[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
CITY OF CHESAPEAKE TIDAL MARSH INVENTORY Special Report No. 312 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Gone M. Silberhorn and Sharon Dewing WETLANDS PROGRAM VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE * QH SCHOOL OF MARINE SCIENCE 541 .5 THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY .S24 Glouc'ester Point, Virginia 23062, S54 1991 JULY 1991 CITY OF CHESAPEAKE TIDAL MARSH INVENTORY Special Report No. 312 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Gene M. Silberhorn and Sharon Dewing Property of CSC Library WETLANDS PROGRAM VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE School of Marine Science The College of William and Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA Dr. Carl Hershner, Program Director O DEPARTMSENT OF COMMERCE NOAA Dr. Robert J. Byrne, Acting Dean/Director . i�ASTAL SERVICES CENTER )2:34 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE JULY 1991 V)UD ~ '~HARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 Preface This publication is one of a series of county and city tidal marsh inventories prepared by the Wetlands Ad- * ~~visory Group of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. The previously published reports include: Lancaster County Accomack County King and Queen County Northumberland County Northampton County Prince George County Mathews County Westmoreland County and City of Hopewell * ~~~~York County and the James City County City of Portsmouth Town of Poquoson and the City of Williamsburg City of Virginia Beach Vol. 3 Stafford County Surry County Richmond County Prince William County Spotsylvania and Caroline Counties Charles City County King George County and the City of Fredericksburg Henrico County, Chesterfield County, * ~~~~City of Hampton New Kent County Colonial Heights, Petersburg and Fairfax County Essex County the City of Richmond Gloucester County Isle of Wight County City of Suffolk City of Virginia Beach Middlesex County Vol. I and 2 City of Norfolk * ~~~~City of Newport News King William County and and Fort Eustis Town of West Point Under Section 62-1.13.4 of the Virginia Wetlands Act, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science is obligated to * ~~inventory the tidal wetlands of the Commonwealth. This inventory program is designed to aid the local wetlands boards, the state and federal regulatory agencies, and regional planning districts in making informed rational decisions on the uses of these valuable resources. They are also intended for use by the general public as a natural history guide and the scientific community as a research data source. The reader is referred to the Shoreline Situation Re-Dort. Cities of Chesa-Deake. Norfolk and Portsmouth, SRAMSOE No. 136, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062. This report focuses on various shoreline characteristics including areas of erosion and accretion, beaches, marshes, artificially stabilized areas, and fastland types and uses. Also of interest may be a booklet, Wetlands -Guidelines, available from the Marine Resources Commission, Newport News, Virginia, which describes the wetlands types and the types of shoreline activities which affect wet- lands and what these effects are. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Mr. Arthur Harris for his field assistance in gathering the data for this report. We would especially like to thank Berch Smithson for his programming expertise, Anna K. Kenne, Paula * ~~Hill and Martha Craig for digital cartography, William Jenkins for the cover photograph line conversion, Janet Walker for tables and typography, and Sylvia Motley for printing production. The field work for this inventory was funded in part by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, grant number 04-6-168-4403 7, and in part by the * ~~Virginia Council on the Environment's Coastal Resources Management Program through grant number NA90AA-H-CZ796 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended. Table of Contents Preface ............................1 Acknowledgements .1...........11 ........... Introduction .1......................... Methods ...................................................3 Marsh Types and Evaluation....................................... 5 Marsh Types and Their Environmental Contributions. .........................7 Evaluation of Wetland Types. .....................................11 Marsh Plants. ..............................................13 Glossary of Descriptive Terms. .....................................15 Reference Map to Marsh Sections. ...................................19 Section I Western Branch of the Elizabeth River. .....................21 0 ~~~~~~Section II Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. ....................31 Section III Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River. .....................51 Index to Marsh Locations. .......................................57 iv Introduction The tidal wetlands within the City of Chesapeake have been subjected to developmental impact, especially along