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE PAGE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 FIGURE 1: Shoreland Components 5 FIGURE 2: Marsh Types 5 1.1 Purposes and Goals 2 FIGURE 3: Typical River Meander 11 1.2 Acknowledgements 2 FIGURE 4: Mark Haven Beach 12 FIGURE 5: Bowlers Wharf 12 FIGURE 6: North of Browns Point 12 FIGURE 7: South of Lowery Point 12 CHAPTER 2: APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED 3 FIGURE 8: Lowery Point 13 FIGURE 9: Tappahannock 13 2.1 Approach to the Problem 4 FIGURE 10: East of Mount Landing Creek 13 2.2 Characteristics.of the Shorelands Included 4 FIGURE 11: Daingerfield Landing 13 CHAPTER 3: PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF ESSEX 9 TABLE A: Comparison of Shorelands Use 10 TABLE 1: Essex County Shorelands Physiography 19 3.1 The Shorelands of Essex 10 TABLE 2: Essex County Subsegment Summaries 22 3.2 Shore Erosion Situation 10 3.3 Shore Use Limitations 11 MAPS 1A-E: Essex County Summary Maps 14 MAPS 2A-C: Mark Haven Beach 41 CHAPTER 4: SUMMARIES AND MAPS OF ESSEX 21 MAPS 3A-C: Bowlers Wharf 44 MAPS 4A-C: Piscataway Creek 47 4.1 Segment and Subsegment Summaries 22 MAPS 5A-C: Tappahannock 50 4.2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions 25 -MAPS 6A-C: Mount Landing Creek 53 Segment 1 25 MAPS 7A-C: Bottoms Neck 56 Segment 2 28 MAPS 8A-C: Otterburn. Marsh 59 Segment 3 29 MAPS 9A-C: Horse Head Pp 62 Segment 4 31 MAPS 1OA-C: Portobago Bay 65 Segment 5 33 Segment 6 35 Segment 7 37 Segment 8 39 4.3 Segment and Subsegment Maps 41 0 0 0 6 CHAP-TER 1 Introduction 0 D ''I Q,_ illl'@. I.. I - I 0 1 O@ 1 11 CHAPTER 1 The role of planners and managers is to optimize ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS the utilization of the shorelands and to minimize INTRODUCTION the conflicts arising from competing demands. Fur- This report has been prepared and published thermore, once a particular use has been eecided with funds provided to the Commonwealth by the upon for a given segment of shoreland, both the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oce- planners and the users want that selected use to anic and Atmospheric Administration, grant number 1.1 PURPOSES AND GOALS operate in the most effective manner. A park plan- 04-5-158-50001. The Shoreline Situation Report ner, for example, wants the allotted space to ful- series was originally developed in the Wetlands/ It is the objective of this report to supply an fill the design most efficiently. We hope that the Edges Program of the Chesapeake Research Consor- assessment, and at least a partial integration, of results of our work are useful to the planner in tium, Inc., as supported by the Research Applied those important shoreland parameters and character- designing the beach by pointing out the technical to National Needs (RANN) program of the National istics which will aid the planners and the managers feasibility of altering or enhancing the present Science Foundation. The completion of this re-. of the shorelands in making the best decisions for configuration of the shore zone. Alternately, if port would have been impossible without the ex- the utilization of this limited and very valuable the use were a residential development, we would pert services of Beth Marshall, who typed the resource. The report gives particular attention hope our work would be useful in specifying the several drafts of the manuscript, Bill Jenkins, to the problem of shore erosion and to recommenda- shore erosion problem and by indicating defenses who prepared the photographs, and Glenn Carter tions concerning the alleviation of the impact of likely to succeed in containing the erosion. In and Sam White who piloted the aircraft through this problem. In addition, we have tried to in- summary our objective is to provide a useful tool several photographic missions. Also, we thank clude in our assessment a discussion of those fac- for enlightened.utilization of a limited resource, the numerous other persons who, through their tors which might significantly limit development the shorelands of the Commonwealth. direct aid, criticisms, and suggestions, have of the shoreline and, in some instances, a discus- assisted our work. sion of some of the potential or alternate uses of Shorelands planning occurs, either formally or the shoreline, particularly with respect to recrea- informally, at all levels from the private owner tional use, since such information could aid poten- of shoreland property to county governments, to tial users in the perception of a segment of the planning districts and to the state and federal shoreline. agency level. We feel our results will be useful at all these levels. Since the most basic level The basic advocacy of the authors in the prep- of comprehensive planning and zoning is at the aration of the report is that the use of shorelands county or city level, we have executed our report should be planned rather than haphazardly developed on that level although we realize some of the in- in response to the short term pressures and inter- formation may be most useful at a higher govern- ests. Careful planning could reduce the conflicts mental level. The Commonwealth of Virginia has which may be expected to arise between competing traditionally chosen to place as much as possible, interests. Shoreland utilization in many areas of the regulatory decision processes at the county the country, and indeed in some places in Virginia, level. The Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Chapter has proceeded in a manner such that the very ele- 2.1, Title 62.1, Code of Virginia), for example ments which attracted people to the shore have been provides for the establishment of County Boards to destroyed by the lack of planning and forethought. act on applications for alterations of wetlands. Thus, our focus at the county level is intended to The major man-induced uses of the shorelands interface with and to support the existing or are: pending county regulatory mechanisms concerning activities in the shorelands zone. Residential, commercial, or industrial development Recreation Transportation Waste disposal Extraction of living and non-living resources Aside from the above uses, the shorelands serve various ecological functions. 2 CHAPTER 2 Approach Used and Elements Considered CHAPTER 2 of the report since some users' needs will ade- Definitions: quately be met with the summary overview of the Shore Zone APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED county while others will require the detailed dis- cussion of particular subsegments. This is the zone of beaches and marshes. It is a buffer zone between the water body and the fast- 2.1 APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM land. The seaward limit of the shore zone is the 2.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SHORELANDS INCLUDED break in slope between the relatively steeper in the preparation of this report the authors IN THE STUDY shoreface and the less steep nearshore zone. The utilized existing information wherever. possible. approximate landward limit is a contour line rep- For example, for such elements as water quality The characteristics which are included in this resenting one and a half times the mean tide characteristics, zoning regulations, or flood haz- report are listed below followed by a discussion range above mean low water (refer to Figure 1). ard, we reviewed relevant reports by local, state, of our treatment of each. In operation with topographic maps the inner or federal agencies. Much of the desired informa- a) Shorelands physiographic classification fringe of the marsh symbols is taken as the land- tion, particularly with respect to erosional char- b) Shorelands use classification ward limit. acteristics, shoreland types, and use was not c) Shorelands ownership classification available, so we performed the field work and de- d) Zoning The physiographic character of the marshes has veloped classification schemes. In order to ana- e) Water quality also been separated into three types (see Figure lyze successfully the shoreline behavior we placed f) Shore erosion and shoreline defenaes 2). Fringe marsh is that which is less than 400 heavy reliance on low altitude, oblique, color, 35 g) Limitations to shore use and potential feet in width and which runs in a band parallel to mm photography. We photographed the entire shore- oralternate shore uses.- the shore. Extensive marsh is that which has ex- line of each county and cataloged the slides for h) Distribution of mafshes tensive acreage projecting into an estuary or easy access at VIMS, where they remain available i) Flood hazard levels river. An embayed marsh is a marsh which occupies for use. We then analyzed these photographic ma- j) Shellfish leases and public shellfish a reentrant or drowned creek valley. The purpose terials, along with existing conventional aerial grounds in delineating these marsh types is that the ef- photography and topographic and hydrographic maps, k) Beach quality fectiveness of the various functions of the marsh for the desired elements. We conducted field in- will, in part, be determined by type of exposure spection over awch of the shoreline, particularly a) Shorelands Physiographic Classification to the estuarine system. A fringe marsh may, for at those locations where office analysis left example, have maximum value as a buffer to wave questions unanswered. In some cases we took addi- The shorelands of the Chesapeake Bay System may erosion of the fastland. An extensive marsh, on tional photographs along with the field visits to be considered as being composed of three inter- the other hand, is likely a more efficient trans- document the effectiveness of shoreline defenses. acting physiographic elements: the fastlands, the porter of detritus and other food chain materials shore and the nearshore. A graphic classification due to its greater drainage density than an em- The basic shoreline unit considered is called based on these three elements has been devised so bayed marsh. The central.point is that planners, a subsegment, which may range from a few hundred that the types for each of the three elements por- in the light of ongoing and future research, will feet to several thousand feet in length. The end trayed side by side on a map may provide the op- desire to weight various functions of marshes and points of the subsegments were generally chosen portunity to examine joint relationships among the the physiographic delineation aids their decision on physiographic consideration such as changes in elements. As an example, the application of the making by denoting wher-e the various types exist. the character of erosion or deposition. In those system permits the user to determine miles of high The classification used is: cases where a radical change in land use occurred, bluff shoreland interfacing with marsh in the shore Beach the point of change was taken as a boundary point zone. Marsh of the subsegment. Segments are groups of sub- Fringe marsh, < 400 ft. (122 m) in width segments. The boundaries for segments also were For each subsegment there are two length mea- along shores selected on physiographic units such as necks or surements, the shore-nearshore interface or shore- Extensive marsh peninsulas between major tidal creeks. Finally, line, and the fastland-shore interface. The two Embayed marsh, occupying a drowned valley the county itself is considered as a sum of shore- interface lengths differ most when the shore zone or reentrant line segments. is embayed or extensive marsh. On the subsegment Artificially stabilized maps, a dotted line represents the fastland-shore The format of presentation in the report fol- interface when it differs from the shoreline. The Fastland Zone lows a sequence from general summary statements fastland-shore interface length is the base for for the county (Chapter 3) to tabular segment the fastland statistics. The zone extending from the landward limit of summaries and finally detailed descriptions and the shore zone is termed the fastland. The fast- maps for each subsegment (Chapter 4). The purpose land is relatively stable and is the site of most in choosing this format was to allow selective use material development or construction. The 4 physiographic classification of the fastland is purposes: b) Shorelands Use Classification based upon the average slope of the land within Narrow, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath located < 400 400 feet (122 m) of the fastland - shore boundary. yards from shore Fastland Zone The general classification is: Intermediate, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath 400- Low shore, 20 ft. (6 m) or less of relief; 1,400 yards from shore Residential with or without cliff Wide, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath > 1,400 yards Moderately low shore, 20-40 ft. (6-12 m) of from shore Includes all forms of residential use with the relief; with or without cliff exception of farms and other isolated dwellings. Moderately high shore, 40-60 ft. (12-18 m) of Subclasses: with or without bars In general, a residential area consists of four relief; with or without cliff with or without tidal flats or more residential buildings adjacent to one High shore, 60 ft. (18 m) or more of relief; with or without submerged another. Schools, churches, and isolated busi- with or without cliff. vegetation nesses may be included in a residential area. Two specially classified exceptions are sand dunes and areas of artificial fill. Commercial Nearshore Zone Includes buildings, parking areas, and other The nearshore zone extends from the shore zone land directly related to retail and wholesale to the 12-foot (MLW datum) contour. In the smaller trade and business. This category includes small tidal rivers the 6-foot depth is taken as the ref- industry and other anomalous areas within the erence depth. The 12-foot depth is probably the. -*-FA STLAND-4SHOR NEARSHORE general commercial context. Marinas are consid- maximum depth of significant sand transport by ered commercial shore use. waves in the Chesapeake Bay area. Also, the dis- tinct drop-off into the river channels begins roughly at the 12-foot depth. The nearshore zone a Range Industrial includes any tidal flats. 