[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
6 Shoreline Situation Report Coastal zone Infornlation NEW KENT, KING WILLIAM, AND KING and QUEEN COUNTIES Center 14' AL W 7r1k. IL Ito V -.4 0". 14 .:!Jkr 4V jj ji ir Supported by the National Science Foundation, Research Applied to National 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 Atornspheric Administration, Grant No. 04-5-158-50001 Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 44 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 99 of the QH 301 A`il V852 VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARWE SCIENCE 1 no.99 Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1975 Shoreline Situation Report NEW KENT, KING WILLIAM, AND KING and QUEEN COUNTIES Prepared by: Carl H. Hobbs III Margaret H. Peoples Gary L. Anderson Peter Rosen Project Supervisors' Robert J. Byrne S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA John M. Zeigler Crj "\,ir'F@ CENITER HOF-SON AVENUE CmAh-LLSION SC 29405-2413 of c8c Library C-11 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: Shorelands components 5 1.1 Purposes and goals 2 FIGURE 2: Marsh types 5 1.2 Acknowledgements -2 FIGURE 3: Diascund Creek, photograph 19 0 FIGURE 4: Diascund Creek, photograph 19 FIGURE 5: Mattaponi River, aerial photograph 19 CHAPTER 2: APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED 3 FIGURE 6: Pamunkey River at West Point, aerial photograph 19 2.1 Approach to the problem 4 FIGURE 7: West Point, aerial photograph 19 2.2 Characteristics of the shorelands included in the study 4 TABLE 1: Tri-County shorelands physiography 20 New Kent shorelands physiography 21 King William shorelands physiography 22 CHAPTER 3:. PRESENT SHORELANDS SITUATION 9 King and Queen shorelands physiography 23 3.1 Present shoreline situation 10 TABLE 2: Segment summaries New Kent 26 3.2 Shore erosion, processes, patterns, and defenses 10 King William 27 3.3 Potential shorelands uses 12 King and Queen 28 MAPS 1 A-E: 14 CHAPTER 4: SEGMENT SUMMARIES, DESCRIPTIONS, AND MAPS 25 MAPS 2A-C: 42 4.1 Tables of segment summaries MAPS 3A-C: 45 New Kent 26 MAPS 4A-C: 48 King William 27 MAPS 5A-C: 51 King and Queen 28 MAPS 6A-C: 54 4.2 Segment Summaries 29 MAPS 7A-C: 57 New Kent County segments 29 MAPS 8A-C: 60 King William County segments 33 MAPS 9A-C: 63 King and Queen County segments 38 MAPS 1OA-C: 66 4.3 Segment and subsegment maps 42 MAPS 11A-C: 69 MAPS 12A-C: 72 MAPS 13A-C: 75 MAPS 14A-C: 78 MAPS 15A-C: 81 MAPS 16A-C: 84 MAPS 17A-C: 87 CHAPTER 1 Introduction CHAPTER 1 Recreation may be most useful at a higher governmental level. INTRODUCTION Transportation The Commonwealth of Virginia has traditionally Waste disposal chosen to place, as much as possible, the regula- 1.1 PURPOSES AND GOAIS 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 "Lct of 1972 (Chapter 2.1, Title an assessment, 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 @f County Boards to act on ap- acteristics which will aid the planners and the The role of planners and managers is to opti- plications for a- ', @rations of wetlands. Thus, our managers of the shorelands in making the best de- mize the utilization of the shorelands and to min- focus at the county level is intended to interface cisions for the utilization of this limited and imize the conflicts arising from competing demands. with and to support the existing or pending county very valuable resource. The report gives partic- Furthermore, once a particular use has been decided regulatory mechanisms concerning activities in the ular 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 ACKNOWIEDGENIENTS tried to include in our assessment some of the po- planner, fox 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 (HANN) of the National Science -Foundation adminis- tion could be of considerable value in the way a in designing the beach by pointing out the techni- tered through the Chesapeake Research Consortium particular segment of coast is perceived by poten- cal feasibility of altering or enhancing the pres- (CRC), Inc. George Dawes, Ken Moore, and Gene tial users. ent configuration of the shore zone. Alternately, Silberhorn of the VIMS Wetlands Section contributed The basic advocacy of the authors in the prep- if the use were a residential development, we.would many useful ideas and criticisms. Michael Carron, aration of the report is that the use of shore- hope our work would be useful in specifying the Gaynor Williams, and Dennis Owen assisted with the lands should be planned rather than haphazardly shore erosion problem and by indicating defenses data reduction. Beth Marshall typed the manuscript. developed in response to the short term pressures likely to succe ed in containing the erosion. In Peggy Peoples, Peter Rosen, Joe Gilley, Russell and interests. Careful planning could reduce the summary our objective is to provide a useful tool Bradley, Ken Thornberry, and Bill Jenkins prepared conflicts which may be expected to arise between for enlightened utilization of a limited resource, the graphics. We also thank the numerous other competing interests. Shoreland utilization in the shorelands of the Commonwealth. persons in Maryland and Virginia who have criti- many areas of the country, and indeed in some Shorelands planning occurs, either'formally or cized and commented upon our ideas and methods. places in Virginia, has proceeded in a manner such informally, at all levels from the private owner of Publication funds were provided through the Coastal that the very elements which attracted people to shoreland property to county governments, to Zone Management Act, P.L. 92-583, as administered the shore have been destroyed by the lack of planning districts and to the state and federal in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grant Number 0.4- planning and forethought. agency level. We feel our results will be useful 5-158-50001. 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 CHAPTER 2 Approach Used and Elements Considered CHAPTER 2 the subsegment. Segments are a grouping of onsidered as being composed of three inter- .@j @se be c APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED ments. The boundaries for segments also were se- acting physiographic elements: the fastlands, the lected on physiographic units such as necks or shore and the nearshore. A graphic clas'sifica- 2.1 APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM 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 users' 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) Shoreiands 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 representing 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- 0 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 Physiographic C1 assification: Fringe marsh is that which is less than 400 feet in A 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 Shoreline Situation Reports Purpose To assess shoreline parameters and characteristics in order to aid planners and managers'in making wise decisions on shoreline resources. Methodology A. Existing information is used whenever possible. B. Low altitude, oblique 35 mm color photographs are taken of the entire shoreline and placed on file for office interpretation and future use. Pictures are also taken to document the effectiveness of shoreline protection devic@s- C. After office analysis, specific questions are resolved by on-site analyses. D. In most cases, erosional characteristics, shoreland types and shoreland use are determined through field work. Characteristics of Shorelands A. Shoreland physiographic classifications. 1) Shore zone - low water mark to 11i times the tidal range measured from M L W (mean low water). 2) Fastland - land area measured from inland limit of shore zone. 3) Nearshore - area measured from M L W out to 12 foot depth contour. B. Shoreland use classifications. 1) Residential 2) Commercial. 3) Industrial. 4) Government. 5) Recreation and other public open space. 6) Preserved. 7) Agricul tural . 8) Unmanaged (open and wooded types). C. Shorelands ownership classification (fastland only). 1) Private 2) Governmental (federal, state, county, town or city) i D. Water Quality (ratings based upon coliform counts taken from the Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation). 1) Satisfactory rating - maximum total coliform counts of 70 per 100 ml. MPN (most probable number). plus maximum fecal coliform count of 23 per 100 ml. MPN. 2) Intermediate Rating - Total coliform MPN of 70/100 ml., but fecal.coliform less than 23 MPN. 3) Unsatisfactory - Any waters having total and fecal coliform counts above maximum MPN's. E. Zoning (zoning regulations included when they exist)., F. Shore erosion and shoreline defenses. 1) Erosion ratings. a) Slight - less than 1 ft/yr b) Moderate - 1-3 ft/yr c) Severe - greater than 3 ft/yr [Moderate and.severe ratings further classified as critical (if structures are endangered) or non-critical] 2) Pictures of shoreline defenses are taken and comments relative to their effectiveness are made. If no defenses exist, but are needed, recommendations are made G. Potential shore uses (particular attention given to recreation.) Distribution of marshes - information limited to physiographic types (fringing, embayed or extensive) and acreage estimates. I. Flood hazards (reference given to two tidal flood levels). 1) In 'termediate regional flood level - acreage reoccurrence time of 100 years. 2) Standard project flood level - highest probable flood level. H. Shellfish leases and public grounds (data in this section are based upon the Virginia State Water Control Board's publication, Shellfish Growing Areas in the Commonwealth: Public, Leased,and Condemned (1971). K. Beach quality Tidal Marsh Inventories Purpose To inventory all of the Commonwealth's )qetlands and to make the information available to wetlands boards, planners, and managers in order to facilitate more educated decisions relative to the and non-.use of these valuable areas. Methodology A. All wetlands receive an on-site survey and analysis. 1) The marsh and its location are characterized. 2) Acreage involved is determined. 3) Vegetation zonation maps (identifying marsh types and percentages of various marsh plants) are established. 4) The water-marsh interface, defined as the linear length (in feet) that a marsh fronts a tidal river, stream, or channel having a minimum width of 40 feet, is determined. 5) The interface - marsh area ratio is calculated. (This is computed by dividing the interface length in feet by the total marsh acreage. Generally the higher the ratio, the more valuable ihe marsh.) B. Aerial photographs and topographic maps are utilized to more accurately locate (geographically) the marsh areas. C. After all wetlands in a county have been inventoried, the information is totalled in terms of total acreage and total acreage of each marsh type. D. Following county inventories, an overall evaluation of all marshes in Tidewater Virginia will be undertaken. shore. Extensive marsh is that which has extensive Low shore., 20-ft. (6 m) contour 400 ft. yards respectively. The class limits were set at acreage projecting into an estuary or river. An (122 m) from fastland @shore boundary half the standard deviation (500 yards) each side embayed marsh is a marsh which occupies a reentrant Moderately low shore, 20-ft. (6 m) contour of the mean. Using this procedure a narrow near- or drowned creek valley. The purpose in delineating 400 ft. (122 m); 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-ft. (12 m) contour 400-1,400, and wide greater than 1,400. various functions of the marsh will, in part, be .400 ft. (122 m); 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) contour 400 ft. icance and were constructed for our classifica- system. A fringe marsh may, for example, have maxi- (122 m); with or without cliff tion purposes: mum value as a buffer to wave erosion of the fast- Dune Narrow, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath located 400 land. An extensive marsh, on the other hand, is Artificial fill, urban and otherwise 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 (MLW 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 S The classification used*is: the 12-foot depth. The nearshore zone includes any *--FASTLANO-4. NEARSHORE Beach tidal flats. Marsh The class limits for the nearshore zone classi- Fringe marsh, 400 ft. (122 m) in width fications were chosen following a simple statistical a 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 definitions of E@mbayed marsh, occupying a drowned valley or charts at one-mile inter@rals along the shorelines of the three components of the shorelands. reentrant Chesapeake Bay and the James, York, Rappahannock, Artificially stabilized and Potomac Rivers. Means and standard deviations FRINGE EMBAYED EXTENSIVE Fastland Zone MARSH MARSH MARSH for each of the separate regions and for the entire The.zone extending from the landward limit of combined system were calculated 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 graphic classification of the fastland is based The calculated mean was 919 yards with a stan- FASTLAND upon the slope of the land near the water as fol- dard deviation of 1,003 yards. As our aim was to lows: determine general, serviceable class limits, these FIGURE 2: A generalized illustration of the three calculated numbers were rounded to 900 and 1,000 different marsh types. 