the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. Many of the wetlands in this watershed have been compromised, historically, in a number of ways by military bases, industrial complexes and the construction of the Intracoastal * ~~Waterway. It is unfortunate that this estuarine system is one of the most polluted in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Wetlands in the Western and Eastern Branches of the Elizabeth River have been impacted mainly by urban residential development. Similar wetland losses can be noted in other Hampton Roads cities (Norfolk, Portsmouth and Virginia Beach). Against this background, the remaining 1,738 acres of tidal marshes in the City of Chesapeake represent a valuable resource well worth protecting. This report is divided into three sections, reflecting the main watersheds of the Elizabeth River within the * ~~City of Chesapeake: Section I: Western Branch of the Elizabeth River, totalling 421 acres of tidal marshes; Section II: Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, with 1,234 acres, and the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River (mainly Indian River), Section III, with a total of 91 acres. The value of these urban wetlands to wildlife, fishes, water quality and as a buffer to erosion is seldom * ~~overemphasized. They make a substantial contribution to the estuarine food web by virtue of organic matter (det-ritus) produced and flushed into the receiving waters. Tidal wetlands are often nursery areas for the juveniles of many commercially important finfish and shellfish as well as feeding areas for numerous forage fish. The habitat that they provide for waterfowl, wading birds, song birds and small mammals is vitally important, particularly in an urbanlindustrial setting. Their role as a filter for upland runoff and as a focal point for nutrient cycling is again * ~~especially important in intensely developed areas where point and nonpoint inputs of nutrients and various pollutants have a significant impact on adjacent water quality. Tidal marshes also provide an effective buffer against shoreline erosion by binding sediments and dissipating wave energy. Methods Aerial photographs and topographic maps (U.S.G.S.) were utilized to determine wetland locations, wetland boundaries and patterns of marsh vegetation. Acreages and wetland boundaries were substantiated by observations on foot, by boat and by low level overflights. Individual plant species percentages are quantitative estimates of * coverage based on visual field inspections of every marsh. In some instances, especially in tidal freshwater areas, those percentages are subject to seasonal bias. Most of the field work was done in the summer of 1978. Subsequent field work was done in 1988-89. Aerial photography (1989) of the lower part of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River was utilized to facilitate marsh 0 identification and delineation. National Wetland Inventory Maps (U.S.F.W.S.) were also utilized in the preparation of this report. Marshes one quarter of an acre or larger are designated by number. Many marshes smaller than one quarter acre (usually narrow flinging marshes) are designated by the same symbol (color) as the larger marshes on * the section maps but assigned no number. Small marshes (less than one acre) are exaggerated and are not indicated to scale. Information such as individual marsh acreage, plant species percentage and acreage, marsh type, and other observations are recorded in tabular form. Plant species percentages are recorded to the nearest percent, and acreages to the nearest tenth of an acre. In marshes of less than one acre, the areas are recorded to the nearest hundredth of an acre. In those instances where an individual plant species is estimated to amount to less than 0.5 percent, the symbol (-) is used to indicate a trace amount. In unusual situations where an individual marsh is estimated to contain 50 percent or more of a species that is not listed as a marsh type, the closest applicable marsh type is used. Marsh Types and Evaluation For a better understanding of what is meant by marsh types, some background information is required. The personnel of the Wetland Advisory Group have classified twelve different, common marsh types in Virginia, based on vegetational composition. These marsh types have been evaluated according to certain values and are recorded in the Guidelines report. The following is a brief outline of the wetland types and their evaluation as found in that * ~~publication: It is recognized that most wetlands areas, with the exception of the relatively monospecific cordgrass marshes of the Eastern Shore, are not homogeneously vegetated. Most marshes are, however, dominated by a major plant. By providing the manager with the primary values of each community type and the means of identification, he then has a useful and convenient tool for weighing the relative importance of each marsh parcel. In Virginia, many 0 ~~wetlands management problems involve only a few acres or a fraction of an acre. The identification of plant communities permits