[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Coastal Zone Shoreline Situation Report Information ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY VIRGINIA Center IL 07", 4 "..44 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. 1 V) Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, 1, 1;;- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant No. 04-5-158-50001 rha_-q;;nP;;ke Research Consortium Report Number 46 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 97 of the QH I 12*0 301 Ij V852 VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE i no-97 Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1975 Shoreline Situation Report ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA Prepared by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA Dennis W. Owen COASTAL SERVICES CENTER Gaynor B. Williams 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE Margaret H. Peoples CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 Carl H. Hobbs III Gary L. Anderson Property of CSC Library Project Supervisors: Robert J. Byrne John M. Zeigler Property of CSC Library Supported by the National Science Foundation, Research Applied to National Needs Program NSF Grant Nos. GI 34869 and GI 38973 to the Wetlands/Edges Program, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant No. 04-5-158-50001 Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 46 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 97 of the VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE William J. Hargis Jr., Director Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1975 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE PAGE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 FIGURE 1: Shoreland components 5 1.1 Purposes and goals 2 FIGURE 2: Marsh types 5 1.2 Acknowledgements 2 FIGURE 3: Eroding bluffs at Lawnes Neck 13 CHAPTER 2: APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED 3 FIGURE 4: Baileys Beach aerial view 13 2.1 Approach to the problem 4 FIGURE 5: Jetties at Baileys Beach 13 2.2 Characteristics of the shorelands included in the study 4 FIGURE 6: Eroding bluffs at Baileys Beach 13 CHAPTER 3: PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF ISLE OF WIGHT 9 FIGURE 7: Goodwin Point aerial view 13 3.1 The shorelands of Isle of Wight 10 FIGURE 8: Mograts Beach aerial view 14 3.2 Shoreline erosion in Isle of Wight 10 FIGURE 9: Beach at Mogarts Beach 14 3.3 Potential use enhancement of Isle of Wight shoreline 12 FIGURE 10: Bulkhead at Muddy Cove 14 CHAPTER 4: SUMMARIES, SUMMARY TABLES, MAPS OF ISLE OF WIGHT 21 FIGURE 11: Bulkhead at Brewers Creek 14 4.1 Segment and subsegment summary tables 23 FIGURE 12: View from bridge at Jones Creek 14 4.2 Segment and subsegment descriptions 25 TABLE 1: Isle of Wight County shorelands physiography 20 Subsegment 1A 25 TABLE 2: Isle of Wight County subsegment summary 23 Subsegment 1B 25 MAPS 1A-E: Isle of Wight County summary maps 15 Segment 2 27 MAPS 2A-C: Lawnes Neck 31 Segment 3A 28 MAPS 3A-C: Burwell Bay 35 Segment 3B 28 MAPS 4A-C: Mouth of Pagan River 39 Segment and subsegment maps 31 MAPS 5A-C: Smithfield 43 MAPS 6A-C: Ragged Island 47 MAPS 7A-C: Brewer's Creek 51 I I I I I CHAPTER 1 1 1 INTRODUCTION I 11 I I I I I I I I I 11 I CHAPTER 1 Recreation may be most useful at a higher gove rnm ental level. INTRODUCTION Transportation The Commonwealth of Virginia has traditionally Waste disposal chosen to place as much as possible, the regula- 1.1 PURPOSES AND GOALS Extraction of living and non-living tory decision processes at the county level. The It is the objective of this report to supply resources Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Chapter 2.1, Title an assessment9 and at least a partial integration, Aside from the above uses, the shorelands serve 62.1, Code of Virginia), for example provides for of those important shoreland parameters and char- various ecological functions. the establishment of County Boards to act on ap- acteristics which will aid the planners and the The role of planners and managers is to optimize plications for alterations of wetlands. Thus, our managers of the shorelands in making the best de- the utilization of the shorelands and to minimize focus at the county level is intended to interface cisions for the utilization of this limited and the conflicts arising from competing demands. Fur- with and to support the existing or pending county very valuable resource. The report gives particu- thermore, once a particular use has been decided regulatory mechanisms concerning activities in the lar attention to the problem of shore erosion and upon for a given segment of shoreland, both the shorelands zone. to recommendations concerning the alleviation of planners and the users want that selected use to the impact of this problem. In addition we have operate in the most effective manner. A park 1.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS tried to include in our assessment some of the po- planner, for example, wants the allotted space to This report was prepared with funds provided tential uses of the shoreline, particularly with fulfill the design most efficiently. We hope that by the Research Applied to National Needs Program respect to recreational use, since such informa- the results of our work are useful to the planner (RANN) of the National Science Foundation through tion could be of considerable value in the way a in designing the beach by pointing out the techni- the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. The particular segment of coast is perceived by poten- cal feasibility of altering or enhancing the pres- report was published with funds provided to the tial users. ent configuration of the shore zone. Alternately, Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone The basic advocacy of the authors in the prep- if the use were a residential development, we would Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric aration of the report is that the use of shore- hope our work would be useful in specifying the Administrationg Grant Number 04-5-158-50001. lands should be planned rather than haphazardly shore erosion problem and by indicating defenses Beth Marshall typed the manuscript. Bill Jenkins developed in response to the short term pressures likely to succeed in containing the erosion. In and Ken Thornberry prepared the photographs. and interests. Careful planning could reduce the summary our objective is to provide a useful tool Peter Rosen and Mike Carron assisted with the conflicts which may be expected to arise between for enlightened utilization of a limited resource, graphics. We would like to thank the numerous competing interests. Shoreland utilization in the shorelands of the Commonwealth. other persons in Virginia and Maryland that have many areas of the country, and indeed in some Shorelands planning occurs, either formally or assisted our work with their suggestions and places in Virginia@ has proceeded in a manner such informally, at all levels from the private owner of criticisms of our ideas and methods. that the very elements which attracted people to shoreland property to county governments, to the shore have been destroyed by the lack of planning districts and to the state and federal planning and forethought. agency level. We feel our results will be useful The major man-induced uses of the shorelands at all these levels. Since the most basic level of are: comprehensive planning and zoning is at the county Residential, commercial, or industrial or city level, we have executed our report on that development. level although we realize some of the information 2 I I I I CHAPTER 2 I APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED I I I i I i I 11 I 1 3 1 - I CHAPTER 2 the subsegment. Segments are a grouping of @j @se - be considered as being composed of three inter- APPROACH USED AND ELMWENTS CONSIDERED ments. The boundaries for segments also were se- acting physiographic elements: the fastlands, the 2.1 APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM lected on physiographic units such as necks or shore and the nearshore. A graphic classifica- peninsulas between major tidal creeks. Finally, tion based on these three elements has been de- In the preparation of this report the authors the county itself is considered as a sum of shore- vised so that the types for each of the three ele- utilized existing information wherever possible. line segments. ments portrayed side by side on a map may provide For example, for such elements as water quality The format of presentation in the report follows the opportunity to examine joint relationships characteristics, zoning regulations, or flood haz- a sequence from general summary statements for the among the elements. As an example, the applica- ard, we reviewed relevant reports by local, state, county (Chapter 3) to tabular segment summaries and tion of the system permits the user to determine or federal agencies. Much of the desired informa- finally detailed descriptions and maps for each miles of high bluff shoreland interfacing with tion, particularly with respect to erosional char- subsegment (Chapter 4). The purpose in choosing marsh in the shore zone. acteristics, shoreland types, and use was not this format was to allow selective use of the report For each subsegment there are two length mea- available, so we performed the field work and de- since some usersy needs will adequately be met with surements, the shore-nearshore interface or shore- veloped classification schemes. In order to ana- the summary overview of the county while others will line, and the fastland-shore interface. The two lyze successfully the shoreline behavior we placed require the detailed discussion of particular sub- interface lengths differ most when the shore zone heavy reliance on low altitude, oblique, color, 35 segments. is embayed or extensive marsh. On the subsegment mm photography. We photographed the entire shore- maps, a dotted line represents the fastland-shore line of each county and cataloged the slides for 2.