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 the opment. tal, with the governmental further divided into exception of farms and other isolated dwellings. federal, state, county, and town or city. Appli- In general, a residential area consists of four or Agricultural cation of the classification is restricted to fast- more residential buildings adjacent to one another. includes fields, pastures, croplands, and lands alone since the Virginia fastlands ownership Schools, churches, and isolated businesses may be other agricultural areas. extends to mean low water. All bottoms below mean included in a; residential area. low water are in State ownership. Unmanaged Commercial Includes all open or wooded lands not included d) Water Quality: Includes buildings, parking areas, and other in other classifications: The ratings of satisfactory, intermediate or land directly related to retail and wholesale trade a) Open: brush land, dune areas, waste- unsatisfactory assigned to the various subsegments and business. This category includes small indus- lands; less than 40% tree cover. are, taken from a listing at the Virginia Bureau of try and other anomalous areas within the general b) Wooded: more than 40% tree cover. Shellfish Sanitation, based on information from commercial context. Marinas are conside red com- The shoreland use classification applies to water samples collected in.the various tidewater mercial 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 eac h area at least once a month. Industrial beach zone or to some less distant, logical bar- The ratings are defined primarily in regard to _Lncludes all industrial and associated areas. rier. In multi-usage areas one must make a sub- number of coliform bacteria. For a rating of sat- Exami-oles: warehouses, refineries, shipyards, jective selection as to the primary or controlling isfactory the maximum limit is an NPN (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 4 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 gove rnm en- 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 and Nearshore Zone does not exceed 23, and other conditions are ac- miscellaneous open spaces. R@camples: golf courses, Pound net fishing ceptable. La these cases an intermediate rating tennis clubs, amusement parks, public beaches, race Shellfishing may be assigned temporarily, and the area will be 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 existing structures are inadequate, we have given of Marine Science, 1969, and in other VINS publi- Quality Standards 1946, amended 1970), they are recommendations for alternate approaches. Fur- cations. used here because the Burequ of Shellfish Sanita- thermore, recommendations are given for defenses tion provides the best areawide coverage avail- in those areas where none currently exist. The i) Flood Hazard Levels: able at this time. In general, any waters fitting primary emphasis is placed on expected effective- The assessment of tidal flooding hazard for the the satisfactory or intermediate categories would ness with secondary consideration to cost. whole of the Virginia tidal shoreland is still be acceptable for water recreation. incomplete. However, the United States Army Corps g) Potential Shore Uses: of Engineers has prepared reports for a number of e) Zoning: We placed particular attention in our study on localities which were used in this report. Two In cases where zoning regulations have been evaluating the recreational potential of the shore tidal flood levels are customarily used to portray established the existing information pertaining zone. We included this factor in the considera- the hazard. The Intermediate Regional Flood is to the shorelands has been included in the report. tion of shoreline defenses for areas of high rec- that flood with an average recurrence time of reational potential. Furthermore, we gave con- about 100 years. An analysis of past tidal floods f) Shore Erosion and Shoreline Defenses: sideration to the development of artificial indicates it to have an elevation of approximately The following ratings are used for shore beaches if this method were technically feasible 8 feet above mean water level in the Chesapeake erosion: at a particular site. Bay area. The Standard Project Flood level is es- slight or none - less than 1 foot per year tablished for land planning purposes which is moderate - - - - 1 to 3 feet per year h) Distribution of Marshes: placed at the highest probable flood level. severe - - - - - greater than 3 feet per year The acreage and physiographic type of the The locations with moderate and severe ratings are marshes in each subsegraent is listed. These esti- j) Shellfish leases and Public Grounds: further specified as being critical or noncritical. mates of acreages were obtained from topographic The data in this report show the leased and The erosion is considered critical if buildings, maps and should be considered only as approxima- public shellfish grounds as portrayed in the Vir- roads, or other such structures are endangered. ginia State Water Control Board publication C> tions. Detailed county inventories of the wetlands The degree of erosion was determined by several are being conducted by the Virginia Institute of "Shellfish growing areas in the Commonwealth of means. In most locations the long term trend was Marine Science under the authorization of the Virginia: Public, leased and condemned, " November determined using map comparisons of shoreline po- Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Code of Virginia 1971, and as periodically updated in other similar sitions between the 1850's and the 19401s. In 62.1-13.4). These surveys include detailed acre- reports. Since the condemnation areas change with addition, aerial photographs of the late 1930's and ages of the grass species composition within indi- time they are not to be taken as definitive. How- recent years were utilized for an assessment of vidual marsh systems. The material in this report ever, some insight to the conditions at the date more recent conditions. Finally, in those areas is provided to indicate the physiographic types of of the report are available by a comparison be- experiencing severe erosion field inspections and marshes and to serve as a rough guide on acreages tween the shellfish grounds maps and the water interviews were held with local inhabitants. until detailed surveys are completed. Addi- quality maps for which water quality standards The existing shoreline defenses were evaluated tional information of the wetlands characteris- for shellfish were used. as to their effectiveness. In some cases repeti- tics may be found in Coastal Wetlands of Virginia: tive-visits were made to monitor the effective- Interim Report by Marvin Ti. Wass and Thomas D. ness of recent installations. In instances where Wright, SRAMSOE Report No. 10, Virginia Institute 7 k) Beach Quality: Beach quality is a subjective judgment based on such considerations 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 0 0 CHAPTER 3 Present Shorelands Situation 0 0 I 0 I I 0 I CHAPTER 3 Paaunkey River Bridge southwest of Manquin. industrial purposes. PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF NEW KENT, The measured fastland shoreline for the three Land ownership is almost entirely private, KING WILLIAM, AND KING AND (ZUE FLT, CIOU. 1172, 1 ES c o-ount y areas is 284.8 miles in length whereas the ninety-eight percent. Of the three counties, ,:.Tetted shoreline is slightly shorter with 272.9 King William has the greatest shore length at K771 T 7 1 17 1 7 -,-,iles. Seventy percent of the shoreline is low 118.5 miles, with New Kent and King and Queen -1 THE SHORELAINDS OF AND KING A11,TD QUEEFj C OIT1,7, T 3S shore, fourteen percent moderately low shore, and having 83.3 and 71.1 miles respectively. The reason for combining the shoreline situa- six percent moderately low shore with bluff. The Detailed tables of the shoreline characteris-' tion report 's for New Kent, King William, and King remaining ten percent is divided amongst five tics are in the following pages. and Queen Counties, and the municipality of West other classification categories. All but three Shoreline Distribution by County and River are- Point was to reduce the redundancy of data collec- -oercent of the shore zone is marsh, almost half, tion, analysis, and presentation. The shoreline or 135.4 miles, being extensive marsh. De- New King King& characteristics and problems are quit-e similar. -,ailed measurements of marsh areas and type will Kent William Queen Total The maps and text of this report have been pre- be presented in the formal Wetlands Inventories York 12.1 11.0 23.1 pared with little regard to the separation of the for the three counties which will be made by the Mattaponi 46.6 47.4 94.0 counties, whereas the segments and segment s-Lur, Wetlands Research Section of the Virginia Insti- Pamunkey 53.3 71.9 125.2 maries and tables do reflect the secular subdivi- tute 0-P JTarine Science. 'Measurements of the near- Chickah 17.9 17.9 ominy sions. We hope that in this way the needs, rang- shore vrill loose significance in the narrower and Poropotank 12.7 12.7 ing from those of regional managers and planners shal1c,"Ier streams, with the result that the near- to individuals interested in specific sites, will shore zone often is left unclassified; however, Total 83.3 118.5 71.1 272.9 be satisfied. the greatest portion (half the total shoreline - The three county study area is contained within length) of the areas that were classified were 3.2 SHORE EROSION PROCESSES, PATTERNS, AND two of Virginia's major river basins, the York narrow. Six percent were intermediate, and none DEFENSES and. the James. The Chickahominy River and its were measured as wide. This directly reflects Shore erosion along the tidal shores of New tributary, Diascund Creek, both in New Kent County, the fact that the shoreline is along a river and Kent, King William, and King and Queen Counties flow toward the James. The remaining major not open bay shore. is slight compared to other counties in Tidewater streams, the Mattaponi, Pamunkey, and Poropotank The shoreline fastland use fairly accurately Virginia. There are three distinct Iareas which flow into the York; indeed part of the York River reflects the entire three county area's land use. will be discussed separately, whose erosion char- itself is in the area. Although most of these Fifty-four percent, one hundred fifty-five miles, acteristics differ somewhat. Map 1E is a summary streams extend through and beyond the counties, is classified as unmanaged, wooded and unwooded. of these characteristics. this . study did not carry so far upstream. On the Vie should point out that this classification am- Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers Chickahominy and Diascund Creek we did not con- biguously includes managed forestland. Thirty- The Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers are extremely tinue our measurements beyond the dams which lour percent is agricultural cropland, eight per- meandering tidal rivers bordered by extensive serve to limit the reach of the tides. On the cent residential, and two percent governmental, Mattaponi and Pamunkey, the upper limits of our includes the Mattaponi and Pamunkey Indian marshes. The marshes perform an important func- study were more arbitrary, being the Route 360 Reservations. Very minor percentages of the fast- tion in reducing erosion rates along the river highway bridges at Aylett on the Mattaponi and the land are used for commercial, recreational, or shores. The exposure to wind generated waves is 10 small due to the narrow width and meandering during rain storms to flow over the cliff face, adverse effects of breaching the cliff face to -nature of the rivers. Because of the bends in which can accelerate erosion where access ways are one solvable area. the river, erosion takes place on the outside of installed. West Point the bends where there is fastland not protected The erosion in this area, although slight, is The residential and industrial growth in the by a marsh. These are the sites where most of linked to a combination of natural and man-induced West Point area has put ever increasing pressure the residential development occurs along the phenomenon. In those areas where problems are en- on the shorelands of this area. The Chesapeake countered and remedial action is necessary, pro- Corporation facility has artificially stabilized in times of unusually high water associated fessional advice is the first step in obtaining a its shoreline to provide access for the freighters with floods or stoinis the fastlands at the apex feasible solution to the problem. and barges which transport its products and sup- of the bends are particularly susceptible to ero- Several suggestions can be offered in light of plies. These structures replaced the wetlands sion as the currents generated by receding flood the preceeding discussion of the problems which which previously protected the shore from erosion. waters act to carry away fastland material. If are or can be expected to be encountered. Until the implementation of the Virginia Wetlands the under-utting is severe enoL;gh -the trees grow- For those sections of the shore with eroding Law of 1972, the residential development along C@ n inE on the face of the cliff i-,rill topple, carrying beaches and fastland, a series of short river the West Point peninsula had severely encroached lar e amounts of soil with them. This undercut- training groins are one alternative where appli- on the wetlands. Erosion protection capabilities 4 no- can comc from ,@p=ver floods, enhanced tides cable. In those areas where sand supply is lim- were thus reduced or eliminated which necessi- or boat, wake.:-., an ever increasing source of wave ited or vegetation has been eliminated, a retain- tated installation of structures to control ero- @-'- @ -,OY. - _-1 ing wall may be necessary. This in conjunction sion. The existing structures at the end of the -7,; creased development along a shoreline always with a reduced and vegetated cliff slope can also peninsula are doing a good job of protecting the brings an increase in use of the nearshore water be a viable solution. shore. In the future, such marsh areas should for recreation of which boating is an integral In those areas where beaches do not exist or be encouraged to grow. In critical areas, a re- partt. Associated with this use is an increase in could not be generated, intensive planting of planting program should be instituted to replace the number of piers and access facilities. If selected marsh vegetation can reduce or eliminate the marshes. Their natural erosion and flood they are not installed properly or properly main- erosion. Although this method is a relatively protection capabilities make them a good selec- tained they can lead to increased erosion at the new approach it has been shown to be very effec- tion when addressing the protection of the shore- pier site. In addition, if the access must cross tive if used in the proper areas. line in this area. a cliff, vegetation is usually eliminated which Reducing the cliff slope and vegetating it can York River makes that section of the cliff face susceptible be very effective retarding slope retreat, par- The York River portion of King and Queen and to erosion from runoff. In addition, increased ticularly in areas with high cliffs. In addition, New Kent Counties is primarily fringe or extensive pedestrian traffic near the pier can eliminate a drain field installed on the fastland to channel marshes with the exception of the Belleview area protective vegetation that exists on the back water away from the cliff face to selected drain- of King and Queen County which is beach. The portion of the beach or forms the shore zone age areas can reduce runoff erosion. marshes' regenerative powers help to slow the ero- itself. Although difficult to ins Itigate except as a sion along their faces. The Belleview area is Develo-raent of the fastland generally results development begins, community piers are preferable susceptible to slight wave induced shore erosion in a reduction in the ground cover. This allows to single resi dence accesses. Although these con- of its cliffs during storms. The cliffs of Belle- a larger percentage of the water which falls centrate traffic at one area, it confines the view are the primary source of sand for nourishment 11 of the beaches in this area. Thus, bulkheading clearing of the fastland for residential develop- eroding face may be necessary -to halt the the area would lead to the disappearance of the ment. The residential developments are usually beaches. A possible solution would be to install located atop the high fastland which borders the 3.3 POTENTIAL SHORELANDS USES groins and then to fill the structures with ei- river. By reducing the ground cover the rain run- The potential for greatly altered shorelands ther dredged or trucked sand. The prevention of off more easily exits over the cliff faces. uses in the three county area is, in general, flanking and failure of the structures would re- Although some of this material is added to the quite limited. The very low projected