the manager to evaluate both complete marshes and subareas within a marsh. Each marsh type may be evaluated in accordance with five general values. These are: * ~~~~1. Production and detritus availability. Previous VIMS reports have discussed the details of marsh production and the role of detritus which results when the plant material is washed into the water column. The term "detritus" refers to plant material which decays in the aquatic system and forms the basis of a major marine food web. The term 'production' refers to the amount of plant material which is produced by the various types of marsh plants. Vegetative production of the major species has been measured, and marshes have been rated in * ~~accordance with their average levels of productivity. If the production is readily available to the marine food web as detritus, a wetlands system is even more important than one of equal productivity where little detritus results. Availability of detritus is generally a function of marsh elevation and total flushing, with detritus more available to the aquatic environment in the lower, well-flushed marshes. * ~~~~2. Waterfowl and wildlife utilization. Long before marshes were discovered to be detritus producers, they were known as habitats for various mammals and marsh birds and as food sources for migratory waterfowl. Some marsh types, especially mixed freshwater marshes, are more valuable because of diversity of the vegetation found there. 3. Erosion buffer. Erosion is a common coastal problem. Marshes can be eroded, but some, particularly the more saline types, are eroded much more slowly than adjacent shores which are unprotected by marsh. This buffering quality is de-rived from the ability of the vegetation to absorb or dissipate wave energy by establishing a dense root system which stabilizes the substrate. Generally, freshwater species are less effective than saltwater plants in this regard. 4. Water aualitv control. The dense growth of some marshes acts as a filter, trapping upland sediment before it reaches waterways, thus protecting shellfish beds and navigation channels from siltation. Marshes can also filter out sediments that are already in the water column. The ability of marshes to filter sediments and maintain water clarity is of particular importance to the maintenance of clam and oyster production. Excessive sedimentation can reduce the basic food supply of shellfish through reduction of the photic zone where algae grow. It can also kill shellfish by clogging their gills. Additionally, marshes can assimilate and degrade pollutants through complex chemical processes, a discussion which is beyond the scope of this paper. 5. Floodbuffer. The peat substratum of some marshes acts as a giant sponge in receiving and releasing water. This characteristic is an effective buffer against coastal flooding, the effectiveness of which is a function of marsh type and size. Research and marsh inventory work accomplished by VIMS personnel indicate that 10 species of marsh vegetation tend to dominate many marshes, the dominant plant depending on water salinity, marsh elevation, soil type, and other factors. The term 'dominant" is construed to mean that at least 50% of the vegetated surface of a marsh is covered by a single species. Brackish and freshwater marshes often have no clearly dominant species of vegetation. These marshes are considered to be highly valuable in environmental terms. Marsh Types and Their Environmental Contributions (Edited from Guidelines for Activities Affecting Virginia Wetlands) Type I Saltmarsh Corderass Communitv a. Average yield 4 tons per acre per annum. (Optimum growth up to 10 tons per acre.) b. Optimum availability of detritus to the marine environment. c. Roots and rhizomes eaten by waterfowl and stems used in muskrat lodge construction. Also serves as nesting material for various birds. d. Deterrent to shoreline erosion. e. Serves as sediment trap and assimilates flood waters. Type II Saltmeadow Communitv a. 1-3 tons per acre per annum. b. Food (seeds) and nesting areas for birds. c. Effective erosion deterrent. d. Assimilates flood waters. e. Filters sediments and waste material. Type III Black Needlerush Community a. 3-5 tons per acre per annum. b. Highly resistant to erosion. c. Traps suspended sediments but not as effective as Type II. d. Somewhat effective in absorbing flood waters. Type IV Saltbush Communitv a. 2 tons per acre per annum or less. b. Nesting area for small birds and habitat for a variety of wildlife. c. Effective trap for flotsam. 