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SHORELANDS INCLUDED IN interface when it differs from the shoreline. The easy access at VIMS, where they remain available THE STUDY fastland-shore interface length is the base for for use. We -then analyzed these photographic ma- The characteristics which are included in this the fastland statistics. terials, along with existing conventional aerial report are listed below followed by a discussion of Definitions: photography and topographic and hydrographic maps, our treatment of each. Shore Zone for the desired elements. We conducted field in- a) Shorelands physiographic classification This is the zone of beaches and marshes. It is spection over much of the shoreline, particularly b) Shorelands use classification a buffer zone between the water body and the fast- at those locations where office analysis left c) Shorelands ownership classification land. The seaward limit of the shore zone is the questions unresolved. In some cases we took addi- d) Zoning break in slope between the relatively steeper shore- tional photographs along with the field visits to e) Water quality face and the less steep nearshore zone. The approx- document the effectiveness of shoreline defenses. f) Shore erosion and shoreline defenses imate landward limit is a contour line rep-resenting The basic shoreline unit considered is called g) Potential shore uses one and a half times the mean tide range above mean a subsegment, which may range from a few hundred h) Distribution of marshes low water (refer to Figure 1 ). In operation with feet to several thousand feet in length. The end i) Flood hazard levels topographic maps the inner fringe of the marsh sym- points of the subsegments were generally chosen. on j) Shellfish leases and public shellfish grounds bols is taken as the landward limit. physiographic consideration such as changes in the k) Beach quality The physiographic character of the marshes has character of erosion or deposition. In those cases also been separated into three types (see Figure 2). where a radical change in land use occurred, the a) Shorelands Phy'siographic Classification: Fringe marsh is that which is less than 400 feet in point of change was taken as a boundary point of The shorelands of the Chesapeake Bay System may width and which runs in a band parallel to the 4 shore. Extensive marsh is that which has extensive Low shore, 20 ft. (6 m) or less of relief; with yards respectively. The class limits were set at acreage projecting into an estuary or river. An or without cliff half the standard deviation (500 yards) each side embayed marsh is a marsh which occupies a reentrant Moderately low shore, 20-40 ft. (6-12 m) of of the mean. Using this procedure a narrow near- or drowned creek valley. The purpose in delineating relief; with or without cliff shore zone is one 0-400 yards in width, intermediate these marsh types is that the effectiveness of the Moderately high shore, 40-60 ft. (12-18 m) of 400-1,400, and wide greater than 1,400. various functions of the marsh will, in part, be relief; with or without cliff The following definitions have no legal signif- determined by type of exposure to the estuarine High shore, 60 ft. (18 m) or more of relief; icance and were constructed for our classifica- system. A fringe marsh may, for example, have maxi- with or without cliff. tion purposes: mum value as a buffer to wave erosion of the fast- Two specially classified exceptions are sand Narrow, 12-ft. (3-7 M) isobath located < 400 land. An extensive marsh, on the other hand, is dunes and areas of artificial fill. yards from shore likely a more efficient transporter of detritus and Nearshore Zone Intermediate@ 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath 400- other food chain materials due to its greater drain- The nearshore zone extends from the shore zone 1,400 yards from shore age density than an embayed marsh. The central to the 12-foot (MIW datum) contour. In the smaller Wide, 12-ft. (3-7 m) isobath > 1,400 yards point is that planners, in the light of ongoing and tidal rivers the 6-foot depth is taken as the ref- Subclasses: with or without bars future research, will desire to weight various erence depth. The 12-foot depth is probably the with or without tidal flats functions of marshes and the physiographic delinea- maximum depth of significant sand transport by waves with or without submerged tion aids their decision making by denoting where in the Chesapeake Bay area. Also, the distinct vegetation the various types exist. drop-off into the river channels begins roughly at The classification used is: the 12-foot depth. The nearshore zone includes any *-FA STLAND-4SHOR NEARSHORE Beach tidal flats. Marsh The class limits for the nearshore zone classi- Fringe marsh, -C 400 ft. (122. m) in width fications were chosen following a simple statistical Range along shores study. The distance to the 12-foot underwater con- 12, Extensive marsh tour (isobath) was measured on the appropriate Figure 1 An illustration of the definition of the Embayed marsh, occupying a drowned valley or charts at one-mile intervals along the shorelines of three components of the shorelands. reentrant Chesapeake Bay and the James, York, Rappahannock, FRINGE EMBAYED EXTENSIVE MARSH MARSH MARSH Artificially stabilized and Potomac Rivers. Means and standard deviations Fastland Zone for each of the separate regions and for the entire The zone extending from the landward limit of combined system were caluclated and compared. Al- the shore zone is termed the fastland. The fast- though the distributions were non-normal, they were .... ... ......... land is relatively stable and is the site of most generally comparable, allowing the data for the en- material development or construction. The physio- tire combined system to determine the class limits. FASTLAND FASTLAND grg -Li the fastland 1 s based The calculated mean was 919 yards with a stan- phic classi" cation of - upon the average slope of the land within 400 feet dard deviation of 1,003 yards. As our aim was to Figure 2 A generalized illustration of the three (122 m) of the fastland - shore boundary. The determine general, serviceable class limits, these different marsh types. general classification is: calculated numbers were rounded to 900 and 1,000 5 b) Shorelands Use Classification environmental reasons, such as wildlife or wild- c) Shorelands Ownership Classification Fastland Zone fowl sanctuaries, fish and shellfish conservation The shorelands ownership classification used Residential grounds, or other uses that would preclude devel- has two main subdivisions, private and governmen- Includes all forms of residential use with opment. tal, with the governmental further divided into the exception of farms and other isolated dwel- federal, state, county, and town or city. Appli- lings. In general, a residential area consists Agricultural cation of the classification is restricted to fast- of four or more residential buildings adjacent to Includes fields, pastures, croplands, and lands alone since the Virginia fastlands ownership one another. Schools, churches, and isolated other agricultural areas. extends to mean low water. All bottoms below mean businesses may be included in a residential area. low water are in State ownership. Unmanaged Commercial Includes all open or wooded lands not in- d) Water Quality Includes buildings, parking areas, and other cluded in other classifications: The ratings of satisfactory, intermediate or land directly related to retail and wholesale a) Open: brush land, dune areas, wastelands; unsatisfactory assigned to the various subsegments trade and business. This category includes small less than 40% tree cover. are taken from a listing at the Virginia Bureau of industry and other anomalous areas within the gen- b) Wooded: more than 40% tree cover. Shellfish Sanitation, based on information from eral commercial context. Marinas are considered The shoreland use classification applies to water samples collected in the various tidewater commercial shore use. the general usage of the fastland area to an ar- shellfishing areas. The Bureau attempts to visit bitrary distance of half mile from the shore or each area at least once a month. Industrial beach zone or to some less distant, logical bar- The ratings are defined primarily in regard to Includes all industrial and associated areas. rier. In multi-usage areas one