Virginia Coast Reserve study, March 31, 1976

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

ECOSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
MAY 0 6 1917
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V.
THE VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE STUDY V.

March 31, 1976
COASTAL ZeMt

Principal Researchers:

Raymond D. Dueser
Maria Ann Graham
Gerard J. Hennessey
Cheryl McCaffrey
Alan W. Niedoroda
Thomas E. Rice
Bill Williams

The Nature Conservancy
1800 N. Kent Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209

R e acquisition and preservation of the Virginia Coast Reserve and the preparation
of this report was conducted by The Nature Conservancy and supported by The Mary
Flagler Cary Charitable Trust.

prOpesty of CSC Library

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................ iii

REPORT F OPJWT vi

R TRODUCTION ........... ........... ...................... vii

LAND USE HISTORY 1

CLIMATE AND SOILS .. ........ ....................... 87

GEOLOGY........ 0..................................... 107

FLORA ............................................ 385

FAUNA .........................................,....... 439

APPENDIX ........ .... ........................ ...... 569

ACKNOWLEDGEIEUtTS
I

Numerous individuals, organizations and public agencies provided information,
advice and assistance in preparing the Legislative Compendium portion of the
Virginia Coast Reserve Study. While space does not-allow individual recognition
of each, it is obvious that a work of this nature is a collective effort. The I
Nature Conservancy gratefully acknowledges this assistance.

Certain individuals made special contributions of time and expertise. These in-
clude individuals who offered conceptual and professional guidance and those who |
served on the Virginia Coast Reserve Advisory Committee throughout the course of
this 18-month study, especially: Michael Castagna, Scientist in Charge of the
Virginia Institute of Marine- Science Laboratory at Wachapreague, Virginia; John I
Clark, Senior Associate of The Conservation Foundation; Ray M. Culter, Director
of Land Stewardship for The Nature Conservancy; and, F. Victor Schmidt, Assistant
to the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Departient of the I
Interior. Nature Conservancy staff who contributed to producing this volume in-
clude: Robert M. Chipley, Sue E. Dodge, Robert E. Jenkins, James W. MacFarland,
Teresa Mier and Marcia Mink. - ..

Numerous other people contributed immensely to the various sections of this report.

Individuals contributing to the island history section were J.C. Appel, Curtis
Badger, Miles Barnes, Bill Belate, Archie Bradford, Robert Burgess, John Crumb,
Kellam Doughty, Mr. and Mrs. John Edmunds, Mr. and Mrs. Jack Fosque, Charles
Handley, Melville Jennings, L.W. Johnson; Heathcote Kimball-, Bowdie-Lusk; Cheryl
McCaffrey, Joseph Miller, Dick Moore, L. Floyd Nock, Ann Pardel, Mr. and Mrs.
George Peppler, George Reiger, John Reiger, Fannie Rhetta Smith, James Turner,
Mrs. Wade Walker, Faye Wilson and William Wroten. Contributing most extensively
were Berlie Bell, Mr. and Mrs. Moe Birch, Earl Bonniwell, Harvey Bowen, John Bowen,
Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Bowen, Edgar Bunting, Roy Ball, Granville Hogg, Amine Kellam,
G. Martin, Greer Matthews, Sara Nock, Mrs. Parker, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Parsons,
R.W. Phillips, Herbert Powell, Mr. and Mrs. Clyde Richardson, Carl Schmidlapp,
John and Victor Simpson, Frank Steelman, Buzzy Terry, Nora Miller Turman and
Willie Webb.

Bob Williams, Dick Googins, Louis Cullipher and Doug Parr of the United States I
Soil Conservation Service provided information on the islands' soils.

The geological analysis of this report was assisted by Paul Alfonsi, Michael
Conger and Dick Dowd of the NASA Wallops Flight Center, personnel from the Vir-
ginia Institute of Marine Science who provided information included G. Anderson,
S. Barrick, Robert Byrne, Mike Castagna, C.H. Hobbs andMaynard Nichols. The
individual efforts of Bowdoin Lusk, Cheryl McCaffrey and David Tyler were also
of great help. Staff and associates of the University of Massachusetts who pro-
vided assistance were Jane Bradley, Mary Lou Fortier, Maureen Kokernock, Marie
Litterer, Betty Niedoroda, Harry Pegg, Marian C. Rice, Mary A. Shaw, Lesley R.
Spokas, Heather Stoddard and Martha Terrell.

~~iii~ C~i

The'section of this report6dkiin4 with terrestrial vertebrates was compiled with
the assistance of W. C. Br'ow, who-placed allspecies coll -cted on the islands in
the U.S. National Museum, Michael Castagna, Roger B. Conant, who prepared the
herpetofauna summary, Charles 0. Handley, Jr., Curator of the Division of Mammals
of the U.S. National Museum; Lucille Stickel'and Ray Standell of the Fish and
Wildlife Service;Patuxent '"Laboratory,' aid Cheryl McCaffrey. Finally, this study
was aided greatly by-advice'and information provided by many residents of the
Delmarva Peninsula and the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University
of Virginia.

Assessment of the islands' cofonial bird species was assisted by Bill Akers, Mitchell
Byrd, Roger Clapp; Tom Weiboldt and John Weske.

A brief examination of some of the islands' terrestrial arthropod fauna was pro-
vided by Paul A. Opler and Jay C. Schaeffer.

DeVere Burt provided the cover illustration for this report. Other art work was
graciously provided by-Charles W. Schwartz. Maps were drawn by Sam Cravotta and
Melissa Dooley from information provided by the researchers.