7 Type V Big Cordgrass Community a. 3-6 tons per acre per annum. b. Detritus less available than from Type I. c. Habitat for small animals and used for muskrat lodges. d. Effective erosion buffer. e. Flood water assimilation. Type VI Cattail Communitv a. 2-4 tons per acre per annum. b. Habitat for birds and utilized by muskrats. c. Traps upland sediments. Type VII Arrow Arum-Pickerel Weed Communitv a. 2-4 tons per acre per annum. b. Detritus readily available to marine environment. c. Seeds eaten by wood ducks. d. Susceptible to erosion from wave action and boat wakes, particularly in winter months. Type VIII Reed Grass Communitv a. 4-6 tons per acre per annum. b. Little value to wildlife except for cover. c. Invades marshes and competes with more desirable species. d. Deters erosion on disturbed sites. Type IX Yellow Pond Lily Community a. Less than 1 ton per acre per annum. b. Cover and attachment site for aquatic animals and algae. c. Feeding territory for fish. Type X Saltwort Communitv a. Less than 0.5 tons per acre per annum. b. Little value to aquatic or marsh animals. Type XI Freshwater Mixed Communitv a. 3-5 tons per acre per annum. b. High diversity of wildlife. c. High diversity of wildlife foods. d. Often associated with fish spawning and nursery grounds. e. Ranks high as a sediment trap and nursery grounds. Type XII Brackish Water Mixed Communitv a. 3-4 tons per acre per annum. b. Wide variety of wildlife foods and habitat. c. Deterrent to shoreline erosion. d. Serves as sediment trap and assimilates flood waters. e. Known spawning and nursery grounds for fish. Evaluation of Wetland Types (From Guidelines for Activities Affecting Virginia Wetlands) For management purposes, the twelve types of wetlands identified above are grouped into five classifications based on the estimated total environmental value of an acre of each type. Group__One: Saltmarsh Cordgrass (Type I) Arrow Arum-Pickerel Weed (Type VII) Freshwater Mixed (Type XI) Brackish Water Mixed (Type XII) Group One marshes have the highest values in productivity and wildfowl and wildlife utility and are closely associated with fish spawning and nursery areas. They also have high value as erosion inhibitors, are important to the shellfish industry, and are valued as natural shoreline stabilizers. Group One marshes should be preserved. 0Group Two: Big Cordgrass (Type V) Saltmeadow (Type II) Cattail (Type VI) Group Two marshes are of only slightly lesser value than Group One marshes. The major difference is that detritus produced in these marshes is less readily available to the marine environment due to higher elevations and consequently less tidal action to flush the detritus into adjacent waterways. Group Two marshes have very high values in protecting water quality and acting as buffers against coastal flooding. These marshes should also be preserved; but if development in wetlands is considered to be justified, it would be better to alter Group Two marshes than Group One marshes. Group Three: Yellow Pond Lily (Type IX) Black Needlerush (Type III) The two marshes in the Group Three category are quite dissimilar in properties. The yellow pond lily marsh is not a significant contributor to the food web, but it does have high values to wildlife and waterfowl. Black needlerush has little wildlife value, but it ranks high as an erosion flood buffer. Group Three marshes are important, though their total values are less than Group One and Two marshes. If development in wetlands is considered necessary, it would be better to alter Group Three marshes than Groups One or Two. Group Four: Saltbush (Type IV) The saltbush community is valued primarily for the diversity and bird nesting area it adds to the marsh ecosystem. To a lesser extent it acts as an erosion buffer. Group Four marshes should not be unnecessarily disturbed, but it would be better to concentrate necessary development in these marshes rather than disturb any of � the marshes in the preceding groups. Group Five: Saltwort (Type X) Reedgrass (Type VIII) Based on present information, Group Five marshes have few values of any significance. While Group Five marshes should not be unreasonably disturbed, it is preferable to develop in these marshes than in any other types. 12 Marsh Plants Common names and scientific names as found in the data tables of this report. Big Cordgrass* Spartina cynosuroides (L.) Roth * ~~~~~~~~~~Black Needlerush* Juncus roem~erianus Scheele Cattails* Typha angustifolia L. Typha laifolia L. Marsh Fleabane* Plucheapurpurascens (Swartz) DC Marsh Mallow Kosteletskya virginica Presl. * ~~~~~~~~~~Orach Atriplexpatula L. Reedgrass* Calamagrostis cinnoides (Muhl.) Burton Saltbush* Baccharis halimifolia L. Iva frutescens L. Saltmarsh Aster Aster subulatus Michx. * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Aster tenuifois L. Saltmarsh Bulrush Scirpus robustus Pursh Saltmarsh Cordgrass* Spartina alterniflora Loisel Saltmeadow Grass* Distichlis spicata (L.) Greene Spartina patens (Aiton) Muhl. 0 Smartweed* Polygonum sp. Spikerush* Eleocharis parvula (R.+ S.) Link Switch Grass* Panicum virgatum L. Water Hemp* Amaranthus cannabinus (L.) J.D. Sauer *Species included in the Wetlands Act of 1972. 