population quire a joint action by the area landowners. It beaches, much is lost to the nearshore zone. increases, the vast marsh areas, the great natu- also would require a comprehensive study of the There is some erosion on the outside of the ral beauty, the historical interest, and the pos- area to determine the best spacing, height and bends of the river. Some accretion and marsh sible inclusion of portions of the area in the length of the groins. At present, the erosion growth occurs on the inside of the bends. How- Scenic Rivers system all suggest that only lim- is not great enough to warrant extensive struc- ever, this erosion and accretion has been dimin- ited and careful modifications of the shoreland's tures which could lead to greater problems. ished by the dam at Walkers. use patterns should be considered. Initially, if it were felt necessary, beach Although shore erosion is slight along the The Chickahominy River with the marina at nourishment without structures could keep the Chickahominy River, increased residential develop- Walkers Dam and the development at Chickahominy problem in abeyance. ment along its shores will lead to an increase in Shores is s*omewhat more developed than the Mat- Chickahominy River cleared land. To prevent an increase in the cliff taponi, Panunkey, and Poropotank Rivers. A series of oxbows characterize the portion erosion, drain fields should be built to channel . The only substantially developed portion of of the Chickahominy River which borders New Kent runoff through conduits into the Chickahominy. the threecounty shoreline is the West Point area, County. The shorelands are primarily marsh with Also the slope of the cliff should be vegetated located at the confluence of the Mattaponi and occasional beaches. These beaches occur where to decrease the erosion. Some recontouring of Pamunkey Rivers. The Chesap-eake Corporation, a the river encroaches on the fastland. These the fastland near the cliff edge may be neces- major pulpwood paper industry, makes extensive use beaches are a product of the erosion of the sary to aid the drain field. The changes in the of the shore in the transportation of both raw Cliffs. topography should be designed such that they will materials and finished products. Portions of the The two major sources of erosion are man made. direct the runoff to the drains and prevent it West Point shoreline not specifically used by the The Chickahominy is very popular with boating from flowing over the cliff face. industrial facilities should be cleaned and main- enthusiasts. Boat wakes cause undercutting of Should beach erosion increase, short, river- tained. In view of West Point's location at the both the cliff and the marsh faces. When the training groins and beach nourishment should halt head of the York, there might be a developable undercutting is severe enough, a large block of the erosion. Bulkheading should be discouraged need for expanded marina facilities catering both marsh or fastland material will slump into the as it would ultimately lead to the disappearance to expanded local needs and to transient craft nearshore zone where, in the case of fastland of the beaches. "No wake" zones should be estab- plying Virginia's scenic water byways. slumping, it adds material to the beach and which lished to decrease the detrimental effects of The majority of the shoreline of the Mattaponi in both instances leads to shoaling of the main boat wakes. Community piers should be encouraged and Pamunkey Rivers is undeveloped. The high Chickahominy River Channel. The marshes possess as opposed to single family piers. bluffs on the outside of the meanders might be the ability to regenerate the lost portion which In areas of marsh erosion, replanting and fer- good locations for limited increases in residen- is not the case in the fastland. tilization should be encouraged. In areas of se- tial housing. Houses could be built far enough The other major source of shore erosion is the vere marsh erosion, riprap or gabions along the removed from the shore to eliminate the immediate 12 threat of bank erosion and yet still have a fine view of the area. Some of the low areas might be utilized as small boat launching or access facilities and small campgrounds or recreational areas. Every effort should be made to limit destruction of the marshes. In conclusion, the likelihood of and pressure for greatly altered shore uses in the three coun- ty area is slight. In general, there might be an expansion in the recreational facilities and limited increases in residential housing along portions of the shoreline. 13 7 7@od KING a QUEEN COUNTY KING WILLIAM COUNTY /-A a NEW KENT COUNTY -7 SEGM p!44 tg, r r Al@-ETT @Kwl KW IHEAD OF mATTAPONI R 2MATTAPONI RIVER W 3LOWER MATTAPONI V AW-E -@ -j -N f-j@ i E A K04 5LOWER P-@_MUNKEY N 6PAMUNKEY RIVER - NO 7 HEAD OF PAMUNKEY R KW K&O IPOROPOTANK RIVER CK K04- 2HEAD OF YORK RIVER 3 LO-WER MATT*WP-bNl RI KW2 4 ATTAPONI RIVEf- EA XW7 KQ3 5 -RiA-b-6-FMATTAPONI W/7 -\@ -111 'r- I 03 2 PAMUNKEY RIVER - SO w _3LCLWER, PAMUNKEY RIV 6 4 HEAD OF YORK RIVER KW7 KW6 5 CHICKAHOMMY RIVER NKI KW4 NKI KING K2 ws" T_K02 we K2 NK3 Kai @j NEW KENT A K4 Q2 -0 K01 NK4* SCALE OF MRS E= i S Nk5 NK5 %Al Tr@15' TAW 76@45' KING Ek QUEEN COUNTY r; KING WILLIAM COUNTY Ek NEW KENT COUNTY STEPHENS -7@ CHURC@ C AYLETT KWT K 5. FASTL K 5 L ,v '5T* K- 1 KQ4, F@ 41 -4V L KING KW2 a QUEEN CH.. KQ4- m KW2 m XW7 KW7 KQ3' K6 KW3 m W7 KW6 !-NK1 11 - H --\ . 'NK3 KW4 NK1 KING H V@ KQ2 f" Kvvt' K_ P-7 D K2 NK3 /6 /@) K A NEW KENT NK4 KQ2 SHOR B @NK4 KQ1 F E E NEAR NK5 N ovlc@4 In NK5 77@5' 77' 00' 15 'Aw 77*@Ocy 76*@45' KING Ek QUEEN COUNTY KING WILLIAM COUNTY a NEW KENT COUNTY T P" S kr FAS AYLF. I, IA -\. , @Q IA/W KWT 5 IA/W (,-) I,, . I V/- KQ5 IA/W L K 1 6 r@ t. 3T. IA/W KQ4, @45 C00A 11 . 1@ IA/w KING 1A/W IA/W, a @@r KW2 QUEEN IA/W CR KQ4L ,k @r, Ili K "2 -0 KW7 IA/W KW7 IA/W f@l / KQ3 Iw KW3 -.IA/W KW uk/w NK1 KW6 NK3 IRS -2wl.--@,N, - K 4-V INK1 XING NK Iw IC/I/RS Iw\ 0 . I T 1 11, t WES1111"T &INT K 2 KW6-. I /w ''W-@41C IA/W Iw ]A f N 2 NK3 %- / A I 1113p, I I I w KQ1 NEW KEN KQ2 'NK4 A 4G K'Ql IA/W w NK4`1@ I RS 3T* Boat 4 tE IA/W N k5 Marin SCAU W I-El E@!t NK5 77*@5' 77-@O' 7 7 7'@ Ale KING a QUEEN COUNTY KING WILLIAM COUNTY NEW KENT COUNTY >< MAF WATER QUALITY, OYSTER GRC r, 'CMIRCH AYLETT KW1- I. WATER QUAL V'*AG @ .\ Satisfacto p KQ5,,,,1v Intermedi K' I 37* 'oJ141 KQ4, Unsatisfac 45" KING 0UEEN KW2-, r,()\' o/ CK KQ4- GENERALIZE Public Gr KW2 XW KQ3, K 7 Leased G KW3 KQ3 Condemne NK1 KW KW6 SEWAGE DIS \NK3 NK1 K 4 (_1 KING NK KW5) f N, M@ WE r MIN KQ2 V. K2 NK3 KQ1-sj NEW KENT K Q2 Q1 NK4 37' SCALE KILES 4 NK5 v NK5 Se 77* 15' 77* 00, 76;@7 17 77 76*@ 45' -@00' KING & QUEEN COUNTY KING WILLIAM COUNTY a NEW KENT COUNTY L\ CV N.- AYLETT' @KWT y,@%G KQ5)@) EROSION G KQ5,uEeN 37* K' 1 Wk KQ4, Moderate -45' /44f Slight or No KINr r aG Accretional KW2 QUEEN CH. KQ4- KW2 XW7 KW7 KQ3 KQ3 KW3 KW7 N K1 KW6 K' I KW4 NK1 KING NK W5) / \@ I WES OINT fA 5 KQ2 K2 fNK3 KQ1 @J EW KENT NK4 KQ2 v) KQ1 @NK4 37* SCALE %HLES NK5 NK5 --@00' 77'@V ---------77- 4A 10 9t "@ Vj Ile- Ji@ N Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 FIGURE 3: A portion of Diascund Creek in New Kent County. This is a very valuable area of fresh water wetlands. FIGURE 4: Near the mouth of Diascund Creek. Most of the erosion of the bluff is due to surface wash and not the forces of the river. FIGURE 5: View downstream from the Mattaponi River bridge. This was the upstream limit of the study. FIGURE 6: The Pamunkey River near its mouth at West Point. This is the only industrial area along the tri-county shore zone. FIGURE 7: An overview of the city of West Point from the Mattaponi River across to the Pamunkey. Figure 6 Figure 7 19 elk TRI-COUNTY SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY, FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP (STATUTE MILES) Physiographic, SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY FASTLANDS USE OWNERSHT-P TOTAT, MTTI-Fn use, and ownership classifi- FASTLANDS SHORE NEARSHORE cation 0 G-1 E-A pl P:' 0 0 0 rqD 0 H P CO 0 0 E-1 0 E-1 0 El M E- W P4 E-1 0 0 m W, Pq m @q U) Pq V) pli H E-1 E-1 >-I Counties Ri @ W, r, W, 9 M M Pq C-1 E-1 @3- C--i G-i E-1 E-A E 0 0 H 8 El 0 0 0 ow Fq @g- @Ei Fq Fq @3- :2@ m :E@ m @3: Pq 0 ml A <4 P-1 NEW KENT 51.5 3.3 18.3 2.3 2.8 1.6 4.3 0.4 1.2 24.6 11.2 45.9 48.9 6.1 31-3. 0.2 7.9 44.7 84.1 84.1 83.3 KING WILLIAM 73.4 1.5 10 .7 10.5 0.9 4.5 1.2 2.7 1.1 47.4 6.6 63.4 51.7 40.4 2.4 3.9 0.9 9.1 48.7 101.5 3.9 105.4 118.5 KING &.QUEEN 74 .8 1.0 10.7 4.1 1.7 1.4 0.4 1.2 0.1 3.2 25.5 16.2 26.1 35.2 11.0 25.7 2.2 0.2 5.5 61.7 93.1 2.2 95.3 71.1 TOTAL 199.7 5.8 39.7 16.9 5.4 5.9 3.2 8.2 1.6 4.4 97.5 34.0 135.4 135.8 17.1 97,-4 2.4 6.1 0.9 0.4 22-5 155.1 278.1 2.2 3.9 284.8 272 . SF % of SHORELINE 1% 2% @6% 12% 49% 50% 6% 100% % of FASTLAND 70% 2% 14% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3% 34% 1% 2% 0% 0% 8% 54% 98% 1% 1% 100% u- s 0 e w c n 1 c e a a - a r s t nd sh'_p S3_fi_ loll tj s Coun \e L 20 SUMMARY OF NEW KENT COUNTY SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY, FASTLANDS USE, OWNERSHIP (STATUTE MILES) Physiographic, SHORELAINDS PHYSIOGRAPHY 7@A-STL-L'TDS USE ',`@'IFLIERSHIP TO 'A L PfILT,'S- use and o,mership classifi- FASTLANDS SHORE NEARSHORE ation call p:4 E-@ Pq P-A Pei PZA pq pli pri pq 1011, 0 0 0 0 p 0 p 0 P m W, m p m @11 Pq M @'- W, U) U) M Fq t::) E-A co U) co P@4 0 m m Segment pq 0 @11 0 m m W, W, H Pq P@ F5;: Fg: p 2 @3: 2 @3: E-q C5 C5 C@ E-1 H E-i 0 0 0 0 H 0 H PC, pq 0 fl@ M pq E 2a @q @@: pill p:ll @-4 1 8.1 o.6 2.8 0.7 3.5 0.5 6.4 8.8 0.5 2.9 12.2 12.2 10.4 2 4.8 2.7 3.9 1.2 0.3 2.4 7.8 16.8 24.6 7.6 0.3 7.4 15.3 15.3 24.6 3 18.9 1.1 0.2 4.5 1.6 12.2 18.3 10.6 2.9 6.7 20.2 20.2 18.3 4 6.3 9.2 2.0 1.4 0.8 0.9 5.2 4.8 1.2 6.o 6.1 2.5 0.9 16.3 19.7 19.7 12.1 5 13.4 1.3 0.2 0.5 0.2 1.1 7.9 3.9 5.7 0.4 1.8 0.2 3.3 11.4 16.7 16.7 17.9 SUBTOTAL 51.5 3.3 18.3 2.3 2.8 1.6 4.3 24.6 11.2 45.9 1.2 0.4 48.9 6.1 31.3 0.2 7.9 44.7 84.1 84.1 83.3 % of SHORELINE 30% 13% 55% 1% 1% 59% 7% 100% % of FASTIAND 61% 4% 22% 3% 3% 2% 5% 37% 0 9% 53% 100% 100% us 0, e 'a c 1 0 a a a n e, s t c' sh'-p slfi- ORE ion S gm t e \en 21 SUMMARY OF KING WILLIAM COUNTY SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY, FASTLANDS USE, OWNERSHIP (STATUTE MILES) Physiographic, SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY FASTILANDS USE OW .NERSHI:P TOTAL MILES se, and wnership lassifi- FASTIjANDS SHORE 1EARSHOR'El ation @>A pq @>-q pq ",-A pq pq N N pl-l 'El M 121 1@511M 100 M POl @11D, P., pq I Q p H I 0 0 E-A pli M 0 pol @q- P 0 p 0 E-A P@j p:j w pq Segment PEI H 0 El po 0 0 0 H o H .0 El pq 9 0 0 pd, p pi q ml A N , I @:: PL4 M 1 6.6 1.9 3.0 0.7 1.1 8.9 0.4 5.7 3.9 6.9 1.4 5.0 13.3 13.3 15.0 2 8.7 1.1 0.2 2.1 0.9 1.2 4.9 9.5 14.4 0.9 0.5 0.7 12.1 13.7 0 .5 14.2 14.4 3 9.9 1.6 3.6 5.0 8.6 2.9 0.6 8.0 11.5 11.5 8.6 4 10.2 1.4 3.5 4.0 1.1 8.6 2.3 2.4 o.9 6.o 11.6 11.6 8.6 5 6.4 0.2 o.6 0.2 2.3 4.2 1.1 10.9 16.2 2.1 7.6 9.7 9.7 16.2 6 9.0 2.3 1.0 6.9 2.0 11.4 6.4 3.4 0.2 2.3 8.9 3.4 12.3 20.3 7 22.6 0.4 4.5 2.4 0.2 2.3 0.4 15.4 3. 1::@ 16.9 18.9 0.2 13.7 32.8 32.8 35.4 'SUBTOTAL 73.4 1.5 10.7 10.5 0.9 4.5 1.2 2.7 47.4 6.6 63.4 1.1 51.7 40.4 2.4 3.9 0.9 9.1 48.7 101.5 3.9 105.4 118.5 % of SHORELINE 40% 6%- 53% 1% 44% 100% % of FASTLAND 70% 1% 10% 10% 1% 4% 1% 3% 38% 2% 4% 1% 9% 46% 96% 4% 100% \ u@ n 1 e a a s t Rd, shlp slfi_ ion Segment 22 SUMMARY OF KING AND QUEEN COUNTY SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY, FASTLANDS USE. OWNERSHIP (STA I UTE MILES) -1hysiographic, @L-HOE-LLMAIMS PHYSlOG-PLAP:F-,F FASTLANDS USE OVMFT?S@TT-P TOTAL MILES use and ownership classifi- FASTLAND STI-l"C"RE, NEARSHORE cation 0 0 M @1-1 r4 P-i M W ril E-i Pq r-l Fq Pq r-@ Pd Fq x P@ Pq ILI 0 0 Segment Pd Pi @:D F4 Pr! 12c; @D Pq 0 Pq 0 @D 0 0 @D E-i E-1 0 0 0 F--l E- 0 P 0 1-q E-i E-i '-l' Fq @111 @-q El Pq W @l Pq t4 Pq U) P@ U) @Q PO M 10 r:D 9 co co P @11 P4 @li 11-1 11-1 ro 0 E- E-i Ej :::@ E-i @v E-j C Pq 0 0 H PEA P@l Fq Fq @3: 0'@ pl, 9 M 1 13.1 5.1 o.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 12.1 4.9 14.3 19.2 19.2 12.7 2 21.8 2.8 2.4 5.7 0.1 11.0 1.7 2.2 o.6 17.3 19.6 2.2 21.8 11.0 3 20.3 1.6 0.8 4.8 11.3 2 . @F@ 1 (9 6 . 2.8 13.5 22.7 22.7 18.9 4 10.3 1.0 3.3 1.9 5.6 6.8 12.4 6.9 0.3 9.3 16.5 16.5 12.4 5 9.3 0.7 2.2 0.3 1.4 1.2 12.5 2.3 1.3 3.9 5.8 0.2 1.8 7.3 15.1 15.1 16.1 SUBTOTATj 74.8 1.0 10.7 4.1 1.7 1-4 0.4 11.2 3.2 25.5 26.1 16.2 0.1 35.2 11.0 25.7 2.2 0.2 5.5 61.7 93.1 2.2 95.3 71.1 % Of SHORELINE 4% 36% 37% 23% 0% 50% 15% iOO% % Of FASTLAND 78% 1% 11% 4% 2% 2% % 1% 27% 2% 0 6% 65% 100% us 0 e c a e a a nd rshlp ss Ifi- tj on Int S egn \e 0 0 b CHAPTER 4 4.1 Table of Subsegment Summaries k 4.2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions 4.3 Segment and Subsegment Maps 0 0 I 0 I 25 1 TABLE 2. SHORELINE SITUATIO,N REPORT SEGMENT SUMMARIES, NEW KENT COUNTY BEACH SEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS USE OWNERSHIP WATER QUALITY FLOOD HAZARD QUALITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT I EASTLAND: Low shore 66%, with bluff EASTLAND: Agricultural 72%, un- Private. No data. Low, noncritical. No beaches. None. Low. The several marshes should be PAMUNKEY 5%, moderately low shore 23%, with managed, wooded 24%, residential preserved as wildlife habitats. RIVER: bluff 6%. 4%. MATADEQUEN SHORE: Fringe marsh 34%, embayed SHORE: Hunting, fishing, etc. CREEK to marsh 5%, extensive ms sh 61%. NEARSHORE: Some sport fishing. WHITE HOUSE RIVER: Narrow. 10.4 miles (12.2 miles of fastland) 2 FASTLAND: Low shore 31%, with bluff FASTLAND: Agricultural 50%, un- Private. No data. Low, noncritical. No beaches. There is no erosion data but one Moderate. There is potential for a WHITE HOUSE 18%, moderately low shore 25%, with managed, wooded 48%, residential building at Morgan Landing is endan- recreational camping spot at Cumber- to bluff 8%, moderately high shore 2%, 2%. gered. There are no protective land Thorofare. MILL CREEK high shore with bluff 16%. SHORE: Little recreational use. structures in the segment. 24.6 miles SHORE: Extensive marsh 68%, fringe RIVER: Sport fishing, water (15.3 miles marsh 32%_ sports. of NEARSHORE: Narrow. fastland) 3 FASTLAND: Low shore 94%, moderately FASTLAND: Agricultural 53%, un- Private. No data for Low, noncritical. No beaches. No erosion data for the Pamunkey Low. Marshes should be left as they MILT CREEK low shore 5%, with bluff 1%. managed, wooded 33%, residential Pamunkey Riv- River. The York River portion is are. to SHORE: Extensive marsh 67%, fringe 14%. er. Inteime- slight or no change. There are no FERRY CREEK marsh 24%o, embayed marsh 9%. SHORE: Recreation, hunting, diate for West endangered structures or shore pro- 18.3 miles NEARSHORE: Narrow. fishing. Point area. tective structures in this area. (20.2 miles NEARSHORE: Shipping of pulpwood, of water sports, sport fishing. fastland) 4 FASTLAND: Low shore 32%, moderately FASTLAND: Unmanaged, wooded 83%, Private. Intermediate. Low, noncritical, ex- Fair to Slight to none to just south of Baker Moderate. Present use seem best. YORK RIVER: low shore 47%, moderately high shore agricultural 13%, residential 4%o. cept at the mouth of poor. Most Creek; moderate, noncritical from FERRY CREEK 10%, high shore 7%, with bluff 4%. SHORE: Hunting, recreation. Philbates Creek where beaches in here to Ware Creek. There are no en- to SHORE: Enbayed marsh 43%, extensive RIVER: Shipping to West Point. it is moderate, criti- the segment dangered structures or shore protec- WARE CREEK marsh 40%, beach 10%, fringe marsh cal. are narrow. tive structures. 