must make a sub- number of coliform. bacteria. For a rating of sat- Examples: warehouses, refineries, shipyards, jective selection as to the primary or controlling isfactory the maximum limit is an MPN (Most Prob- power plants, railyards. type of usage. able Number) of 70 per 100 ml. The upper limit for fecal coliforms is an MPN of 23. Usually any count Government Shore Zone above these limits results in an unsatisfactory Includes lands whose usage is specifically Bathing rating, and, from the Bureau's standpoint, results controlled, restricted, or regulated by governmen- Boat launching in restricting the waters from the taking of shell- tal organizations: e.g., Camp Peary, Fort Story. Bird watching fish for direct sale to the consumer. Waterfowl hunting There are instances however, when the total Recreation and Other Public Open Spaces coliform MPN may exceed 70, although the fecal MPN Includes designated outdoor recreation lands Nearshore Zone does not exceed 23, and other conditions are ac- and miscellaneous open spaces. Examples: golf Pound net fishing ceptable. In these cas es an intermediate rating courses, tennis clubs, amusement parks, public Shellfishing may be assigned temporarily, and the area will be beaches, race tracks, cemeteries, parks. Sport fishing permitted to remain open pending an improvement Extraction of non-living resources in conditions. Preserved Boating Although these limits are somewhat more strin- Includes lands preserved or regulated for Water sports gent than those used in rating recreational waters 6 (see Virginia State Water Control Board, Water tive visits were made to monitor the effective- Interim Report by Marvin L. Wass and Thomas D. Quality Standards 1946, amended 1970), they are ness of recent installations. In instances where Wright, SHAMSOE Report No. 10, Virginia Institute used here because the Bureau of Shellfish existing structures are inadequate, we have given of Marine Science, 1969, and in other VITES publi- Sanitation provides the best areawide coverage recommendations for alternate approaches. Fur- cations. available at this time. In general, any waters thermore, recommendations are given for defenses fitting the satisfactory or intermediate cate- in those areas where none currently exist. The i) Flood Hazard Levels gories would be acceptable for water recreation. primary emphasis is placed on expected effective- The assessment of tidal flooding hazard for the ness with secondary consideration to cost. whole of the Virginia tidal shoreland is still e) Zoning incomplete. However, the United States Army Corps In cases where zoning regulations have been g) Potential Shore Uses of Engineers has prepared reports for a number of established the existing information pertaining We placed particular attention in our study localities which were used in this report. Two to the shorelands has been included in the report. on evaluating the 1@ecreational potential of the tidal flood levels are customarily used to portray shore zone. We included this factor in the con- the hazard. The Intermediate Regional Flood is f) Shore Erosion and Shoreline Defenses sideration of shoreline defenses for areas of high that flood with an average recurrence time of The following ratings are used for shore recreational potential. Furthermore, we gave con- about 100 years. An analysis of past tidal floods erosion: sideration to the development of artificial indicates it to have an elevation of approximately slight or none - less than 1 foot per year beaches if this method were technically feasible 8 feet above mean water level in the Chesapeake moderate - - - - 1 to 3 feet per year at a particular site. Bay area. The Standard Project Flood level is es- severe - - - - - greater than 3 feet per year tablished for land planning purposes which is The locations with moderate and severe ratings h) Distribution of Marshes placed at the highest probable flood level. are further specified as being critical or non- The acreage and physiographic type of the critical. The erosion is considered critical if marshes in each subsegment is listed. These esti- j) Shellfish Leases and Public Grounds buildings, roads, or other such structures are mates of acreages were obtained from topographic The data in this report show the leased and endangered. maps and should be considered only as approxima- public shellfish grounds as portrayed in the Vir- The degree of erosion was determined by several tions. Detailed county inventories of the wetlands ginia State Water Control Board publication means. In most locations the long term trend was are being conducted by the Virginia Institute of "Shellfish growing areas in the Commonwealth of determined using map comparisons of shoreline Marine Science under the authorization of the Virginia: Public, leased and condemned," November positions between the 1850's and the 1940's. In Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Code of Virginia 1971, and as periodically updated in other similar addition, aerial photographs of the late 1930's 62.1-13.4). These surveys include detailed acre- reports. Since the condemnation areas change with and recent years were utilized for an assessment ages of the grass species composition within indi- time they are not to be taken as definitive. How- of more recent conditions. Finally, in those vidual marsh systems. The material in this report ever, some insight to the conditions at the date areas experiencing severe erosion field inspec- is provided to indicate the physiographic types of of the report are available by a comparison be- tions and interviews were held with local inhabit- marshes and to serve as a rough guide on acreages tween the shellfish grounds maps and the water ants. until detailed surveys are completed. Addi- quality maps for which water quality standards The existing shoreline defenses were evaluated tional information of the wetlands characteristics for shellfish were used. as to their effectiveness. In some cases repeti- may be found in Coastal Wetlands of Virginia: 7 k) Beach Quality Beach quality is a subjective judgment based upon considerations such as the nature of the beach material, the length and width of the beach area, and the general aesthetic appeal of the beach setting. 8 I I I I CHAPTER 3 6 I PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION I I i I 11 f I 1 9 11 1 CHAPTER 3 and 46% as wide. The remaining 17% is unclas" 3.2 SHORE EROSION PROCESSES, PATTERNS, AND PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF sified. DEFENSES ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA The two systems are affected differently, or to differing degrees, by many natural forces. 3.21 Shore Erosion Processes and Patterns 3.1 THE SHORELANDS OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY This, in turn, directly affects the usage of each Shore erosion in Isle of Wight County is gen- Two water systems affect the shorelands of Isle system's fastland. The James River shorelands erally limited to portions of the James River of Wight County. The James River, which accounts are exposed to direct wind and wave attacks gen- shorelands. The creek shorelands are relatively for 29% of the shoreline, flows along subsegments erated by storms . This exposure to storm surges stable, though there are evidences of some ero- 1B and 3A. The creek systems, which account for (weather tides) results in a higher flood hazard, sion in several places. Erosion in the county the remaining 71% of the shoreline, are made up increased erosion rates, and an overall suscepti- is linked to a combination of both natural and of Lawnes Creek (Subsegment 1A), Chuckatuck Creek bility to storm damage. The tributary system is, man-induced phenomena. (Subsegment 3B), and the Pagan River (Segment 2), for the most part, protected from such extreme The creeks are, for the most part, protected which has two tributaries, Cypress Creek and Jones activity. While the interior creeks offer most from the high intensity storm action common on Creek. of the advantages of living on the water, they the river. Even in periods of high water levels, There are 129.6 miles of measured fastland in are only affected to a limited extent by the prob- erosion is minimal. As stated earlier, 98% of Isle of Wight County. The shoreline is much lems associated with the river. the creek shorelands are covered by marsh grasses. shorter, containing 79.6 miles. Though the fast- The shorelands usage reflects the differences Marshes, especially the extensive embayed marshes lands of the county range from low shore to high between the river and creek systems. The shore- along most of the creeks, have a sponge-like a- shore, 94% of the county's fastland is classified lands on the James River are almost equally di- bility to absorb water, thus limiting damage to as either low or moderately low shore. In the vided between unmanaged, wooded (300, agricul- the fastland. Also, if flood waters should creek system, 97% of the fastland is either low tural (37%), and residential usage (24%). Over reach the interior fastland and cause interior or moderately low shore. The remaining 3% is mod- half the creek system, 55%, is classified as washing, the marsh A-ill catch much of the runoff erately high shore, located along the head of the agricultural, with 26% unmanaged, wooded, and 13% sediment. Pagan River. Along the James River, 80% of the residential. Most commercial activities, and all Erosion along the creeks is primarily the re- fastlands are either low or moderately low shore, industrial and "formal" recreational activities sult of man's activities along the shoreline. 