12' Includes all industrial and associated areas. The class limits for the nearshore zone classi- Figure Examples: warehouses, refineries, shipyards, fications were chosen following a simple statisti- power plants, railyards. cal study. The distance to the 12-foot underwater A profile of the three shorelands types. contour (isobath) was measured on the appropriate charts at one-mile intervals along the shorelines Governmental of Chesapeake Bay and the James, York, Rappahan- nock, and Potomac Rivers. Means and standard de- Includes lands whose usage is specifically viations for each of the separate regions and for controlled, restricted, or regulated by govern- the entire combined system were calculated and mental organizations: e.g., Camp Peary, Fort compared. Although the distributions were non- FRINGE EMBAYED EXTENSIVE Story. Where applicable, the Governmental use normal, they were generally comparable, allowing MARSH MARSH MARSH category is modified to indicate the specific the data for the entire combined system to deter- character of the use, e.g., residential, direct mine the class limits. military, and so forth. The calculated mean was 919 ards with a stand- Recreational and Other Public Open Spaces ard deviation of 1,003 yards. As our aim was to determine general, serviceable class limits, these calculated numbers were rounded to 900 and 1,000 FASTLAND Includes designated outdoor recreation lands FASTLAND yards respectively. The class limits were set at and miscellaneous open spaces. Examples: golf half the standard deviation (500 yards) each side courses, tennis clubs, amusement parks, public of the mean. Using this procedure a narrow near- Figure 2 beaches, race tracks, cemeteries, parks. shore zone is one 0-400 yards in width, interme- diate 400-1,400, and wide greater than 1,400. A plan view of the three marsh types. Preserved The following definitions have no legal signif- icance and were constructed for our classification Includes lands preserved or regulated for 5 environmental reasons, such as wildlife or wild- federal, state, county, and town or city. Appli- f) Shore Erosion and Shoreline Defenses fowl sanctuaries, fish and shellfish conservation cation of the classification is restricted to grounds, or other uses that would preclude devel- fastlands alone since the Virginia fastlands The following ratings are used for shore opment. ownership extends to mean low water. All bottoms erosion: below mean low water are in State ownership. slight or none - less than 1 foot per year moderate - - - - 1 to 3 feet per year Agricultural severe greater than 3 feet per year d) Water Quality The locations with moderate and severe ratings Includes fields, pastures, croplands, and other are further specified as being critical or non- agricultural areas. The water quality sections of this report are critical. The erosion is considered critical if based upon data abstracted from Virginia State buildings, roads, or other such structures are Water Control Board's publication Water Quality endangered. Unmanaged Standards (November, 1974) and Water Quality Inventory (305 (b) Report) (April, 1976). The degree of erosion was determined by several Includes all open or wooded lands not included means. In most locations the long term trend was in other classifications: Additionally, where applicable, Virginia Bu- determined using map comparisons of shoreline po- a) Open: brush land, dune areas, wastelands; reau of Shellfish Sanitation data is used to as- sitions between the 1850's and the 1940's. In less than 40% tree cover. sign ratings of satisfactory, intermediate, or addition, aerial photographs of the late 1930',s b) Wooded: more than 40% tree cover. unsatisfactory. These ratings are defined pri- and recent years were utilized for an assessment The shoreland use classification applies to the marily in regard to number of coliform. bacteria. of more recent conditions. Finally, in those general usage of the fastland area to an arbitrary For a rating of satisfactory the maximum limit is areas experiencing severe erosion field inspec- distance of half mile from the shore or beach zone an MPN (Most Probable Number) of 70 per 100 ml. tions and interviews were held with local inhab- or to some less distant, logical barrier. In The upper limit for fecal coliforms is an MPN of itants. multi-usage areas one must make a subjective se- 23. Usually any count above these limits results lection as to the primary or controlling type of in an unsatisfactory rating, and, from the Bu- The existing shoreline defenses were evaluated usage. For simplicity and convenience, managed reau's standpoint, results in restricting the as to their effectiveness. In some cases repeti- woodlands are classified as "unmanaged, wooded" waters from the taking of shellfish for direct tive visits were made to monitor the effective- areas. sale to the consumer. ness of recent installations. In instances where existing structures are inadequate, we have given There are instances however, when the total recommendations for alternate approaches. Fur- Shore Zone coliform MPN may exceed 70, although the fecal MPN thermore, recommendations are given for defenses does not exceed 23, and other conditions are ac- in those areas where none currently exist. The Bathing ceptable. In these cases an intermediate rating primary emphasis is placed on expected effective- Boat launching may be assigned temporarily, and the area will be ness with secondary consideration to cost. Bird watching permitted to remain open pending an-improvement in Waterfowl hunting conditions. g) Limitations to Shore Use and Potential or Although the shellfish standards are somewhat Alternate Shore Uses Nearshore Zone more stringent than most of the other water quality standards, they are included because of the eco- In this section we point out specific factors Pound net fishing nomic and ecological impacts of shellfish ground which may impose significant limits on the type Shellfishing closures. Special care should be taken not to en- or extent of shoreline development. This may Sport fishing danger the water quality in existing "satisfactory" result in a restatement of other factors from Extraction of non-living resources areas. elsewhere in the report, e.g., flood hazard or Boating erosion, or this may be a discussion of some Water sports e) Zoning other factor pertaining to the particular area. Also we have placed particular attention on c) Shorelands ownership Classification In cases where zoning regulations have been the recreational potential of the shore zone. established the existing information pertaining The possible development of artificial beach, The shorelands ownership classification used to the shorelands has been included in the re- erosion protection, etc., influence the evalua- has two main subdivisions, private and governmen- port. tion of an area's potential. Similarly, poten- tal, with the governmental further divided into tial alternate shore uses are occasionally noted. 6 h) Distribution of Marshes November, 1971, and as periodically updated in other similar reports. Since the condemnation The acreage and physiographic type of the areas change with time they are not to be taken marshes in each subsegment is listed. These esti- as definitive. However, some insight to the mates of acreages were obtained from topographic conditions at the date of the report are avail- maps and should be considered only as approxima- able by a comparison between the shellfish tions. Detailed county inventories of the wetlands grounds maps and the water quality maps for are being conducted by the Virginia Institute of which water quality standards for shellfish Marine Science under the authorization of the Vir- were used. ginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Code of Virginia 62.1- 13.4). These surveys include detailed acreages of the grass species composition within individual k) Beach Quality marsh systems. In Shoreline Situation Reports of counties that have had marsh inventories, the Beach quality is a subjective judgment based marsh number is indicated, thus allowing the user upon considerations such as the nature of the of the Shoreline Situation Report to key back to beach material, the length and width of the beach the formal marsh inventory for additional data. area, and the general aesthetic appeal of the The independent material in this report is pro- beach setting. vided to indicate the physiographic type of marsh land and to serve as a rough guide to marsh dis- tribution, pending a formal inventory. Additional information on wetlands characteristics may be found in Coastal Wetlands of Virginia: Interim Report No. 3, by G.M. Silberhorn, G.M. Dawes, and T.A. Barnard, Jr., SRAMSOE No. 46, 1974, and in other VIMS publications. i) Flood Hazard Levels The assessment of tidal flooding hazard for the whole of the Virginia tidal shoreland is still in- complete. However, the United States Army Corps of Enginners has prepared reports for a number of localities which were used in this report. Two tidal flood levels are customarily used to portray the hazard. The Intermediate Regional Flood is that flood with an average recurrence time of about 100 years. An analysis of past tidal floods indicates it to have an elevation of approximately 8 feet above mean water level in the Chesapeake Bay area. The Standard Project Flood level is established for land planning purposes which is placed at the highest probable flood level. j) Shellfish Leases and Public Grounds The data in this report show the leased and public shellfish grounds as portrayed in the Vir- ginia State Water Control Board publication "Shellfish growing areas in the Commonwealth of Virginia: Public, leased and condemned," 7 6 D 0 b CHAPTER 3 Present Shorelands Situation I 10 11 0 0 0 I 9 I CHAPTER 3 TABLE A 3.2 SHORE EROSION SITUATION PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF ESSEX COUNTY Comparison of Shorelands Use Statistics Shoreline retreat in Essex County is dependent 40 upon several factors, combinations of which con- Miles (Percent of Section) trol the rate of erosion or accretion in a given 3.1 THE SHORELANDS OF ESSEX COUNTY area at a given time. There are three basic causes of erosion which can affect a river system Essex County is located along the southern bank Subsegments Subsegments such as the Rappahannock River. A prevalent cause of the Rappahannock River and is bounded by Middle- Fastland Use 1A - 4A 4B - 8C of shoreline retreat is downhill rain runoff. 41 sex County to the southeast and Caroline County to This is a basic weathering of the shoreline due to the northwest. The county is predominantly rural Unmanaged, Wooded 33.3mi. (43%) 15.3mi. (19%) rain waters. Rain runoff erosion mainly affects in nature,, though sections of the shorelands are Agricultural 27.7mi. (35%) 63.7mi. (78%) bluffs, especially wooded bluffs, as it undermines developed. The only fairly large population center Residential 13.9mi. (18%) 1.6mi. ( 2%) the tree system along the shore. Continued wash- along the shore is the Town of Tappahannock. Commercial 1.5mi. 2%) 0.4mi. ( 1%) ing away of the soil causes the trees to eventu- Industrial 1.5mi. 2%) 0.2mi. ( 1%) ally fall, carrying with them large amounts of The fastland of Essex County ranges from low soil suspended in the root systems. Rain runoff shore to high shore with bluff, with several areas erosion is not dependent upon the nearshore type of artificial fill (see Table 1). Although eighty- 78.lmi.(100%) 81.2mi.(100%) and can pose a problem for any area. nine percent of the shoreline is low or moderately low shore (sometimes with bluffs), flooding is not It was observed that several agricultural areas usually a problem. There are several major differences in the two have been plowed perpendicularly to the shoreline sections, as the table reveals. The most impor- (see Figure 11). Such plowing encourages rain Tidal marshes., including fringe, embayed and ex- tant aspect is the difference in residential us- runoff erosion and is a prime contributor to non- tensive marshes, comprise eighty-four percent of age. East of Tappahannock, eighteen percent of point source pollution. The sediments suspended the county's shoreline (a tidal marsh inventory for the shorelands are developed for residential pur- in the rain runoff contain large amounts of fer- Essex County is forthcoming). The Virginia Wet- poses, as compared with only two percent of the tilizers and pesticides which contribute to sea- lands Act of 1972 controls any proposed alterations shorelands to the west. overall, seventy-eight sonal water quality problems. Most runoff erosion 4 to these areas, as marshes, especially embayed and percent of the shorelands east of Tappahannock and the ensuing pollution from agricultural areas extensive marshes, serve vital ecological functions are still agricultural - wooded, while ninety- could be eliminated by; 1) plowing parallel to the and have valuable flood and erosion protection seven percent of the shorelands to the west are shoreline, and 2) leaving a "green zone" along the qualities. As non-renewable resources, marshes agricultural - wooded. Another statistic showing shoreline (A "green zone" is a buffer area planted should be preserved. the greater development in the eastern section is with grasses between the field and the shore. In the amount of artificial stabilization. Thirteen Essex County, a buffer of fifty feet should be suf- Eleven percent of the shoreline is comprised of percent of the shoreline east of Tappahannock is ficient). Proper use of the shorelands would do beach**. Though there are several nice beaches artificially stabilized, as compared with only one much to control runoff erosion of the agricultural fronting private residences, most areas have thin, percent west of Tappahannock. lands and the pollution of the river. The other strip beaches, often with vegetation. two types of erosion are dependent upon the loca- According to the Virginia Water Quality Inven- tion of the area, the type of nearshore zone, and Development patterns along the shoreline of Es- tory (305(b)Report), (Virginia State Water Control many other variables. .sex County vary with the location. Basically, the Board, April, 1976), the Rappahannock River along shoreline from Mount Landing Creek east (the Tappa- Essex County generally has good water quality The primary cause of erosion in the Chesapeake hannock area) is being developed for residential (Hoskins Creek, east of Tappahannock, has poor Bay system is wave action generated by local purposes, most of which a@re second or vacation water quality due to natural swamp conditions and winds. The height and growth of waves is con- homes.* Table A is a comparison of land use statis- several waste treatment plants). Seasonal and trolled by four factors: The overwater distance tics between the area east of Tappahannock (Subseg- sectional water problems do occur due to upstream across which the wind blows (the fetch), the ve- ments lA_4A) and the area west of Tappahannock industrial and domestic waste discharges and some locity of the wind, the duration of time that the (Subsegments 4B-8C). agricultural rain runoff. Development along the wind blows, and the depth of the water. The width county's shorelands should be controlled so that of the water body is also important in describing the water quality of the Rappahannock River is erosion patterns for a given area. Wave action is not damaged. responsible for most erosion along the county's shoreline from Beverly Marsh east toward the river mouth. The longest fetches and usually the most powerful wind generated waves are from the southeast, 10 north, and the northwest along this section of the Beaches and marshes are natural barriers against 3.3 ALTERNATE SHORE USE county's shoreline (However, winds from the south- erosion of the fastland. Both absorb the incident east are generally very light. Those from the wave energy and therefore inhibit the erosion of Essex County is overwhelmingly rural, with south are very powerful and thus can cause much the fastland. However, beaches are usually very eighty-eight percent of the shorelands being used erosion even without a large fetch.). Winds ap- thin along the shoreline of Essex County due to a for agriculture or are unused. Approximately ten proaching from any of these directions can cause limited supply of sand in the littoral drift. percent of the shoreline is used for residential much shoreline retreat along affected areas. (The Many areas, especially around Tappahannock and purposes and two percent is used for comercial 100-year average erosion rate for much of this sec- east of the town, have been artificially stabi- and industrial purposes. Most present activity tion of the shoreline is 1.5 to 2.5 feet per year, lized. These structures have usually been con- along the shoreline is centered around Tappahan- with several areas having rates of from 3 to 4 feet structed on an individual basis, as compared to a nock and some areas further east toward the river per year). Approximately 7.4 miles of the shore- sectional or community basis. Attendant with mouth. The presently consumed shorelands can be line have been artificially stabilized. However, these structures has been the disappearance of characterized as thin strips of land along the erosion is continuing in unprotected areas. beaches downstream, as sediment sources have been river which are used as residential areas, most withdrawn from the system. Many areas have at- being second or vacation homes (Figures 4, 5, 7, Most of the erosion and accretion found along tempted to reestablish beaches by employing groin and 8). These areas are usually backed by agri- the upper Rappahannock River (above Beverly Marsh) systems. However, these systems have proven of cultural lands. Little new development is occur- occurs at the bends in the river. The river cur- little value for most areas, since they depend ring from Mount Landing Creek west toward the rent is fastest on the outside of the meanders and upon the littoral transport of sand for success. head of the Rappahannock River. is much 'less on the inside. As a result, the out- In order to reestablish or maintain existing side bends erode while the inside bends accrete. beaches, probably the only course of action would It is expected that some continued development The amount and rate of erosion depends upon both be a program of beach nourishment coincident with will occur around