13 Glossary of Descriptive Terms Cove Marsh ~~A marsh contained within a concavity or recessed area on a shoreline. The marsh vegetation is usually found surrounding a central, open-water pond, and tidal flushing is * ~~~~~~~~~permitted through an inlet. Creek or'Embaved Marsh A marsh occupying a drowned crook valley. In many large creek marshes the salinity decreases headward; this type of marsh may be divided for inventory purposes into sections if significant changes in the plant community occur along its length. Delta Marsh A marsh growing on sediment deposited at the mouth of a tidal creek. Tidal exchange through * ~~~~~~~~the creek mouth is usually restricted to narrow ZJ .; channels by the marsh. Extensive Marsh A large marsh where the length and depth or width are roughly comparable. Most extensive .,4 marshes are drained by many tidal channels and creeks which have little freshwater input. .. Frng~e Marsh A marsh which borders a section of shoreline and generally has a much greater length than width . or depth.. . High .Marsh The marsh surface is at an elevation of mean high water or above; it is usually inundated less than twice daily by tidal action. Low Marsh The marsh surface is at an elevation below mean high water; it is usually inundated twice daily by tidal action. 16 Marsh Island An isolated marsh surrounded on all sides by open water. Interior portions of the marsh may A contain trees scattered at highest elevations. Pocket Marsh A marsh contained within a small, essentially semi-circular area on a shoreline. Point or Snit Marsh A marsh which extends from the uplands in the form of a point or spit. Its development is usually influenced by tidal currents that form a sand berm behind which the marsh forms. 17 A IAX IB ' CITY OF CHESAPEAKE 19 19 Section I Western Branch of the Elizabeth River 21 0 Sim~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SECTION I T Li~~~~~~~~~~~~ A. STER E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ no~~~~~~ 13~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 14~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 22 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 239 0~~~~~~r i. Western Branch of the Elizabeth River. I a K) ;; :0;OAz-Ap 'D- . . .... Z . Sterns Creek Creek marsh dominated by % 85 10 3 2 SA, upper end filled 1 15.00 A 12.75 1.50 .45 .30 Sterns Creek Fringe marsh 20-30' wide, % 60 10 30 dredged channel 2 .91 A .55 .10 .27 Sterns Creek Intermittent fringe marsh, % 80 2 10 6 2 dredged cove 3 2.20 A 1.76 .04 .22 .13 .04 Sterns Creek Point marsh with pocket % 60 2 30 4 4 area 4 .50 A .30 .01 .15 .02 .02 Sterns Creek Creek marsh with embayed % 90 2 4 2 2 areas 5 7.00 A 6.30 .14 .28 .14 .14 Western % 80 5 5 10 Fringe marsh dominated by n% 80 5 5 10 SA Branch 6 Elizabeth 2.41 Western Fringe and cove marsh Br h% 60 10 20 10 dominated by SA; rip rap 7 Elizabeth .50 1 River A .30 .05 .10 .05 Western 80 10 5 5 Fringe marsh area 10-20' Branch wide 8 Elizabeth .65 River A .52 .07 .03 .03 24 BE - - - ----- .. . . ... . . .. Drum Point % s 0 5 Fringe marsh 10-30' wide Creek% 801 5 5 * ~~~9 .80 A .48 .06 .03 .03 Drum Point % 4 2 1 7 312Long narrow fringe marsh, Creek % 8 2 1 7 3 1 - 2 dredged channel 10 3.00 A 2.52 .06 .03 .21 .09 .03 .06 Drum Point % 0 2 0 1 Fringe marsh with spit and Creek % 0 - 0 1 0embayed chennelization 11 ~~~~~18.48 A 11.09 3.70 1.85 1.85 Drum Point % 7 2 2 0 25IExtensive marsh islands due 12 Cek.19.00 70 20 2 5 A 13.30 .38 3.80 .38 .95 .19 Drum Point % 3 5 6 02Creek marsh with fringe and Creek % 35 6 02embayed areas 13 36.00 * ~~~~~~~~~~~~A 4.68 1. 80 21.60 7.20 .72 Drum Point Upper limit of creek, Creek %100 dominated by saitbush 14 .15.00 A 15.00 Crumeoin % 20 20 50 10 Embayed marsh with fill and 0 reek ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bulkhead 1 5 4.00 A .80 .80 2.00 .40 Drum Point 951 13Pcemas Creek% 951 13Pcemas * ~~~16 .50 A .48 .01 .01 .02 25 Drum Point % 60 5 5 30 Broad fringe marsh % 60 5 5 30 Creek 17 1.65 A .99 .08 .08 .50 Drum Point Pocket marsh LCatio% 75 3 2 20A s Creek 18 5.00 A 3.75 .15 .10 1.00 Drum Point % 75 2 10 7 6 Long fringe marsh Creek 19 2.27 A 1.70 .05 .23 .16 .14 Wes tern pocket marsh with small Ce 85 5 2 2 25 1 Branch pond behind; filled for ramp 20 Elizabeth 5.00 River A 4.25 .2 5 .25 .10 .10 .25 .05 Western Fringe marsh with embayed Branch % 85 10 5 'l Branch 1 area, channelization 21 Elizabeth 1.50 River A 1.28 .15 .08 Western Embayed marsh % 65 5 20 10 Branch 22 Elizabeth .25 River A .16 .01 .05 .03 Western Small fringe marsh Branch % 70 5 25 Branch 23 Elizabeth .25 River A .18 .01 .06 Western Embayed marsh Branch % 90 5 -- 5 Branch 24 Elizabeth 1.00 River A .90 .05 .05 26 Mouth of Marsh island and fringe on Muho% 40 10 30 17 3 0 c. Bailey Creek channel A 7.10 1.78 5.33 3.02 .53 Bailey Creek Embayed marsh % 40 -- 20 30 5 5 26 4.00 XlI A 1.60 .80 1.20 .20 .20 Bailey Creek Extensive embayed marsh % 5 -.10 80 5 27 13.00 IV A .65 1.30 10.40 .65 Bailey Creek Extensive marsh % 4065 1- 20 5 10 5 10 28 14.00 X A 9.1.6 0 .70 1.4 0 1.40 Bailey Creek LargExtensive rembayed marsh which % 4 5 -0 12 2 1 29 25.00 XIV A 10.00 1.25 10.00 3.00 .50 .25 Bailey Creek Large creek marsh, upper % 10 35 50 05 30 1450.00 V A 5.00 17.50 25.00 2.50 Bailey Creek PoLarg creint marsh, channelized % 40 10-- 5 40 102 2 1 has been channeled 31 3.00 XII A 1.20 .30 1.20 .30 Bailey Creek 0 Somewhat embayed fringe % 50 - 3 0 20 channelized 32 1.00 v A .50 .30 .20 27 0I a~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~. . .. . ..... Marsh- Tot-al ,o i 0 1 4bsrain Location zAcres~ ~fl ~ ~ 0 Bailey Creek 70 5 -- 10 10 -- 5 IFringe marsh 33 1.14 A .60 .06 .11 .11 .06 Western % 0 1 0Pocket marsh Branch % 6 03 34 Elizabeth .25 River A .15 .03 .08 Western % 44642Fringe and pocket marsh Branch ~ 4 46 42with embayed areas; fill +0 35 Elizabeth 5.00 bulkhead River A 4.20 .20 .30 .20 .10 Goose Creek % 0 3 2 0 5Embayed marsh 36 20.00 IV A 4.00 .60 4.40 10.00 1.00 Goose Creek % 0 1 s 2 0Embayed marsh 37 7.00 x~l A 2.10 .70 1.05 1.75 1.40 Goose Creek % 2 2 5 2 01 3Creek marsh 38 46.00 - IV A .92 .92 2.30 11.50 27.60 .46 .46 .46 1.38 Goose Creek Man-made marsh, former 38A 8.30 % 5 3 i s 2 10 a 3 5sand pitI A 4.48 .25 1.25 .17 .83 .66 .25 .42 Goose Creek -. 