16% high shore or high shore with bluff, and 4% are found along the creeks. The creek marshes Wave energy from boat wakes is an ever increasing moderately high shore. The shoreline of the creeks and Ragged Island marsh are used for waterfowl problem along the creeks. With the increased is 98% marsh. The James River shoreline is 57% hunting and for some fishing. development along the creeks, there has been a beach and 35% extensive marsh. The remaining 8% Ninety-nine percent of the fastland is pri- tremendous increase in all types of water sports. is divided between artificially stabilized and vately owned. With many marinas being'located along the pro- fringe marsh. tected creek shores, there has been a much ac- Since measurements of the nearshore width loose celerated usage of the creek waters by small significance in the narrower and shallower streams, boats. In the creeks, which are naturally nar- the nearshore zone of the creeks is left unclas-- row, boat wakes press much energy against the sified. In the James River subsegments, 37% of' fringing marsh causing erosion. the nearshore zone is classified as intermediate 10 Another potential problem along the creek effectively cut off the long fetch to the north- is concerned with holding fill rather than halting marsh areas stems from the development of the northwest, protecting t1ae shoreline from severe an erosion problem. In areas where erosion is creek shoreline. Piers which cross the marshes, storm effects. Along Mogarts Beach, the once prevalent and remedial action is necessary,, pro- if not properly constructed, may lead to the de- eroding 30-foot high bluffs are now covered with fessional advice is a necessary beginning to struction of the marsh, leaving the fastland un- vegetation (Figure 9). However, this condition finding a feasible solution to the problem. protected. Also, increased pedistrian traffic of stability probably will be short lived, for Along the creeks, where boat wakes are the along the shore zone can easily lead to the de- the Reserve Fleet is being constantly diminished major erosion cause, some type of protection in struction of marsh grasses. Without the protec- in numbers. This was the case at Rushmere Shores. front of affected marsh areas may be necessary. tive covering of marsh grasses, the creek shore- When the Fleet was offshore, the area stabilized In one place, logs have been staked in front of line would be very vulnerable to both flood and and a beach developed. Since the Fleet has been the marsh to cut down an the wave energy reaching boat wake erosion. moved from offshore, the area has again been suf- the grasses. Such devices can sometimes achieve The shorelands of Isle of Wight County along fering from erosion (Figure 6). When the Reserve the desired effect in low intensity areas. Speed the James River are subject to the erosive forces Fleet is no longer interrupting the long north- limits for boats traveling in the creeks should of storm waves with tides, floods, and winds. The west fetch to Mogarts Beach, the area will once be enforced. effects of these forces on any particular spot again suffer from the effects of the severe north- Along the James River shoreline, erosion is along the shore depend upon several factors. The western storms. more of a problem. The shorelines of Lawson pr imary factor is the fetch, the over water dis- Elsewhere in the county,.the blu ffs- along Point and Ragged Island are uninhabited and thus, tance across which the wind blows. Other impor- Lawnes Neck have been eroding at a rate of 1.9 protection for the shore is not necessary. In tant factors include the strength of the wind and feet per year. This erosion-is still talcing those areas where protection is economically the depth of the water. The winds from the north- place, as evidenced by @he falling trees (Figure feasible and desirable, professional advice is east and northwest are usually the most severe, 3). When the undercutting of the bluff is severe necessary. Several different types of action may generating waves and high water levels, which can enough, the trees topple, carrying large amounts prove suited to the county's needs. A unified cause severe shoreline damage to unprotected areas. of soil with them. The erosion here is a major area approach to erosion is recommended in any However, man has interrupted the fetch from the source of sand in the littoral drift nourishing problem areas. Not only are individual costs northwest with the Reserve Fleet thus diminishing the beaches to the south. lessened, but also such an approach protects the the effects of such storms. The area along Mogarts The Ragged Island marshes and shoreline have entire stretch of shoreline without aggrivating Beach extending to Days Point has an historical been eroding at a rate of from 1.2 to 2.6 feet neighboring property, as is common with individ- erosion rate of 3.8 feet per year. The area now per year. This area is vulnera-b-le to storms from ual actions. appears stable. Since there are only isolated in- the northwest and northeast, and to a lesser ex- Mogarts Beach, though stable now, cannot be stances of shore protective structures, these tent, to those from the east and southeast. The expected to remain stable. One course of action could not have made such a drastic change in the Goodwin Point shoreline has an erosion rate of here is to grade the slope of the 30-foot bluffs areals erosion rate. But directly north-northwest 1.2 feet per year (Figure 7). along the shore. A hillside with a steep slope of the area, offshore from Lawnes Neck, lies the will do little to stop erosion. By making a James River Reserve Fleet. And as late as January, 3.22 Shore Erosion Defenses gentler slopel vegetation will be more able to 1974, the fleet extended south as far as Rushmere There are few existing structures in the coun- hold the soil. Terracing the slope is another Shores. The Reserve Fleet in recent times has ty serving to alleviate erosion. Most bulkheading alternative. Some type of offshore structure 11 may prove beneficial in diminishing the strength regular home sites. Further development to any of waves reaching the beach and thus the cliffs great extent might destroy much of what first at- behind. tracted development here. Along Burwell Bay, there are several existing The creeks have been developed to a greater groin fields. These have managed to capture size- degree than the river. Only isolated development able fillets of sand. However, the groins cover could proceed here, and then mostly toward the only a small section of the shoreline. The slope creek heads, which many would find unacceptable. of the 10 to 15-foot cliffs here needs to be re- There is one development currently under con- duced and the cliff vegetated. Since the supply struction behind the marsh at Ragged Island Creek. of sand in the littoral drift seems good, a series The development, "Carisbrooke", is currently a of groins along the shore would probably be suf- residential area, though plans call for the fur- ficient to protect the fastland. ther development of a school, shopping center, In summary, the shoreline erosion problems of and business offices as the need arises. Devel- Isle of Wight are not severe. Erosion here is opments such as this, which conserve such valuable both natural and man-induced. A major change in resources as the marsh areas, are well conceived. the county's erosion patterns occurred with the As of this writing, "Carisbrooke" has done an anchoring of the Reserve Fleet offshore. With a admirable job of building a shorelands community diminishing Reserve Fleet offshore, erosion once without destroying the shorelands. again is threatening some areas. 