the Town of Tappahannock, main- the composition of the land in the bends and the site specifically designed structures to trap mov- ly for residential use. However, no large scale speed of the current there (see Figure 3). ing sands. Any action would be costly and should development seems probable. Care should be taken entail a detailed study of the area and a unified to ensure that the water quality of the Rappahan- solution. nock River is not endangered by shoreline devel- EROSION It should be noted that most areas still suf- opment. fering from erosion in Essex County are either Little alternate shore use seems necessary for ,0, ACCRETION used for agriculture or are unused. Any program the present time, since organized recreational of protection for these areas would probably be facilities are usually needed in areas serving a too costly to be justified. high density population center. The only facili- ties needed along the shoreline in Essex County would be public boat ramps in various areas of the county. FIGURE 3. TYPICAL RIVER MEANDER Nd Has @00 fti 10tv 5, FIGURE 4: View of Mark Haven Beach, Subsegment 1A. Like much of the county's shorelands, a thin strip of land adjacent to the shore has been de- veloped for residential use while the remaining &V lands are undeveloped. Notice the erosion of the "7777 bluffs in this section. FIGURE 5: Bowlers Wharf, Subsegment 1A. A good @4, ple of strip development prevalent in Essex exam @?X 'i "U" County. The groin fields fronting the bulkheaded W, . . ... .. . shoreline have been moderately effective in trap- @mn . ...... ft ,I @,-- NNW'*,@@,ffi ping sand. N @ - WA ROUM gK I'll q, ;-ffi;"? I ow," FIGURE 4 FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6: View between Browns Point and Wares Wharf, Subsegment 1B. Erosion of the bluffs in this area, besides causing the loss of valuable farmlands, is-also a cause of non-point source pollution to the Rappahannock River. Rain run- off carries a variety of fertilizers and pesti- cides into the river. In order to reduce erosion of such farmlands, a "green zone" (an area that is planted in grasses, bordering the shoreline) should be established. Along the Essex County shoreline, a green zone fifty feet wide should be sufficient. FIGURE 7: Sout:h of Lowery Point, Subsegment 1B. The numerous groins have not been successful in creating beaches in front of the bulkhead in this area. FIGURE 6 FIGURE 7 12 "M W,"@WV 4@, FIGURE 8: Lowery Point, Subsegment IC. These residences were built on artificial fill dumped W N@l on the marsh. The groins of cement bags have not 77; been effective in building up a buffer beach in 7 front of the bulkhead. 7", 'M, n :M 'I , ;, @, A, 'N "Y@'N"NAl'' W z M, !i5 "!Z, EN FIGURE 9. Tappahannock, Subsegment 4A. Tappahan- vv_ nock is the only town located along the shorelands in Essex County. The entire shoreline has been artificially stabilized in this area. Again, the NN 4-Nll,@17Z@ groins have not been effective in trapping a buf- fer beach. FIGURE 8 FIGURE 9 FIGURE 10: East of Mount Landing Creek, Subseg- V @Rft %M@ "'wYP, F I k A 1.1-.1 K ment 4A. Erosion is a problem for the shoreline v, P R in this area. As can be seen fr6m the photo, a 1 011 small housing development is being constructed in 0 -W 54 V this section. 1AL X ;A "t, 0 'on,@ 1,0105 FIGURE 11: Daingerfield Landing, Subsegment 6A. A J 1@ The agricultural fields have been plowed perpen @O RJ- 5 W K17 g dicular to the shoreline, which encourages rain M 5 runoff erosion. Plowing should be parallel to the shore with a fifty foot buffer zone along the shoreline. FIGURE 10 FIGURE 11 13 Wo"'r COWTY ESSEX COUNTY 9 Bridge 44,@ p = Segment Boundary 10 = Subsegment Boundary MAP 1 A. f IA COUNTY LINE TO BROWNS POINT Ill BROWNS POINT TO LOWERY POINT IC LOWERY POINT TO MOUTH OF PISCATAWAY CREEK 2PISCATAWAY CREEK 441P 6C 3A MOUTH OF PISCATAWAY CREEK TO MOUTH OF HOSKINS CREEK 3B HOSKINS CREEK AA MOUTH OF HOSKINS CREEK TO MOUTH OF MOUNT LANDING CREEK 6A 4B MOUNT LANDING CREEK Ix 5 AMALLORYS POINT TO JENKINS LANDING 5B 'kh' 5B JENKINS LANDING TO MOUTH OF SLUICE CREEK 6A MOUTH OF SLUICE CREEK TO 5A MOUTH OF FARMERS HALL CREEK 6B FARMERS HALL CREEK AND. BRICK HILL CREEK, 48 6C OCCUPACIA CREEK AND BRIDGE CREEK p 6 7A ISLAND POINT TO OTTERBURN MARSH 4A 7B OTTERBURN MARSH TO MOUTH OF ELMWOOD CREEK 8A MOUTH OF ELMWOOD CREEK TO HORSE HEAD POINT 8B GREEN BAY 8C MARSH POINT TO COUNTY LINE 44,q 3A Ic 37* 3W IB 0 1 11 3 4 p MILES 44,1 p AL AL A a 14p KING GEORC E cow-ry SCI. 0 B ESSEX COUNTY 0 Bridge 8A o\713 MAP 1B -0 0 0 SHORELANDS TYPES .0 \0 7A FASTLAND N'o f Low Shore 0 Low Shore 0 with Bluff Moderately Low Shore L 0 a a I 6C Moderately Low Shore with Bluff A A A Moderately High Shore Moderately High Shore 6A with Bluff A A A A 0 5B High Shore a im High Shore 0 5A with Bluff SHORE 413 Beach Fringe Marsh Extensive Marsh 4A Embayed Marsh B Artificially Stabilized 0 NEARSHORE o 3A Narrow 0-0-0-0 0 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 0 Ic Wide 0 0 0 370 Z 40 IB 0 '@o .. .0 i 2 3 4 0 0 L MILES N 1A \0 COW"' WORGE COUNTY Ian scl. ESSEX COUNTY iA \ZIA IA Bridge 1w IA ]A SA IA IA IA IA IA 1A Ic 11121 MAP 1C IA IA ]A IA11 j-Si A FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP R C I A. 1w IC .7A f IA IA IA Boat Ramp IA IA 1A Marina IA IW IA IRS 1A 1w IA 1w IA 6C USE IAI IA 68 Agricultural A 11 IA IA IA Commercial C ]A --6A't Industrial I Recreational RC 513 Residential RS I w Unmanaged I w 5A cck Wooded W IW IW, IW IRS* OWNERSHIP 1w 4B Private 1 1w 1w IA County 4 Iw IA IRS 4A 1w IRS I w IRS 3B IWIA I C 1-w 41 41 I wI I IRSIjS 3A I A1 W IRS IRS IA IAIW Ic wIw- 1w "Ic I IA IA IRS 370 IRS IA Ic 52 1w IAIRS 30" Jw Iw IRC '20 IRS I B IRS IRS IRS Iw IA IRS IRS I wI AC 'A I MILES I A IA IRS IRS IWIC IRS IW IRS IW IRS IA 1WIRS coo wig 1A 1A W IW I I A) AI I A' A IA @A W A A I A I I I IA A IA IA 1A 7 1A IC IA I II rA IA 1A_6A ___5B 2 I W I W 5 A 'W @ 'W W @IRSIAI@ KING GEORS E COUNTY 8C-. B ESSEX COUNTY Bridge 8A B 7B MAP 1D EROSION AND 7A SHORELINE STRUCTURES If z EROSION Severe A% 6c Moderate 613 Slight or No Change No Symbol 6A SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES 5B 5 A 'c) B Bulkh'ead B R Rubble rip rap - - 48 G Grions 4A B B G GB 313 R 3A @j E7G 2 B Ic B, 370 52 1 R IB B B B G 4 @RG 9 A 18 MILES BIG 1A B G-!!@t B ooo" k0o, j Aop WORGE CoUjW-ry SCI. B ESSEX COUNTY Bridge SA 7B MAP 1E 7A OYSTER GROUNDS f Lease Areas Public Grounds 6C 6B WATER QUALITY -6A Unsatisfactory -,,5B 5A SEWAGE DISCHARGES 413 Domestic AL Industrial 4A B 00 3A Ic 52 3d" 113 1 2 3 4 I MILES I A 760 Ise 3cr Ah d1k TABLE 1. ESSEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY, FASTLANDS USE, OWNERSHIP (STATUTE MILES) Physiographic, SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY FASTLANDS USE OWNERSHIP TOTAL MILES use, and ownership cl'assifi- FASTLAND SHORE NEARSHORE cation PL, PL4 PC4 @D 0 0 @4 @4 PQ Pq >4 >4 D@q @4 t@ r@ @4 El 1 44 W W @-4 @D C W @-q W @Z) N > M PQ E-4 Pa Pq g g g 'n g P >4 r-A @-4 44 P4 @-4 > @4 @l C @1: E- 1=@ @3:P Cl Q@ 0 0 E- 94 P4 Fq P4 P4 P4 @-4 Subsegment C) = 0 @-A El P4 x < P4 0 -C4 Pr4 @.4 En 1-4 @i: 24 Rm R =,-I R m :"z W" m P'qQ r=4 pq W z :3: P< P4 IA 5.4 0.7 5.5 1.4 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.6 5.5 0.1 1.0 0.4 2.5 6.1 3.9 0.6 4.2 6.1 14.8 8.6 14.8 1B 8.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 1.0 2.0 0.2 1.0 4.2 2.1 0.3 0.2 2.9 3.4 8.9 4.2 8.9 ic 3.7 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.3 1.8 1.0 0.2 1.7 0.8 3.7 2. 4 3.7 2 12.5 8.7 0.7 2.6 3.3 0.4 4.7 8.3 4.7 C R E E K 13.2 0.7 14.3 28.2 17.7 28.2 3A 0.4 2.8 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.2 1.1 2.3 1.8 1.4 3.2 3.8 3.2 3B 0.6 7.5 0.3 4.1 0.6 1.7 0.9 0.2 5.3 7.5 C R E E K 4.1 0.4 1.5 0.9 8.7 14.4 1.2 13.0 15.7 4A 2.6 1.1 1.7 1.3 0.1 0.5 2.0 0.8 1.6 2.1 3.7 3.6 3.7 4B 10.2 0.6 0.4 1.2 2.0 0.7 0.3 1.6 9.6 C R E E K 4.7 10.5 15.1 11.5 15.1 5A 2.8 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.6 1.1 0.3 0.1 1.4 2.1 0.9 2.7 1.4 0.2 4.3 3.5 4.4 5B 6.6 0.9 1.1 0.3 0.5 1.0 3.1 2.4 5.4 1.6 7.4 3.0 10.4 10.9 10.4 6A 3.1 0.4 0.9 2.7 1.6 2.8 0.3 3.1 4.o 3.1 6B 5.0 1.9 5.0 0.1 C R E E K 4.8 0.2 5.0 7.0 5.0 6c 14.2 0.1 10.6 7.0 1.8 C R E E K 13.0 1.3 14.3 19.4 14.3 7A 6.8 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.6 4.3 0.6 7.6 13.2 8.5 0.2 8.7 13.2 8.7 7B 5.6 1.6 2.0 1.0 0.2 1.8 2.9 4.6 1.7 6.0 9.9 0.2 0.2 10.3 11.2 10.2 8A 2.2 0.5 1.1 0.7 2.5 4.3 2.7 2.7 4.3 2.7 8B 2.1 0.9 0.3 0.2 7.8 8.1 3.3 3 ** 3 8.0 3.3 8C 3.5 0.3 0.1 1.4 0.5 0.9 1.7 1.6 1.4 3.9 3.9 4.5 3.9 TOTAL 1.0 104.8 7.3 23.3 5.4 6.0 0.6 7.7 3.2 7.6 16.5 38.2 49.3 39.2 41.8 7.9 20.2 91.4 1.9 1.7 0.2 15.5 48. 6 158. 0 1. 2 150. 8 159.3 % of FASTLAND 1% 66% 5% 15% 3% 4% 0% 5% 2% 57% 1% 1% 0% 10% 31% 99% 1% 100% % of SHORELINE 5% 11% 25% 33% 26% 28% 5% 13% 100% u 0 se w c ne I c -a a a r s t n s s 10 d h i n 1-p- fi S s gm t ub \een 19 CHAPTER 4 4.1 TABLE OF SUBSEGIVIENT SUMMARIES 4.2 SEGMENT AND SUBSEGIVIENT DESCRIPTIONS 4.3 SEGMENT AND SUBSEGIVIENT MAPS 21 TABLE 2. SHORELINE SITUATION REPORT SUBSEGMENT SUMMARY FOR ESSEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA SUBSEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS USE OWNERSHIP FLOOD HAZARD WATER QUALITY BEACH QUALITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION ALTERNATE SHORE USE 1A FASTLAND: Low shore 37%, low shore with FASTLAND: Agricultural 26%, commer- Private. Low to moderate, Fair to good. This Poor. The majority Slight or no change, to severe, noncritical. Low. This subsegmentwill probably 'OUNTY LINE TO bluff 5%, moderately low shore 37%, mod- cial 4%, residential 29%, and un- noncritical. The subsegment usually has of the subsegment The Jones Point area is experiencing a moder- remain basically rural, with very BROWNS POINT erately low shore with bluff 9%, moder- managed, wooded 41%. majority of the good water quality, has narrow, strip ate erosion rate, while the area just west of little residential development. 8.6 miles ately high shore 7%, moderately high SHORE: Private and commercial subsegment has although at times it is beaches. Jones Point to Bowlers Wharf has a severe ero- (14.8 miles shore with bluff 2%, high shore 2%, and (marina) use. elevations of at degraded by upstream sion rate of 3.3 feet per year. There are of fastland) high shore with bluff 1%. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. least 10 feet and industrial waste. areas of effective bulkheading and rubble rip- SHORE: Artificially stabilized 19%, is not subject to rap in this subsegmen@. The several groin beach 63%, fringe marsh 1%, embayed flooding. fields are moderately effective. marsh 12%, and extensive marsh 4%. NEARSHORE: Narrow 29% and wide 71%. 1B FASTLAND: Low shore 93%, low shore with FASTLAND: Agricultural 24%, commer- Private. Low to moderate, Fair to good. This Poor. The majority Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Low. Some residential development BROWNS POINT bluff 1%, moderately low shore 3%, and cial 3%, recreational 2%, residential critical. Although subsegment usually has of this subsegment The area from Browns Point to Wares Wharf is will probably continue in this sub- TO moderately low shore with bluff 3%. 33%, and unmanaged, wooded 38%. the majority of the good water quality. has narrow, strip experiencing a moderate erosion rate of segment, but care should be taken LOWERY POINT SHORE: Artificially stabilized 24%, SHORE: Some private and commercial subsegment has Seasonal quality prob- beaches. approximately 2.1 feet per year. Th6re is a not to destroy the rural nature of 4.2 miles beach 49%, fringe marsh 5%, and embayed use (marinas) but mostly unused. elevations of at lems stem from upstream combined total of 5,000 feet of bulkheading the area. (8.9 miles marsh 22%. NFARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. least 10 feet, some sewage waste and agri- and rubble riprap in this subsegment. Several of fastland) NEARSHORE: Intermediate. structures are be- cultural runoff. areas have groin systems fronting the sea- low 5-foot eleva- walls, although these are only partially tions. These effective in trapping sand. structures are sus- ceptible to flood- ing during abnor- mally high water. 1C FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. FASTLAND: Agricultural 27%, commer- Private. Moderate, critical. Fair to good. The Poor. There are Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Low. There is very little shore- LOWERY POINT SHORE: Artificially stabilized 48%, cial 4%, residential 47%, and on- The entire subseg- Rappahannock River only narrow, strip The area from Lowery Point to the mouth of line property available for devel- TO MOUTH OF beach 4%, fringe marsh 9%, embayed marsh managed, wooded 22%. ment has a low usually has good water beaches in this sub- Piscataway Creek had an historical rate of 1.5 opment in this subsegment. PISCATAWAY 25%, and extensive marsh 14%. SHORE: Private use in the residential shore, most of quality. Seasonal segment. feet per year. However, this area has been CREEK NEARSHORE: Narrow 74%. The remainder of sections and some commercial use which is subject water quality problems artificially stabilized, thus stopping the 2.4 miles the subsegment is located in the mouth of (marinas). to flooding during stem from upstream shoreline retreat. (3.7 miles Piscataway Creek. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. abnormally high pollution. of fastland) waters. Many dwellings are below 5-foot elevations, some of which could be inundated during floods. 2 FASTIAND: Low shore 44%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 46%, residen- Private. Low. The majority Satisfactory. The There are no beaches No data. The area appears stable. There are Low. The wooded area near the PISCATAWAY shore 31%, moderately low shore with tial 3%, and unmanaged, wooded 51%. of the segment has only probable causes in this segment. no endangered or shore protective structures. Route 17 bridge could be developed CREEK bluff 3%, moderately high shore 9%, high SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the elevations of at of pollution in as a campground with nature trails 17.7 miles shore 12%, and high shore with bluff 1%. marshes, though mostly unused. least 5 feet and is Piscataway Creek would and fishing aiaenities. (28.2 miles SHORE: Fringe marsh 26%, embayed marsh CREEK: Some sport boating and fish- not exposed to be from boating activ- of fastland) 47%, and extensive marsh 27%. ing. direct wind or wave ities and agricultural CREEK: Piscataway Creek has depths of actions. There are runoff. 4 feet at the mouth, with greater depths no endangered for 5 miles upstream. structures. 3A FASTLAND: Artificial fill 13% and low FASTLAND: Agricultural 56% and Private. Moderate, critical. Poor. The area of Poor. The only Moderate, noncritical. While most of the Low. The present development of PISCATAWAY shore 87%. residential 44%. Most of the subseg- water just south of beaches in this sub- area has a moderate historical erosion rate the shoreline prohibits any for- CREEK TO SHORE: Artificially stabilized 25%, SHORE: Private use along the residen- ment has elevations Hoskins Creek is pol- segment have been of 2.4 to 2.5 feet per year, most residential ther or alternate use. The area HOSKINS CREEK beach 19%, fringe marsh 21%, embayed tial sections. of 5 feet and would luted due to effluents trapped by the groin areas have been artificially stabilized, thus will probably remain basically 3.8 miles marsh 6%, and extensive marsh 29%. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. probably be flooded from several sewage fields. slowing down the shoreline retreat. agricultural with a residential (3.2 miles NEARSHORE: Narrow. during abnormally treatment plants and shoreline fringe. of fastland) high waters. Most industrial discharges dwellings are built which flow into Hoskins along the 5-foot Creek. contour line and could be damaged during a flood. 