7 130020 Embayed marsh 39 10.00 XII A .70 1.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 .30 28 a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 0 0d W. Gos re 0 1010 3 oktmarsh withsal l2~' ' 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fig Goose Creek Po0 1 0 0Salcreke marsh withsml 4~~~~~~ 0 10 102 0 -.fIVg A 2.50 .50 .77 1.24 Goose Creek SelCreek marsh wt % 10 10 2 0 70 431lzbt 1.29 IV1 River ~~~A .139 .13 .32 .24 .0 GoosteCrneek030- Fringe marsh i ml re 442 E iabt 1.00 V River ~~~A .40.5 2.00 7.28 Western Long - Marswinge maresho fl * ~~~Branch% 30 125 0 5 45 Elizabeth 4 .29 River A 3.60.3.3 3 .4 06 Western 70F1 2 3 ringe marsh i ml re Branch 502 30 - 46 Elizabeth 7 .00 River A 4.9046 7 .14 .2187 Western -M6ar2 25 xesiv fringe maresho fl Branch s oewa 90m10y- 45 Elizabeth 1 2.00 River A 7.20 .24 2 .70 .144 . 21 .70 29 Marsh ~ Total ' 0 0~Osrain w~~~~~~~J ~ a Western 55 3 2 5 52Small creek marsh, Branch % 5 3 20 1 5 - 2 channelized 48 Elizabeth 11.68 Rliver A 6.42 .35 2.34 1.75 .58 .23 Total Section I T 421.29 A 149.57 9.74 27.89 128.12 88.77 6.01 .66 1.31 .46 .66 .25 .42 2.38 5.10 I/; 0 A A 5; A A 3~~~~~~~~~~~0 Section II Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River 0 0 0 0 31 49~~~~~~ LIZABETH RIVE~~ 54~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 32 11~ ~ I IU I B. DEEP CREEK ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 7~~~~~~~~33 0~~~~~~~~~~~~10 9~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 HERBER S~ ~ ~~~~~~ 34 92~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ECION IL. D. SOU [RN BR NH [LZ TH RIVER 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 10 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~107 35 noN 11~~~~~~~~~~~~\~ RIV~~~~~~~~~~' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 GE AN 143 144 142 140 AK 1000 137 139 m 1313 129 MILLDAM Ii. Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. %0 0 c5 0 0 = aX03K 0- - -. '2 .0. 00000 t000Marshi00 > Total* i. 0 .. .. . . . . bservati . .. ...s 0 :~: :-;::::M0~Location�S* -:Acre~sE E? t_ (fl C : ::=== U-;;C...... Paradise Creek Extensive embayed fringe 49 4.68 A 2.34 .23 1.17 .94 0 Southern Small fringe marsh Sothrnc % 30 20 10 40 Branch 50 Elizabeth .75 XII River A .23 .15 .08 .30 Southern Fringe marsh % 70 15 15 Branch 51 Elizabeth 2.54 River A 1.78 .38 .38 St. Julian Intermittent fringe marsh Creek 52 .25 A .23 .01 .01 St. Julian Fringe marsh Creek 53 .25 A .18 .04 .04 St. Julian Creek marsh, dominated by u% 100 Creek saltmarsh cordgrass 54 35.00 A 35.00 St. Julian Narrow fringe marsh Creek 55 .30 A .27 .03 St. Julian Fringe marsh % 85 10 5 Creek 56 3.00 A 2.55 .30 .15 38 Marsh Toa 0 'Oevain St. Julian %Narrow fringe marsh Creek 9 * ~~~57 .32 A .29 .02 .02 St. Julian Fringe and cove marsh Greek % so 10 58 1.50 A 1.35 .15 St. Julian % 0Small creek marsh Creek % 55 9 59 11.00 v A .55 .55 9.90 Southern Small fringe marsh * ~~~~Branch % 90 5 5 80 Elizabeth .25 River A .23 .01 .01 Southern % 8 5Small fringe marsh Branch 851 61 Elizabeth .25 * ~~~~~River A .21 .04 Southern % 0 1 0Narrow fringe marsh Branch % 3 0 6 62 Elizabeth .62 v River A .19 .06 .37 *~~~~~Su hr % 90 5 5 Narrow fringe marsh Branch 63 Elizabeth .82 River A .56 .03 .03 Deep Creek % 0 3 0 1 0Channelized marsh 64 11.00 xII A 4.40 3.30 1.10 1.10 1.00 39 M at~~~~~~' 000 ~~a ~~~ a 00 .~~~~~~ ~ ~~ Observat~~~~~ionsf Deep Creek 905 5Point marsh 65 .62 A .56 .03 .03 Deep Creek % 0 82Small creek marsh 66 17.00 A 15.30 1.36 .34 Deep Creek 4 0 30 10 15 5 Extensive fringe marsh ~~~~~ 4 -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~somewhat embayed 67 18.00 Xli A 7.20 5.40 1.80 2.70 .90 Deep Creek Extensive fringe marsh % 45 20 10 5 20 somewhat embayed 68 14.00 X11 A 6.30 2.80 1.40 .70 2.80 Deep Creek % 0 51 0 5Embayed creek marsh 69 16.00 X11 A 11.20 .80 1.60 1.60 .80 Deep Creek % 5 5 352Narrow fringe marsh 70 6.00 A 5.10 .30 .18 .30 .12 Gilmerton 603 0Narrow f rings marsh, Deep Creek % 03 0bulkheading 71 Canal 1.50 A .90 .45 .15 Gilmerton 10Pocket marsh on man-made Deep Creek % 10canal 72 Canal - 8.49 A 8.49 40 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 Deep Creek % 0 0 Frng m a rs A01080 020 Deep~~~~~~a Cr e .0 00 5 50Cee0as 75~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 3.0.0 Deep Creek Fr021 62Etninge mbydmarsh, Deep Creek % 90 10 5Ebye as 77 2.00 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~A 1.60 .20 3 Deep Creek %Extensive embayed marsh 78 29.00 A 80 204.60 1.45 2.0 S ~~~~Deep Creek % 0 1 5Creek marsh wt rne 79 17.00 A 2.401.0 .15 .5 .30 Deep Creek %Ex0e20sive e mbaye d fig marsh, * 76 300 .00 A 24.00 1.60 3.25 1.80 .0 Deep Creek Embayed marsh~~~~4 Marsh ~Total. , a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ... -... ...