3.3 POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY SHORELINE The potential use enhancement of the Isle of Wight County shoreline is very limited for a num- ber of reasons. Along the James River, only two areas are not developed. Ragged Island is a val- uable extensive marsh area, and as such should preclude any type of development. Upper Lawnes Neck is totally uninhabited, and has wide, sandy beaches. However, it is accessible only by boat or by a two mile long logging road. The area has high cliffs which are eroding. The cost of ero- sion control in this area would be quite high; this factor must be considered in any development plans. The other areas along the river have al- ready developed into private, vacation homes and 12 4@ 7 4W 16 ..J4 44 V,, FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 FIGURE 5 Figure 3: Eroding bluffs at Lawnes Neck. The fall- ing trees uproot large amounts of soil, further add- ing to the erosion problem. -ial view north of Baileys Beach. This Figure 4: Aei picture, taken in July, 1974, shows a creek behind the two jetties on the right in the photo. Groins seem only moderately effective in trapping sand. @W, Several appear to have been flanked. Figure 5: Ground view, taken in July, 1975, of the area in the previous photo. The jetties have served to close off the creek, which is now dry and filled Z.L with marsh grasses and sand. Ao_ Figure 6: Eroding bluffs just north of previous photo. The beach and lower half of the bluffs are mostly clay and are not suitable for most recrea tional activities. When the Reserve Fleet extended south this far, the area was mostly stable. Without 0 that offshore protection, erosion is again a problem. FIGURE 6 Figure 7: An aerial view of Goodwin Point. Parts of the shoreline have been bulkheaded, but unprotected stretches are very vulnerable to wind and wave attacks. FIGURE 7 13 . ... ........... KA @iiv FIGURE 8 FIGURE 9 FIGURE 10 Figure 8: Aerial view of Mogarts Beach. This area had an erosion rate of 3.8 feet per year until the Reserve Fleet was anchored to the north. Although erosion is still a problem in some areas, it is not as severe. Figure 9: Ground view of Mogarts Beach. The tree on the beach gives evidence of past erosion. The bluffs should be graded and revegetated if they are Ir 71 to withstand wind and wave attacks. Figure 10: Muddy Cove ground view. This concrete bulkhead, retaining fill, would probably be illegal now, as it extends into the natural fringe barrier (The Virginia Wetlands Acts of 1972). The wooden bulkhead to the left in the photo, placed behind the fringe, has allowed the marsh to continue to grow. Figure 11: Wooden bulkhead near the mouth of Brewers Creek. The structure is in very good shape and is retaining fill in front of several residences. Figure 12: View at bridge along Jones Creek. The logs lying in front of the marsh act as a buffer against boat wake erosion in. this low intensity FIGURE 11 FIGURE 12 area. A marina is directly across the creek. 14 "-Maw= .7r.. 1 30, MAP 1A ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY 1A SEGMENT AND MAP INDEX Segment Boundary Subsegment Boundary MAP 2 1B MAP 4 MAP 3 3@7 2 0 AN 00, 3A 00' BRIDGE MAJOR BRIDGE FASTLAND LIM 6 MAP 5 A.- Rescue Area BA TEN y (scale: I" 200d) OUCK eK 3B G I--- -.ol I 1A. LAWNE'S CREEK 1> IB. LAWNE'S POINT TO DAYS POINT 2. PAGAN RIVER 3A. GOODWIN POINT TO RAGGED ISLAND CREEK 3B. CHUCKATUCK CREEK SCALE IN MILES 0 2 3 4 760130 76-130' MAP 1B ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY 0 SHORELANDS TYPES 1A 0 'CO V 0 1.0 C- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .10 B 00, 37 3A 00 BRIDGE MAJOR BRIDGE FASTLAND LIMIT --------- A. Rescue Area BArrEN BA Y (secie: i" 2ood) UrK 3B ou fK FASTLAND I Low Shore -j //--k Moderately Low Shore I 1 0 1 a Moderately High Shore A A A A High Shore High Shore with Bluff SHORE Beach Fringe Marsh Extensive Marsh Embayed Marsh NN%0ffiM Artificially Stabilized NEARSHORE Intermediate 0 0 0 0 Wide SCALE IN MILES 760130' 41 0, Ift so Ago an 1111110 76-1 '50' MAP 1C ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY 11w I FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP 1A Iw Iw IRS USE Agricultural A (*I RS Commercial C IRS Industrial I 1 w 1 A 1 C Government G 11; IRS I A 1RS/C 1B 1w IRS w I A I R @S I A I A I A Iw 1w Iw 1A -'N ) '\ 1A 4. % I !S ".R S 1 !S1 R S' 1 A IRS 0 00, ,% 1 A 1 A" 4cAN 'I C % 11 IRS 00, % 1 1 A I A ;I C .'I 1w 3A w I IRS _ 1 1 A 1 A I CRS (-@I IRS IC/RS I C" 'I If., 1A I A IA iA BRIDGE IRS I ,Q1, %2G I A 1w MAJOR BRIDGE IRS IA W% IA 1A 4RC 11 1 IA IIIRS 1w IA 1A FASTLAND LIMIT IIA IA 1w 1A Iw 1A %%, IRS A. IA I BArrEN Rescue Area 1A BA Y (scale: i" 200d) I A I A IRS I A I A ]A 1R@ IA f 3B Recreational RC IRS Residential Unmanaged Unwooded U I/ Wooded W OWNERSHIP Private 1 Federal 2 County 4 SCALE IN MILES 0 2 3 760130' 76-1 30' MAP 1D ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY SHORELINE EROSION 1 A @@ I PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES WASTE DISCHARGES ly NI 1 B 37 00, A 00, 3A B elk, fit B@' R B BRIDGE it ` %N MAJOR BRIDGE FASTLAND LIMIT A. BArrEN Rescue Area BA Y (scale: I" 2ood) KAT orK 0 0 & OC %.3 0 EROSION % Moderate ------ I)- Slight or No Change No Symbol Accretional + + + + SHORELINE PROTECTION STRUCTURES Riprap R Bulkheads B WASTE DISCHARGES Industrial F] Sewage Boat Ramp Marina SCALE IN MILES 0 2 3 4 76c130' - i11E 76-1 30' MAP 1E ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY 1A SHELLFISH AREAS 'CO @70 370 00, To. 3A BRIDGE Q0 MAJOR BRIDGE FASTLAND LIMIT A. Rescue Area (scole: I" ?00d) CHU Public Grounds Leased Grounds Condemnation Areas SCALE IN MILES 0 1 2 4 r 760130 TABLE 1. ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY, FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP (STATUTE MILES) Ownership, use SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY FASTLANDS USE OWNERSHIP TOTAL MILES and physio- graphic classifica- tion FASTLANDS SHORE NEARSHORE Fq Fq E-4 @-i Pq Pq PEI @-q Q <4 Fq Fq Pq Pq P@ PC, Pl-, -:4 -c4 -:4 9 W, W, 0 0 0 @D E--i H C-i 0 E--j 0 E-i W, m m @_q C5 PQ F, q Pq m Pq 0 Subsegment 15 IM5 CHI H 0 0 0 H H H H E-1 0 P@ 0 Fq Fq pq H 5:: P-1 0 1A 1.9 5.5 1.4 1.5 3.3 0.3 0.2 6.9 7.4 6.2 7.4 1B 3.2 5.4 0.8 1.4 2.3 10.7 1.1 0.5 8.4 3.4 5.3 3.4 4.4 13.1 12.3 13.1 2 46.1 22.9 3.6 0.4 6.o 14.6 14.0 0.6 42.5 3.2 2.0 0.7 9.2 15.0 71.9 0.7 35.0 72.6 3A 9.3 o.6 2.3 0.9 7.5 7.2 3.2 2.1 4.6 9.9 10.7 9.9 3B 26.6 0.4 5.7 7.8 1.5 16.1 4.0 6.5 26.6 15.4 26.6 TOTAL 87.1 34.4 4.4 1.4 2.3 13.0 1.9 14.0 23.9 26.8 8.4 11.2 67.4 3.2 2.0 0.7 18.9 37.4 128.9 0.7 79.6 129.6 % of FASTLAND 67% 27% 3% 1% 2% 52% 2% 2% 1% 15% 29% 99% 1% 100% % of SHORELINE 16% 2% 18% 30% 34% 11% 14% 100% 20 I I I I C 11 I I I F"% IC70 . A D s s 3 5 A @ I t%J I .1 4.2 SEGMENT AND SUBSEGMENT DESCRIPTION 1 4.3 SEGMENT AND SUBSEGIVIENT MAPS I I f I I I I I 1 21 TABLE 2. SHORELINE SITUATION REPORT SUBSEGMENT SUMMARIES, ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA SUBSEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS USE - -OWNERSHIP ZONING FLOOD HAZARD WATER QUALITY BEACH QUAIITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION POTENTIAL_USE ENHANCEMENT 1A FASTLAND: Moderately low shore FASTLAND: Agricultural 5%, Private. Agricultural. Low, noncritical. No data. No beaches. Moderate, noncritical, 1.6 ft/yr. at the mouth of the Low. There is little access to the LAWNES CREEK 74% and low shore 26$. residential 3%, and unmanaged, creek. Slight or no change elsewhere. No endangered area. Marsh is best used as a 32,600 feet SHORE: Extensive marsh 53%, em- wooded 93%. structures or shore protective structures. wildlife habitat. (6.2 mi.) bayed marsh 24%, and fringe SHORE: Sport fishing and marsh 23%. waterfowl hunting. CREEK: Lawnes Creek is shallow. CREEK: Sport fishing. It has an average width of 200 ft. 1B FASTLAND: Low shore 24%, moder- FASTLAND: Agricultural 40%, Private. gricultural Low, noncritical No data. Good to poor. Moderate, noncritical (1.2 - 1.9 ft/yr.) from 1 mile S Low. Lawnes Neck has no access BURWELL BAY ately low shore 42%, moderately residential 26%, and unmanaged, and residen- except around Bur- Most beaches of Lawnes Point to just S of Holly Point. Historically, roads. The rest of the subsegment 64,400 feet high shore 6%, high shore 10%, and wooded 34%. tial. well Bay and are wide and severe, noncritical (3.8 ft/yr.), from New Lawson should remain as a low density res- (12.3 mi.) high shore with bluff 18%. SHORE: Recreational. Baileys Beach sandy. Beach Triangulation to Days Point. Area is stable now, due idential and agricultural area. SHORE: Beach 88%, artificially NEARSHORE: Anchorage for where the flood S of Rushmere to presence of Reserve Fleet. Accretion of 1.5 ftlYr. stabilized 9%, and extensive Reserve Fleet in Burwell Bay. hazard is moderate, Shore is mostly occurs at Lawnes Point. There are no endangered marsh 4%. Commercial transport to Rich- critical. clay. structures. Shore protective structures consist 0 f NEARSHORE: Intermediate 67% and mond through Rocklanding Shoal several groin fields and one area of bulkheading. wide 28%. Channel. Elsewhere, water sports, sport boating, and fishing. 2 FASTLAND: Low shore 63%, moder- FASTLAND: Agricultural 59%, Private, ex- Mostly agri- Low, noncritical Satisfactory. Poor. One, No data, except for areas bordering the James River. Low. The marsh areas should be PAGAN RIVER ately low shore 32%, and moder- residential 13%, commercial 4%, cept for cultural, to moderate, thin, beach at Area from Days Point to Williams Creek has been ac- preserved in their natural state. 185,000 feet ately high shore 5%. industrial A recreational 1%7 County owned other areas critical. Days Point. creting at a rate of 3.4 ft/yr. Moderate, noncritical Elsewhere, the creeks' present use (35.0 mi.) SHORE: Embayed marsh 42%, exten- and unmanaged, wooded 21%. Carrollton are residen- (2.6 ft/yr. ) from Williams Creek to the mouth of the as low density residential and sive marsh 40%, fringe marsh 17%, SHORE, Fishing and waterfowl Nike Park on tial, com- Pagan River. Four areas of shore protective structures, agricultural areas should be and artificially stabilized 1%. hunting. Jones Creek. mercial or usually wooden bulkheading, are mostly effective in continued. NFARSHORE: Wide 2%. Pagan River RIVER: Sport boating and industrial. retaining fill and in guarding against boat wake has controlling depths of 6 ft. fishing. erosion. 