22 TABLE 2 (cont'd.) SUBSEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS USE OWNERSHIP FLOOD HAZARD WATER QUALITY BEACH QUALITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION ALTERNATE SHORE USE 3B FASTLAND: Artificial fill 4%, low shore FASTLAND: Agricultural 26%, commer- Private 92% LOW. The majority Poor. Hoskins Creek There are no beaches No data. The area appears stable. There is Low. The wooded bluff areas along HOSKINS CREEK 48%, low shore with bluff 2%, moderately cial 3%, industrial 10%, residential and of the shoreline has been degraded by in this subsegment. approximately 1,200 feet of effective bulkhead the creek head and limited access 13.0 miles low shore 26%, moderately low shore With 6%, and unmanaged, wooded 55%. county 8%. has elevations of natural swamp condi- at the mouth of Hoskins Creek. to the shoreline hinder development (15.7 miles bluff 4%, high shore 11%, and high shore SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the at least 20 feet. tions as well as in- along the creek. of fastland) with bluff 5%. marshes. There are two sewage out- Only the marsh dustrial and domestic SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2%, falls and one industrial waste out- areas are subject waste discharges. fringe marsh 41%, and embayed marsh 57%. fall emptying into Hoskins Creek. to flooding. There CREEK: The entrance channel to Hoskins CREEK: Some sport fishing but very are no endangered Creek had controlling depths of 10 feet little other use. dwellings. in 1972. 4A FASTLAND: Low shore 69% and low shore FkSTIAM-. hgricuitotai 4Y/. and Private. Low. The majority Fair to good. Al- Poor. There are Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Low. There is little available HOSKINS CREEK with bluff 31%. residential 57%. of the shoreline though boating activi- only narrow, strip The bluffs along the shoreline just south of land left inthe Tappahannock area TO MOUNT SHORE: Artificially stabilized 48%, SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the has elevations of ties tend to lower the beaches in this Mount Landing Creek are experiencing an his- for development. The remainder of LANDING CREEK beach 36%, fringe marsh 3%, and embayed marshes and access to the water along at least 10 feet. water quality this subsegment. torical erosion rate of 2.7 feet per year. the shoreline is being developed 3.6 miles marsh 12%. Tappahannock's shoreline. Only the marshes portion of the Rappa- There is a total figure of approximately for residential purposes and no (3.7 miles NEARSHORE: Narrow 56% and wide 21%. NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing, are subject to hannock River usually 9,200 feet of effective bulkhead and rubble alternative use is expected. of fastland) and other water-related activities. flooding. has good water quality riprap along the shoreline of the Town of Tappahannock. Several other areas have partially effective groin systems. 4B FASTIAND: Low shore 67%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 31% and Private. Low. The lack of Good. There are no Poor. There is No data. The area appears stable. There are Low. The subsegment will probably MOUNT LANDING shore 4%, moderately low shore with unmanaged, wooded 69%. direct wind and pollution sources only a small sec- no endangered or shore protective structures. remain basically rural in nature. CREEK bluff 3%, moderately high shore 8%, high SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the wave actions on along Mount Landing tion of narrow, 11.5 miles shore 13%, and high shore with bluff 5%. marshes but mostly unused. the shore and rela- Creek. strip beach in this (15.1 miles SHORE: Beach 2%, fringe marsh 14%, and CREEK: Some fishing but little other tive height of the subsegment. of fastland) embayed marsh 84%. use. fastland makes CREEK: Mount Landing Creek has depths flooding unlikely. of 3 feet at the entrance, with deeper water inside for 3.5 miles. 5A FASTLAND: Low shore 65%, low shore with FASTIAND: Agricultural 63%, residen- Private. Low. The fastland Fair to good. Al- Poor. The majority Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Low. Although some residential MALLORYS POINT bluff 18%, moderately low shore 11%, and tial 32%, and unmanaged, wooded 5%. elevations range though the Rappahan- of the beaches in Though the entire subsegment has an historical development is probable, little TO JENKINS moderately low shore with bluff 6%. SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the from 5 to 20 feet nock River usually has this subsegment are erosion rate of 2.3 feet per year, most of the significant change is expected in LANDING SMRF*. Artificially stabilized 16%, marshes and private use. and only the good water quality, located in the shoreline near Mallorys Point has been artifi- the shorelands use. 3.5 miles beach 33%, fringe marsh 9%, embayed NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing, marshes are subject seasonal problems oc- groin fields. cially stabilized. The bluffs along the (4.4 miles marsh 1%, and extensive marsh 41%. and other water-related activities. to flooding. There cur due to upstream shoreline fronting the agricultural lands and of fastland) NEARSHORE: Intermediate 59% and wide are no dwellings waste discharges and some residences near Jenkins Landing are still 26%. The remainder of the subsegment below the 5-foot agricultural runoff. retreating at a moderate rate. is located along the marsh creek. contour. 5B FASTIAND: Low shore 64%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 71% and Private. Low. The fastland Fair to good. The There are no beache s Severe, noncritical. This subsegment has an Low. It is expected that this area JENKINS shore 9%, moderately high shore 10%, mod- unmanaged, wooded 29%. is fronted by an Rappahannock River in this subsegment. historical erosion rate of 3.9 to 4.4 feet per will remain basically rural in LANDING TO erately high shore with bluff 3%, high SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the extensive marsh usually has good water year. There are no endangered or shore pro- nature. SLUICE CREEK shore 5%, and high shore with bluff 9%. marshes but mostly unused. system, which acts quality. Seasonal tective structures. 10.9 miles SHORE: Fringe marsh 28%, embayed marsh NEARS110RE- Sport boating ard fish- as a flood control pollution is caused by (10.4 miles 22%, and extensive marsh 50%. ing. agent. upstream waste dis- of fastland) NEARSHORE; Wide 15%. The remainder of charges and agricul- the subsegment is located along the tural runoff. marsh creeks. 6A FASTIAND: Entirely low shore. FASTLAND: Agricultural 90% and on- Private. Low. The majority Fair to good. The Poor. There are Moderate, noncritical. This subsegment has Low. This subsegment will proba- SLUICE CREEK SHORE: Beach 10%, fringe marsh 24%, and managed, wooded 10%. of the shoreline subsegment usually has only narrow, strip an historical erosion rate of 1.9 feet per bly remain an agricultural area. TO FARMERS extensive marsh 66%. SHORE: Mostly unused. has elevations 0 fgood water quality. beaches in this year. There are no endangered or shore HALL CREEK NEARSHORE: Intermediate 41%. The re- NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fish- at least 10 feet. Some problems occur subsegment. protective structures. 4.0 miles mainder of the nearshore is located in ing. There are no en- from upstream pollu- (3.1 miles the entrance of Farmers Hall Creek. dangered struc- tion a-hd agricultural of fastland) tures. runoff. 6B FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. FASTLAND: Agricultural 977. and Private. Low. This subseg- Good. Any pollution There are no No data. The area appears stable. There Low. Little alternate use seems FARMERS HALL SHORE: Fringe marsh 26%, embayed marsh industrial 3%. ment is not exposed in this subsegment beaches in this are no endangered or shore protective probable. The area is expected to CREEK AND 72%, and extensive marsh 2%. SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the to wind and wave would be from agricul- subsegment. structures. remain primarily agricultural. BRICK HILL CREEKS: The creeks in this subsegment marshes. The industrial section is a actions, and the tural runoff and the CREEK are.too narrow and shallow for classifi- gravel pit. majority of the gravel pit. 7.0 miles cation. CREEKS: Some fishing but mostly fastland has ele- (5.0 miles unused. vations of at of fastland) least 10 feet. 213 TABLE 2 (cont'd.) SUBSEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS USE OWNERSHIP FLOOD HAZARD WATER QUALITY BEACH QUALITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION ALTERNATE SHORE USE 6C FASTLAND: Low shore 99% and low shore FASTLAND: Agricultural 91% and Private. Low. The fastland Good. It appears the There are no beaches No data. The area appears stable. There are Low. Without good access to the OCCUPACIA with bluff 1%. unmanaged, wooded 9%. is fronted by creeks are experiencing in this subsegment. no endangered or shore protective structures. river the area has limited develop- CREEK AND SHORE: Fringe marsh 55%, embayed marsh SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the marshes which act no water quality prob- ment potential. This subsegment BRIDGE CREEK 36%, and extensive marsh 9%. marshes but mostly unused. as natural flood lems. will probably remain rural, with 19.4 miles CREEKS: The creeks in this subsegment CREEKS: Some fishing but mostly control agents. agriculture being the prime user. (14.3 miles are too narrow and shallow for classifi- unused. There are no of fastland) cation. dwellings below the 10-foot contour. 7A FASTLAND: Low shore 78%, low shore with FASTLAND: Agricultural 97% and com- Private. Low. The fastland Good. The Rappahan- Poor. There are Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Low. The rural nature of the sub- ISLAND POINT, bluff 10%, moderately low shore 4%, and mercial 3%. has elevations of nock River generally only narrow, strip The marshes at Island Point and Beverly Marsh segment will probably remain un- TO OTTERBURN moderately low shore with bluff 8%. SHORE: Some commercial use (marina) at least 10 feet has good water quality beaches in this sub- are experiencing a moderate erosion rate of changed. There appears to be no MARSH SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1%, but mostly unused. and only the although some pollution segment. 1.7 to 1.9 feet per year. Otterburn Marsh and need for any alternate type of 13.2 miles beach 4%. fringe marsh 33%, embayed marsh NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing, marshes are subject does occur from indus- south to Layton has an erosion rate of 1.3 development. (8.7 miles 4%, and extensive marsh 58%. and other water-related activities. to flooding. trial and domestic feet per year. There is approximately 400 of fastland) NEARSHORE: Entirely narrow. waste upstream. feet total of bulkhead and rubble riprap near Layton. These structures appear to be effec- tive. 7B FASTLAND: Low shore 55%, low shore with FASTLAND: Agricultural 96%, commer- Private. Low. The fastland Fair to good. The Poor. There are Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Low. This area lacks good beaches OTTERBURN bluff 16%, moderately low shore 20%, and cial 2%, and residential 2%. has elevations of water quality of the only narrow, strip The shoreline in the meander is suffering from and shore access, which limits its MARSH TO moderately low shore with bluff 9%. SHORE: Private use and some commer- at least 10 feet Rappahannock River is beaches in this sub- minor erosion due to normal river currents. desirability for residential or ELMWOOD CREEK SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2%, beach cial use (marina). and is not subject sometimes affected by segment. There are three areas with a combined total of recreational use. 11.2 miles 16%, fringe marsh 26%, embayed marsh 41%, NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing, to flooding. point source discharge 1,000 feet of effective bulkheading. (10.2 miles and extensive marsh 15%. and other water-related activities. upstream and boating of fastland) NEARSHORE: Narrow 54%. The remainder of activities. However, the subsegment is located along the the river usually has creeks. good water quality. 8A FASTIAND: Low shore 81% and low shore FASTIAND: Entirely agricultural. Private. Low. This area is Fair to good. The Poor. This subseg- Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Low. There seems to be little need ELMWOOD CREEK with bluff 19%. SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the not subject to wind Rappahannock River ment has narrow, The area to the north of Elmwood Creek is for any alternate shore use. The TO HORSE SHORE: Beach 25%, fringe marsh 17%, and marshes but mostly unused. and wave actions. generally has good strip beaches. experiencing an historical erosion rate of subsegment will probably continue HEAD POINT extensive marsh 58%. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fish- There are no en- water quality. Some 1.5 feet per year. There are no endangered to be a rural - agricultural area. 4.3 miles NEARSHORE: Entirely narrow. ing. dangered struc- seasonal problems or shore protective structures. (2.7 miles tures. result from upstream of fastland) industrial and domes- tic discharge. 8B FASTLAND: Low shore 65%, low shore with FASTLAND: Entirely agricultural. Private. Low. The majority Fair to good. The Poor. There are Moderate, noncritical. The marshes in Green Low. There seems to be no need GREEN BAY bluff 27%, and moderately low shore 8%. SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the of the fastland is Rappahannock River only thin, strip Bay are experiencing an historical erosion for alternate shore use in the sub- 8.0 miles SHORE: Beach 2% and extensive marsh 97%. marshes but mostly unused. fronted by marsh, generally has good beaches in this rate of 2.1 to 2.5 feet per year. There are segment. The area will probably (3.3 miles NEARSHORE: Entirely narrow. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fish- which acts as a water quality. subsegment. no endangered or shore protective structures. remain basically rural in nature. of fastland) ing. natural flood control agent. 8C FASTLAND: Low shore 89%, low shore with FASTLAND: Entirely agricultural. Private. Low. The majority Fair to good. The Poor. There are Slight or no change. There are no endangered Low. Like most of the county's MARSH POINT TO bluff 7%, and moderately low shore 4%. SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the of the fastland Rappahannock River only narrow, strip or shore protective structures. shorelands, this area is used for COUNTY LINE SHORE: Beach 31%, fringe marsh 11%, marshes but mostly unused. has elevations of generally has good beaches in this agriculture. There seems to be 4.5 miles embayed marsh 20%, and extensive marsh NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fish- at least 20 feet water quality. Some subsegment. little need for development in the (3.9 miles 38%. ing. and is not subject problems arise from subsegment. of fastland) NEARSHORE: Narrow 35% and wide 30%. to flooding. There industrial and domes- The remainder of the subsegment is are no endangered tic waste, agricul- located along Portabago Creek. structures. tural runoff and boat- ing activities. 24 SUBSEGMENT 1A Water Quality Inventory (305(b)Report) (Vir- makeup of shorelands' use is forseen. ginia State Water Control Board, April, 1976), COUNTY LINE TO BROWNS POINT this section of the Rappahannock River usually MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), MORATTICO meets the state water quality standards. How- Quadr., 1968; Maps 2 and 3 ever this section sometimes has lessened water USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), DUNNSVILLE quality due to upstream industrial pollution Quadr., 1968. and agricultural runoff. C&GS, #12237 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, EXTENT: 45,800 feet (8.6 mi.) of shoreline on the RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER., CORROTOMAN RIVER to Rappahannock River from the Essex/Middlesex BEACH QUALITY: Poor to good. The majority of Fredericksburg' VA, 12th ed., 1975. county line to Browns Point. The subsegment the subsegment has narrow, strip beaches. The also includes 78,200 feet (14.8 mi.) of fast- area just north of the Middlesex county line PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS llMay76 ES-lA/1-54. land. has a long, wide beach of fine-grained sand. SHORELANDS TYPE PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION FASTLAND: Low shore 37% (5.4 mi.), low shore EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to severe, with bluff 5% (0.7 mi.), moderately low shore noncritical. The Jones Point area is experi- 377. (5.5 mi.), moderately low shore with bluff encing a moderate erosion rate, while the area 9% (1.4 mi.), moderately high shore 7% (1.1 mi.), just west of Jones Point to Bowlers Wharf has moderately high shore with bluff 2% (0.3 mi.), a severe erosion rate of approximately 3.3 feet high shore 2% (0.2 mi.), and high shore with per year. Erosion is compounded along the bluff 1% (0.2 mi.). bluff areas in the subsegment. The bluffs are SHORE: Artificially stabilized 19% (1.6 mi.), affected by wave actions attacking the unpro- beach 63% (5.5 mi.), fringe marsh 1% (0.1 mi.), tected cliff base and by downhill rain runoff. embayed marsh 12% (1.0 mi.), and extensive ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. marsh 4% (0.4 mi.). SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: Most artificial NEARSHORE: Narrow 29% and wide 71%. stabilization is effective bulkhead. There are some areas of effective riprap and also SHORELANDS USE several groin fields of moderate effectiveness. FASTLAND: Agricultural 26% (3.9 mi.), commer- cial 4% (0.6 mi.), residential 29% (4.2 mi.), OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous boat and unmanaged, wooded 41% (6.1 mi.). ramps and piers in this subsegment. Garretts SHORE: Private use along the residential sec- Marina at Bowlers Wharf has berths for approx- tions, and some commercial use (marinas). The imately 60 vessels. remainder of the shoreline in this subsegment appears to be unused. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: NEARSHORE: Boating and other water-related This subsegment is basically rural in nature, activities. sixty-seven percent of the shorelands being either agricultural lands or unmanaged woods. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi- The residential - commercial usage is generally cally SE - NW in this subsegment. Fetches at confined to a thin strip of land along the Jones Point are ESE - 5.8 nm and NW - 10.0 nm. shore. The residences are usually found in At Browns Point, fetches are SE - 11.5 rm and clusters of fewer than ten houses, some of NNW - 4.1 nm. which are used as primary dwellings and others as vacation homes. Much of the shoreline is OWNERSHIP: Entirely private. experiencing erosion due to wind and wave at- tacks and downhill rain runoff. The many bluff FLOOD HAZARD: Low to moderate, noncritical. The areas are very susceptible to these forces. majority of the subsegment has elevations of at least 10 feet with the exception of the marsh ALTERNATE SHORE USE: areas. There are no dwellings below 5-foot Low. The subsegment will probably remain elevations. basically rural in nature. Though some con- L L tinued residential development along the shore- WATER QUALITY: Fair to good. According to the lands is to be expected, little change in the 25 SUBSEGMENT IB PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS IlMay76 ES-IB/55-85. EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, BROWNS POINT TO LOWERY POINT noncritical. The area from Browns Point to Wares Wharf has a moderate historical erosion Maps 3 and 4 rate of approximately 2.1 feet per year. How- ever, much of the shoreline has been artifi- cially stabilized. Erosion here is caused by EXTENT: 22,000 feet (4.2 mi.) of shoreline from storm induced wave actions and by downhill rain Browns Point to Lowery Point along the Rappa- runoff, both of which attack the exposed cliff hannock River. The subsegment also includes face. 46,600 feet (8.9 mi.) of fastland. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is approxi- SHORELANDS TYPE mately 3,OGO feet of bulkhead and 2,000 feet of FASTLAND: Low shore 93% (8.2 mi.), low shore rubble riprap in the subsegment. Several areas with bluff 1% (0.1 mi.), moderately low shore have groin systems fronting the bulkhead or 3% (0.3 mi.), and moderately low shore with riprap. Though the bulkheads and riprap appear bluff 3% (0.3 mi.). to be effective, most of the groins have been SHORE: Artificially stabilized 24% (1.0 mi.), only partially effective in creating buffer beach 49% (2.0 mi.), fringe marsh 5% (0.2 mi.), beaches. and embayed marsh 22% (1.0 mi.). NEARSHORE: Intermediate. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers and several privately owned boat ramps in this SHORELANDS USE subsegment. FASTLAND: Agricultural 24% (2.1 mi.), commer- cial 3% (0.3 mi.), recreational 2% (0.2 mi.), SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: residential 33% (2.9 mi.), and unmanaged, As in Subsegment IA, the shoreline is exten- wooded 38% (3.4 mi.). sively used for residential purposes, many SHORE: Some private and commercial use (mari- houses being vacation homes. Behind the shore- nas), but mostly unused. line, the subsegment is used for agriculture or NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. is unused. Twenty-two percent of the shore- line is embayed marsh, which is protected by WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi- the Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972. The bluff cally SE - NW. Fetches at Lowery Point are areas are susceptible to erosion and should be NW - 5.8 nm and SE - 11 nm. The fetch at Wares developed with caution. Wharf is SE - 15.7 nm. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: OWNERSHIP: Private. Low. The residential/recreational shore- line development will probably continue in some FLOOD HAZARD: Low to moderate, critical. Though areas of the subsegment. The rural nature of the majority of the subsegment has elevations the subsegment should not be changed because of of at least 10 feet, some structures along the this development. Care should be taken to en- shoreline are below elevations of 5 feet. sure that the shoreline does not become con- These structures are susceptible to flooding jested by residential build-up. This would not during periods of abnormally high water. only despoil the rural atmosphere of the sub- segment but would probably cause pollution of WATER QUALITY: Fair to good. According to the this section of the Rappahannock River. State Water Control Board's 305(b)Report, the Rappahannock River usually has good water MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), DUNNSVILLE quality. Seasonal water quality problems stem Quadr., 1968; from upstream industrial and domestic dis- USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), TAPPAHANNOCK charges as well as agricultural runoff. Quadr., 1968. C&GS, #12237 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, BEACH QUALITY: Poor. The majority of this sub- RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, CORROTOMAN RIVER to segment has narrow, strip beaches. Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. 26 SUBSEGMENT 1C PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, LOWERY POINT TO MOUTH OF PISCATAWAY CREEK noncritical. The area from Lowery Point to the mouth of Piscataway Creek had an historical Map 4 erosion rate of 1.5 feet per year. Field in- vestigations show little or no recent erosion except for the tip of Lowery Point, which is EXTENT: 13,000 feet (2.4 mi.) of shoreline from experiencing a slight shoreline retreat. Lowery Point to the mouth of Piscataway Creek. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. The subsegment also includes 19,400 feet (3.7 SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: This subsegment mi.) of fastland. has a total of 6,200 feet of bulkhead, much of which is fronted by groin systems. Lowery SHORELANDS TYPE Point has cement bag groins fronting the bulk- FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. heading and one residence has cement bags pro- SHORE: Artificially stabilized 48% (1.2 mi.), tecting the bulkhead toe. All bulkhead and beach 4% (0.1 mi.), fringe marsh 9% (0.2 mi.), some of the groins appear to be effective. embayed marsh 25% (0.6 mi.), and extensive marsh 14% (0.3 mi.). OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers NEARSHORE: Narrow 74%. The remainder of the in this subsegment. subsegment is located in the mouth of Piscata- way Creek. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Fifty-one percent of the shorelands are SHORELANDS USE presently used for residential and commercial FASTLAND: Agricultural 27% (1.0 mi.), commer- purposes. Many of the residences are used as cial 4% (0.2 mi.), residential 47% (1.7 mi.), second or vacation homes. Most remaining and unmanaged, wooded 22% (0.8 mi.). shoreline is comprised of embayed and extensive SHORE: Private use in the residential sections marshes which are protected by the Virginia ' and some commercial use (marinas). The remain- Wetlands Act of 1972. The interior fastland is der appears to be unused. used for agriculture. NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing, and other water-related activities. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. There is little available shoreline WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi- property in this subsegment which can be devel- cally ESE - WNW in this subsegment. The fetch oped. Since residences are mainly for vacation at Fairview is NNW - 2.2 nm. recreation, interior fastland behind marshes would hold little appeal for developers. It is OWNERSHIP: Private. expected that the subsegment will remain basi- cally rural in nature. FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate, critical. The entire subsegment has low shore, most of which is MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), TAPPARANNOCK subject to flooding during periods of abnor- Quadr., 1968. mally high water. Many dwellings are below C&GS, #12237 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, the 5-foot contour, some of which could be RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, CORROTOMAN RIVER to inundated during floods. Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. WATER QUALITY: Fair to good. The Rappahannock PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS llMay76 ES-lC/86-100. River usually has good water quality. Season- al water quality problems stem from upstream pollution. BEACH QUALITY: Poor. There are only narrow, strip beaches in this subsegment. 27 SEGMENT 2 PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data. The area appears PISCATAWAY CREEK stable. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. Map 4 SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. EXTENT: 93,600 feet (17.7 mi.) of shoreline along Piscataway Creek and Taylors Creek. The seg- SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: ment also includes 149,000 feet (28.2 mi.) of Seventy-four percent of the shoreline in fastland. this segment is either embayed or extensive marsh. These areas should remain in their SHORELANDS TYPE natural state, as they are important flood and FASTL&ND: Low shore 44% (12.5 mi.), moderately erosion control agents. Little or no new low shore 31% (8.7 mi.), moderately low shore development is expected in these areas. There with bluff 3% (0.7 mi.), moderately high shore is little,access to Piscataway Creek except at 9% (2.6 mi.), high shore 12% (3.3 mi.), and the Route 17 bridge. high shore with bluff 1% (0.4 mi.). SHORE: Fringe marsh 26% (4.7 mi.), embayed ALTERNATE SHORE USE: marsh 47% (8.3 mi.), and extensive marsh 27% Low. The wooded area near the Route 17 (4.7 mi.). bridge could be developed as a campground with CREEK: Piscataway Creek has depths of 4 feet nature trails and a boat ramp for fishing ac- at the entrance, with greater depths for 5 cess. Other areas will probably remain mostly miles upstream. unchanged. SHOREL&NDS USE MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), TAPPAHANNOCK FASTLAND: Agricultural 46% (13.2 mi.), resi- Quadr., 1968; dential 3% (0.7 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), DUNNSVILLE 51% (14.3 mi.). Quadr., 1968; SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the marsh USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), MOUNT LANDING areas, though mostly unused. Quadr., 1968. CREEK: Some sport boating and fishing. C&GS, #12237 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, CORROTOMAN RIVER to WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends first Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. NNE - SSW, then SE - NW. There are no signifi- cant fetches affecting the creek. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 11MAy76 ES-2/101 and 102. OWNERSHIP: Private. FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The majority of the segment has elevations of at least 5 feet and is not, exposed to direct wind and wave actions. The marsh areas are subject to flooding during periods of high rainfall upstream. There are no endangered structures. WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory. The only possible sources of pollution in Piscataway Creek would be from boating activities and agricultural runoff. BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this seg- ment. 28 SUBSEGMENT 3A PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION SUBSEGMENT 3B EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, PISCATAWAY CREEK TO HOSKINS CREEK noncritical. While most of the subsegment has HOSKINS CREEK a moderate historical erosion rate of from 2.4 Maps 4 and 5 to 2.5 feet per year, most residential areas Map 5 have been artificially stabilized. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. EXTENT: 20,000 feet (3.8 mi.) of shoreline from SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: The subsegment EXTENT: 68,800 feet (13.0 mi.) of shoreline the mouth of Piscataway Creek to the mouth of has approximately 5,000 feet of effective bulk- along Hoskins Creek. The subsegment also Hoskins Creek. The subsegment also includes head, located mainly at Island Farm and near includes 82,600 feet (15.7 mi.) of fastland. 17,000 feet (3.2 mi.) of fastland. Hoskins Creek. A marina on a creek near Jones Point has some bulkhead and two riprap jetties SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS TYPE at its entrance. The bulkheads at Island Farm FASTLAND: Artificial fill 4% (0.6 mi.), low FASTIAND: Artificial fill 13% (0.4 mi.) and and near Hoskins Creek are fronted by groin shore 48% (7.5 mi.), low shore with bluff 2% low shore 87% (2.8 mi.). fields, some of which are effective. (0.3 mi.), moderately low shore 26% (4.1 mi.), SHORE: Artificially stabilized 25% (1.0 mi.), moderately low shore with bluff 4% (0.6 mi.), beach 19% (0.7 mi.), fringe marsh 21% (0.8 mi.), OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers high shore 11% (1.7 mi.), and high shore with embayed marsh 6% (0.2 mi.), and extensive marsh and several boat ramps in the subsegment. bluff 5% (0.9 mi.). 29% (1.1 mi.). I SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2% (0.2 mi.), NEARSHORE: Narrow. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: fringe marsh 41% (5.3 mi.), and embayed marsh Nearly all the fastland with direct river 57% (7.5 mi.). SHORELANDS USE access has been developed for residential pur- CREEK: The entrance channel to Hoskins Creek FASTLAND: Agricultural 56% (1.8 mi.) and resi- poses. Marshes, which comprise the remaining had controlling depths of 10 feet in 1972. dential 44% (1.4 mi.). shoreline, are protected by state law. The remainder of the creek is too narrow and SHORE: Private use along the residential sec- shallow for classification. tions, such as strolling and bathing. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing, and other Low. The present development of available SHORELANDS USE water-related activities. shoreline prohibits further or alternate devel- FASTLAND: Agricultural 26% (4.1 mi.), com- opment in this subsegment. The area will prob- mercial 3% (0.4 mi.), industrial 10% (1.5 WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The subsegment trends basi- ably remain basically agricultural with a resi- mi.), residential 6% (0.9 mi.), and unmanaged, cally SE - NW. Fetches at Jones Point are ESE dential shoreline fringe. wooded 55% (8.7 mi.). 3.2 nm and NW - 4 nm. SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the marshes. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), TAPPAHANNOCK There are two sewage outfalls and one indus- OWNERSHIP: Private. Quadr., 1968. trial waste outfall emptying into Hoskins C&GS, #12237 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, Creek. FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate, critical. Most of the RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, CORROTOMAN RIVER to CREEK: Some fishing but very little other segment has elevations of 5 feet and would Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. use. probably be subject to flooding during abnor- mally high water. Most dwellings are placed PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS IlMay76 ES-3A/103-117. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: Hoskins Creek trends basi- along the 5-foot contour line, some on artifi- cally NE - SW. The creek is protected from cial fill. These structures could be damaged winds and waves. due to flooding during severe storm surges. OWNERSHIP: Private 92% and county 87.. WATER QUALITY: Poor. The water just south of Hoskins Creek is polluted due to effluents FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The majority of the shore- from several sewage treatment plants and in- line has elevations of at least 20 feet. Only dustrial discharges which flow into Hoskins the marsh areas are subject to flooding. Creek. WATER QUALITY: Poor. Hoskins Creek has been de- BEACH QUALITY: Poor. The only beaches have been graded by point source sewage disposal. The trapped by the groin fields. creek does not meet applicable water quality standards or the State Water Control Board's 305(b)(1)(B) criteria. 29 BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this sub- segment. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data. The area appears stable. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES- None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is approxi- mately 1,200 feet of effective bulkhead at the mouth of Hoskins Creek in Tappahannock. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers at the marinas and at the industrial site near the mouth.of Hoskins Creek. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: 4.j Fifty-seven percent of the shoreline is em- bayed marsh, which is protected by the Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972. Nineteen percent of the fastland is already actively used. Little ac- cess to the creek fastland limits inland devel- opment. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. The wooded bluff areas along the creek head and limited access to the shoreline hinder any development along the creek. Little alter- nate use is seen for Hoskins Creek. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), TAPPAHANNOCK Quadr., 1968; USGS,, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), MOUNT LANDING Quadr., 1968. C&GS, #12237 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, CORROTOMAN RIVER to Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS IlMay76 ES-3B/117-120. 30 SUBSEGMENT 4A BEACH QUALITY: Poor. There are only narrow, PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS IlMay76 ES-4A/118-137. strip beaches in this subsegment. HOSKINS CREEK TO MOUNT LANDING CREEK Ground-VIMS 25Feb73 ES_4A/ 1-33. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION Maps 5 and 6 EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. The bluffs along the shoreline south of Mount Landing Creek are experiencing EXTENT: 19,200 feet (3.6 mi.) of shoreline along moderate erosion at an historical rate of 2.7 the Rappahannock River from the mouth of Hos- feet per year. kins Creek to the mouth of Mount Landing Creek. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. The subsegment also includes 19,400 feet (3.7 SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is approx- mi.) of fastland. imately 9,000 feet of bulkhead and 200,feet of riprap in this subsegment, most of which is SHORELANDS TYPE located along the shoreline of the Town of FASTIAND: Low shore 69% (2.6 mi.) and low Tappahannock. These structures all appear to shore with bluff 31% (1.1 mi.). be effective. Several areas have groin sys- SHORE: Artificially stabilized 48% (1.7 mi.), tems fronting the shoreline, some of which are beach 36% (1.3 mi.), fringe marsh 3% (0.1 mi.), partially effective. and embayed marsh 12% (0.5 mi.). NEARSHORE: Narrow 56% and wide 21%. The re- OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers mainder of the shoreline is found on a creek and several boat ramps in the subsegment. The north of Tappahannock and is too narrow and Tappahannock Marina, northwest of the bridge, shallow for classification. has a boat ramp and berths for approximately 40 boats. SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Agricultural 43% (1.6 mi.) and resi- SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: dential 57% (2.1 mi.). The Town of Tappahannock Approximately one-half of the shoreline in has some commercial use along the shoreline near this subsegment is included in the Town of Tap- the Downing Bridge, but is too small to be in- pahannock. This shoreline is already "consumed" cluded in the fastland use figures. by residential and some commercial development. SHORE: Waterfowl hunting in the marshes and ac- The rest of the subsegment, located northeast cess to the water along Tappahannock's shore- of Tappahannock, is basically rural in nature. line. However, the strip of land bordering the shore- NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing, and other line in this section is used for residential water-related activities. purposes. The eroding bluffs along the shore- line could endanger any structure built too WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi- close to the shore. cally SE - NW in this subsegment. Fetches at the Downing Bridge are ESE - 4.7 nm and NNW - ALTERNATE SHORE USE: 3. 3 rmi. Low. There is little available land in Tappahannock for development. The rest of the OWNERSHIP: Private. shoreline is either being used or is being de- veloped for residential purposes. No alter- FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The majority of the shoreline nate shore use is expected for this subsegment. has average elevations of 10 feet, and only the marshes are subject to flooding. There are no MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), TAPPAHANNOCK dwellings below the 10-foot contour. Quadr., 1968; USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), MOUNT LANDING WATER QUALITY: Fair to good. Though boating ac- Quadr., 1968. tivities tend to lower water quality, the State C&GS, #12237 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, Water Control Board has determined that the RAPPAHANINOCK RIVER., CORROTO'MAN RIVER to Rappahannock River along this subsegment usu- Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. ally has good water quality. 31 SUBSEGMENT 4B WATER QUALITY: Good. There are no pollution sources along Mount Landing Creek. MOUNT LANDING CREEK BEACH QUALITY: Poor. There is only a small sec- Map 6 tion of narrow, strip beach in this subsegment.- PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EXTENT: 61,000 feet (11.5 mi.) of shoreline, in- EROSION RATE: No data. The area appears sta- cluding Mount Landing Creek and the Rappahan- ble. nock River to Mallorys Point. The subsegment ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. also includes 80,000 feet (15.5 mi.) of fast- SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. land. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Low shore 67% (10.2 mi.), moderately SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: low shore 4% (0.6 mi.), moderately low shore The present agricultural use of the shore- with bluff 3% (0.4 mi.), moderately high shore line along the river, combined with its low 8% (1.2 mi.), high shore 13% (2.0 mi.), and elevation, would limit development of this area. high shore with bluff 5% (0.7 mi.). The Mount Landing Creek shorelands are almost SHORE: Beach 2% (0.3 mi.), fringe marsh 14% entirely fronted by embayed marshes. The fast- (1.6 mi.), and embayed marsh 84% (9.6 mi.). land is generally wooded and many areas have NEARSHORE: Wide 11%. The remainder of the bluffs. These factors would tend to limit de- subsegment is located along Mount Landing velopment along the creek. Creek. CREEK: Mount Landing Creek has depths of 3 ALTERNATE SHORE USE: feet at the entrance with deeper water inside Low. The subsegment will probably remain for 3.5 miles. basically rural in nature. Little alternate development seems probable for the near future. SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Agricultural 31% (4.7 mi.) and un- MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), MOUNT LANDING managed, wooded 69% (10.5 mi.). Quadr., 1968. SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the marshes, C&GS, #12237 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, but mostly unused. RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, CORROTOMAN RIVER to CREEK: Some fishing, but little other use. Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. 4 WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: Mount Landing Creek trends PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS llMay76 ES-4B/138-143. basically W - E; the shoreline from the creek to Mallorys Point trends basically SW - NE. Fetches at Mallorys Point are NW - 2.5 nm and SE - 3.9 nm. Mount Landing Creek is protected from any significant fetches. OWNERSHIP: Private. FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The fastland is usually fronted by large marsh areas which help con- trol flood waters. The lack of direct wind and wave actions on the shore and relative height of the fastland makes flooding unlikely along the creek. Some flooding is possible southwest of Mallorys Point, where the fastland has aver- age elevations of 5 feet. No structures are endangered. 32 SUBSEGMENT 5A in this subsegment are located in the groin SUBSEGMENT 5B fields. MALLORYS POINT TO JENKINS LANDING JENKINS LANDING TO SLUICE CREEK PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION Map 6 EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, Map s 6 and 7 noncritical. Though the entire subsegment has an historical erosion rate of 2.3 feet per year, EXTENT: 18,600 feet (3.5 mi.) of shoreline along most of the shoreline near Mallorys Point has EXTENT: 58,000 feet (10.9 mi.) of shoreline from the Rappahannock River from Mallorys Point to been artificially stabilized. The bluffs along Jenkins Landing to the mouth of Sluice Creek, Jenkins Landing. The subsegment also includes the shoreline fronting the agricultural lands including Broad Creek. The subsegment also 23,000 feet (4.4 mi.) of fastland. and residences near Jenkins Landing are still includes 55,200 feet (10.4 mi.) of fastland. retreating at a moderate rate. SHORELANDS TYPE ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: No structures are en- SHORELANDS TYPE FASTIAND: Low shore 65% (2.8 mi.), low shore dangered at the present time. FASTLAND: Low shore 64% (6.6 mi.), moderately with bluff 18% (0.8 mi.), moderately low shore SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is 3,000 low shore 9% (0.9 mi.), moderately high shore 11% (0.5 mi.), and moderately low shore with feet of effective bulkhead in the subsegment. 10% (1. 1 mi.), moderately high shore with bluff 6% (0.3 mi.). Groins fronting some areas seem to be at least bluff 3% (0.3 mi.), high shore 5% (0.5 mi.), SHORE: Artificially stabilized 16% (0.6 mi.), partially effective. and high shore with bluff 9% (1.0 mi.). beach 33% (1.1 mi.), fringe marsh 9% (0.3 mi.), SHORE: Fringe marsh 28% (3.1 mi.), embayed embayed marsh 1% (0.1 mi..), and extensive OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers marsh 22% (2.4 mi.), and extensive marsh 50% marsh 41% (1.4 mi.). and one boat ramp in the subsegment. (5.4 mi.). NEARSHORE: Intermediate 59% and wide 26%. The NEARSHORE: Wide 15%. The remainder of the remainder of the subsegment is located along SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: subsegment is located along the marsh creeks. the marsh creek. one-third of the fastland is already devel- oped for residential use. The bluffs along the SHOREIANDS USE SHORELANDS USE shoreline fronting some residences are eroding, FASTLAND: Agricultural 71% (7.4 mi.) and un- FASTIAND: Agricultural 63% (2.7 mi.), residen- which could become a problem in future years. managed, wooded 29% (3.0 mi.). tial 32% (1.4 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 5% Undeveloped shoreline areas are rural, being SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the marshes (0.2 mi.). either wooded or used for agriculture. Many of but mostly unused. SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the marshes these areas are also eroding, which limit NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing, and other and private use. shoreline development. water-related activities. NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing and other water-related activities. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi- Low. Though some continued residential de- cally S - N in the subsegment. Fetches at WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi- velopment is probable, little significant change Blandfield Point are N - 2.2 nm and SE - 2.0 nm. cally E - W in this subsegment. Fetches at the is expected in the shoreline use. The rural middle of the subsegment are N - 2.7 nm and nature of the subsegment will probably remain OWNERSHIP: Private. ENE - 2.2 nm. unchanged. FLOOD HAZARD: Low.. The fastland is fronted by OWNERSHIP: Private. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), MOUNT LANDING an extensive marsh system, which acts as a -D Quadr., 1968. flood control agent. FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The fastland elevations C&GS, #12237 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, range from 5 to 20 feet, with no structures RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, CORROTOMAN RIVER to WATER QUALITY: Fair to good. The water quality a located below the 5-foot contour. Only marsh Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. of the Rappahannock River is usually good. 'D areas are subject to flooding. Some pollution is caused by upstream industrial PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS llMay76 ES-5A/143-160. and domestic discharges, agricultural runoff 0 WATER QUALITY: Fair to good. Although the Rappa- and by boating activities. hannock River in this subsegment usually has good water quality, seasonal problems arise due BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this sub- J to upstream industrial and domestic waste pol- segment. lution and agricultural runoff. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION BEACH QUALITY:,Poor. The majority of the beaches EROSION RATE: Severe, noncritical. The marshes 33 in this subsegment have an historical erosion rate of 3.9 to 4.4 feet per year. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There.is one pier with a boat house attached in Sluice Creek. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The fastland in this subsegment is fronted by an extensive marsh system, which would limit access to the shoreline. These marshes are pro- tected by the Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972. Also, this area has no viable inland access to the fastland. The'lack of roads also would limit the desirability of thisarea for devel- opment. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. It is expected that the subsegment will remain basically rural in nature. No new devel- opment is probable for this area. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), MOUNT LANDING Quadr., 1968; USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CHAMPLAIN Quadr., 1968, pr. 1973. C&GS,,#12237 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER., CORROTOMAN RIVER to Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS IlMay76 ES-5B/161-171. 