12.1 miles 7%. Those north (19.7 miles RIVER: Intermediate and wide. of Baker of Creek are fastland) fair. 5 FASTLAND: Low shore 80%, moderately FASTLAND: Unmanaged, wooded 68%, Private. No data. low, noncritical ex- Poor. No erosion data. There is 0.4 miles Low. Present use of the area is. the CHICKAHOMINY low shore 8%, with bluff 1%, moder- residential 20%, agricultural 11%, cept moderate, criti- of bulkheading on the west bank of best possible utilization. RIVER - ately high shore 3%, high shore 1%, recreational 1%. cal for one house down Chickahominy Shores and at the sev- DIASCUND with bluff 7%. SHORE: Recreation. river of Chickahominy eral marinas at Chickahominy Shores. CREEK SHORE: Fringe marsh 44%, extensive RIVER: Sport fishing, boating, Shores. 17.9 miles marsh 32%, embayed marsh 22%, artifi- some water sports. (16.7 miles. cially stabilized 2%. of. RIVER: Narrow. Averages 6 feet in fastland) depth. 26 TABLE 2. SHORELINE SITUATION REPORT SEGMENT SUMMARIES, KING WILLIAM COUNTY 10 1 WATER BEACH SEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS USE _DMLMLU_ (3TTAT,TTY FLOOD HAZARD QUALITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION POTENTIAL USE ENHANCH.17K-T 1 FASTLAND. low shore 50%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 52%, unmanaged, Private. No data. Low, noncritical. No beaches. No data on erosion rate. There are Low. The marsh should be preserved a s a vi-_ I di MATTAPONI shore 14%, with bluff 23%, moderately high wooded 38%, residential 10%. no endangered structures or shore pro- refuge. Recreational use could be en_1,F:, :cl-, IFER: shore 5%, with bluff 8%. SHORE: Mostly unused, some hunting and tective structures. If action even- Bridge at SHORE: Fringe marsh 59%, extensive marsh fishing. tually appears necessary any of a AYLETT to 38%, embayed marsh 3%. RIVER: Some sport fishing, boating@ water number of methods could be imple- HORSE LANDING RIVER: Narrow. Headwaters of Mattaponi sports. mented. 15.0 miles averages 6-foot depth. At Walkerton, river (13.3 miles depth is 10-20 feet in places. of fastland) 2 FASTLAND: low shore 61%, with bluff 8%, FASTLAND: Unmanaged, wooded 85%, agricultural Private and No data. Low, noncritical. No beaches. None. Low. Marshes should be left as thev arc. T?,er@ with bluff 15%, 6%, residential 5%, governmental 4%. Federal some potential for low-density recreational use. HORSE LANDING moderately low shore 1%, to end of moderately high shore with bluff 6%, high SHORE: Little or no formal use. government. GLEASON MARSH shore 8%. RIVER: Some sport fishing, boating, water 14.4 miles SHORE: Extensive marsh 66%, fringe marsh sports. (14.2 miles 34%. of RIVER: Narrow. fastland) 3 FASTLAND: Low shore 86%, moderately low FASTLAND: Unmanaged, wooded 70%, agricultural *Private. No data. Low, noncritical. No beaches None. Low. There is little need for enhancemcn-, @f GLEASON MARSH shore 14%. 25%, residential 5%. area. Marshes should be left in their natural to WEST POINT SHORE: Extensive marsh 58%, fringe marsh SHORE: Mostly unused. state. CORPORATE 42%. RIVER: Some sport fishing, boating, water LIMITS RIVER: Narrow. sports. 8.6 miles (11.5 miles of fastland) 4 FASTLAND: Low shore 88%, moderately low FASTLAND: Residential 52%, agricultural 20%, Private. Unsatis- Low, noncritical for Poor. Historically, from Lord Delaware Low. The industrial use virtually precluLtes any WEST POINT shore with bluff 12%. commercial 20%, industrial 8,. factory most, moderate, criti- Bridge the area is secreting at 1.3 recreational use. 8.6 miles SHORE: Extensive marsh 46%, fringe marsh SHORE: Dockage and access to boats. for York cal at some houses an ftlyr. Slight or no change from (shore) 41%, artificially stabilized 13%. RIVER: Sport fishing, boating,,,water sports, River. No ',7est Point shoreline. Eltham Bridge to bulkheading. There (11.6 miles RIVER: Narrow. extensive pulpwood shipping. data for are no endangered structures. The of Pamunkey York River portion of West Point is fastland) or Matta- bulkheaded and riprapped. These poni. structures seem effective. 5 FASTLAND: Low shore 66%, moderately low FASTLAND: Unmanaged, wooded 78%, agricultural Private. No data. Low, noncritical. No beaches. Erosion is concentrated at the out- Low. The marshes should be preserved ac 7icr'-: PAMUNKEY shore 2%, with bluff 6%, moderately high 22%. side of the meanders. At present valuable wetlands. RIVER: shore with bluff 2%, high shore with bluff SHORE: No specific use. there are no endangered structures. HERRICK CREEK 24%. RIVER: Sport fishing, boating, water sports. If the need arises, any of a number to SWEET SHORE: Extensive marsh 67%, fringe marsh of shore protective structures could HALL LANDING 26%, embayed marsh 7%. be used to protect the shore. 16.2 miles RIVER: Narrow. (9.7 miles of fastland) 6 FASTLAND: Low shore 73%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 52%, governmental 28%, Private and No data. Low, noncritical. No beaches. None. Low. Possible development of campsites. SWEET HALL shore 19%, with bluff 8%. unmanaged, wooded 19%, residential 1%. Federal. LANDING to SHORE: Extensive marsh 56%, fringe marsh SHORE: River access. west side of 34%, embayed marsh 10%. RIVER: Sport fishing, boating, water sports. WIIIIIAMS RIVER: Narrow. CREEK 20.3 miles (12.3 miles of fastland) 7 FASTLAND: Low shore 69%, with bluff 1%, FASTLAND- Agricultural 57%, unmanaged, Private. No data. Lori, noncritical. lo beaches. None. Low. WIIJ,IAMS moderately low shore 14%, with bluff 7%, wooded 42%, residential 1%. CREEK to moderately high shore 1%, with bluff 7%, SHORE: Unused. PAMUNKEY high shore with bluff 1%. RIVER: Some sport fishing, small craft RIVER BRIDGE SHORE: Extensive marsh 48%, fringe marsh boating. 35.4 miles 43%, embayed marsh 9%. (32.8 miles RIVER: Narrow. of fastland) 27 TABLE 2. SHORELINE SITUATION REPORT SEGMENT SUMMARIES, KING AND QUEEN COUNTY SUBSEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS USE OWNERSHIP FLOOD I-LAZARD BEACH QUALITY SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT 1 FASTLAND: Low shore 68%, moderately FASTLAND: Unmanaged, unwooded 6%, Private. Low, noncriti- No beaches. Slight or no change. Low, continuation of the present land use POROPOTANK low shore 27%, moderately high shore unmanaged, wooded 68%, agricul- cal, except at patterns probably is satisfactory. The ex- RIVER 3%, high shore 2%. tural 26%. Roane, where tensive wetlands could not survive extensive 12.7 miles SHORE: Beach 3%, embayed marsh 95%, SHORE: Waterfowl hunting. it is moder- use. (19.2 miles fringe marsh 2%. NEARSHORE: Sport fishing, ate, critical. of RIVER: Narrow, averages 6 feet in boating, commercial fishing. fastland) depth. 2 FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. FASTLANT: Residential 3%, agri- Private and Low, noncriti- Most beaches are Moderate from Goff Point to Belleview, slight Low, the wetlands should be preserved for fish YORK RIVER SHORE: Sand beach 25%, extensive cultural 8%, unmanagea, wooded County cal, except narrow. There is or no change for rest. There are no endan- and game habitats. Belleview and the area from to marsh 52%, fringe marsh 22%, artifi- 79%, governmental 10%. (West Point for several one moderately gered structures. Bulkheading and groins at Goff Point to Brookeshire might be suitable for BROOKESHIRE cially stabilized 1%. SHORE: Hunting, mostly unused. Municipal houses at wide beach be- Brookeshire seem effective. more residences. 11.0 miles NEARSHORE: Intermediate. NEARSHORE: Sport fishing, Airport). Belleview and tween Goalders (21.8 miles boating, water sports, shell- 1 house SE of and Robinson of fishing. Roane trian- Creeks. fastland) gulation, here it is moder- ate, critical. 3 FASTLAND: Low shore 89%, moderately FASTLAND: Unmanaged, wooded 60%, Private. Slight to No beaches. There is no historical erosion rate for this Low. MATTAPONI low shore 7%, moderately high shore agricultural 28%, residential 12%. none. area. Erosion is concentrated on the outside RIVER: 4%. SHORE: Mostly unused. of the river bends. Specific locations.could BROOKESHIRE SHORE: Extensive marsh 60%, fringe NEARSHORE: Boating, sport and be protected by any of a number of methods. to MELROSE marsh 26%, embayed marsh 14%. commercial fishing. LANDING NEARSHORE: Narrow. 18.9 miles (22.7 miles of fastland) 4 FASTLAND: Low shore 62%, with bluff FASTLAND: Agricultural 42%, un- Private. Low, noncriti- No beaches. No erosion data, endangered structures, or Low. MATTAPONI 6%, moderately low shore 20%, with managed, wooded 56%, residential cal. shore protective structures. No action is RIVER: bluff 12%. 2%. necessary but if ever needed, areas could be MELROSE SHORE: Extensive marsh 55%, fringe SHORE: Mostly unused. protected by any of a number of methods. LANDING to marsh 45%. NEARSHORE: Sport fishing, water RICKAHOCK NEARSHORE: Narrow. sports. 12.4 miles (16.5 miles of fastland) 5 FASTLAN-D: High shore with bluff 8%, FASTLAND: Residential 12%, agri- Private. Low, noncriti- No beaches. No action is required at present. Virtually Low. M&TTAPONI moderately high shore 2%, with bluff cultural 38%, unmanaged, wooded cal. any specific area could be protected, if RIVER: 9%, moderately low shore 5%, with 49%, recreational 17@. necessary by any of a number of measures. RICKAHOCK bluff 15%, low shore 61%. SHORE: Little used. to bridge SHORE: Extensive marsh 14%, embayed RIVER: Sport fishing, boating, at AYLETT marsh 8%, fringe marsh 78%. water sports. (0.8 miles NEARSHORE: Narrow from Rickaho6k to past map 4,000 feet past Walkerton bridge; edge) 16.1 there becomes shallow, less than 10 miles (15.1 feet deep. miles of fastland) 28 PAMUNKEY RIVER, NEW KENT COUNTY, VIRGINIA POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. The several marsh FAMUNKEY RIVER, NEW KENT COUNTY, VIRGINIA SEGMENT I (Maps 13, 14, and 15) areas should be preserved due to their ecologi- SEGMENT 2 (Maps 13, 14, and 15) cal values as wildlife habitats. EXTENT: 54,912 feet (10.4 mi.) from Matadequin MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), KING WILLIAM EXTENT: 129,888 feet (24.6 mi.) of shoreline Creek to White House. The segment includes Quadr., 1968. from White House to Mill Creek. The segment 64,416 feet (12.2 mi.) of fastland. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), NEW KENT Quadr., has 80,784 feet (15.3 mi.) of fastland. 1968. SHORELANDS TYPE USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), QUINTON Quadr., SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Low shore 66% (8.1 mi.), low shore 1965. FASTLAND: Low shore 31% (4.8 mi.) low shore USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), TUNSTALL Quadr., with bluff 5% (0.6 mi.), moderately low shore with bluff 18% (2-7 mi.), moderately low shore 23% (2.8 mi.), and moderately low shore with 1966. 25% (3.9 mi.), moderately low shore with bluff bluff 6% (0-7 mi - ) - C&GS, #496, 1:40,000 scale, PAMUNKEY AND 8% (1.2 mi.), moderately high shore 2% (0-3 SHORE: Extensive marsh 61% (6-4 mi.), fringe MATTAPONI RIVERS, 1973. mi.), and high shore with bluff 16% (2-4 mi.). marsh 34% (3-5 mi.), and embayed marsh 5% PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 07Dec73 NK-2/24-29; SHORE: Extensive marsh 68% (16.8 mi.), and (0-5 mi.). OlFeb74 NK-2/85-89, 92, 93, fringe marsh 32% (7-8 mi.). RIVER: Narrow. The controlling depths in RIVER: Narrow. The river averages 12 feet in this segment are 6 feet. 95-109, 114-116, 118-122, depth and 1,200 feet in width in this segment. 124-127; The bottom is hard. SHORELANDS USE 04Jun74 NK-2/384. FASTLAND: Agricultural 72% (8.8 mi.), un- SHORELAHDS USE managed, wooded 24% (2.9 mi.), and residential FASTLAND: Agricultural 50% (7.6 mi.), un- 4% (0-5 mi.). managed, wooded 48% (7.4- mi.), and residential SHORE: Hunting, fishing, and other water 2% (0-3 mi.). sports. SHORE: Some recreational use, but mostly un- RIVER: Some sport fishing (bass, blue gill, used. pickerel) west of White House. The river RIVER: Sport fishing (rock, white perch, depths allow navigation only by small boats... large mouth bass) and other water sports. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline runs ap- WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline runs NW - proximately NW` - SE, having many meanders. SE, having many wide and broad meanders. Pre- Predominant fetches in this segment are at dominant fetches are at 700 feet southwest of Putneys Mill, SE 1.0 miles, and west of Morgan Landing, WNW - 1.7 miles; the marsh White House, NE 1.1 miles. 1,200 feet north of the west side entrance to Cumberland Thorofare, W - 2.2 miles; 400 feet OWNERSHIP: Private. south of Walnut Triangulation, NE - 1.7 miles. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. OWNERSHIP: Private. WATER QUALITY: No data available. FLOOD HAZARD: low, noncritical. All houses in the segment are located at least at the 5- BEACH QUALITY:. There are no beaches in this foot contour. segment. WATER QUALITY: No data available. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data available. BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. segment. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION Suggested Action: None. EROSION RATE: No data available. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: One building at Morgan OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: Public Landings. Landing is endangered. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. 29 Suggested Action: None. PAMUNKEY RIVER, NEW KENT COUNTY, VIRGINIA segment. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers SEGMENT 3 (Maps 4, 5, 10, and 11) PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION and several boat ramps in the segment. EROSION RATE: No data for the Pamunkey River. EXTENT: 96,624 feet (18.3 mi.) of shoreline from Slight or no change for the York River section POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Moderate. This seg- Mill Creek to Ferry Creek, including Mill Creek. of the segment (Eltham Bridge to Ferry Creek). ment has one section that could become a nice The segment includes 106,656 feet (20.2 mi.) of ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. recreaticnal camping spot. This is the penin- fastland. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. oula of fastland located at Cumberland Thoro- fare. The river at Cumberland Thorofare is SHORELANDS TYPE Suggested Action: None. over 12 feet deep, and the Thorofare itself is FASTLAND: Low shore 94%o (18.9 mi.), moderately of sufficient depth to allow passage of bport low shore 5% 0.1 mi.) and moderately low shore OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: Several piers and Eltham. boats. Fishing around Cohoke Marsh is good, with bluff 1% (0.2 mi.@. Bridge. however, swimming could prove hazardous, since SHORE: Extensive marsh 67% (12.2 mi.), fringe the river bottom drops off rapidly to 12 feet marsh 24% (4-5 mi.), and embayed marsh 9% POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. Hill and Eltham with 100 feet of shore. Elsewhere in the seg- (1.6 mi.). marshes are major wetlands and should be ment the low density residential/agricultural RIVER: Narrow. The river reaches the 12-foot preserved. areas should continue. The marshes should be depth within 400 feet of the shore in most parts lDreserved in their natural state due to their of the segment. MAPS: USCTS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), NEW KENT ecological value. Quadr., 1965. SHORELANDS USE. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WEST POINT MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), NEW KENT FASTLAND: Agricultural 53% (10.6 mi.), un- Quadr., 1965. Quadr., 1965. managed, wooded 33% (6-7 mi.), and residential C&GS, #4969 1:40,000 scale, PAMUNKEY AND USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), TUNSTALL Quadr., 14% (2.9 mi.). MATTAPONI RIVERS, 1973. 1966. SHORE: Waterfowl hunting in the marsh areas. C&GS, #495, 1:40,000 scale, YORK RIVER, C&GS, #496, 1:40,000 scale, PAMUNKEY AND RIVER: In the West Point area, traffic consists Yorktown to West Point, 1973. MATTAPONI RIVERS, 1973. mainly of vessels laden with pulpwood. The PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS O7Dec73 NK-3/27. river is used also for water sports and sport 3, PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 07Dec73 NK-2/24-27; fishing (spot, white perch, large mouth bass, 06Jun74 NK-3/363-383. OlFeb74 NK-2/85-89, 92, 93, bluegill, catfish, and rock). The West Point 95-109, 114-116, 118-1229 area is a closed shellfish area, according to 124-127; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . 04Jun74 NK-2/284. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend is basically WNW - ESE with many wide and broad meanders. Predominant fetches are across from the west corner of Lee Marsh, NNE - 2.3 miles, across from the southern most tip of Sweet Hall Marsh, ENE - 1.6 miles, and at the tidal flat at the mouth of the Thorofare in Eltham Marsh, SSE - 4.9 miles. OWNERSHIP: Private. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. All buildings are above the T-foot contour. WATER QUALITY: There is no data available for the Pamunkey River. The water quality for the West Point area has been determined unsatisfactory as of January, 197@- BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this 30 YORK RIVER, NEW KENT COUNTY, VIRGINIA Suggested Action: None. CHICKAHOMINY RIVER - DIASCUND CREEK, SEGMENT 4 (Maps 3 and 4) OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are two boathouses NEW KENT COUNTY , VIRGINIA at Philbates Creek and several piers. SEGMENT 5 (Maps 16 and 17) EXTENT: 63,888 feet (12.1 mi.) of shoreline from POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Moderate. Present use Ferry Creek to Ware Creek. The segment in- as an agricultural and low density residential EXTENT: 94,512 feet (17.9 mi.) of shoreline from cludes 104,016 feet (19.7 mi.) of fastland. area seems best. Recreational development is the dam north of Chickahominy Shores on the SHORElANDS TYPE limited due to the fact that most beaches are Chickahominy River to the headwaters of Diascund EASTLAND: low shore 32% (6.3 mi.), moderately located in front of private residences. The Creek almost at the pumping station on the low shore 47% (9.2 mi.), moderately high shore marshes should be preserved in their natural Diascund Creek Reservoir. 10% (2.0 mi.), high shore 7% (1-4 mi.), and state. SHORELANDS TYPE high shore with bluff 4% (0.8 mi.). MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), TOANO Quadr., EASTLAND: Low shore 80% (13.4 mi.), moderately SHORE: Extensive marsh 40% (4.8 mi.), embayed 1965. low shore 8% (1.3 mi.), moderately low shore marsh 43% (5.2 mi.), beach 10% (1.2 mi.), and USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WEST POINT with bluff 1% (0.2 mi.), moderately high shore fringe marsh 7% (0.9 mi.). Quadr., 1965. 3% (0-5 mi.), high shore 1% (0.2 mi.), and high RIVER: The nearshore zone alternates from C&GS, #495, 1:40,000 scale, YORK RIVER, shore with bluff 7% 0.1 mi.). narrow to wide. Yorktown to West Point, 1973. SHORE: Extensive marsh 32% (5-7 mi.), embayed SHORELANDS USE marsh 22% (3-9 mi.), fringe marsh 44% (7.9 mi.), FASTLAND: Unmanaged, wooded 83% (16.3 mi.), PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS OlFeb74 NK-411-22. and artificially stabilized 2% (0-4 mi.). agricultural 13% (2.5 mi.), and residential 4% RIVER: Narrow. The Chickahominy River has (0.9 mi.). average depths of 6 feet in this segment. SHORE; Hunting and other recreation. Diascund Creek is too shallow for measurement. RIVER: Commercial shipping to West Point. SHORELANDS USE WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The York River trends NW EASTLAND: Residential 20% (3-3 mi.), agricul- SE in this segment. Fetches in the segment are tural 11% (1.8 mi.), unmanaged, wooded 68% at Terrapin Point, SE - 17.8 miles, NNW - 3.8 (11.4 mi.), and recreational 1% (0.2 mi.). The miles, NW - 5.4 miles; at Ferry Creek, SE - recreational usage is at Chickahominy Shores, 5.6 miles, and at Ware Creek, ESE - 2.3 miles, where there is a marina on the east bank of N - 2.7 miles, and NE - 1.9 miles. the peninsula. Also, there is a camping area with a boatramp just southeast of the dam. affNERSHIP: Private. There is another ramp further down river from Chickahominy River across from Wilcox Neck. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical except for one SHORE: Waterfowl hunting and recreational house at the mouth of Thilbates Creek, where it usage. is moderate, critical. RIVER: There is a large amount of sport fishing on the Chickahominy (crappie, catfish, WATER QUALITY: Intermediate as of January 1975. large mouth bass, white perch, etc.). Also, there is boating on the river, and some water BEACH QUALITY: Fair to poor. Most beaches in sports areas, mainly around Chickahominy Shores. the segment are thin patches in front of the WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE*: The shoreline trends NW - houses north of Baker Creek. SE, with many wide meanders. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION OWNERSHIP: Private except for one public, county- EROSION RATE: Slight or no change from Ferry owned boatramp taking about 20 feet of the Creek to just south of Baker Creek; moderate, shoreline. noncritical (1.4 ft/yr.) from here to Ware Creek. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical except at the ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. marina down river of Chickahominy Shores, SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. where it is moderate, critical for one house. 31 WATER QUALITY: No data available. BEACH QUALITY: Poor. Beaches generally are narrow and soft. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data available. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: Bulkheading on the west bank of the Chickahominy Shores pen- insula, at the several marinas located at Chickahominy Shores and across from Wilcox Neck. Most of the structures are effective in retaining fill and guarding against boat wake erosion. Suggested Action: None. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several boat@ ramps and numerous piers. POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. Continuation of the present use of the segment as a sparcely populated area where an emphasis is on the enjoyment of its natural resources is preferred over any other commercial - residential devel- opment. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WALKERS Quadr., 1965. PHOTOS- Aerial-VIMS OlFeb74 NK-5/130-148. .32 MATTAPONI RIVER, KING WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA houses in this segment are significantly into NATTAPONI RIVER, KING WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA SEGMENT 1 (Maps 8 and 9) the fastland. SEGMENT 2 (Maps 6, 7, and 8) SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. EXTENT: 79,200 feet (15.0 mi.) of shoreline from Suggested Action: If the need developed, indi- EXTENT: 76,032 feet (14.4 mi.) of shoreline from the bridge at Aylett to Horse Landing. The vidual areas might be protected by any of a Horse Landing to the end of Gleason Marsh. segment includes 70,224 feet (13.3 mi.) of number of structures. The type of structure The segment has 74,976 feet (14.2 mi.) of fast- fastland. would depend upon local circumstances. land. SHORELANDS TYPE OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Low shore 50% (6.6 mi.), moderately POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. The extensive FASTLAND: Low shore 61% (8-7 mi.), low shore low shore 14% (1.9 mi.), moderately low shore marsh areas downstream from Roanes Wharf should with bluff 8% (1.1 mi.), moderately low shore with bluff 23% (3-0 mi.), moderately high be preserved as wildlife habitats. Other than 1% (0.2 mi.), moderately low shore with bluff shore 5% (0-7 mi.), and moderately high shore for increased recreational use, camping, hunting, 15% (2.1 mi.), moderately high shore with with bluff 8% (1-1 mi.). etc., the segment has little potential for a bluff 6% (0.9 mi.), and high shore 8% (1.2 mi.). SHORE: Fringe marsh 59% (8.9 mi.), extensive significantly enhanced use. SHORE: Extensive marsh 66% (9-5 mi.) and marsh 38% (5-7 mi.), and embayed marsh 3% fringe marsh 34% (4-9 mi.). (0-4 mi.). MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), AYLETT Quadr., RIVER: Narrow. RIVER: Narrow.. At its headwaters, the Matta- 1968. poni River averages 6 feet in depth. At USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), KING AND QUEEN SHORELANDS USE Walkerton, the river depth increases to 10-20 COURT HOUSE Quadr., 1968. FASTLAM : Unmanaged, wooded 85% (12.1 mi.), feet in places, which remains true to Horse USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), KING WILLIAM agricultural 6% (0.9 mi.), residential 5% Landing. Quadr., 1968. (0-7 mi.), and governmental (Mattaponi Indian SHORELANDS USE C&GS, #496, 1:40,000 scale, PAMUNKEY AND Reservation) 4% (0-5 mi.). MATTAPONI RIVERS, 1973. SHORE: Little or no formal use. FASTLAND: Agricultural 52% (6.9 mi.), un- RIVER: Some sport fishing, boating, and other managed, wooded 38% (5-0 mi.), and residential PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 04Jun74 KW-1/291-301- water sports. According to the U.S. Army Corps 10% (1-4 mi.). of Engineers, this is a closed shellfish area. SHORE: Little or no formal use, some hunting and fishing. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend me- RIVER: Some sport fishing, boating, and other anders NW - SE. Fetches at Oak triangulation water sports. According to the U.S. Army are WSW - 1.5 miles, just south of the Matta- Corps of Engineers, this is a closed shellfish poni Indian Reservation, SSW - 1.3 miles, and area. at L-Lua triangulation, W - 2.3 miles. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend me- OWNERSHIP: Private and Federal (the Mattaponi anders NW - SE for most of the segment. One Indian Reservation). 11,000 foot section near the headwaters trends NE - SW. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical for most of the segment. One house between the Mattaponi OWNERSHIP: Private. Indian Reservation and Wakema is below 5 feet. Here, the flood hazard is moderate, critical. FLOOD HAZARD: low, noncritical. All houses are The rest of the houses in the segment are above the 5-foot contour. above the 5-foot contour. WATER QUALITY: No data available. WATER QUALITY: No data available. BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this seg- ]BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this seg- ment. ment. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data available. EROSION RATE: No data available. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. All of the ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. 33 SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. MATTAPONI RIVER, KING WILLIAM -COUNTY, VIRGINIA POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: low. At present there SEGMENT 3 (Maps 5 and 6) is little pressure to develop the area. As Suggested Action: None. with most of the Mattaponi River shore, the marshes should be preserved as valuable natural OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. EXTENT: 45,408 feet (8.6 mi.) of shoreline from resources. -sh to the West Point Corporate POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. The extensive Gleason Mai MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), TRUHART Quadr., marsh areas are valuable wildlife areas and Limits. The segment includes 60,720 feet should be maintained in an undistrubed state. (11.5 mi.).of fastland. 1968. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WEST POINT There appears to be little potential for SHORELANDS TYPE Quadr., 1965. alternate uses other than low density, indi- EASTLAND: Low shore 86% (9.9 mi.) and moder- C&GS, #496, 1:40,000 scale, PAMUNKEY AND vidual, recreational uses. ately low shore 14% (1.6 mi.). MATTAPONI RIVERS, 1973. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), KING AND QUEEN SHORE: Extensive marsh,58% (5-0 mi.) and fringe PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS O4Jun74 KW-3/363-383. COURT HOUSE Quadr., 1968. marsh 42% (3.6 mi.). USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), TRUHART Qu6dr., RIVER: Narrow. 1968. SHORELANDS USE C&GS, #496, 1:40,000 scale, PAMUNKEY AND EASTLAND: Unmanaged, wooded 70% (8.0 mi.), MATTAPONI RIVERS, 1973. agricultural 25% (2.9 mi.), and residential 5% PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 04Jun74 KW-2/302-362. (0.6 mi.).. SHORE: Mostly unused. RIVER: Some sport fishing, boating, and water sports. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, it is a closed shellfish area. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend mean- ders NW - SE. Fetches to 3,400 feet SW of the segment start are ESE - 1.1 miles; across the Mattaponi River from Ken triangulation, WSW 1.1 miles; to the creek at the residential section at the end of Route 645, ENE - 1.1 miles; to the West Point Corporate Limits, NE 1.0 miles. OWNERSHIP:. Private. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. WATER QUALITY: No data available. BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this seg- ment. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data available. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. Suggested Action: None. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. .34 WEST POINT, KING WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA on west of the bulkheading at West Point. PAMUNKEY RIVER, KING WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA SEGMENT 4 (Maps 4 and 5) PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION SEGMENT 5 (Maps 10 and 11) EROSION RATE: No data except from Lord Dela- EXTENT: 45,408 feet (8.6 mi.) of shoreline, ware Bridge to the bulkheading, where, histori- EXTENT: 85,536 feet (16.2 mi.) of shoreline from 61,248 feet (11.6 mi.) of fastland extending cally, it has been accreting at a rate of 1.3 Herrick Creek to Sweet Hall Landing. The seg- from across Muddy Point to Herrick Creek. feet per year. From Eltham Bridge to the bulk- ment has 51,216 feet (9.7 mi.) of fastland. heading, the erosion rate is slight or no SHORELANDS TYPE change (0.8 ft/yr. historically). SHORELANDS TYPE FkSTLAND: Low shore 88% (10.2 mi.),and ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. FASTLAND: Low shore 66% (6.4 mi.), moderately moderately low shore with bluff 12% (1-4 mi.). SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is bulk- low shore 2% (0.2 mi.) moderately low shore SHORE: Extensive marsh 46% (4-0 mi.), fringe heading along the section of the West Point pen- with bluff 6% (0.6 mi.