3A FASTLAND: Low shore 94% and FASTLAND: Agricultural 32%, Private. Agricultural Moderate, noncrit- Satisfactory. Poor. Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical (1.2 - Low. TheRagged Island Marshes RAGGED ISLAND moderately low shore 6%. residential 21%, and unmanaged, and residen- ical and critical. 2.6 ft/yr.). Several hundred feet of bulkheading on should be left as they are. 56,600 feet SHORE: Ext ensive marsh 70%, beach wooded 47%. tial. Goodwin Point and riprap at the James River abutment. (10.7 mi.) 22%, fringe marsh 8%, and artifi- SHORE: Sport fishing and These both seem to be effective. cially stabilized 1%. waterfowl hunting. NEARSHORE: Wide 67%. NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping in the Channel. Elsewhere sp0rt boating, fishing, and other water sports. 3B FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. FASTLAND: Agricultural 61%, Private. Agricultural Low, noncritical Satisfactory. No beaches. Moderate, noncritical erosion (1.2 ft/yr.) from the A planned residential community is CHUCKATUCK SHORE: Embayed marsh 51%, fringe residential 15%, and unmanaged, d residen- for most of the mouth of Chuckatuck to Ragged Island. No data for the already underway at the head of CREEK marsh 37%, extensive marsh 10%, wooded 24%. tial. area, moderate, rest of the area. Several areas of wooden or concrete Ragged Island Creek. The rest of 81,200 feet and artificially stabilized 2%. SHORE: Sport fishing and critical E of bulkhead. All seem at least moderately effective in the subsegment should remain as 15.4 mi.) CREEK: Chuckatuck Creek has 4 waterfowl hunting. Muddy Cove. doing their job in retaining fill. low density residential area. foot depths at its mouth. CREEK: Sport fishing, boating, and other water sports. 23 LAWNES CREEK, ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. BURWELL BAY, ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA SUBSEGMENT 1A (Map 2) POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. There is some SUBSEGMENT 1B (Maps 2, 3, and 4) residential development along Route 676 located EXTENT: 32,600 feet (6.2 mi.) of'shoreline along about -21 mile into the fastland. With no other EXTENT: 64,400 feet (12.3 mi.) of shoreline from Lawnes Creek. The subsegment includes 39,200 roads into the area, further development is Lawnes Point to Days Point. The subsegment feet (7.4 mi.) of fastland. unlikely. This area is probably best left as includes 68,800 feet (13.1 mi.) of fastland. it is, serving as a wildlife habitat. Nature SHORELANDS TYPE trails are a possibility along the creek. SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Moderately low shore 74% (29,200 MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), HOG ISLANI) FASTIAND: Low shore 24% (16,800 ft.), mod- ft.) and low shore 26% (10,000 ft.). Quadr., 1965, Pr. 1972. erately low shore 42% (28,600 ft.), moderately SHORE: Extensive marsh 53% (17,200 ft.), em- USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), BACONS CASTLE high shore 6% (4,000 ft.), high shore 10% bayed marsh 24% (8,000 ft.), and fringe marsh Quadr., 1969. (7,200 ft.) and high shore, with bluff 18% 235 (7,400 ft.). C&GS, #529, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, (12,200 ft.@. CREEK: Lawnes Creek is shallow. It has an Newport News to Jamestown Island, 1970. SHORE: Beach 88% (56,400 ft.), artificially average width of 200 feet. stabilized 9% (5,600 ft.), and extensive marsh PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 12July74 IW-1A/1- 4% (2,400 ft.). SHORELANDS USE NEARSHORE: Intermediate 67% (44,200 ft.) and FASTLAND: Agricultural 5% (1,800 ft.), resi- wide 28% (18,200 ft.). The rest of the shore- dential 3% (1,000 ft.), and unmanaged, wooded line is located along several creeks in the 93% (36,400 ft.). subsegment and is unclassified. SHORE: Sport fishing and waterfowl hunting in the marsh areas. SHORELANDS USE CREEK: Sport fishing in areas of the creek. FASTLAND: Agricultural 40% (27,800 ft.), resi- dential 26% (17,900 ft.), and unmanaged, wooded SHORELINE TREND: The creek trends basically N - 34% (23,100 ft.). S. SHORE: Recreational usages at the different beaches found along the shore of the subsegment. OWNERSHIP: Private. NEARSHORE: Burwell Bay is used as an anchorage for the Maritime Administration James River ZONING: Agricultural. Reserve Fleet. No private boats are allowed within 500 feet of the anchorage. Commercial FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical for the subseg- vessels use the Rocklanding Shoal Channel in ment. All of the fastland is at least above their transport of goods upstream to Richmond the 20-foot contour. and surrounding areas. The rest of the sub- segment's nearshore is used for water sports, WATER QUALITY: No data available for this area. sport boating, and fishing. BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this sub- WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends first segment. N - S, then W - E. The fetches at Holly Point PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION are SE - 15.2 nm and E - 7.6 nm. EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, OWNERSHIP: Private. noncritical. The only area of measurable ero- sion is at the mouth of Lawnes Creek where the ZONING: Agricultural and Residential. erosion rate has been 1.6 feet per year. The rest of the creek shoreline is protected from FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical to moderate, crit- the erosive forces of direct bay waves and ical. Most of the subsegment is sufficiently river fetches. high to withstand the flood waters of the James ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. River. However, several areas, especially SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. around Burwell Bay and Baileys Beach, have areas with structures below the 5-foot (MSL) Suggested Action: No action is necessary. contour. These are endangered by flooding. 25 WATER QUALITY: No data available. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers in the subsegment. A boatramp is located at BEACH QUALITY: Good to poor. The subsegment has Rushmere Shores. wide, sandy beaches along much of its shoreline. Notable are the beaches around Mogarts Beach POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. The Lawnes Neck and along the uninhabite 'd areas of Lawnes Neck. area is almost inaccessible, which makes any However, there are also beaches in this subseg- type of development highly unlikely. The rest ment composed of clay with rocks and little or of the subsegment is already developed as a no sand. One example is the area between Rush- second home, vacation area. Though some devel- mere Shores and Baileys Beach. Here, the beach opment here is a possibility, there is a limited and half of the 15-foot bluff behind is com- amount of land available. posed of clay. These beaches are not suitable for most recreational activities. MAPS: USGS9 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), HOG ISLAND Quadr., 1965, Pr. 1972. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION USGS9 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), BACONS CASTLE EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, Quadr., 1969. noncritical. The area at Lawnes Point has been USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), MULBERRY ISLAND accreting at a rate of 1.5 feet per year. There Quadr., 1965, Pr. 1970. is moderate, noncritical erosion occurring from C&GS, #529, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, one mile south of Lawnes Point to just south of Newport News to Jamestown Island, 1970. Holly Point. Here, the historical erosion rate has been from 1.2 to 1.9 feet per year. The PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 12July74 IW-1B/2-20, 27-29; shoreline from New Lawson Triangulation to Days 24Jan 75 IW-lB/21-26, 30-38. Point historically has experienced severe ero- sion at a rate of 3.8 feet per year. However, Ground 2July75 IW-1B/67-104. field checks reveal that most of the area is now stable. This stabilization has probably been the result of the placement of the U.S. Reserve Fleet upstream of the area. This ac- tion has severely limited the potentially long fetch from the north. If the Reserve Fleet is moved, or is severely diminished in numbers, the area would probably again suffer from se- vere erosion. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None at present. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are several groin fields in the subsegment. They are lo- cated at Rushmere Shores, south of Holly Point, east of New Lawson Triangulation, and at Mogarts Beach. Most of the groins are made of wood but a few are constructed of rubble. There is bulk- heading at the marina at Baileys Beach which ap- pears to be successful. Suggested Action: None for the present. In the next few years, depending upon the size and location of the Reserve Fleet, erosion will probably be a greater problem along Burwell Bay and around Mogarts Beach. The bluffs at Mogarts Beach need to be sloped more and then revege- tated. Though most are now well vegetated, they are too steep to hold the soil should ero- sion become a problem there again. 