34 SUBSEGMENT 6A SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. SUBSEGMENT 6B SLUICE CREEK TO FARMERS HALL CREEK OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. FARMERS HALL CREEK AND BRICK HILL CREEK Nap 7 SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Map 7 This area is used extensively for agricul- tural purposes. Any development would be at EXTENT: 21,000 feet (4.0 mi.) of shoreline from the sacrifice of the agriculture. The shore- EXTENT: 37,000 feet (7.0 mi.) of shoreline along the mouth of Sluice Creek to the mouth of Farm- line, however, is eroding at a moderate rate of Farmers Hall Creek and Brick Hill Creek. The ers Hall Creek. The subsegment also includes 1.9 feet per year. Any building along the subsegment also includes 26,200 feet (5.0 mi.) 16,200 feet (3.1 mi.) of fastland. shoreline would have to cope with this problem. of fastland. SHORELANDS TYPE ALTERNATE SHORE'USE: SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. Low. The subsegment will probably remain as FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. SHORE: Beach 10% (0.4 mi.), fringe marsh 24% an agricultural area. With little good access, SHORE: Fringe marsh 26% (1.9 mi.), embayed (0.9 mi.), and extensive marsh 66% (2.7 mi.). the area would not be a prime target for any marsh 72% (5.0 mi.), and extensive marsh 2% NEARSHORE. Intermediate 41%. The remainder of alternate type of development. (0.1 mi.). the nearshore is in the entrance to Farmers CREEK: The creeks in this subsegment are too Hall Creek. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CHAMPLAIN narrow and shallow for classification. Quadr., 1968, pr. 1973. SHORELANDS USE C&GS, #12237 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Agricultural 90% (2.8 mi.) and un- RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER., CORROTOMAN RIVER to FASTLAND: Agricultural 97% (4.8 mi.) and in- managed, wooded 10% (0.3 mi.). Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. dustrial 3% (0.2 mi.). SHORE: Mostly unused. SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the marshes. NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing and other PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 1lMay76 ES-6A/168-179. The industrial section is a gravel pit along water-related activities. Farmers Hall Creek. CREEK: Some fishing, but mostly unused. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi- cally SE - NW in the subsegment. The fetch at WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: Farmers Hall Creek trends Daingerfield Landing is SE - 2.0 nm. basically SW - NE; Brick Hill Creek trends basically NW - SE. There are no significant OWNERSHIP: Private. fetches affecting the subsegment. FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The majority of the shore- OWNERSHIP: Private. line has elevations of 10 feet. There are no endangered structures. FLOOD HAZARD: Low. This subsegment is not ex- posed to wind and wave actions, and the major- WATER QUALITY: Fair to good. Although the Rappa- ity of the fastland has elevations of 10 feet. hannock River usually has good water quality, some problems arise from upstream pollution and WATER QUALITY: Good. Any pollution in this sub- from agricultural runoff. segment would be from agricultural runoff and the gravel pit. BEACH QUALITY: Poor. There are only narrow, strip beaches in this subsegment. BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this sub- segment. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Moderate, noncritical. This PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION subsegment has an historical erosion rate of EROSION RATE: No data. The area appears 1.9 feet per year. Erosion mainly affects the stable. low bluffs southeast of Daingerfield Landing, ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. where wind and waves undercut the toe and rain -SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. runoff causes slumping of the cliff face. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. 35 4 SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: SUBSEGMENT 6C SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Seventy-four percent of the shoreline is The embayed and extensive marshes, which either embayed or extensive marsh, which should OCCUPACIA CREEK AND BRIDGE CREEK comprise forty-five percent of the shoreline, be preserved. The creeks in this subsegment should be preserved. The creeks are too nar- are too shallow to allow good boat access to Maps 7 and 8 row and shallow for good boat access to most the creek heads. Also, there is no good inland areas. access to the area, and without water fronted fastland, limited development for this area EXTENT: 102,800 feet (19.4 mi.) of shoreline ALTERNATE SHORE USE: seems probable. along Occupacia and Bridge Creeks. The subseg- Low. Without access to the water and with- ment also includes 75,800 feet (14.3 mi.) of out boat access to the river, the area has ALTERNATE SHORE USE: fastland. very limited development possibilities. The Low. Little alternate use for the shore- subsegment will probably remain rural in na- lands seems probable. The area will probably SHORELANDS TYPE ture, with agriculture continuing to be the continue to be used primarily for agriculture. FASTLAND: Low shore 99% (14.2 mi.) and low prime user of the fastland. shore with bluff 1% (0.1 mi.). MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CHAMPLAIN SHORE: Fringe marsh 55% (10.6 mi.), embayed MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CHAMPLAIN. Quadr., 1968, pr. 1973. marsh 36% (7.0 mi.), and extensive marsh 9% Quadr., 1968, pr. 1973. C&GS, #12237 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, (1.8 mi.). C&GS, #122137 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, CORROTOMAN RIVER to CREEKS: The creeks included in this subsegment RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, CORROTOMAN RIVER to Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. are too narrow and shallow for classification. Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. PHOTOS: None. SHORELANDS USE PHOTOS: None. FASTLAND: Agricultural 91% (13.0 mi.) and un- managed, wooded 9% (1.3 mi.). SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the marshes, but mostly unused. CREEKS: Some fishing but mostly unused. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The creeks trend basically N - S. No fetches affect the subsegment. OWNERSHIP: Private. FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The fastland is fronted by marshes which act as natural flood control agents. There are no dwellings below the 10- foot contour line. WATER QUALITY: Good. It appears the creeks are experiencing no water quality problems. Any agricultural runoff is filtered by the marshes fronting the fastland. BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this sub- segment. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data. The area appears stable. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. 36 SUBSEGMENT 7A noncritical. The marshes at Island Point and SUBSEGMENT 7B Beverly Marsh are experiencing moderate erosion ISLAND POINT TO OTTERBURN MARSH at an historical rate of 1.7 to 1.9 feet per OTTERBURN MARSH TO ELWOOD CREEK year. The area from Otterburn Marsh to south Maps 7 and 8 of Layton has an historical erosion rate of 1.3 Maps 8 and 9 feet per year. The bluffs along the Layton shoreline are susceptible to both wind and wave EXTENT: 69,600 feet (13.2 mi.) of shoreline along attacks and downhill rain runoff. EXTENT: 59,000 feet (11.2 mi.) of shoreline from the Rappahannock River from Island Point to Ot- ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. Otterburn Marsh to the mouth of Elmwood Creek, terburn Marsh. The subsegment also includes SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is approxi- including Elmwood and Stillwater Creeks. The 46,200 feet (8.7 mi.) of fastland. mately 200 feet of rubble riprap and 200 feet subsegment also includes 54,400 feet (10.2 of bulkhead near Layton. Both structures ap- mi.) of fastland. SHORELANDS TYPE pear to be effective. FASTLAND: Low shore 78% (6.8 mi.), low shore SHORELANDS TYPE with bluff 10% (0.9 mi.), moderately low shore OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers FASTLAND: Low shore 55% (5.6 mi.), low shore 4% (0.3 mi.), and moderately low shore with in the subsegment and a boat ramp at Layton. with bluff 16% (1.6 mi.), moderately low shore bluff 8% (0.7 mi.). 20% (2.0 mi.), and moderately low shore with SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1% (0.1 mi.), SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: bluff 9% (1.0 mi.). beach 4% (0.6 mi.), fringe marsh 33% (4.3 mi.), Sixty-two percent of the shoreline is either SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2% (0.2 mi.), embayed marsh 4% (0.6 mi.), and extensive marsh embayed or extensive marsh, which limits any beach 16% (1.8 mi.), fringe marsh 26% (2.9 58% (7.6 mi.). development in the fastland behind. This sub- mi.), embayed marsh 41% (4.6 mi.), and exten- NEARSHORE: Narrow for the entire subsegment. segment is used extensively for agricultural sive marsh 15% (1.7 mi.). purposes. Any construction would be at the NEARSHORE: Narrow 54%. The remainder of the SHORELANDS USE sacrifice of these lands. Also, the eroding subsegment is located along the creeks, which FASTIAND: Agricultural 97% (8.5 mi.) and com- bluffs along the shoreline near Layton would are too narrow and shallow for classification. mercial 3% (0.2 mi.). limit residential construction. SHORE: Some commercial use (marina), but SHORELANDS USE mostly unused. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: FASTLAND: Agricultural 96% (9.9 mi.), commer- NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing and other Low. The rural nature of the subsegment cial 2% (0.2 mi.), and residential 2% (0.2 mi.). water-related activities. will probably remain unchanged. There appears SHORE: Private use and commercial use (mari- to be no need for any alternate type of devel- nas). WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends first opment. NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing and other SSE - NNW. The fetch at Island Point is SSE - water-related activities. 3.3 nm. The fetch at Layton is ESE - 3.1 nm. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CHAMPLAIN Quadr., 1968, pr. 1973; WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The subsegment trends ba- OWNERSHIP: Private. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), LORETTO sically E - W through a meander in the river. Quadr., 1968, pr. 1972. The fetch northwest of Ketch Point is N - 2.4 FLOOD HAZARD: Low. With the fastland having ele- C&GS, #12237 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, nm. However, the fetch is probably not a sig- vations of 10 feet, only the marshes are sub- RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER) CORROTOMAN RIVER to nificant factor since the'river is less than ject to flooding. There are no endangered Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. k mile wide north of the subsegment. structures. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS llMay76 ES-7A/179-233. OWNERSHIP: Private. WATER QUALITY: Fair to good. The Rappahannock River generally has good water quality. Some FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The fastland has elevations pollution may occur due to upstream industrial of at least 10 feet near the shoreline. and domestic waste discharge and by agricul- tural runoff. WATER QUALITY: Fair to good. The water quality of the Rappahannock River is sometimes affected BEACH QUALITY: Poor. There are only narrow, by point source discharge upstream, agricul- strip beaches in this subsegment. tural runoff and boating activities. However, the river. usually has good water quality. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, BEACH QUALITY: Poor. This subsegment has only 37 lei thin, strip beaches. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. The shoreline in the meander is suffering from minor erosion due to normal riv- er currents, which locate to the outside of a bend. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are three areas which have a combined total of approxi- mately 1,000 feet of bulkhead. All structures appear to be effective. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers in the subsegment. A boat house is located west of Saunders Wharf. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Though some houses are located along the shoreline, the subsegment is used predominantly for agriculture. Any construction would be at the sacrifice of these lands. Though there is only minor erosion in the subsegment, this would limit development of the shoreline. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. The subsegment will probably remain a rural area. The section lacks good beaches and shore access, which limits its desirability as a residential or recreational area. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), LORETTO Quadr., 1968, pr. 1972. C&GS, #12237 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, CORROTOMAN RIVER to Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS IlMay76 ES-7B/234-257. 38 SUBSEGMENT 8A OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. SUBSEGMENT 8B ELMWOOD CREEK TO HORSE HEAD POINT SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: GREEN BAY This subsegment is used exclusively for Map 9 agricultural purposes, which limits other use. Maps 9 and 10 Also, the area is isolated from any existing residential-industrial-commercial center, thus EXTENT: 22,600 feet (4.3 mi.) of shoreline on the limiting the need for development. Lastly, EXTENT: 42,600 feet (8.0 mi.) of shoreline on the Rappahannock River, from the mouth of Elmwood the shoreline is located at least one mile Rappahannock River from Horse Head Point to Creek to Horse Head Point. The subsegment also from any existing state-maintained road. Marsh Point. The subsegment also includes includes 14,400 feet (2.7 mi.) of fastland. 17,600 feet (3.3 mi.) of fastland. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: SHORELANDS TYPE Low. There seems to be little need for any SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Low shore 81% (2.2 mi.) and low alternate shore use. The subsegment will prob- FASTLAND: Low shore 65% (2.1 mi.), lowshore shore with bluff 19% (0.5 mi.). ably continue to be a rural-agricultural area. with bluff 27% (0.9 mi.), and moderately low SHORE: Beach 25% (1.1 mi.), fringe marsh 17% shore 8% (0.3 mi.). (0.7 mi.), and extensive marsh 58% (2.5 mi.). MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), ROLLINS FORK SHORE: Beach 2% (0.2 mi.) and extensive marsh NEARSHORE: Narrow for the entire length of the Quadr., 1968; 97% (7.8 mi.). subsegment. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), LORETTO NEARSHORE: Narrow for the entire subsegment. Quadr., 1968, pr. 1972. SHORELANDS USE C&GS, #12237 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Entirely agricultural. RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, CORROTOMAN RIVER to FASTLAND: Entirely agricultural. SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the marshes Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the marshes but mostly unused. but mostly unused. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS IlMay76 ES-8A/257-279. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi- WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends cally S - N in the subsegment. No significant first N - S, then S - N through a meander. fetches affect the subsegment. There are no significant fetches affecting the subsegment. OWNERSHIP: Private. OWNERSHIP: Private. FLOOD HAZARD: Low. This area is not subject to wind and wave actions. There are no endangered FLOOD HAZARD- Low. The majority of the fastland structures. is fronted by marsh, which acts as a natural flood control agent. There are no endangered WATER QUALITY: Fair to good. The Rappahannock structures. River generally has good water quality. Some seasonal problems result from agricultural run- WATER QUALITY: Fair to good'. The Rappahannock off and from upstream industrial and domestic River generally has good water quality. waste discharges. BEACH QUALITY: Poor. The subsegment has one BEACH QUALITY: Poor. This subsegment has thin, section of thin, strip beach. strip beaches. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Moderate, noncritical. The EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, marshes in Green Bay are experiencing an ero- noncritical. The bluff area to the north of sion rate of approximately 2.1 to 2.5 feet per Elmwood Creek is experiencing a moderate ero- year. One section of bluffs is also eroding. sion rate of 1.5 feet per year. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. 