@, moderately high shore marsh 41% (3.5 mi.), and artificially sta- insula facing the York River. Also, there is with bluff 2% (0.2 mi.), and high shore with some riprapping in this section of West Point. bilized 13% (1 .i mi.). Both bulkheading and riprapping seem to be bluff 24% (2-3 mi.). RIVER: Narrow. effective. SHORE: Extensive marsh 67% (10.9 mi.), fringe marsh 26% (4.2 mi.), and embayed marsh 7% SHORELANDS USE Suggested Action: None. (1.1 mi.). FASTLAND: Residential 52% (6.0 mi.), agricul- RIVER: Narrow. The river averages 1,400 feet tural 20% (2.3 mi.), commercial 20% (2-4 mi.), OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are ten to fifteen wide, and is at least 12 feet deep throughout and industrial 8% (0-9 mi.). piers along the segment's shores. the segment. SHORE: Dockage, access to boats, etc. RIVER: Sport fishing, boating, water sports, POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT : Low. The committed SHORELANDS USE and extensive pulpwood shipping. According to industrial use virtually precludes any other FASTLAND: Unmanaged, wooded 78% (7.6 mi.) the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "Chesapeake usage. and agricultural 22% (2.1 mi.). Bay" study, the area is a closed shellfish SHORE: No specific use. area. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WEST POINT RIVER: Sport fishing (bass and perch fishing Quadr., 1965. in the marsh, rock and bluegill in parts of WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend on the C&GS, #496, 1:40,000 scale, PAMUNKEY AND the river), boating, and water sports. Mattaponi meanders NW - SSE; on the Pamunkey, MATTAPONI RIVERS, 1973. NW - SE. Fetches at the tip of the West Point WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The Pamunkey River in peninsula are SE - 6.6 miles, SSW - 2.2 miles. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 07Dec73 KW-4/28-46. this segment generally trends WNW - ESE, with Fetches at the east point of the West Point OlFeb74 XW-4/90, 92, 93, 94. very wide and broad meanders. Predominant peninsula face are S - 2.5 miles. Fetches at fetches are at Romancoke, SSW - 2.5 miles, and the marsh northeast of Glass Island are SSW - Sweet Hall Landing, S - -1.5 miles. 3.6 miles. On the Mattaponi, fetches at 800 feet southeast of West Point Corporate Limits OWNERSHIP: Private. are NNE - 1.2 miles. The fetches at Rail triangulation, west of Port Richmond, are SSE FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. 5.1 miles. WATER QUALITY: No data available. OWNERSHIP: Private. BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this seg- FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical, except for mod- ment. erate, critical at some of the houses and storage facilities on the West Point shoreline. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data available. Erosion is WATER QUALITY: The York River water quality is concentrated on the outside of the meanders. unsatisfactory for the West -Point area. There ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. is no data on the Mattaponi and Pamunkey River SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. water quality. Suggested Action: None, due to the economical BEACH QUAIITY:, Poor. There is one narrow beach feasibility. However, the local areas of 35 erosion could be controlled through any number PAMUNKEY RIVER, KING WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. of methods if ever required. SEGMENT 6 (Maps 11, 12, and 13) Suggested Action: None. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are piers and sev- eral boatramps in the segment. EXTENT: 107,184 feet (20.3 mi.) of shoreline from OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers, Sweet Hall Landing to the west side of Williams and 1 boatramp at Lester Manor. POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. The two very Creek. The segment has 64,944 feet (12.3 mi.) large marshes, Lee Marsh and Sweet Hall Marsh of fastland. POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low, except for the should be preserved as valuable wetlands. possible development of camp areas in one or SHORELANDS TYPE two locations. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), NEW KENT FASTLAND: Low shore 73% (9.0 mi.), moderately Quadr., 1965. low shore 19% (2.3 mi.), and moderately low MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), NEW KENT USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WEST POINT shore with bluff 8% (1.0 mi.). Quadr., 1965. Quadr., 1965. SHORE: Extensive marsh 56% (11.4 mi.), fringe C&GS, #496, 1:40,000 scale, PAMUNKEY AND C&GS, #496, 1:40,000 scale, PAMUNKEY AND marsh 34% (6.9 mi.), and embayed marsh 10% MATTAPONI RIVERS, 1973. MATTAPONI RIVERS, 1973. (2.0 mi.). RIVER: Narrow. The Pamunkey River averages at PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 01Feb74 KW-6/109-114, 117- PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 01Feb74 KW-5/95, 97, 100- least 12 feet in depth to the southern part of 119, 122, 123, 126-129. 012, 106, 107. the Pamunkey Indian Reservation. From there to Williams Creek the average depth is 10 feet. There are depths in this segment of up to 58 feet. SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Agricultural 52% (6.4 mi.), govern- mental (Pamunkey Indian Reservation) 28% (3.4 mi.), unmanaged, wooded 19% (2.3 mi.), and residential 1% (0.2 mi.). SHORE: River access. RIVER: Sport fishing in the Coloke Marsh area, some sport boating and water sports. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The Pamunkey River gener- ally trends WNW - ESE, with wide and broad me- anders in this segment. Representative fetches are at Resident triangulation, SW - 1.8 miles, and at Brickhouse Landing, ENE - 1.4 miles. OWNERSHIP: Private, except for the Pamunkey Indian Reservation, which is federally owned. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. All houses are above the 5-foot contour, most are above the 10- foot contour. WATER QUALITY: No data available. BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this seg- ment. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data available. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. 36 'ERED STRUCTURES : None. FAMUNKEY RIVER, KING WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGI-,,,,.IA ENDANCT 1-1 SEGMENT 7 (Maps 13, 14, and 15) SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. Suggested Action: None. EXTENT: 186,912 feet (35.4 mi.) of shoreline from OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: Numerous landings. Williams Creek to the Pamunkey River Bridge The segment includes 173,184 feet (32.8 mi.@ POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. of fastland. SHORELANDS TYPE MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), KING WILLIAM FASTLAND: Low shore 69% (22.6 mi.), low shore Quadr., 1968. with bluff 1% (0.4 mi.), moderately low shore USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), MANQUIN Quadr., 14% (4-5 mi.), moderately low shore with bluff 1968. 7% (2.4 mi.), moderately high shore 1% (0.2 mi.), USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), NEW KENT moderately high shore with bluff 7% (2-3 mi.), Quadr., 1965. and high shore with bluff 1% (0.4 mi.). USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), TUNSTALL SHORE: Extensive marsh 48% (16.9 mi.), fringe Quadr., 1966. marsh 43% (15.4 mi.), and embayed marsh 9% C&GS, #496, li40,OOO scale, PANUNKEY AND (3-1 mi.). MATTAPONI RIVERS, 1973. RIVER: Narrow. Controlling depths in this PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 04Jun74 KW-7/387-389. segment are 6 feet almost to Piping Tree Perry. SHORELANDS USE FASTIAND: Agricultural 57% (18.9 mi.), un- managed, wooded 42% (13.7 mi.), and residential 1% (0.2 mi.). SHORE: Unused. RIVER: Some sport fishing (bass, bluegill, pickerel) west of the Pamunkey Indian Reserva- tion. The river is deep enough in this seg- ment to allow travel by small boats only. Above Retreat, the river is covered with debris and snags. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline runs approx- imately NW - SE, with many meanders. Repre- sentative fetches are at the point southeast of Liberty Hall, SE - 1.6 miles and the marsh in front of Old Town Creek, SW - 1.4 miles. OWNERSHIP: Private. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. WATER QUALITY: No data available. BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this seg- ment. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data available. 37 POROPOTANK RIVERI KING AND QUEEN COUNTY, VIRGINIA OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are a few small YORK RIVER, KING AND QUEEN COUNTY, VIRGINIA SEGMENT 1 (Maps 2 and 3) piers. SEGMENT 2 (Maps 3 and 4) POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. The area is EXTENT: 67,056 feet (12.7 mi.) of shoreline along wooded and very rural. The extensive wetlands EXTENT: 58,080 feet (11.0 mi.) of shoreline from Poropotank River. The segment has 101,376 feet along the Poropotank River would be severely the mouth of Poropotank Bay to Brookeshire. (19.2 mi.) of fastland. damaged by any major use change. The segment includes 115,104 feet (21.8 mi.) SHORELANDS TYPE MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), GRESSIT Qu@dr., of fastland. EASTLAND: Low shore 68% (13.1 mi.), moderately 1965, photorevised 1973. SHORELANDS TYPE 1-ow shore 27% (5-1 mi.), moderately high shore C&GS, #495, 1:40,000 scale, YORK RIVER, FASTILAND: Entirely low shore. 3% (0.6 mi.), and high shore 2% (0-4 mi.). Yorktown to West Point, 1973. SHORE: Extensive marsh 52% (5-7 mi.), sand SHORE: The shore zone is mainly embayed marsh beach 25% (2.8 mi.), fringe marsh 22% (2-4 mi.), PHOTOS: Slides coincident with Gloucester County. 95% (12.1 mi.). The rest of the segment is and artificially stabilized 1% (0-1 mi.). beach 3% (0.4 mi.) and fringe marsh 2% (0.2 Aerial-VDVIS 07Dec73 KQ-1/76-84. NEARSHORE: The York River is intermediate in mi.). Ground 06Nov73 GL-lA/25G-27G. width in this segment. The bottom is hard and RIVER: Narrow (400 ft.), the Poropotank River covered with oysters and oyster shells. averages 6 feet in depth, though near its mouth it has a depth of 13 feet and at Part- SHOREIANDS USE ridge Landing it has a depth of 11 feet. EASTLAND: Unmanaged, wooded 79% (17.3 mi.), Channel entrance is marked with buoys. government, including the West Point Municipal Airport, 10% (2.2 mi.), agricultural 8% (1-7 SHORELANDS USE mi.), and residential 3% 0.6 mi.). EASTLAND: Unmanaged, wooded 68% (13.2 mi.), SHORE: Hunting, other than this the shore has agricultural 26% (4.9 mi.), and unmanaged, im_ very little use. wooded 6% 0.1 mi.). NEARSHORE: Sport fishing, boating, water SHORE: Waterfowl hunting. sports, and shellfishing. RIVER: Sport fishing, sport boating and com- mercial fishing is found on the Poropotank. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend is According to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers NW - SE. Fetches at Goff Point are NW - 2.3 "Chesapeake Bay" study, this is a closed shell- miles, NYW - 1.9 miles, W - 1.4 miles, and SSE fish area (Plate C-V1-15). 2.0 miles. Fetches at Belleview are WNW - 4.3 miles, W - 1.5 miles, and S - 3.4 miles. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend mean- Fetches at the point south of Roane are W ders from NNE - SW. 2.2 miles, SW - 1.6 miles, and SSE - 3.8 miles. OWNERSHIP: Private. OWNERSHIP: Private, except for West Point Muni- cipal Airport, which is county owned. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical, except at Roane, where it is moderate, critical. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical for most of the subsegment. The flood hazard is moderate, WATER QUALITY: Intermediate. critical for several houses at Belleview and one house southeast of Roane 2 triangulation BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this seg- which are below the 5-foot contour. ment. WATER QUALITY: Intermediate. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or no change. BEACH QUALITY: Fair to poor. Most beaches in ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. the segment are narrow. There is one moder- SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. ately wide beach between Goalders Creek and Robinson Creek. Suggested Action: None. 38 PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION MATTAPONI RIVER, KING AND QUEEN COUNTY, VIRGINIA might be used to slow erosion in selected EROSION RATE: Moderate, noncritical from Goff SEGMENT 3 (Maps 4, 5, and 6) areas. Point to Belleview. The historical erosion rate indicates a loss in this area of 1.1 to OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. 1.6 feet per year. Slight or no change for EXTENT: 99,792 feet (18.9 mi.) of shoreline from the rest of the segment. Brookeshire to Melrose Landing. The segment POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. There is little ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. includes 119,856 feet (22.7 mi.) of fastland. pressure to develop the area. The marshes SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is several should be preserved. hundred feet of bulkheading with groins at SHORELANDS TYPE Brookeshire that appears to be effective. EASTLAND: Low shore 89% (20.0 mi.), moderately MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), TRUHART Quadr., low shore 7% (1.6 mi.), and high shore 4% (2.8 1968. Suggested Action: None. mi.). USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WEST POINT SHORE: Extensive marsh 60% (11.3 mi.), fringe Quadr., 1965. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are 8 piers in the marsh 26% (4.8 mi.), and embayed marsh 14% C&GS, #496, 1:40,000 scale, PAMUNKEY AND segment. There are 4 at Brookeshire and 4 be- (2.8 mi.). MATTAPONI RIVERS, 1973. tween Belleview and Roane 2 triangulation. NEARSHORE: The Mattaponi River is narrow, with PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 04Nov74 KQ-3/149-199. POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low, except for the a soft bottom from Brookeshire to Water Fence areas near Belleview and between Goff Point Landing, the rest has a hard bottom. and Brookeshire. These areas might be used for SHORELANDS USE more residential or seasonal homes. The marsh FASTLA-ND: Unmanaged, wooded 60% (13.5 mi.), areas should be protected as fish and game agricultural 28% (6.4 mi.), and residential 12% habitats. (2.8 mi.). MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), GRESSIT Quadr., SHORE: Little or no formal use. 1965, photorevised 1973. NEARSHORE: Boating and sport and commercial USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), TOANO Quadr., fishing. 1965. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend mean- USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WEST POINT ders NW - SSE. Fetches at Brookeshire are SW - Quadr., 1965. 