26 PAGAN RIVER, ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA There are, however, some houses built in areas Route 10 bridge across the Pagan River has SEGMENT 2 (Maps 4 and 5) susceptible to flooding (land with less than a vertical pilings protecting its shoreline. 5-foot elevation). In these areas, the flood hazard is moderate, critical. Suggested Action: The Pagan River is a low EXTENT: 185,000 feet (35.0 mi.) of shoreline from intensity area with little or no erosion. No Days Point to Goodwin Point, including the WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory, as of January, 1975. action is deemed necessary. Pagan River, Cypress Creek, and Jones Creek. BELCH QUALITY: Poor. There is one narrow beach OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There is a boatramp at The segment has 383,200 feet (72.6 mi.) of at Days Point. the marina west of Cypress Creek and one at a fastland. marina between Red Point and Cypress Creek. SHORELANDS TYPE PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION There are numerous piers and docks throughout FASTLAND: Low shore 63% (243,300 ft.), moder- EROSION RATE: No data except for the areas the segment. A marine railway is located at a ately low shore 32% (120,700 ft.), and moder- directly bordering on the James River. The marina at Rescue. Also, there are several ately high shore 5% (19,200 ft.). area from Days Point to Williams Creek has bridges across the river and the creeks. SHORE: Embayed marsh 42% (77,000 ft.), exten- been accreting at a rate of 3.4 feet per year sive marsh 40% (74,000 ft.), fringe marsh 17% historically. Moderate, noncritical erosion POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. The marsh areas (31,950 ft.), and artificially stabilized 1% has been occurring from Williams Creek to the of the shoreline should be left in their nat- (2,080 ft.). mouth of the Pagan River. Historically, that ural state. The present usage of the rest of NEARSHORE: Wide 2% (3,400 ft.). The Pagan area has lost an average of 2.6 feet per year. the shoreline as a low density residential and River has a controlling depth of only six feet, ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. agricultural area should be continued. which is too shallow to be classified by our SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is approx- system. imately 800 feet of bulkhead in the area around MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo. ), BACONS CASTLE the Route 704 bridge over Jones Creek. The Quadr., 1969. SHORELANDS USE marina here has about 600 feet of wooden bulk- USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), MULBERRY ISLAND FASTLAND: Agricultural 59% (224,600 ft.), res- head holding backfill. This is in good condi- Quadr., 1965, Pr. 1970. idential 13% (48,400 ft.), commercial 4% tion and seems effective. On the west side of USGS, 7.5 M�n.Ser. (Topo.), BENNS CHURCH (16,600 ft.), industrial 3% (10,600 ft.), rec- the creek there is an old system of about 100 Quadr., 1965, Pr. 1972. reational 1% (3,800 ft.), and unmanaged, wooded feet of logs laid on the shoreline supposedly USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), SMITHFIELD 21% (79,200 ft.). acting as a bulkhead. This method would be Quadr., 1968. SHORE: Fishing in the marsh areas of Jones and ineffective in a high energy area. However, C&GS, #529, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, Cypress Creeks, and in areas of the Pagan River. there is little or no erosion here and the logs Newport News to Jamestown Island, 1970. Waterfowl hunting also takes place in these mainly act as a buffer between the shore and areas. the fastland. On the west side of the creek PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 24Jan75 IW-2/39-64. RIVER: Sport boating and fishing in the river there is an eel processing plant which is en- and creeks. compassed with about 100 feet of wooden bulk- Ground 29May75 IW-2/48-66. head, part of which is backf�lled with con- SHORELINE TREND: The Pagan River system contains crete. This emplacement is fairly new, well many meaxiders. The river trends basically E - constructed, and apparently effective. At W. The tributary creeks trend basically N - S. Fulgham. Bridge, a residence has several hundred feet of bulkhead constructed of horizontally OWNERSHIP: Private, except for the County owned placed railroad ties. This is effective in Carrollton Nike Park on Jones Creek. holding backfill. At Battery Park, an oyster packing plant has ZONING: Mostly agricultural. Residential for an old bulkhead now mostly fronted by rubble most of Smithfield. Commercial at the Route 10 riprap. The area is stable. On the east side bridge abutment over Cypress Creek. Industrial of the Route 10 bridge over Cypress Creek, at the Route 10 bridge abutment over the Pagan there is a restaurant and marina. This area River. has approximately 300 feet of retaining wall and riprap along its shoreline. The retaining FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical to moderate, crit- wall is constructed of small pilings with horii- ical. Most of the segment's fastland is suf- zontally placed boards. It is permeable but is ficiently high to withstand flood waters. still relatively effective in retaining fill. The packing plant on the north side of the 27 RAGGED ISLAND, ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA subsegment has eroded at a rate of 1.2 to 2.6 CHUCKATUCK CREEK, ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA SUBSEGMENT 3A (Maps 4 and 6) feet per year historically. SUBSEGMENT 3B (Maps 6 and 7) ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: No structures are pres- ently endangered. EXTENT: 56,600 feet (10.7 mi.) of shoreline from SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is several EXTENT: 81,200 feet (15.4 mi.) of shoreline from Goodwin Point to Ragged Island Creek. The hundred feet of bulkhead in front of two houses Ragged Island Creek to the Isle of Wight County subsegment includes 52,400 feet (9.9 mi.) of on Goodwin Point and riprap at the James River line. The shoreline measurement includes fastland. Bridge abutment. All seems to be effective. Brewers Creek and Green Swamp Creek (to the county line). The subsegment also includes SHORETiANDS TYPE Suggested Action: With almost all of the shore- 140,400 feet (26.6 mi.) of fastland. FASTLAND: Low shore 94% (49,000 ft.) and mod- line experiencing moderate erosion, some type of erately low shore 6% (3,400 ft.). - artificial stabilization of the shoreline is in SHORELANDS TYPE SHORE: Extensive marsh 70% (39,600 ft.), beach order. However, economics make it impractical FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. 22% (12,200 ft.), fringe marsh 8% (4,800 ft.), to@ stabilize any areas of the subsegment except SHORE: Embayed marsh 51% (41,400 ft.), fringe and artificially stabilized less than 1%. for the Goodwin Point shoreline. There, land- marsh 37% (30,150 ft.), extensive marsh 10% NFARSHCRE: Wide 67%, located along the James owners should make a joint effort to present a (7,800 ft.), and artificially stabilized 2% River. The rest of the shoreline measurement unified defense to protect against erosion. (1,850 ft.). is from creeks or creek mouths and is unclas- Professional advice is always the first step in CREEK: Chuckatuck Creek has depths of about sified. considering such a project. 4 feet at its mouth. SHORELANDS USE OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Agricultural 32% (17,700 ft.), res- and the James River Bridge in this subsegment. FASTLAND: Agricultural 61% (85,000 ft.), res- idential 21% (11,000 ft.), and unmanaged, POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: The Ragged Island idential 15% (21,000 ft.), and unmanaged, wooded 47% (24,400 ft.). marshes should be left as an unspoiled area. wooded 24% (34,400 ft.). SHORE: Sport fishing and waterfowl hunting in It is a valuable resource to the area as a SHORE: Sport fishing and waterfowl hunting the marshes of Ragged Island. natural wildlife habitat. along the marsh areas of the subsegment. NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping in the channel. CREEK: Sport fishing, boating, and other water Sport boating, fishing, and other water sports MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), MULBERRY ISLAND sports. Also, at the mouth of Brewers Creek, throughout the subsegment. Quadr., 1965, Pr. 1970. residents maintain oyster and clam beds in the WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi- USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), BENNS CHURCH creek nearshore. cally NW - SE. The fetch at Candy Island is Quadr., 1965, Pr. 1972. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends N SE - 8.5 nm and ENE - 4.0 rim. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), NEWPORT NEWS S from the subsegment's start to the mouth of SOUTH Quadr., 1964, Pr. 1968. Chuckatuck Creek. From there, the creek OWNERSHIP: Private. C&GS, #529, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, shoreline trends NE - SW. The fetch at the Newport News to Jamestown Island, 1970. mouth of Chuckatuck Creek is E to W - 9.4 nm ZONING: Agricultural and Residential. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 24Jan75 IW-3A/65-66. and ENE to WSW - unlimited across the Chesa- FLOOD HA ZARD: Moderate, noncritical except crit- peake Bay. ical for one house at the head of Cooper Creek. OWNERSHIP: Private. WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory, as of January, 1975. ZONING: Agricultural and Residential. BEACH QUALITY: Poor to good. Most beaches found FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical for most of the in this subsegment are narrow and interspaced subsegment. Flooding occurs in the marsh with salt bush. There are some nice beaches areas throughout the subsegment. The only along Ragged Island's shoreline, however they area where flooding endangers structures is are almost totally inaccessible except by boat. just east of Muddy Cove. Here, the flood hazard is moderate, critical. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory, as of January, 1975. noncritical. Except for a stable 70-foot sec- tion southeast of Goodwin Point, the entire 28 BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this sub- segment. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data on Brewers Creek or Chuckatuck Creek. Moderate, noncritical ero- sion is occurring from the mouth of Chuckatuck Creek to Ragged Island. The shore here his- torically has eroded at an average rate of 1.2 feet per year. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is a 50- foot section of concrete block bulkhead east of Winall Point. On the east side of Muddy Cove, one residence has approximately 100 feet of concrete bulkhead backed by a wooden re- taining wall 10 feet behind. Adjoining this is another 100 feet of old, wooden bulkhead, retaining fill. Just east of Brewers Creek there is 1,600 feet of wooden bulkhead with backfill. All structures appear effective in their job of retaining fill and guarding against boat wake erosion. Suggested Action: No action is deemed neces- sary. The eroding section of shoreline is marsh, thus, no measures can be taken there to prevent it. Elsewhere, the segment's shore- line is stable. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers found from just north of the mouth of Chucka- tuck Creek to the mouth of Brewers Creek. A wooden boatramp is located on the east side of Muddy Cove. POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. The present usage as a low density residential area ap- pears most satisfactory. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), BENNS CHURCH Quadr., 1965, Pr. 1972. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), NEWPORT NEWS SOUTH Quadr., 1964, Pr. 1968. C&GS, #529, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, Newport News to Jamestown Island, 1970. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 24Jan75 IW-3B/67-70. Ground - 291Wav75 IW-3B/1-47. 29 760 140 v C-D 411 railer - awnes Point 4@, Park q :@@4( z 'qd 35 rIZ- < i,N S @AWN@- 4" 1Y/ T PO Segments 1-A-' . . .. ..... 370 07' 370 n 07' 51 --k L 30-- 3U It 650 It 30 If -?0 w 0 r 0 -30-11 ki -w, ushmere 676 25" Shores Grav 1(" p i1BI A- n n686 Ura vel, p h it 0 0 Baileys BeaCh 30 5,0 Q 676 702 olly Point so, � 0 rs ve H C6 0 1 MILE EE@ 760 40' 760 140 1 v A, 0 m @Nx 0 0 'Mnes Point 1AAA Trailer Pa k 0 V m 0 35- A Fla_ AW A: 0 R ---WTY\PES,-. mgmilpint 1B T (7 ---------- 0 V, ND:1 g, V 6 Mo 0 eh ly@ Low Shore J 0 0 4XI ------- .... ... . B a 370 OT 0 .3d' - ------- ---- 370 ) te Ye marsh@ 07' r ba Marsh 30 A fid,411y abili d 0 c AF@, E, 0 0 0 0 0 0 T JUL@) 0 L-Li 4== r 650 @j 2 If If 0 30 0 if 0 0 --so 30-11111, 0 61 t _j 0 r U 618 -25 m9e j 67 res Grav k" 0 0 11B! 4 627 686 0 p 0 It If it if It "0 50 if 0 u it L 628 0 YS Beach Ir 0 0 v 30 0 0 676 (702) 0 0 y Point 0 $0 0 tp rat ve rr e 0 1 MILE J, 77 n @'F? 760140'__ m 11M m m mango m m =11111111101 m m m 760 140' v 35. MRS if C awnes Point -P 2 C 41, - ' 1: . / "'. 'A Pwk II - f- ." l@_' NES \.. - . )-N Ar 11 -29@'V@ w @E, OW q, ji gm-t�@ a6d--1B 36 A- u 1VV A` & A ;71 z rcial C si ntial a+ n65O age F @@\ ". 1, 1w p@, ooded w J HIP 0 370 3 07' 370 30' oderate 07 d' 1w g t or N Cha No bt--f + 1w '4cr iona 5/ 1w ,4' 1w Alw NO: 6w if It 1w if If 30 q,13 C 0 \7 --50 7- -30-411 z 1w 1w 0 hmere @-25 6 1w !jhores I(x p 0 1w j/ if If If 1A R B Neys Beach ik 30 676 1R 13 1A'1 50 7002 Ivv cMy Point $0 '01 H ....... .... -Z@ 0 1 MILE 81A L 760 40' 72 76+d B47RWELL B A Y to 7 TOPOC B r u. well Bay A. 1B 50 BM 7 37c 02' 3d' 0 h, /I H P 50 0 3 V C-) S@> Li 50 50 M6 )Pv 0 1 MILE 2 1-71 4 760140 35 760 40' 0 B VR WEL L B A Y 0 .0 4! ,well Bay o kk IB 0 11 60 BM 7 3701 02, 30 R E EL PIES 0 e%q 1A n 1 I@AST \@80 0 50 tPt-Z- 3 C3 s C-L Lend -50, 0 MILE 760 40' 36 76-140' BURWELL B A Y 1W FASTLAND 1A, 1R USE 1 Rms/ Burwell Bay Ag Re Re 1B Un % 50 OWNEF Bm Pri EROSIC Sli 3t- 02' 1R 3d' 80 A A If 60 1AO- 1W 3 67 0 0 -50 0 1 MILE 2 rig, A 76-140' 37 ,rrOO130' r .19 0 A Oays .:oin,t 2 J/ 13A f agan o ,,u n 370 370 0 2 ..... ..... 3) lot. ;-kk 00, a N. @c -- a tew 4- 13,M It, _25- 5 Q0 7 ........... ery Park -0- j k . . ........ 0 F,'GG HY AN 'C Wu E ment.-@,,1B, rit Re 2u r ICL ou sing 8 j Ch 3 (it 111, BM 22 0 S K ILIT Y RVA 4 -74- - f 1 MILE' 0 L _-Y)Y-5L 35' 760135' r 1BI MAP 4B MOUTH OF PAGAN RIVER SHORELANDS TYPES 29 Segments 1B, 2, 3A FASTLAND Low Shore Oi nt 0 Moderately Low Shore SHORE Fringe Marsh 1`11111111111111111111111 Extensive Marsh 71 J-) Embayed Marsh Artificially Stabilized -A- -A- -A- NEARSHORE Wide 0 0 0 ... .... .... .......... ... ... .... .......... 13A@ .370 ................ 00.. 1370 0, um Flat .......... El ek-view 8141 -25' 0 er 0 'AI ery Park A M 23 \j A t r 46 26 S 'A ----------- I I I , -,, a Itising S' '- ', I -Z .-L Ch % h X27 N BM 0 L 2 0 S RV Ix -25' 4 A Zb 76-135 Mae 7650 1-35, AP 4C 1A OUT. OF PAGAN RIVER A FASTLAND USE,.OWNERSHIP, EROSION" Segments 1B,, 2, 3A 9 USE ,,1A ..,-!Agriculitural A Commercial C ays A :.oint Government G Residential RS Day Unmanaged U U . ......... nwooded Wooded W A--- NERSHIP Private Federal (1U 2 Coqpty 4. 2 2 L '@@oderate Slight or No Change No Symbol Accretional + + + t3A@ ....... .. "Pagan 370 Go 121 AM 370 100, W T . ... .... . L 4 F tl A iew S k 0 ery Park IJ 1A M 671 1A 41 A 46 16 4ising Si@ P h X27 5?4M 1A A A A @M w @?01 0 0 W 7, -4 6 V IS Y KIM RVA 4 1W W 0 1W C 7 0 1MILE - --- --- r-V V 76037 130 \ (/ -, - - 50 47 6 5- il,-t,. Z i p C T) Cf) 0, *S@ardy 45 It Jo napi J 0 U 0 0 74 @jj 10 0 B V@ ..... ... A( ...... ... . ..... ... D1 370 00, 10 . .......... 370 .. ... ......... SO Ik -0 00, NT A '0 too ....P.A ........ . b-1 40 !e 0 Fit, Igh /0 Aspo@a I 11. p6ri Ivy Hmil Cem\ A @k 3 1697) 0 Hj;mft . ...... ....... RV 30 Q) Q.A Hi B V v u (D V 0! Vs 50 0-@ , All IT L 4', 85 SO 4 cwhoary 64 L B ry 80 @j Gal 0 tcz@ PO p 10 ff I MILE o @O ) ':'@5 --T --' wi'E @-' 1 7-- J) 760 3'7'30" 760137 30'. kw - 0 .68 ttle-Zio h *Hardy ..... ..... S_ h ncipt @O 0 C;@ - ;10 08 1,J1 (N 14- It 0 00 37- 00, 10 k Ilk \@l G JV/ 0 0 -4 Hi ch 0 0 Ira a d tic) SHO so- 0 Ow ASTLAN V 4 4 F Low Shor @Mmo r I ore\ 85 s R ao 0 e --3 4 Embay d ArUji It Ga --------- -- to 0 if i! 0 J) m L 760 37'30" m m -M 760 37'30" 0 73 68 3 50@ Little zi Hard 1W@ r) Vch d- p" C/ 1A M 0 74 110 A' B 8@ f 0 ......... . ......... 370 'o 00, 370 To it 10 JU C) 40 &0 !e A 'o P.- 0 s posa PA A f, Porl e 01 Di s. 'A@ 3 697 60 H- 4@_ 30 Hi ch B 5 a 3 Win- I PA_@ - OF 0 cial _4 85 'o _e' 1RS 50 84 riv 46 Gal-- to 10 I MILE i 0 4( E JA 760137'30" 57' 30" 360 MAP 6A 17, RAGGED ISLAND i3A TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE 20 J j , Ak, Segments 3A and 3B Segment Boundary J@ Subsegment Boundary 4t K X, --V j j tA CIO, lop 2, \V, A, 'N V 41 ES "N' k 3A' @-j 760 % 30' X l\k Q, W ps Ir X x Ilk \k lk V7 U. -A A Ilk -.7 (7 3A 13AI \6 360 41 V @X\ 57' c 3B@ X W.. 01, 0 1 MILE t 7 7 3 360 MAP 6B RAGGED ISLAND Cj OA@ SHORELANDS TYPES Segments 3A and 313 0 0 FASTLAND Low Shore L I L I I I,., pv /;SHORE Beach Fringe Marsh xtensive Marsh Ernoayed Marsh N@@ 1cially Stabilized SH (EN if Jh CC) 760 if 0 -y -if @77 At' V \v 0, - ----- Ilk N ......... 0 36 5\7 30' 00 3BI 106 I MILE 760 30' 7 30 360 @w- MAP 6C RAGGED ISLAND FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION @_3 A ?0 Segments 3A and 3B USE Agricultural A Residential RS Unmanaged Unwooded U -Wooded W ----------- OWNERSHIP N\' Private "?j PSION Moderate 1w! x\1 ight or No Zhange @N oI-___J - 1-il ; '\@ )t , , " , \@ N\ , '4 S A '%\X Ilk S__) - ----- lk@ 0 V \'N" 1A 4@- I A 14A;j- W '1W (lA 2@" A \x - ------- -- 760 W 30, X V I -,I V@ A"N lk It \1 3B I @_C 1W 0 Irl -Q IN J"z 0 1A N 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 0 '3 V 13 A I*'L/ A V "I 1W @A' 1A S 57' U 30' N\ 13B t. d 0 1 MILE 76@-@01 76NX32'3d' d4 -25@ 3B@ 20 ee F, A@ 0 7@t J@o j -7 L,) IN, v .......... ER fk4,,'y VZ Ag: Se"gment n bsegment unda r 36' 5 2 C)l r4 1,6 A4 20 760 5 \2@ r.j& 1,0 30, -60, tr 1.\ IK -25- 1 MILE 3 760 32'30 A, p e -7 O@ @j ak, lit "kin A ;u; (D --------- ---- 30- ---- --- ERS ........... STLA ........ 0" IJ SH 36 Fri Marih fil IIIIIIIIH111111111 52- Ext ar'�h- mba La I V- -@20 30-j 2 76'0 3\2@ 6 X -it "0 1 1 MILE 36@,1'52' 30" 7 6 -\3 2, 30" 1@, lk@ 1A 1A It 61 1A, 1AZ A, 13B@@ @-20- 1A A iA--20 c -lA lu 0 'A V v V1, Flo J, A p ID 5 ER8@1 ----- - FA STLAII ow K U, it iculfural ie`sia@a6tiaj 360 a n 4@e\d 52' 30 oo eld-, PoNate 20 760 D" 0- 30, ------------ 0 Ck zn 1 MILE 0 3S@@ 52 30