~ 5 M Deep Creek Extensive embayed marsh % 20 35 5 40 with fringe 81 24.00 XII A 4.80 8.40 1.20 9.60 Deep Creek % 0 552 55Trees in marsh 82 20.00 XII A 4.00 .1.00 1.00 4.00 9.00 1.00 Deep Creek % 50 -- 30 5 15 Point marsh 83 .50 A .25 .15 .03 .08 Southern Fringe marsh surrounding Branch % 0 4 0outer perimeter of island 84 Elizabeth 1.00 River A .50 .40 .10 Southern Extensive embayed marsh Branch % 25 10 -. 10 50 with fringe, spoil in area 85 Elizabeth 26.00 Vill River A 6.50 2.60 1.30 2.60 13.00 Southern Embayed marsh, trees in Branch~~~ 50 10 -- 5 5 30 ae 86 Elizabeth 14.00 V River A 7.00 1.40 .70 .70 4.20 Southern 905 5Fringe marsh Branch% 90- 5 5 87 Elizabeth 1.50 River A 1.35 .08 .08 New Mill 85753Creek marsh Creek ~8 - 5 3 - 88 3.00 A 2.55 .21 .15 .09 42 Marsh Tal20 ,Obevais Location A k. EI . . a -- - Acres~~~ . .. o .' .~ ~ E Mc- mz .o 0 W . C O L O - New Mill % 0 1 0 5Embayed creek marsh. Creek 7 10 - 5 10 5channelized 89 4.97 A 3.48 .50 .25 .50 .25 New Mill 4201 20Embayed marsh, Creek channelized 90 14.25 A 6.41 2.85 1.43 .71 2.85 New Mill % 02 31 Embayed marsh Creek% 30 2 - 5 41 1 91 8.46 v A 2.54 1.69 .42 3.64 .08 .08 Now Mill -. 0 0240-Creek marsh, scattered trees 92 G ek6.38 v A 1.91 .64 1.28 2.55 New Mill % 3 0240Creek marsh, scattered trees Creek % 3 0 - 0 4 -- 93 25.42 v * ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~A 7.63 2.54 5.08 10.17 New Mill % 4 3 0120Extensive and embayed Creek % 0 3 . 1 0fringe marsh 94 7.91 xiI A 3.16 2.37 .79 1.58 New Mill % 0 2 0 2 0Creek marsh Creek% 40 2 . 1 20 0 95 14.97 XII A 5.99 2.99 1.50 2.99 1.50 Now Mill % 0 5 1 Embayed marsh, scattered Creek trees 96 5.16 IV A 1.55 .52 2.58 .52 43 -0 E ~ ~~~~ ,O E.- zi, 0 0 AOca d ltio Acres .. , - ... .1' -~ 01. . 0.. 0 -- .; ~~~ ~ 0 00 00 oa ~~~~~ 00 New Mill ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Pocket marsh New Mill ~% 50 20 20 10 Greek 97 1.49 A .75 .30 .30 .15 Southern ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Fringe and embayed marsh Sothranc % 40 40 10 10 98 Elizabeth 5.77XI River A 2.31 2.31 .58 .58 Southern ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Embayed marsh Sothranc % 30 50 10 10 99 Elizabeth 15.90 I River A 4.77 7.95 1.59 1.59 Creek and embayed marsh Southern % 3 5 5 Branch % 015 5 100 Elizabeth 26.50V River A 7.95 3.98 13.25 1.33 Cove marsh Southern 05 1 5 Branch 805 1 5 101 Elizabeth .47 River A .38 .02 .05 .02 Cove marsh Southern ~% 10 25 40 25 Branch l 102 Elizabeth .73 River A .07 .18 .29 .18 Creek and embayed marsh Southern % 20 10 30 30 10 Branch l 103 Elizabeth 28.43XI River A 5.69 2.84 8.53 8.53 2.84 Fill on marsh along river Southern 0 4 0 - 101 3 Branch % 0 0 3 - 1 104 Elizabeth 44.76XI River A 2.24 4.48 17.90 13.43 .45 4.48 .45 1.340 44 Loarh tiona -a Ace E 'Observations 0 Ca 'Fu '50 Locatien Scatred pns E. E . - along ~ r~ iver a I -s Bran~~~~0 t~ ch( % cOO 5 jo 5 ~ D O ' o Z 106 Elizabeth 34.5 I] 0 ~~~~River A3.46 3.06 3.4 2.01 Southern Large island Branch % 20 2 0 j 10 50 107 Elizabeth 2 1.64 I River A 4.33 j4.33 2 .161 0.06 Southern L 01 0 5 as on areao island Branch% 20 210 5 107 Elizabeth 21.864 V River A 43 .321 06 Southern Maisc oninuou frinemaroslan Branch % 30 0 10 40onild * ~~~109 Elizabeth 266 V River A 6 . 29 .29 1.40 Southern Discon2030Patinaous frilledmrs Branch 50 -10 4onsld 1109 Elizabeth 7 .800x River A 23 1.56 1.50 2.340 Southern Pa0 1 0 0Itrmtially fringedcee Branch m a r s h 2 3 III Elizabeth 1 8.25. I River A 9.134 1.86 1.832.348 Southern In5 1 0 10 5 aterittent frilled landfil 0 ~~~Branch 50 110 3mas 112 Elizabeth 72.30 V * ~~~~River A 10.85 9.40 7.23 7.23 36.15 1.45 45 B Marsh Tota 80j t 3i F .marsh 200 '4 O- -' ao. . . . Southern Fringe marsh % 80 7 10 3 Branch 113 Elizabeth 2.11 River A 1.69 .15 .21 .06 Southern 5 2 5 85 2 Large embayed marsh, Branch partially impacted 114 Elizabeth 167.25 V River A 8.36 3.35 8.36 142.16 3.35 1.67 Southern 5 10 80 5 Embayed marsh, partially Branch filled 115 Elizabeth 39.80 V River A 1.99 3.98 31.84 1.99 Southern % 5 5 90 Pocket marsh % 5 5 90 Branch 116 Elizabeth 6.26 V River A .31 .31 5.63 Southern 10 5 5 80 -- Embayed marsh, pine Branch % 1 5hummocks 117 Elizabeth 100.37 V River A 10.04 5.02 5.02 80.30 Southern 80 10 5 5 Dredged channel in marsh n% 80 10 5 5 Branch 118 Elizabeth 7.57 River A 6.06 .76 .38 .38 Southern 80 5 5 10 Pocket marsh % 80 5 5 10 Branch 119 Elizabeth 2.39 River A 1.91 .12 .12 .24 Southern Tree hummocks % 20 30 10 40 Branch 120 Elizabeth 3.35 XII River A .67 1.01 .34 1.34 46 .c� 1 E0 to B a ' ,00 o z 00 0 I0 a :.00i0 i0 E a f a: 0 _; Southern Fringe marsh Branch % 90 10 Branch 121 Elizabeth .76 River A .68 .08 Southern 70 Fringe marsh %c 70 10 10 10 Branch 122 Elizabeth 4.37 River A 3.06 .44 .44 .44 Southern Fertilizer plant nearby Branch % 80 5 5 5 5 123 Elizabeth 3.73 River A 2.98 .19 .19 .19 .19 Southern Fringe marsh %c 80 7 10 3 Branch 