2.5 miles, WSW - 1.5 miles, and NW - 1.1 miles. C&GS, #496, 1:40,000 scale, PAMUNKEY AND Fetches at the mouth of Burnt Mill Creek are MATTAPONI RIVERS@ 1973. SW - 1.7 miles and NW @- 1.5 miles. Fetches at PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 07Dec KQ-2/44-75. Ryefield Landing are SW - 1.2 miles and W 1.3 miles. OWNERSHIP: Private. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. WATER QUALITY: No data. BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this seg- ment. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data available. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. Suggested Action: Erosion is concentrated on the outside of the river bends. Any of several structures, depending on the site specifies, 39 MATTkPONI RIVER, KING AND QUEEN COUNTY, VIRGINIA OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. YATTAPONI RIVER, KING AND QUEEN COUNTY, VIRGINIA SEGMENT 4 (Maps 6, 7, and 8) POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. SEGMENT 5 (Maps 8 and 9) EXTENT: 65,472 feet (12.4 mi.) of shoreline from MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), KING AND QUEEN EXTENT: 85,008 feet (16.1 mi.) of shoreline from Melrose Landing to Rickahock. The segment in- COURT HOUSE Quadr., 1968. Rickahock to the bridge at Aylett. The segment cludes 87,120 feet (16.5 mi.) of fastland. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), TRUHART Quadr., has 79,728 feet (15.1 mi.) of fastland. 1968. SHORELANDS TYPE C&GS, #496, 1:40,000 scale, PAMUNKEY AND SHOREMANDS TYPE FASTIAND: Low shore 62% (10.3 mi.), low shore MATTAPONI RIVERS, 1973. FASTIAND: Low shore 61% (9-3 mi.), moderately with bluff 6% (1-2 mi.), moderately low shore PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 11A low shore 5% (0-7 mi.), moderately low shore 20% (3-3 mi.), and moderately low shore with pr74 KQ-4/200-250; with bluff 15% (2.2 mi.), moderately high shore bluff 12% (1-9 mi.). 04Jun74 KQ-4/251-267. 2% (0-3 mi.), moderately high shore with bluff SHORE: Extensive marsh 55% (6.8 mi.) and 9% (1-4 mi .), and high shore with bluff 8% fringe marsh 45% (5.6 mi.). (1.2 mi.). NEARSHORE: The Mattaponi River is narrow in SHORE: Fringe marsh 78% (12.5 mi.), extensive this segment. marsh 14% (2-3 mi.), and embayed marsh 8% (1-3 mi.). SHORELANDS USE RIVER: Narrow, with depths ranging from 6 to EASTLAND: Unmanaged, wooded 56% (9-3 mi.), 23 feet from Rickahock to the bridge at Walker- agricultural 42% (6.9 mi.), and residential 2% ton, and depths averaging 6 feet past Walkerton (0-3 mi.). Bridge. The bottom between Rickahock and Locust SHORE: Little or no formal use. Grove is soft. NEARSHORE: Sport fishing and water sports. SHORELANDS USE WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend me- FASTLAND: Unmanaged, wooded 49% (7-3 mi.), anders from NW - SE. The fetch at Melrose agricultural 38% (5.8 mi.), residential 12% Landing is NW - 2.2 miles. The fetch at Court- (1 .8 mi.), and recreational 1% (0.2 mi house Landing is WSW - 1.3 miles. Other fetches SHORE: Little or no formal use. are interrupted by marsh islands in the river. RIVER: Some sport fishing, boating, and other water sports. According to the Army Corps of OWNERSHIP: Private. Engineers, this is a closed shellfish area. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend is NW` - SE for most of the segment, with the head- WATER QUALITY: No data available. waters of the Mattaponi having a shoreline trend of first NW - SE, then NE SW. BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this seg- ment. OWNERSHIP: Private. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. EROSION RATE: No data available. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. WATER QUALITY: No data available. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this seg- Suggested Action: Erosion is concentrated at ment. the outside corner of river bends. No erosion control action appears necessary, but if any PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION should become necessary, site specific analysis EROSION RATE: No data available. should be employed to determine the most effec- ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. All of the tive shore defense styg-ture. houses in this segment are above the 5-foot contour. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. 40 Suggested Action: There appears to be little need for shore protective structures. Future -development might generate needs for local defense mechanisms. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), AYLETT Quadr., -1968. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), KING AND QUEEN COURT HOUSE Quadr., 1968. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), KING WILIIAM Quadr., 1968. C&GS, #496, 1:40,000 scale, PAMUNKEY AND MATTAPONI RIVERS, 1973. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 04Jun74 KQ-5/268-290. 41 760 40' V v (IsDoi Pi w 0 LIT 0, C Qj BM 71 71\ 0 50 50 6- 50 90 10 501'' 50 Miller .'Landin" 9 KQ1 Hay@od' Lan in Al 16 Partridge Red Bank, I anding Landind 4- 15 C4 C4 1 0 o N "Violet Bank Tany A N C.) Landing cj 12 J BM 7 Morris Bay N _1signpinO, 76 A 5. est @ad MAP 2 YORK RIVER 5 MORRIS BAY TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE Segment KQ1 8 X Segment Boundary Subsegment Boundary --J -S@ 6- & 1/2 0 1 MILE 760 40' 7 6E4 @O'L 7 C:77@ 7- I M c 100 vipw C, 0 V 50 50,- q, fo BM 71 0 50 50' pM56- ------ 90 50 SO 50 82 6 50 Miller Landing ,Qj K 72 ItII % 4@- rtrid Red Bank P n an@,ing c-4 c4 iolet Bank Tanyard Landin 9 12 p 6M% li3 7 Morris Bay 617 /Signpir 0 76 MAP 2B 9 YORK RIVER MORRIS BAY SHORELANDS TYPES' 5, A, Segment KQ1 FASTLAND Low Shore Moderately Low Shore L-A--JL-JL-A Moderately Low Shore b. with Bluff L.L.A.Jj Moderately High Shore A A A A SHORE Fringe Marsh H1111111111111111111111 Extensive Marsh Ernrb d Marsh @ye 1 1/2 0 1 MILE 76* AO' 760 40' 7w 7 'T 1110mo /* Pi w 1w* 71, 0 @0 % it W: BM 71 wo /* 1W W; C? ;1w) '56 90 1A M@\ 1w, 50 1w 1W 1w 1RS/A 1w, Miller 1A Landing \@iw: KQ1 it 1w: Hay@pod' 1 W 1W A.- 1A 1A 1w, 1A Red Bank 1w Jw PartridgeI Landin anding 1A C4 C-4 Violet Bank Tanyard',,@_ Landing 12 4 Bm 7 m 7 AP 21\ MorHs Bay ----- ---- YORK RIVEF MORRIS B AY gnpin, FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION Segme ant KQ1 US E Agricultural A It Residential RS West End .5. Unmanaged 'J, Wooded W OWNERSHIP Private EROSION No Data 61 4 1014 1 1/2 0 1 MILE 760 40' ,Bm 0 @-pi 9 Ak AOL Ak AIN Alk Ah Alk Alk Ah Ah Ah 760 45' W % A @_7 6 7 N.K 4 KQ2 L Holly;@ 0, C4 o -J'm 7 Ce 24 515 MAP 3A 80- Y U R K R I V E R HOLLY FORKS TO SYCAMORE LANDING ' @ 0/ TOPOGRAPHY AND CULl UFRIE, U'U'l, gments NK4, KQ2 f X-l" = Segment Boundary = Subsegment Boundary /q@/ 7W C- Sycamore .01 r A 0@1 "n ... ... .... t Foll /01, 7B 0 i5 1/2 76o AY 0 MAP 3B 0 0 .1 YORK RIVER HOLLY FORKS TO SYCAMORE 0 LANDING 0 SHORELANDS TYPES 0 0 V- NK4 Segments NK4,KQ2 0 FASTLAND Low Shore KQ2 0 ow Shore LA / ' --It@-@ @, -, Moderately L ---- --- A A co,-@ p Moderately High Shore A A E0 High Shore SHORE 0 Beach Extensive Marsh cN o Embayed Marsh NEARSHORE C, 0 0 0 0 intermediate Wide MS, PA \zo @Z 4// 87; A A N@ 7, Sycamore Ganding 56 A /0 Mt Folly ich-a Va nd 01 y- 1/2 0 it e 9@ L 760 45' 46 760 45' % mow kI 1W A 1 W kk Ar 42 7 NK4 so- i V_ KQ2 9 '-,Holly 1w 7 CID N r /06X 1 A IVV,- \Cp (;e .97 TR Ta Ch Ce -'a MAP 3C YORK RIVE 'HOLLY FORKS TO SYCA N 1w, 'FASTLAND USE, OWNER Segments NK4, USE 1 A-` Agricultural A Government G RS Residential Unmanaged 5 NO/ C 1W - Wooded W 1W OWNERSHIP Private County 4 @RT ZAI EROSION Moderate Slight or No Change -0 TN N t Foil 10 Nk 7 /2 0 D) PW-, 'v L 1, ;,,@wn_ C ell V MANYMPRN 760 AY 47 "4 k L------- M -,@Sandpit' A grookeshire 115 5 Trader a r k P NK3 BM If, KW4 j cz Pium'r@;ivlt, WEST POINT MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 15 St Lukes ch 5 .9 A -X/6 0 Goff P0 n 7 @oint Brick2-,,-' q/ )X; 10 .0 -3 V" NK4 6 W I j V-A M b' 30 Z@/ KQ2 Bm 9 .1 , 4@30 NK4 so :"j s @uu j 0 J0 )jj @11W W, Ale 9 1/2 0 1MILE Terrapin Point s,\ 48 0 0 0 3 nj Jbrooeie 0 W. 0 0 ailer P k,;" It T a 0 -0 NK3 0 -, () I11\ // SM 0 15 0 0 KW4 0 0 Plu ni WEST POINT \. ..-, MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 0 4@1 15 t Lukes 0 0 "X 1@6 0 ff Pon 7 9 r Bri -K x 10 110 0 0 NK4 0 0 0 0 30 KQ2 0 7,)Taylor 22 MAP 4B 0 0 HEAD OF YORK RIVER NK4 0 SHORELANDS TYPES Segments NK3, NK4, KW4, KQ2 - 0 0 0 0 0 tp "\j r 6 0 0 ro 41 0 Terrapin 1/2 0 1 0 Point ,L )a -j a IRK" 49 -7 1 R Jw 64 1RS lw_ Trailer Parkl@',, cz 1RS 1R NK3 Bm I N @'.. I @ k e 4C 4G, 4 KW 1RC 1RS \011 6int WEST POINT PluMJ@ 1A, MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, 'StLukes 5 Ch iA 1 R 1A' 0 IA v-3 1 w 1 w 9 1 A Goff Poi-nt 0 nd,. 7 A 0 \'f-" . - I . - 91, Brick2-.,.', V A 10 1RS,. 4C' A w A A NK4 -:@06- 1RS ILI i w V-A 1w 1w o 30 A C.) KQ2 Ylor -Pond B 9 Z@ 7, 22 P- 1-1 '- @w 1w k-- w NK4 1w 1 R S @38 V v p 41 Jr 'Al"o 1 1/2 0 1 MILE Terrapin Point A IVC d'@)VX" ".'J" 50 76050' 7,7 777. 1/2 I MILE N, U@ S ghai j Olivet h- c12 @KW3 M A 5A @ J1, @1, = p 71@ WEST POINT e[n c F1,673 0 TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE Segments KW3,KW4,KQ3 KQ3 5 Segment Boundary 4/ (f Waterfence Lan I-A, 59 r f 0 L 645 ra ing@ KW 10 64' pi Q, U 7. ------ 00 % fi57 N 61. N A 0 U KQ3- 7 636 KW4 J1 f We@tToin 71, 12 X,/\ rivR@in I neater -,-'KW V0 4, 0. 6ewa Dispo! 14 14 0 0 aw - a t; t a 76050' 76o5O' 1/2 0 1 MWE @@7@Xhpgh i MAP 5B -0- 0 0 WEST POINT SHORELANDS TYPES Old -go K Segments KW3,KW4,KQ3 0 FASTLAND _--0 Low Shore Cem 0 Moderately Low Shore 0 SHOR Beach =0 Fringe Marsh 1`11IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0. cea Extensive Marsh Ernbayed Marsh 0 Artificially Stabilized NEARSHORE 10 f Narrow 0-0-.0-0 657Z@ 0 D 5, 645 n 0 KW @g Y 61, 0 C, P, 0 \0 X 0/ Vo 01" 57 X 0 U1 0 0-, C o u 0 -P KQ 0 Z K 4 0 t 4\ z high 13,@h 0 0\ b @,hw -,n Tlealo, 30 0,0 q1 0 KW4, 0 p 0 S5 I 0 I .;1 .1 0 0 Disposa 0 0/ '@b o `4 0 r C? -,)S a 15 0 BM A 4- 76'50' All All qr 76-50' 'j T 01 4 0 1 MILE n ai gh A M 1W V2@ Al MAP 15 0 ivet C__ WEST P OINT ON w, ER S1 FASTLAND USE, OWNERSH1,P, E,R --KW3 KW4, KQ3 1W Segments KW3, 7 (USE &fty Agricultural A 1A CeT 40 C Commercial 1A Industrial J101 7' 1W Government G RC JW Recreational KQ3 41 1A RS 1A Residential In Waterfence La 4@ Unmanaged 1 A Wooded W ERSHIP OWN 4Rc Private 1 1A N County 4 V Town 5 N( City 5 1RS EROSION 1W Slight or No Change No Symbol I 1RS - 645' 1W,. + Accretional + + + JKW3 J 1W 1A J@ pit ij@ 0 i W 1 A 1 A 1W 1W , _?0 W, 657 Q 'Kqddypotnt@/ ar 1W 1W 1 A 1RS ,A 1 W 1A @(lw 1W 1 R S A, K03@4"@6, 1RS 1W 1A 113 1W S lw\ 0, 1RS\ KW4 1A Co 0 @'I; WeAr.int High S4,h J A lwl- 12 1C/RC"\ RS i 1RS' 1 A 1W 1W On Theater Pr --a-e 1RS 1RS hlrn6lfd J@ Pony -10 00 -01 31k, 1A "KW 1RS 4- 1A lope 1A 1W _7 St 1RS, Sew a Cr Dispc C'. 7\. . I. 1 A 0 MAIL 14 X V '4 -4- . 33 M 0 rs 11 K, .,,Sat Eff am 01) 1A 6 1A C! 1C, 1RS'" -Mattapofii r * r 1Hb 1@, M i2 1RS A 0 P, 0 VW i0m."01, 3 4 I/RS:, A 1A Ijr0.K5 W16SItY n 76050' X 76o 52' 30" l___XL34 13 MAP 6A W@\ MATTAPONI RIVER /rCentral r @o - &h N, KING AND QUEEN COURTHG" 7, Al USE !@@ -7 M TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE ana, een 7 Colirt, 0 .11 'n Segments KW2,KW3,KQ3,KQ4 J, N 631 Segment Boundary 30- A ff -j - J j :@30 X L irtho vr 3 A KW 2 /00 X\ XQ4 rt IOU) D @b 6DV2 40 N 5 & D 2 %\\ Kw ca 14 0 KQ3\\,, 41T C.) 1 14 N 0 14 643 .25 71. 0 10 N KQ3 KW31 v .1 0 760 52' 30" AL AL qW 1W W W W 76- 52' 30" /34 MAP 6B. MATTAPONI RIVE R 41 FXING AND QUEEN COURTHO 32 USE I SHORELANDS TYPES Segments KW2.KW3,Ko3,KQ4i, P a en FASTLAND _j 0 Low Shore Low Shore fj 631 with Bluff 0- 30 Moderately Low Shore A SHORE 0 Fringe Marsh 0 Extensive Marsh Embayed Marsh -NEARSHORE thouse Narrow 0-0-0-0 0 0,_0 KW2 0 0 KQ4 W 10 J@. 52 rt 0 /00 ,0 602 40 L -0 S@ 5 Ic 25 100 loor r KVV 2 06- N 0 KQ3\110 643 0 (< C? 4 0 K@_ --- 3 KW311. 0 1@ 0- AArb , I@ 0 KjjVG W,@ 1--pW1, '1-,' 0 0 < 14 0 0 J, 0 C', 0 0 ,N I MILE 0 760 52' 30'' 760 52' 30" 124 MAP-)-6-GI MATTAPONI RIVER KING AND QUEEN COURTHOUSE\,\\ - pl, J) FASTEAND-U@�E-, 6W---N-ERSHIP, ER(j&ON 32 Segments KW2, KW3, KQ3, KQ4 0@ USE Agricultural A Recreational RC U Unmanaged Wooded W 1A OWNERSHIP 30-1- Private 0 county 4 1A EROSION Slight or No Change No Symbol % 0 rithoust ndi 1A K\N 2"- 110 1A KU 1A' 1w 1A 1w rt 1W 2 5 C@- ;1W D @17 W2 '0 L 1W -J@ 1A W . . . ...... @4RC 25 r 1W, 23,, 0- ... ------- A lull g_86,1n, arah' % r 1A .;Kw K Q3\\, -1W N 25 C! 1 W -/0 K K-- ilw:\ 7 0\ @KQ3 A@ X,- j.- PS _F @.@ KW3), 1w, 4C rd 1w ftk\@4 ',@ew "0" 1w, 1A I MILE 1/2 0 76' 52' 30" All. 760 55' 1911 - R,11 OWN 30 N o Z 0 if 659 % -f Mantapike @XQ4 5 50 1,1 San Point KQ4 K 2 Q 50 Nt- V KQ2'. Lo fig Cea M - - -------- J&@ L em V v -6 MAP A MATTAPONI RIVER All KQ4 lome MATTAPONI INDIAN RESERVATION TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE 0 Segments KW2,KQ4 ARM U c v 0 00 BM12 )LI % 1/2 0 1 MILE (D Vill 76' 55' 76o 55' 7 00 if I 7@ W fit .5c, W" b\ z 1j. 633 0 r V 14 G) 0 14 0 ct@ "Gravel flit W if u 18 ,A, If 43 If % -C& % J@ A '5 nt pike M 0 0 K04 0 r 0 0---0-0-0-@o V if Point KQ4 Pit V 58 \0 A if 41 0 KQ2 0 co ding r 11, V 'Y Q@ 0 0uSe MAP 7B 22 0 0 MATTAPONI RIVER MATTAPONI INDIAN RESERVATION C@ 'T'NDUN' RESE@RVA I %\\ SHORELANDS TYPES % SegmentsKW2,KQ4 FASTLAND. Low Shore KQ4 Low Shore 011 I t--- L with Bluff 0 CA 0 Moderately Low Shore Moderately Low Shore 0 I j1-- B a with Bluff 640 Moderately High Shore K 9 A 0 with Bluff High Shore with Bluff 643 _j, Fringe Marsh N, Extensive Marsh 8 626 62 Embayed Marsh NEARSHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 It 1/2 0 1 MILE 760 55' L 760 55' -0 0 '0- & 633 (2 N 0 ravel @17 it IR 1A 'P 1w 1VV Mantapike 1w '@)Vla -P. 11w KQ4 ...... .... . . . .......... 1w 0 d it' Poirit Poir KQ4,11 w KQ2 1VV 1w 50 V L- it 1A Q21 -:Fdd@ 0 \-T1 I a ar U A 17C ...... .. ........ .... ...... - ---- --- MATTAPONI RIVER_._-@, r1w 1W MATTAPONI INDIAN RESERVATION @-TFAS@LAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION 6egments KW2, KQ4 USE V vv--, 0 Agricultural A Residential RS Unmanaged W --b Wooded OWNERSHIP All KQ4 C) Private Federal 2 o EROSION Slight or No Change No Symbo 1w 1w @K 2'@ 0 00 Bmi 643 "j 1A 41 %% VIA NMI C@7 76- @55 770 634 1A Upon em r\ W iz KW1 . ......... vi @11. I I Vj 45 cl) 664 C4 KQ51 0 KW1 11 57 A MAP 8A MATTAPONI RIVER ING WALKERTON TO SCOTLAND LANDING Segments KW1, KW2, KQ4, KQ5 71 \LTOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE 35' 637 Segment Boundary Subsegment Boundary Q -4 32 71 1 1/2 0 1 MILE EMEESC=" 770 60 770 J 6S 70 70 \,0 em HOU's KQ5 A KW11 \\66,. Locu t 0 0 0 % it j r -c 50 0 MAP 8 @0 MATTA KQ5 0 PONI RIVER K WALKERTON TO SCOTLAND LANDING j SHORELANDS TYPES 01 I ok ?N OF, U1 U;iN Segments KW1, KW2, KQ4, KQ5 j 0, If *rs FASTLAND 619 35 Low Shore Mode. Aely Low Shore -A Moderately Low Shore with Bluff 637 3 A A Moderately High Shore Moderately High Shore A with Bluff A M011�6" A@_ High Shore V with Bluff SHORE Fringe Marsh K, Extensive Marsh A Ernbayed Marsh NEARSHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 L 1/2 0 1 MILE 770 61 77o 1w Ho KQ5', 75 se/ 1A 5 1RS' Z 1A 66, KW /0, OvIe A, A'A, -1/ W \X 1 A 1W -60 1A 1A@ Pit- 45 0 o cn 1W .. ...... KQ5 A o K I , KWI Cl) I 1A 101 C QUEEN MA 8CI wl 1RS MA adj TTAPONI RIVER 35 X- 1A a 0 WALKERTON TO SCOTLAND LANDING KQ4, KQ5 Segments KW1, KW2, It 1A USE AgriculturalA 35 K Residential RS X, Unmanaged 7' IV Wooded W OWNERSHIP Private EROSION .j) No Data 6 7 Ix I MILE 1/2 0 770 62 77o 05' IV J) P 01 @-V 6w mw ng ZSS eu j @Co 0 W KW1 pj 50 1 Aylett j BM Pond oplar .,j @:c -r> r e n 50 V, 4 W '10D KQ5-\ G vi@v-g ;em it v MAP 9A MATTAPONI RIVER (E WHITEHALL TO JONES LANDING -50 TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE, e v Segments KW1, KQ5 Segment Boundary )///-@ I A- 0 41 P, cq %La ;nMll Subsegment Boundary,-\,./ e. *41-11f 50 -@o LMore v r Lln \ K, I--, 1/2 0 1 Ml X 770 05' 63 770 05' AT Ion CQ an L I'm, I 47JL C, vi \j KW1 50 Aylett @bplar 50 7 A@ 647 KQ5Y-\A,@ t@ :cem it It C. In o Land 7- S, a f KQ5 6") KW1 0-ffners V A\ -7 ILI, I MILE \/00 1/2 0 77o 05' 64 770 05' IV D v 1W 4, "Co Jones N@ (MAP 9C-) 1w, New Morning -and'9 Cenn CID Ch 131 MATTAPONI RIVER,')\_--1 A _4 ITEHALL TO JONES LANDING 1 A FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION-.