39 SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: SUBSEGMENT 8C ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. The fastland, which is used for agricultural SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. purposes, is fronted by an extensive marsh sys- MARSH POINT TO COUNTY LINE tem. These marshes severely limit any access OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. to the water. Also, this area is removed from Map 10 any residential-industrial-commercial center, SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: thus limiting the need for development. As with subsegments 8A and 8B, this area is EXTENT: 24,200 feet (4.5 mi.) of shoreline from used for agriculture. The area's lack of ac- ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Marsh Point to the Essex-Caroline county line cess and its distance from any residential- Low. There seems to be no need for alter- along Portobago Creek. The subsegment also industrial-commercial center severely limits nate shore use in the subsegment. The area includes 20,800 feet (3.9 mi.) of fastland. any development. will probably remain basically rural in nature. SHORELANDS TYPE ALTERNATE SHORE USE: MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), ROLLINS FORK FASTLAND: Low shore 89% (3.5 mi.), low shore Low. Like most of the county's shorelands, Quadr., 1968. with bluff 7% (0.3 mi.), and moderately low this area is used for agriculture. There seems C&GS, #12237 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, shore 4% (0.1 mi@). to be little need for development in the sub- RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, CORROTOMAN RIVER to SHORE: Beach 31% (1.4 mi.), fringe marsh 11% segment. Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. (0.5 mi.), embayed marsh 20% (0.9 mi.), and ex- tensive marsh 38% (1.7 mi.). MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), ROLLINS FORK PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS llMay76 ES-8B/280-303. NEARSHORE: Narrow 35% and wide 30%. The re- Quadr., 1968. mainder of the subsegment is located along Por- C&GS, #12237 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, tobago Creek. RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER., CORROTOMAN RIVER to Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Entirely agricultural. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS llMay76 ES-8C/304-319. SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the marshes but mostly unused. NEARSHORE: Sport fishing and boating. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi- cally NE - SW. The fetch at Portobago Creek is NW - 2.3 nm. However, the shallowness of Por- tobago Bay makes the fetch mostly insignificant. OWNERSHIP: Private. FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The majority of the fastland has elevations of 20 feet and is not subject to flooding. There are no endangered structures. WATER QUALITY: Fair to good. The Rappahannock River usually has good water quality. Occa- sional problems are caused by upstream indus- trial and domestic waste discharges, agricul- tural runoff, and by boating activities. BEACH QUALITY: Poor. There are'only narrow, strip beaches in this subsegment. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or no change. The bluff areas just south of the extensive marsh is suf- fering from some minor erosion. 40 760 142' 30 11 S irps h, Wilna,- p t BowivsibLight Rock MAP 2A MARK HAVEN BEACH TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE Subsegment 1A Segment Boundary Subsegment Boundary, 1X-i 4- I',)- ane 3@ A 37* ark Haven 1A 370 47 each 47 3 od" N, - 0 5 L z4'j-ll r -7@ 00 0 Jones 09, pt @uo @O fill -b IV, P, 'Or T V W-0-3 o\ MC 720 V @7( 0) a evie Cy 0 1 MIL 50 0- 76014 2' 30" 760 142 30 @Vo Sharps BM. a WiInt p 14. 4FLisht Bc@@'e's Ro,ck IVIAP 2B' MARK HAVEN BEACHf SHORELANDS TYPES Subsegment 1A. FASTLAND Low Shore Low Shore with Bluff 4- Moderately Low Shore -Y Moderately Low Shore with Bluff 1AI IV Moderately High Shore A A A A Moderately High Shore with Bluff High Shore High Shore with Bluff SHORE Beach Fringe Marsh Extensive Marsh -4 Embayed Marsh ;5 Artificially Stabilized RL NEARSHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 370 ark H n Wide 9 0 0 0 370 7 h 47 47 3d' 3d' 0 0 L -0 C) -50 L/ 0 0 Jones \pt J W @0 G jX,, ra Up Mon@*ue % D mc -10 NJ n. e 0 -Ij A A IILE I 0 V, V, 760 42'30' Aft ML Am 760 42 30 2C MARK HAVEN BEACH pt jaht B6@\@iers 14@L Rock FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION Subsegment 1A, USE Agricultural A Commercial C Residential IRS Unmanaged Wooded W OWNERSHIP 4@- Private -Y EROSION Ai 4, Severe Moderate C Slight or No Change No Symbol J, 11RSS,,1 A 370 N. -k Haven 3701 Bet. 'i 47 30' LO ki 01 RSP,` -1A. 4 AA--)@ '10 z I A f1w i6o 'J, -1A Q, ) @11 -L@) ; I -- ' ' 1, .0@ Q'. @F@11 1w-, 'pes, W, IRS: 411 w 1 A 1 A w". 2 N onkague I ", @ WN 3 MIC C-1 U a evie n. L U 10) kL 0 1 MILE 76-F4;i730 716945' @1@ wille 9 % averl@' X. 2 MAP 3A `v p t BOWLERS WHARF,: 4@, TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE Subsegments 1A and 1B 1 B ------------ Segment Boundary Subsegment Boundary --- 25--, Neals Pt 653 A 685 --- vt@ 46 645 49 Browns /pt 677 48 --------------- %% 6 col\col fl(F-\i v J@ 1A 370 370 50' 50' V CmD N , A I B le fia 684 0 3)PD 3 0 0 V/ nter 20 0 G-g 12 k B Di: I 'ILE T 0 760 45' AlL 760 5 -0 WhW 9 !MAP 3B,, BOWLERS WHARF .0 SHORELANDS TYPES X12 Subsegments 1A and 18 1A" 0 4- FASTLAND Low Shore ------------- 0 Moderately Low Shore 1B, Moderately Low Shore 0 with Bluff I Moderately High Shore A A A A 0 10% High Shore 0 SHORE Beach 0 Fringe Marsh Embayed Marsh 0 653 Artificially Stabilized 685 NEARSHORE Intermediate 0 0 0 0 0 Wide 4,-6 0 5 0 49 rowns F@ 677 R R 48 --------------- \\ NN' 601 Un E 370 1A 370 50' 51 Bo lerms ha 694 owlers harf 35 U f Zp- JC nter 41 T@rini C C C ... 12i 12, appallwawk istriet Bch 5 C 0 ILE EE== - 760 145 7-6'0@ F45 ")YkA@Wharf 9 Al MAP 3C BOWLERS WHARF 1R, 17 V RSFUP, EROSION FASTLAND USE, OWNE @iw X12 Subsegments 1A and 1B, 1A USE --1 R C,4",@-",l Agricultural A Commercial C 1 B Recreational RC RS Residential 1W Unmanaged 1R Wooded W OWNERSHIP 1RS --1W Private .A EROSION 1A Severe 653 Moderate 1A Slight or No Change No Symbol 685 1 R S 4eN looo 1RS 645 49 1W 1A ;Browns /pt 677 1 W 48 1RS)j ol 1W 1R ------------ ------ % 607 rclX00 1A \'ro W 1A 3 0 7 370 4' @)iw f 50' 50' V I '1-1VV 1 WVV 110 1RS 1W Ir\ iris 2p, Bo i N 'R@ W -J1,1RS' Bowle I N\ Vy nar % W V 11RS @Ljv 3 vu '00, 01 0 0 V C nter RS 12 CC- 121 0 1 , B )0 12 k ftDp 2 Ce him 0 1 ILE 1W 760 45' S AIL 76-152'30" q A 3 Tidat Flat ,@,Light 616 .0. Z' fair 2/@ Fairv@iie @'-EkM 3 rays Y( 'h N, % Y MAP 4A p PISCATAWA'@ @REE hl@@T'/) A AX TOPOGRAPHY AND CU fil 35 j Segment 2 and Subsegments -7@- 7 BM =Segment Bounda 34 .8 Subsegment Boun J 662 662 A /F. Q@) (,,-2 5 52' 66 30 A 2? 0 D 760 52'3d' 47 76-152'30" 3 A 0 MAP 4B 0 PISCATAWAY CREEK 0 20 SHORELANDS TYI Tidal Flat Segment 2 and Subsegments 113, 1C and 3A,-,. 0 26 L FASTLAND k 6 Low Shore I t 1 1 T Moderately Low Shore -J Fairyiu-- Moderately Low Shore 0- with Bluff Moderately High Shore A A A -A High Shore X High Shore with Bluff SHORE Beach '0 Fringe Marsh 1`11111111111111111111111 Extensive Marsh /0 Embayed Marsh 9MOOM Artificially Stabilized `7 10 35 (D B M 34 ?8 117 662 370 T. 52' 30 662 D2 @po NEARSHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 C 760 52'3d' 48 760 152'30" @171 1 A, RS7 @Jj A 1 A 698 Tidal Flat 30- -_-j.26 LLLL L i g h t (@6 D16 RS... 1A iRS7 1A 1@A Fairvi@@ 2 1A@ 0 1RS Brays 1A X 1 A, 1A 1A,, V @-3U 1 W 1A @10 1A- 1W r VV I '0 1 A 1 A @6' 1w 1w 'C@ MAP 4C W VV 35 PISCATAWAY CREE -en FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHI L 1A Segment 2 and Subsegments '1W' 1w R S W- 1V\f USE Xl@f@ C Agricultural A '/U -t- 17 RS' '3 662 I -ak @3@7 V Commercial C 7 1 RSSZ, Residential 61" 1 V: 1W3N) _: " ' , - , 1@ RS 30 R 1W- Unmanaged -\\1W Wooded W OWNERSHIP k EX VV/ 69 Private -IVV\i EROSION Moderate Slight or No Change 4 A 0 76-152'30" 49 760 52'30" 2. ..... .4@ BM2 17 4 AX Y. 50 627 Q@ a 'po (MAP 5A-' ir ------- H@ igh TAPPAHANNOCK, GRAPHY AND CULTURE I Opo A Subsegments 3A, 3B. and 4A1 t Margarets ch Segment Boundary Subsegment Boundary 627) E High Sch 25-- M ge )Sol acks j@nk ppa' For 7 BM 33 cc) 35 35, 3 b U5 91 r 659 59 (6 Sew' e 0 )OS31 7 t X -k -j @?j R, 1 Un- I MILE, L -@'6T-52 30' 50 760 52'30" 0 5-' MAP 51B BM2 0' 17 4AX 0 SHORELANDS TYPES ubsegments 3A, 3B and 41A --------- ------- - 0 FASTLAND ----- ---- Low Shore 0 0 Low Shore 0 Recr p rp_@ with Bluff Moderately Low Shore 0 Moderately Low Shore 0 with Bluff IL Moderately High Shore A -A r Margarets 0 High Shore High Shore 0 Esn. with Bluff '6 2 j)7j Highes, X Artificial Fill 35 /1j"B M 0 ,SHORE 0sal Beach -0 J, WaW, AJaeks Fringe Marsh ...... Fork u A, Extensive Marsh BM3 Embayed Marsh 370 Arlincially Stabilized 55 NEARSHORE it Intermediate 0 0 0 0 go'n ? - Q@ V 1 0-0-) 40 3 U 0 1 MILE 76-152''3d' 51 760 52'30" .......... IRS - A BM2 , Nn 1RS 4A\, FASTLA YlA Su % . ...... . 'o USE A 0"R In pIr Ir 1RS R V U OWNE t Margaret$ h p 1RS 'S EROS ?5 High Se w 1 ov- 3 r Pan Lpp 22 1 41p @c w . ........ . BM 33 35 - - ------- 0 3B 1AAl @:7 A lvv @A- 26 o V7 17 V V 1A\ 1 A p v I MILE, 52 5B 82 6 <1 MA 6 4@- 4,vv 0 C, MOUNT LANDING CREEK Jenkins TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE Landing 5 A 1,1-oubsegments 4A, 4B, 5A and 513@@ . ... .. Evy &@Vv, v -30 17 \V 4 B, 37C Bm 57 x13 ----------- j 1510 r7 C@ Mount La I ILE 0 1 m _La, 53 5B riuHr-LANUZi I yljtzs T ubsegments 4A, 4B, 5A and *5B 4@ 4 A,,,V FASTLAND kins ing Low Shore 5A Low Shore f with Bluff Moderately Low Shore 689 ------- Moderately Low Shore SO 3 IYA with Bluff Moderately High Shore a A High Shore High Shore with Bluff A "0 S+iORE 30 CID N 0 % Beach Fringe Marsh 1`11111111111111111111111 Extensive Marsh 703 Embayed Marsh wmmss@ Artificially Stabilized 4&1 NEARSHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 370 r@j Intermediate 0 0 0 0 B M Wide 57', \0 C) C-/ gin Mount La 0 1 MILE W, rs SO - VIL or] 0, IV Y\ @M 0 P, W( 54 5B FASTL W, Subsegment 4A, 4B) 5A and 5B -Y USE V 19 AgriculturalA i6kins La 5 A RA99 Industrial A Recreational RC Residential RS Unmanaged 6n 1A so d- '\-30 1) Wooded W (11 1A OWNERSHIP Private 1R&-- 1w EROSION Moderate Slight or No Change No Symb I 1A Severe 1A I V V (1w, 4 El Croe 570 T77 VV; v0 VV, yul"I A w Mount La g'. I VV-, I MILE 55 760 57'30 7-; ILN, Ji 7, R, 0 It @i Qj 13 f4 E. C K' v 1, A 6C [email protected] h@ i 0 0 l V I -A a @-A t y 0 1 2 A q A6, A U) W@ Ba d ill Landing. ita /71 Ir it 31 v \\A ti N kp @10 % ;j A @0 'A 7 6B If 10 7A Ln ?6, "A 0-- -J. Ln ON -Z" 25 c d Point if 0 L If 20 631 77 If Z@ 'MAP 7A C? 38 BOTTOMS NECK 20 TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTUR E/, 6A Subsegments 5B, 6A, 6B, 6C an 7A d \V. I., 1-0 Segment Boundary r X9/ Subsegment Boundary V A -30) 10 j, Z "7 c@ '90 -4w V I J @; I @11 I , .:-- ...-.,.- ., V-, "J'. - 20 A. 380 00 00, 86 r L17 < ;5B 5( .... ----- 'i MILE 760157'30" dik A All An Ah Trool 5-r'30 r-,-@ -T -@o T fi 0 M A 5 @Qj L-- E C K@ IJI@t@ 6C A 1 -,5 0 K A 01 -A A, BN D@ Xl@ 6B 7A 25 -1b 21 V "Grav I Pi I and Point r MAP 7B' 20 BOTTOMS NECK @)'SHORELANDS TYPES 20 Subsegments 5B, 6A, 6B, 6C and 7A FASTLAND Low Shore .0 Moderately Low Shore, A A A A 26 6A Moderately High Shore A Moderately High Shore 70 A A A A -/0 with Bluff -7 High Shore High Shore "CO with Bluff 'SHORE Beach Qj Fringe Marsh Extensive Marsh Embayed Marsh @@NEARSHI 380 ORE J, 20 380 00 Narrow 0-0-0-0 00, C:1 Ij 5B 'i 760 57'30 7601 57630'0 v%" y L @1A . ..... RN, 1A I,1A T M A-S it' 0 j 1A E C K! 1@W' 6C.'' 1RS it .1! A j 0 K 1A 1w a 1W 0 J, it A@ V A 1A. it Bairdii it Landingl@ q 8 it it .1 i. it 11'9 \\@lA it 1A11, IJ 0 A Ln A iw)@ 1A 1A VA 71V N 0 @6B 1A ct, 10 % 7A 1 A 1A, 1A 0. 1A 25 @- A9, 1 A Ln 00 1A 1A 1A, 1A /-0 25 '141 f '_0 1A, t MAP 7C BOTTOMS N E C K FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION Ao- Subsegments 5B, 6A,6B, 6C and 7A 1A USE r 6A Agricultural A 26 '@o Industrial I Yf 1 "0' Residential RS e d -Un.manag --1X W .000' Wooded OWNERSHIP -A Private 1 k EROSION 0- Severe -A Moderate 1A oe to 1A Slight or No Change No Symbol 7 k AA --j 380 20 J 380 @J- v 4 00 00' 1A .5B L V/-- -fl I'MN 76-T5@;30" Alk Ak 77000 DR Leedstowr@l wn 7r -4- Cem 6tterburn 6iliI Creek - Marsh, @7B 12, /0 T SA /0 /0 3 6768 0 W, .-/o % it \j o:., e m a n s 6 9 @lo --@Cem A Laytoi@ Smith MountL` Landing 14 -P 50 21) 380 7A 05, 14 it /0 ,'@Olhinson 71 _16 -0 5 0 4 637 128 29 @50 7 J I MILE 0 770 00, 59 0 770 0 wn @;Leedstown/ Bm .--sw -C, /0 Cem Creek FAS 16; tte, bu, W, ars 7B'/ @,/o IC) cj P Z@ SHO Is\ 44 /0 /0 All 6 V, NE /07 A. 0- 'o -20 v 10 -0 ----Cem 7 L yto 0 Smith Mounv-- -4 Landing' 41 50 637 7 4 7A 380 4 -7 35 V, 0 Wl IN 24@11 '43 10 50 637 @50 it 50 7 C, :Ji 7 T 0 1 MILE 770 00, w 60 77000 .7 BM lkedAwrl ,Leedstown 17 20 -@15 W- 0 Cem Cr..eek 0-tterbu rn, 16 /0@ -10 Marsh- 7B C\ Sh i /0 67 @.j A 0@ V, V 0 11 60 0-letnans 01 10 IRS -:Cem 1RC- 1w 1A 1A 7_ A I Lay on Smith Mound Lancing 1A 380 637 7A 05' A /0 tahin-son 1A 1 A @p IA 43 10 50 661 637 A '--50 29 28 so ?0 C, I MILE 1A 0 770 00, 61 720 102 30" 150 0 H d c 4 V- i WIn, IN MAP 9A \J7 CC,, -'HORSE HEAD PO INT A TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE At, U .. Xii S bsegments 7B, 8A and 8B 4 To by-s- 2x Fydi nt >00 Segment Boundary Subsegment Boundary 8B -7 ENM@ I I gr ble it.9 Etb 0 /00 20 X2 P 8A. tt ',n3 Cn 9 t7l OV C) z it 655 IN r\ /-F@ 637 380 0`1 B 8 380 07'. 07 30, e9l, 60 -0 _4 35 'ravel Pit 36 Blind pt. -2 A 4 Line `41- Ketch 7B I/ Baylors -f- 3,)-) Pt A nd J A P-V L Ritchie IV 30@ wwSTW) - - w harf 37 0 unders SSF -@J 1 654 M ktaersi@@ 0 1 MILE .4 720@112 30 A& low 72-102'30 MAP 9 B r EAD POINT-'@ HORSE H n @SHORELANDS TYPE@ 3 S 1\0 Subsegments 713, 8A, and 813 W V@ )" @FASTLAND Low Shore Low Shore with Bluff j Moderately Low Shore PI intl Moderately Low Shore with Bluff SHORE 8 B Beach 11 41`@' Fringe Marsh fill 11111111111111111111 Extensive Marsh Embayed Marsh Artificially Stabilized A- -4- NEARSHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 @21 0 W 35 8A. -3 111119 41 @p- C63 655 0 D @ -8 38' 071 2 30, 07 rave, Pit 35 Blind pt, + r 18 -8 L P 4- -Line 4 4- Baylors Ketrh 30 pt 7B, nd Ritchiej pt t Co 30-/-- V7 ES' 37 rders, Wh -art -:;@! ik I avil 654 Va-uters@@ 0 1MILE 72 30 720 102'30" 191 L IVI /A p 9 C "Z- HORSE HEAD POINT FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSIOI A Yt_ 1, A/4/' A -0 P, Subsegments 7B, 8A and 8B C/ USE -P- Agricultural A Commercial C OWNERSHIP zz Private -4'2X 4 EROSION TO P irif Moderate Slight or No Change No Symbol 4@ j 8B B M- r 0 b 00 API@' A\\ 20 @'x 2 1A 35 1A 8k 20 1,1A C) Z 1A C) -- - \@@ C63 Iin -@6 3 7 k". 380- -M 'C 380 C B --38 07 07 30' 30' A- 60 35 1A- :V.Gravei Pit 2 'JI -0 Blind Pt V 1A- K@o lk 1A 1A J/,-x 1A I - - - ii l@ -k f F 1 C Q, "A Z-' A 1A 4 Ketch Ai A ay rs - - f t B lo 7 B ond U 1A. 0 V A 1A Ritchie pt@-' Reach 1A Go -30-" co 37 17 -,00- 1@ A'@Saunders Wharf 654 Iriville 1 A v A Vau rs 0 1 MIL 7201M'30" 41 Ink d1b 770 105 1-5- Nanzatico Bay - 3i-il q w rf Xortk P end Lo p 0 I n- C. k_@ GEoRGF,._@@ CA z 7- V 8B 8 Portobago Bay N 4, Green Bay' 0 ,@k Ln )A, >36 J (L6 380 A 4ell 380 07' 07' 30' 30' 35 35 -40- BM MAP 10A 35 30- PORTOBAGO BAY 2 A E TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTUR Subsegments 8B and 8C 642 4 c z C5 %0, =Segment Boundary Subsegment Boun ar 35 J\ @,j q ?, =4 0 BM 5 ;5 Bm\ 1 0 1 AILE 7 7 05' 7-F 770 105' 01 1\1 011 MAP 10B J-Z PORTOBAGO BAY0 SHORELANDS TYPES' N; > Subsegments 8B and 8Ci,'!' FASTLAND tA Pend Low Shore Low Shore VO with Bluff Moderately Low Shore 1 1 SHORE Beach Fringe Ma rsh Extensive Marsh Embayed Marsh NEARSHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 Intermediate 0 0 .0 0 Wi de 0 0 0 0 2y 8B 8C* Portobago Bay Green Bay K @,o 6, all 1A. 30 36 % 17 Vd 380 80 07 P" 3 30' 07' 3d' ff V/ 35 35 -40 \J 0 --/BM V 35 30 2 30, 51 642 0 Yfl) M 34 35 34 BM V 0 1 141LE 7 77005 AL A A -;@TO05 01 f @5- T Nanzatic Bay 40, law rf -hEartk Bend 0 Lo A It GEopGF-. (r 1A @dl Cn U1 MI 1A 1A 0 M @12X 8G 1A Portobago Bay 1A 1A 1A loo, "A reen ay G 1A ik U y jkr" '70 Q 0 01// ON ",1A -30-- -(j V - X36 1A 1W X8 1W 380 0 07' Ve - @380 07' 30' 3d' 35 35 0 MAP 10C PORTOBAGO BAY FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION 35 '3 Subsegments 8B and 8C USE Agricultural A 4 Unmanaged Woodea W OWNERSHIP 3 Private EROSION 34 Moderate 1/k Slight or No Change No Symbol 4u 8M @5 T /V $0 V, V o Bm@@ n I 0 77- 'A I I I I @@ 11011111111mil - 3 6668 00002 5165 r I - - - -