124 Elizabeth 7.69 River A 6.15 .54 .77 .23 Newton Creek marsh surrounded by Creek indistrial/residential 125 7.69 development A 3.85 1.54 2.31 Newton Creek marsh surrounded by % 95 5 Creek industrial/residential 126 5.39 development A 5.12 .27 Newton Creek marsh, barrow pit Creek open to tide 127 12.92 A 7.75 .65 2.58 1.29 .65 Newton Industrial complex Creek % 90 5 5 Creek 128 5.37 A 4.83 .27 .27 47 Marsh t0 Observationsi # Location Acres* 2 =X Impacts from industrial/ % 95 2 1 1 1 urban development 129 15.42 A 14.65 .31 .15 .15 .15 Mill Dam Creek Impacts from industrial/ -% 90 10 urban development 130 1.99 A 1.79 .20 Mill Dam Creek 1 Impacts from industrial/ % 95 2 2 urban development 131 2.38 A 2.26 .05 .05 .02 Mill Dam Creek Impacts from industrial/ Mill% 30 30 40 -- urban development 132 6.34 A 1.90 1.90 2.54 Mill Dam Creek Impacts from industrial/ % 60 30 10 urban development 133 37.51 A 22.51 11.25 3.75 Impacts from industrial/ Mill Dam Creek 85 5 5 5 urban development 134 8.78 A 7.46 .44 .44 .44 Mill Dam Creek Impacts from industrial/ Mill 20 5 25 50 urban development 135 13.25 A 2.65 .66 3.31 6.63 Mill Dam Creek Impacts from industrial/ Mill Dam Creek % .10 90 urban development IV 136 9.27 A .93 8.34 48 Marsh Toa 4 .a)a bevain Nw P ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a Lodation Acre x Cao O E E COO CDZ co 0 CD 0o Mo a .U. 0 COf ca. CD) to CO 0 ~Z% . Mill Dam Creek % 0 7 1Impacts from industrial/ % 90 1 7 1 -. -- 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~urban development 137 10.40 A 9.36 .10 .73 .10 .10 Mill Dam Creek % 9 0Impacts from industrial/ % 90 10 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~urban development 138 6.30 A 5.67 .63 Southern % 02 0Small pocket marsh Branch ~5 0 3 139 Elizabeth .36 River A .18 .07 .11 Gilligan Creek % 8 410Fringe and point marsh * ~~~140 2.23 A I1.90 .02 .09 .22 Gilligan Creek % 055Creek marsh 141 8.20 A 7.38 .41 .41 Gilligan Creek % 5 159Small embayed marsh 142 3.52 A 2.99 .04 .18 .32 Gilligan Creek % 820Fringe marsh 143 .95 A .76 .19 Jones Creek % 80 20 Fringe marsh 144 1.37 A 1.10 .27 49 Marsh Total 0 0 Location Acres. E .~0 (0 . ~Osrain -~~~ ~~~0 -0 - t~~~~~~~~~~0 - - 0 ~~~~~~~~~~ 0 I Jones Creek 9055Small pocket marsh 145 3.45 A 3.11 .17 .170 Jones Creek % 0 55Pocket marsh 146 2.28 A 2.05 .11 .11 Scuffletown 85852Long fringe marsh Creek % 8 147 1.67 A 1.42 .13 .08 .03 Scuffletown % 056Fringe marsh Creek ~9 148 4.64 A 4.18 .23 .23 Scuffletown 9055Cove marsh Creek ~9 149 3.59 A 3.23 .18 .18 Total Section ii T 1233.9? A 458.42 108.66 11.61 129.99 461.29 53.70 .03 .45 6.15 1.00 1.13 1.69 %~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A A 50 Section III Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River 0 0 0 0 0 51 52 1ll. Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River. Indian River Cove marsh I % 90 8 2 1t50 2.00 A 1.80 .16 .04 Indian River 0 2 Spit marsh % 60 35 3 2 151 .25 A .15 .09 .01 .01 Indian River Small creek marsh % 95 5 152 5.00 A 4.75 .25 Indian River Spit and cove marsh % 95 5 * t153 2.00 A 1.90 .10 Indian River Fringe and cove marsh % 95 5 154 5.00 A 4.75 .25 Indian River Fringe marsh % 90 10 155 1.32 A 1.18 .13 Indian River 85 5 8 2 Fringe marsh 156 1.00 A .85 .05 .08 .02 Indian River Creek marsh % 20 30 40 2 2 5 1 157 56.00 Xll A 11.20 16.80 22.40 1.12 1.12 2.80 .56 53 a. 0 0) ~~~~~~~~ - ~~~~~0 ~~~ 0 00 ~~~~Observations Location Ace C D ~ E O ~ Z0 ~ cfeSL E 0 E E (04 -0 E ..~~.~ -- --~ a " Indian River 035 Point and cove marsh 158 8. 00 A 4.80 2.80 .40 Indian River %9 - 5Fringe marsh 159 .81 A .73 .04 .04 Indian River 8 5 Fringe marsh 160 .25 A .20 .04 .01 Indian River % 55Fringe marsh 161 .50I A .48 .02 Indian River -/ 0 2 0Fringe marsh 162 .50 A .36 .10 .04 Indian River %0 - 1 Cove marsh 163 1.00 A .90 .08 .01 .01 Indian River % 2 2 6 - -Fringe marsh 164 4.00 A 3.68 .08 .24 Eastern Branch % 5852Fringe marsh Elizabeth % 8 165 River 3.10 A 2.64 .25 .16 .06 54 Location.. Acre bOt ~i"Cow ~~~~~~0al0 -W .6 - -- Eastern Branch % 10Marsh island Elizabeth 10 166 River .25 A .25 Total Section Il l T 90.98 A 40.62 .13 .09 21.35 23.06 1.17 .01 1.13 .07 2.80 .56 GRAND TOTAL GOT 1746.24 A 648.61 116.53 39.59 279.46 573.12 59.71 1.86 1.77 .46 7.94 .25 .07 .42 1.00 6.31 7.35 S~~~~~~~~~~ A A6 A A 55 Index to Marsh Locations Bailey Creek .....................23 Deep Creek ......................33 Drum Point Creek ...................22 Eastern Branch Elizabeth River ...........52 Gilligan Creek ....................37 Gilmerton Canal ...................33 Goose Creek .....................23 Hodges Creek .....................36 Indian River ......................52 Jones Creek ......................37 Mains Creek .....................36 Mill Dam Creek ....................37 New Mill Creek .................. 34,36 Newton Creek .....................36 Paradise Creek .................. 32,37 Scuffletown Creek ..................37 Southern Branch Elizabeth River . . . 32,33,34,35,36 Sterling Point .....................22 Sterns Creek .....................22 St. Julian Creek ....................32 Western Branch Elizabeth River ......... 22,23 57