--\,\ 1 A Segments KW1, KQ5 0. 4 USE KW1 -T Agricultural A Residential RS 1W Unmanaged Aylett 1W W6ode B. d 1W OWNERSHIP Private Pbplar Landing @:Cem 1A EROSION A a a 7- vyo D t 647 KQ5 /7 @j 1A 'jCem @v -p. V@: r EM @j 2 7C2@0 \wl 1W N:j je g-_ 1W 1RS vj '40 1W 1A,111 o L _9 nters, Landinj - @eb 5- 1A @@ 00@_@ oanes Wharf KC `rr < .1i"T I, 1A 1W 1W -0 20 /\More KW 'b/ S p t, 190 /1' 1A 1A 0 1 I 7@11 1W 7-7 r yj h IMILE 1/2 0 U0__ N/1 1W 1W q0, L 770 05' 65 76o 52' 30" 106 A z % \Z_ v tl, 00 00 MAP 10A PAMUNKEY RIVER it HILL MARSH-LEE MARSH B I'OPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE 0 5 Segments KW5,NK3 Segment Boundary 6 Subsegment Boundary em 40/ _j 636 7 NK3 1.71 V .'50 Offmncoke M'd j W ki_ - @O 'A 21 Olssons Pond 4@ 5 I 0 -A, 4 /0 4 f7' Q 10 Zl S NK3 Ot b'- - Ma % 2Y '@J V_ & KW5@ k\ IIIIJ J Z" Ti-, fj 0 J-/ N K3 V O'@ _j V-\ 87' -A, 0 1/2 0 1MILE X�'6ndpit Z U@l 760 52' 30" d1b dik db W W W W W 76o 52' 30" /06 30 o o 00 001 z MAP 10B 3 All PAMUNKEY RIV ER HILL MARSH-LEE MARSH 13 '@RcSHORELANDS TYPES' KW5\@. Segments KW5,NK3 FASTLAND 0 Low Shore Low Shore with Bluff Moderately Low Shore NK3, Moderately Low Shore W@ with Bluff A A A A f 7k_ 0 Moderately High Shore b Moderately High Shore A A AA Z", with Bluff High Shore with Bluff SHORE or 0 Fringe Marsh n1111111111111111111111 Extensive Marsh Embayed Marsh N@@ 0 :NEARSHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 6 Ul"r-S C> 0 15 oo /V "14 .KW 0 0, 0 it\\\\ NK3 0 J0 0'/ 0/ 001 0, o,- ol 0VX100 a,,r 0 or o,x jor ol, oe it % @o el 0 NK3 0.. 0 0 0 X@ AI z, AILE 0 ,\\\ 41111@, N 0 0 1/2 - - ) .A\ \I\I .......... T= -@$andpit /7- a/ Y, 76o 52' 30" 760 52' 30" :j 106 C V @10 MAP I 10 ia PAMUNKEY RIVER 00 HILL MARSH - LEE MARSH .00 4 -ASTLAND USE, OWNERSHI t P, ERO N 1A SIO S egments KW5, NK3-- ' 01 N USE N 4.Y61\ F W 5 Agricultural A -11VV Dlk'-" Residential RS '24 J) Unmanaged Ax\m 1W Wooded W '1w OWNERSHIP Private EROSION -NK3@ NO DatE 1W '4- 1w; A Ma om,@,ncoke 10 % 0 W 1w, N T-11 7 1A jj@ C) j 1W 20 1 A 1wj A 1VV 01sions on aq - - P" d I A 6 4 6 1w. Al 1A/RS 1A '5 C 6 1W 741 KW 5 >blc) 1 A 10 1w NK3 1w A fa -'N rL, v- 1A -1V J 1A 4-4 1A A Q 1w a r. L .2 1A KW5; A 1A 1A M 1 A /4 J.- K3 //-s 1w 1A 1W 1w 'fk V, 0 lw,/) -2- z1W 1w 0 1 MILE "`$andpit 71@ 760 52' 30" MOL 4ft Am AL Ak dik MW qW 76055' Hil, 1/2 1 MILE 6M N /00 106 /06 A L I : 60, b 00 e ria 6 V XSandpit @0, 100 BM 0 oil "\1 4 0 /0 0 41, X j 4- if 33-1 If At It M If -y. P, C-"\ 26 Sweet IQ 2 NK34* KW51 Ma R XW6 J, lu Swee Hal 6,4,,4@ BXhouse ing KW . . . . . . . . . . V .0 0 . . . . . . . .... .. Hil NK3 0 -Mar-w stout Grove dirlg MAP 11A 2 PAMUNKEY,1 RIVER 0 SWEET HALL MARSH 21 TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE.\ 625 Segments KW5, KW6, NK2, NK3 to =Segment Boundary 39 7", Subsegment Boundary 85 BR 17 00 Y 96 0 12 -0 106 SO d -7 90 4 S'- 76*55' 76055' WILE 1/2 0- bw@ 3------4 y ------R 105-1@ f r N /00 /06 A '00 Sandpit J dl sm MAP 11B IN /04 % \N PAMUNKEY RIVER SWEET HALL MARSH ?5 + "A" 100 0 0 2 X -------- Rweef a I 0 NK3' KVV r., J /U 5 KW 0 V ---0 0 0 \,'@iickhouse 1--0 0 .0 0 %J N 0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 KW5 0 0 0 A" 0 o 8 )L oo 0 0 0 0 ol 16 0 N NK3 o 14 W o K@ n ut-t,JG r"o've- -rig 204 -61 0 .4@, SHORELANDS TYPES 20 Segments KW6, KW5, NK2, NK3 21 <FASTLAND 10 Low Shore > Moderately Low Shore L.j with Bluff Moderately High Shore A A A A % Moderately High Shore A A A A BR /7 with Bluff 24 35 High Shore with Bluff atii@@' 44 SHORE CIA Fringe Marsh f Extensive Marsh 6 Embayed Marsh TNEARSHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 N, J .90 :i 'I, W1,7 76o5S' ilk Ink Ak Ads& Alk Alk Ah 76'55' -V a 'r 1/2 M1 -A, 'MAP 11C _"PAMUNKEY RIVER 632 -A o OU" C SWEET HALL MARS FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION'\\ andpit 6 USE Segments KW6, KW5,1 NK2, NK3 '00 Agricultural A '_o x Unmanaged /1()o i 7 @7) C, Wooded W -OWNERSHIP t 25 3 Private EROSION 1W 1A/ No Data T,, x j 1 W 1w, 26 1A Sweet Hall 40 4 1110 KW5: 3 1W Ma KW6 5 1A 1A 1W Swe t4@ 8e mt H @@j P@.@ndii n g Brickhouse Landing 1A 7" I V@@V_ C. OIL-, 14 8 1A 1A _'A /3-, 16 1W Hill- Stnut Grove NK3 ding 1W Ma r 0" 2 1A 'Z@. '1A N C@ 1A 1A 624 1A V 1W 1A 1W BR 17 9 (T60ks 06 Millpond 44 '1W @/q Second Elam 'Cerr# 76055' 76057'30" CIO, 1/2 0 1*14.1 623 R KW6 @-J LA XS ?0 71 Ir 'D A "'A d 0." ster Mano. I @101 M@2 10 -001@ 4- Q 0 0 5 -,-,0- U 3 2@7 oke 0 0 0 0 -26 -5 U N K-EY-, 0 IN-DIA 4.. 0 R E 10 I - - ... 0 non 11 @,Cenn 15 20 0 0 dent 0 o L nd/3 0 Nr\:z zx- 0 0 0 -.100" 0 2 0 0 0 a 14:a 0 \N 25 Wal 0 he La-n -2 0 KVV6 1 31 0 50 ook X 6! 0 MAP 12B 0-- PAMUNKEY RIVE L..11-.#-Y POINT MARSWCOHOKEI. -C -NK2,,, W, SHORELANDS TYPES Segments KW6,NK2 FASTLAND SHORE 39 Low Shore c Fringe Marsh Moderately Low ShoreI A Extensive Marsh Moderately Low Shore Embayed Marsh WAWLRt@ 1 0 le with Bluff em NEARSHORE 90 13 r"A Moderately High ShoreAA A-A 30 Narrow 0-0-0-0 \\ 7 m High Shore 4 S" L with Bkjff EL. V@ (Q r) 76057'30" AL AL Aft Aft Ah qw w 76057'30" \7 1/2 0 1 MILE @:Jl I ..KW6-J if _-z L= 7 w cl DAM6, hite Landinr ate Namor 623 41 "10 2 o oke @7 AL_ 26 PA@fUNIKEY -DIAN f IN -qL- R E S E 20 1"10 nnon -em,- If qL_ siaent nd/3 NK2 & 20 nl AL Nq A IN IV, h Cem 4__ M 14 31 KW6 o Cook ng A [it MAP 12A N K If- PAMUNKEY RIVER LILLY POINT MARSH-COHOKE MARSH TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE Segments KW6,NK2 @ v " "'M /,66 Segment Boundary ix, Subsegment Boundary 90 13 76o57'30" 76'57'30" 71A A N 'oo' 623 1 1/2 0 1 A 1W V( 1A 1W11 p I W . 1A '-.KVV6::@, 1 A /1w- 1vv 1A J//` I vv N xS ARC- 4, A M 3 \k 1 A hite Landjw -A_ IA' Ster Manor 0- BM2@-- 1W 1 A J Q !3) ff 35 1W 0- 632 1 vv - @'-v V@' 4 o oke @.7 1W zv@v it 1A It A . .---- I lk' \2A?@ 6 J 7 2RS 26 1A 2A 1 5 y':2@w PA@IIJNKE AL- 1A INDIAN it 2W 1W R E S E R--VA:ft46)C 10 nnon it -Cem IIt -4- kk 1A- it 15 1A 20.- sident Ind'3 NK 16-1 4@ 'L 1W' A A AL- a 1A 000 Wal@p' 1w -'v he@ e 1 A Cj 1A N 11W K W 0 0 0 C.) nx w- C@ 10 MAP12C Cook ing 1w a 6) PAMUNKEY RIVE it COHOKE MA AILLY POINT MARSH W FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION N Segments KW6, NK2' @iw USE Agricultural A Residential RS Unmanaged Wooded W OWNERSHIP rivate County 4 Ne E' em EROSION 130- Slight or No Change No Symbol 'E01 76057'30" BM 4@_ Y@- qw w w w w lp 77002'30" 0 c -V] 50 CM4- cj --\j 7 A v SM 5 5 Oj 50 46 -4 60 eo reen J @-o _j Pnioyf/ &0-1 0 30- 'L, 0 IX KW7 K 71 il 0 115 A L 24 @'2 Oe Gr 4 14 C) 0 .9 NK1 White House UTHERN 3M KW6- 4-- Paimunkey -0 C h c em 1-14 609 It W-u N K E 0 /0 1 0 N -0-9 E R V 4 Z5 MAP 13A PAMUNKEY RIVER 6 608 KW BIG ISLAND TO LILLY POINT 29 -@@-'TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE Segments KW6, KW7, NK1, NK2 -v /0 V. 7 Segment Boundary K 2 25 Subsegment Boundary T\j Lilly Point J, 39 L7 011 L) 0 A OA3 00 30 0 -4 .--35 A 8 Fr,", JO 4 J@ 2 B 26 1/2 0 1 MILE 77002'30" 77002'30" 50 Q) 7 30 \j C \-J BM W 0 <M" so @3) '60 fill, -30 13 40 /4@ 0 0 Linio 0 '7 %o.. '--, 0 it 0o, 0 er oaalll 0 0// 0 0/1, b or /--KW7/ 17 0o ol 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 14 19 0 NK1 A o 1 0 White House -17 Q 0 UTHERN BM 0 KW6 It it Pamunkey '04 if 0 ol h; it 609 K E Y,, 30- 0 0- R V (,/@'T 10 N 100 (81 0 0 33 W 608 0 % XW6 0 A" 0 AP 13 29 0 01 NKEY RI -0 PAMUNKEY RI ER BIG 7 ISLAND TO LILLY POINT NK2 25 SHORELANDS TYPES Lilly Point J Segments KW6,KW7,NK1,NK2 2 if it FASTLAND Low Shore L-j Low Shore with Bluff Moderately Low Shore L-I-JL--L-j 19 Moderately Low Shore with Bluff AJ SHORE 8' Fringe Marsh J '0 Extensive Marsh 4 Embayed Marsh NEARSHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 20- B M 26 U/ 60B 47, 414' 1/2 0 1 MILE 77002'30" AL Ah qw w qw IMP 77o02'30- 0 C-60 t 1W it j 1A B M .0 40 1A 0 (n62)3) RS 60 \D ik Mn 3 1A,, -,Szl Ureen IV K Liniop, 1W 1 1A A Y/ 1A 30 1A it it V Gem 0'. It 20 1A it It 5- 1A ",V KW7 if V 115 A, I A 1W t it 1W, 24 it 1\ GrO@e 1A 9 0 1@@ , // _-, ; 1 14 0 h! 1A White nouse 1w S'Ourw 2 A Z- BM 40 --Z/ 0@ 1A KW6 z' lu 2 A rumunKey Ch, Ak- Cii@ if 1W 00 2 R S '30 130 /0 9', ER V (,'@'T 10N 1A --7 -L- 2A Ibu 7- ;:q M 1W 1, -- 1, /; 5 KW6 -X 1A 1RS 1 W MAP 13 ;17 'po yr NK21 BIG ISLAND TO LILLY POINT 7r-40 25 ',@@"'-15@MUNKEY RI ER V 1A illy PC) ravet FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION 1A Segments KW6, KW7, NK1, NK2 1A rV, USE 1W ------ Agricultural A IA 38 Residential RS 20, 1 W Unmanaged Wooded W OWNERSHIP Private f 1W Federal 2 1A `--EROSION A @,No Data _j 0 ---------- 20 6Q8 0 -1 MILE 77002'30" 37-37'30" Ll 5, 49 Retreat IN, Q) Ch )o Ch ico e 114/ Z Glirr r Cc 7 L X C__j ew KW7 so \% 521 On 6 @Wl I \\Monta 110 //,Lacey MAP 14A lo,-. PAMUNKEY RIVER 27 BROAD CREEK-LIBERTY HALL TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE Putneys Mi Segments NK1,KW7 607 5@ 30 T 1 1/2 0 1 MILE 11r 37037'30" 78 37037*30" 49 h @47 Iletreat A 51 4, uhericoke A @tzl@=@@, % - ------- _?0 Glim e L Cor V 0 KW7 50, 6 NK1 t QyAf A-1 MAP 14B PAMUNKEY RIVER BROAD CREEK-LIBERTY HALL SHORELANDS TYPES Segment3 @,]Kl,KW7 FASTLAND Low Shore Low Shore with Bluff A Moderately Low Shore k Moderately Low Shore Putneys with Bluff Moderately High Shore A A A A Moderately High Shore A A A with Bluff A SHORE Fringe Marsh Extensive Marsh Embayed Marsh 321, 1 1/2 0 1 MILE 37o37-30" 79 37-37'30" SCLTJ X" 49 <0 47 Ketreat 1A J, '40, \\,@,@@hericoke 10't f -To re j 00 10 G im se Cor er t 1A 152 1A 14 1W 0 KW 0 ff U'Sn @Cr- 7 621 1W S 1A J@ 1A NK1 onta 6 1A MAP 14C 1 A PAMUNKEY RIVER Kiontag BROAD CREEK - LIBERTY HALL FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION 0\4 1A Segments NK1, KW7 USE Agricultural A ,/Lacey L RS Residential 1A 10 Unmanaged Wooded W w 27 A OWNERSHIP 7@ Private EROSION Putneys MAK\ 110 Slight or No Change No Symbol 1A Jo A N@. 1w T t I 1@0 1/2 0 I MIL "V, D 37037'30" 80 77oOT 60 5 40 LIO f x i36R L.0 if rid@ C Pamun e River GRIM A 00 .-5 - 0 0 0 0 42 ./,o v 605 -Pond -40- @o ,pp fI f(I1 0 KW7 30--- M.) it 'Pampatike Landing KW7 orseshoe 4 x, ra _J1 5 v 40 H EEZ If I/ 7 1,00 6 Vill, 8 Jo 5@ 1 1/2 0 1 MILE 81 77'07'30" 40 t'O 4/, 360,--- 40 p ey Rivet GRIMES L J&_ Bridg 11 4/ 'A 4 "-0 'o tp 4 605 0- (Wo11yfWeM- Pond 0 ---40 7so@ NN 'o 711 @j 110 KW7 -30 mpatj e amain., if 5 KW7 rseshoe ;o,- Tr- 40 100 1 N fj '11131 -.' \I..! 0 110-1 I MILE t1O 82 77007' 1A 40 41@ 360 1A Pa 1A M 1W Bridg- 1A: 0 1A 1A A 00 01 , rz A\ 0 1 A 41 M 605 1A IA,' If d-- Pond 1A 1 A J -40- 1A if 1A 1111 -1 1 1A If 1A 1A 1A 0 If KWT. K 0 1W -30. JA 1A 1 A --Pampatike Landin 1 W 1A 1 W 1 A KW7 1W -0 1 A orseshoe 1 W 1W 3 r d IF i!' t - pLt- -,MAP 5C PAMUNKEY RIVER Aw GIRIMES LANDING TO PAMUNKEY RIVER BRID,C FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION Segment KW7 'k 7 USE Agricultural A u 100 Unmanaged if Wooded W OWNERSHIP Private 1 1/2 0 1 MILE EROSION if Slight or No Change No Symbol 83 76055' M AP 1 6,A- CHICKAHOMINY RIVER' Q 0 @c_ 4 IlVi BARROWS CREEK TO DIASCUND REEK,'@-- _0 TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE T. -7@ Segment NK5 !N, 4190' Segment Boundary ,v Subsegment Boundary'-// 6 _/y L,.3 I> q V j @V A4 o 'x _q8, @5, r `0 r4 J., Al@ -IS I i irp- 0 \",.,C R E E K Pumping Slat Spillway c Elev 26 2tl /x 513 84 L7 j "("o 603 Liherty Ch 0 anexa. 4 L B M1 2 4 9@ Ehen @ze 'J" ,D47 cl- /I - - 1:11, 11", I\ _4 , \ I \\ Y'. Ce. 77 6 -oW.j station @9 3 7 Yl n - / , \ - @\ il *: -_V 02 Hock,.?--- l@Rock-A- -4 N 0 o 001 @,'AOOEPL)C 1k umping Station 01 9 Camping c@ Area 2 6207 F@s 6 a@odiin V M <5 BM 30 em,i H' k s 4 36 D 33 'M 5 q 1@2 20 n ng 30 ;V NK5' w 01b J@ c 27X t-,;. _j _7 f, 7f, H623 A 1 1/2 'il 623 0 1Ml E 5 610, 2, r W. V/ 9-- 76o55' Iri @i(-, 19L 4b NW WF qW qW W 76'55' 7@ MAP 1%-;B CHICKAHOMINY RIVE -4 BARROWS CREEK TO DIASCUND CREEK o 7'_ SHORELANDS TYPES A Segment NK5 V(. r FASTLAND X Low Shore U A C@_ Moderately Low Shore . . . ....... ...... Moderately Low Shore with Bluff A A A A Moderately High Shore Moderately High Shore with Bluff Am.A..&.A @i:l, 2- /,@)oQ X High Shore r Z with Bluff SHORE < 'J 01 A Y 0" Fringe Marsh @s U '0 V, Extensive Marsh Pump@ng Sta Ernbayed Marsh 11way -@v 26 (e2 J. 13 7 r Ch' ty anexa. /0 7, Q il be Cem Pi- 20 _9 17 CP i@R A H ock - -Hoc 02 1 C.) N L 47 o 14 3: Qr C/- 2 0 20 IF 0, C> imping Station 601 39 Camping Area >2 is" e a@hdin _j NIK5 @12' U en-th BM 30 z Fii kS s n 4 rn S 0 0 20 3 a@ N n ng It 30 '0 NK5 @4 62i 1 1/2 0 1 MILE Z 1UI1 2 76o55' 76o55' @)Wj ON'\ I\- 01 j 'J" 2- At Ii@ i I MAP 16G 0 f lo@ U CHICKAHOMINY RIVE - - -------- BARROWS CREEK TO DIASCUND C EEK ASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION -7 K 5 --c S e g m e n t N 2 X, USE J, Agricultural A /h, A Recreational RC Residential RS L 1) i Unmanned Wooded W J" OWNERSHIP 0 1@ (A Private EROSION -5 Wk@03 Slight or No Change No Symbol 0 0 < 'S' Z4' O'@ R E E K Pumping I Sta Spillway Elev 26 @!2) t 84, C Y, 1 13 33 (@)7 V rty Libe Ch 663 @anexa. 0 23 1W @@M .,@lRS 1RS I'A I_- ", RS s E nezer 1RS' 649 1A be Ch m C e S4@statton 60 'Z-47 -1W % 1 R S CD 1A 0') 02'i !@Rock-A-Hock, Z4 3 N 'ZI 0 0 6) Jk @7 M, 8 lw:* I/ 1RS'-I-c@" J 1W umping Station & 39 1VV < 1W _Camping ii 1A 'So Area 1W A. 21 0 It '000@ 1RS' .01-6027 14 1 R C' 4@ 16@@ e '000 alhdin 3 ---00@ V NK%J) 1X BM 30 emli 1W H i k s 1RS Isl h Ar 36 X4 33 .rl 1A i' 1RS J/ !C "I It 5 10 1W 1A 1W 6an 9 30 NK15 1P It 0 n623 1/2 0 1 ILE 610 2 76055 R@ Ah A& Am Alk Aft 77o Y d-inIL -1 indsor Shades 4 64 k, Y., C/ --3- 650 Tse a COMMOA c 'e ---------- 04 z", cl\ 41" '5@ ngs sborn it <1 6a _rj&nL Landing It --------------- 12 V-_ j N, -@O elf, J Bank j ancling '0 95 -)A 0", 61 1A MAFJ 1 -rdo Ig C.llci'AHC.-lAlNY iRIVER N,)) v 1V )()-j TURNER MARSH n, Al rOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE 0 Segment NK5 & \j C) Segment Boundary 104 V BM lr4@ 0@, 40 A /00 .00, c 1/2 0 1MILE -1 20 77' 07 770 4 es ding- indsor Shad 4 647 i @0 zY Tse C 7- gi % 0 C7 '3 4-1@ Osborn Lbnding 'A it I/ 41 tl '7- s Ban'*r nding V 1j, @j it @j %11 It MAP17B CHICKAHOMINY RIVER-, Z, Lr ig S \@J) CIO TURNER MARSH C) 0\ 'SHORELANDS TYPES Segment NK5 \K -\,(f, v, ;FASTLAND > X LuW Shore Fringe Marsh Extensive Marsh 40f ized -.L. -A- 08 Artificially Stabil K@ It I MILE 1/2 0 W 77o 88 77o d,n&, ':@L- indsor Shades _:,W if BM 1A 1A C.B3 M 3 0 -1W Tse a mmok 1W 1A L A 1R 1A 0 1A 1VV V IX zi. C4 0 1W S A ZIP 113 n4a7s @2 @-nding If F2 1w ---j 23 NJ !7n7i T1 - 'I V@@)" I I ,@ \ - C@ ,, r -- I -- ,// - AP 17C:5@ HICKAHOMINY RIVER./ t:, s Ba@U- ding nding @-@TURNER MARSW 41 -50 FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION Segment NK5 USE Agricultural A Residential RS Unmanaged 00 'U Wooded W p OWNERSHIP I------ I- Private EROSION j" Q ("o CC Slight or No Change No Symbol IT4 B@C 13 f 01 00- 7@"@ 00 MILE .5C U//,! 20 77o 89 3 666-8 00002 4705