STUDY DIRECTOR: Gerard J. Hennessey

I ' STUDY COORDINATOR: Ray M.' Culter

THE VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Michael Castagna: Scientist'in Charge -Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Laboratory at Wachapreague, Virginia.
John Clark: Senior Associate - The Conservation Foundation.
* Ray M. Culter: Director of Land Stewardship, The Nature Conservancy.
F. Victor Schmidt: Assistant to the Director, United States Fish and Wildlife
I Service.

* iiv
owl

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

The Nature Conservancy is a national conservation organization, receiving its -
support from the public, whose objective is to preserve and protect ecologically
and environmentally significant land and the diversity of life it supports.

To achieve this goal, the Conservancy purchases lands using its revolving fund
which is then replenished through fund raising; accepts gifts of land, retains
and provides stewardship for 60% of all projects; works with local, state and
federal governments to identify and protect important natural areas and acquires
and manages land in advance of government agencies' ability to do so.

Some 878,678 acres of forests, swamps, marshes, prairies, mountains, beaches, and
islands in 1,516 projects throughout the United States have been saved from de-
struction by the Conservancy since the acquisition of its first preserve in 1954.

A member-governed non-profit organization, The Nature Conservancy was incorporated I
in 1951 in the District of Columbia for scientific and educational purposes.

OFFICERS

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD SECRETARY
William D. Blair, Jr. Richard S. Weinstein

VICE CHAIRMEN TREASURER
Frank D. Boren Robert Bennett
Alfred Heller

BOARD OF GOVERNORS
John E. Andrus, III Thomas L. McCall
John D. Archbold M. Graham Netting
Frederick E. Balderston John B. Oakes
Mrs. W.L. Lyons Brown Eugene P. Odum
Wallace C. Dayton - Ruth Patrick
G. William DeSousa A. Timmon Primm, III
William DuPont John T. Ricks
Richard H. Durrell Mrs. David Rockefeller
Richard H. Goodwin Francis W. Sargent
Charles C. Haffner, III Mrs. L.M.C. Smith
R. Phillip Hanes, Jr. Athelstan Spilhaus
William E. Howard Stephen H. Spurr
Roy E. Larsen Mrs. Thomas M. Waller
Warren M. Lemmon Mrs. Charles P. Yarn, Jr.
Dan W. Lufkin

REPORT FORMAT

This is one of the volumes of the Virginia Coast Reserve Study, a preserve manage-

ment feasibility study conducted by The Nature Conservancy. The study consists

of four separate volumes. Each incorporates related disciplines. The volumes

are titled and designated numerically.

Volume I, The Ecosystem Description

- Volume II, Legislative Compendium, Title Search and Acquisition
Priorities

Volume III, Social and Economic Analysis

Volume IV, Stewardship

These sections are explained further in the Introduction.

INTRODUCTION

The marshes and islands of the Virginia Coast Reserve are a precious resource. They
are the least disturbed :remnant of the thin green line of wetlands which once
cloaked the Eastern Seaboard. They include beaches, maritime forests and thickets,
sand dunes, grasslands, and salt marsh communities and provide a variety of
habitats to adapted associations of terrestrial fauna, upland birds, waterfowl
and plant species. Simultaneously they serve as a buffer separating the fragile
fertile marshes and agricultural land of theEastern Shore of Virginia from the
Atlantic Ocean, support a large sector of the Shore's economy and provide an
accessible aesthetic resource. Poorly planned development and wetlands alteration
have accounted for the desecration of much of this resource along most of the Eastern
United States' coastline. The Virginia Barrier Islands represented the last intact
set of islands which faced this plight. Their relative isolation had protected
them for years.

STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The Virginia Coast Reserve consists of approximately 33,371 acres of barrier
islands and marshes owned by The Nature Conservancy on the Eastern Shore of Virginia.
It contains thirteen islands (see Eastern Shore of Virginia map, page viii). The
barrier islands of the reserve are Metomkin, Cedar, Parramore, Hog, Cobb, Ship
Shoal, Myrtle, and Smith. The reserve's Revel and Rogue Islands are upland islands
which do not front on the Atlantic Ocean. Sandy, Godwin, and Mink Islands are
salt marsh components of the system. The Conservancy owns these islands with
the exception of major portions of Cedar Island and small parts of Hog and Smith
Islands. All of the Virginia Coast Reserve may be reached from the adjacent
peninsula by boat but there are no roads connecting the islands with the mainland.
This system stretches along the southern seaward edge of the Delmarva Peninsula,
a coastal plain outcrop, for about fifty-one miles. The islands represent the most
unaltered barrier island-lagoon complex along the east coast of North America.
Latitude-longitude coordinates for the Virginia Coast Reserve are 370 05', 370 34'N 3
and 750 56', 750 37'W.

The low lying islands' eastern border is the Atlantic Ocean. At intervals along
the coast inlets connect the sea with the extensive lagoon system westward of the
reserve. These lagoons typically have salinities of 25 to 34 parts per thousand.
The tidal range along the ocean front of the islands normally averages 4.2 feet
but may reach nine feet or more during excessive storm surges. The expansive marshes I
behind the barrier islands are much incised and well flushed by tidal action. -
Brackish and fresh water occurs in the interior of the larger islands at the head
of their upland drainages or as small ponds. I

Biological communities of the reserve are controlled by the islands' dynamic geology.
The sandy soil of the islands is in a constant state of flux, subjected to the in-
fluences of wind, tidal currents, temporary stabilization by -vegetation and high - I
energy input along the coastal front. The system has a wide diversity of aquatic
and terrestrial biota.

Human influence on the system has been persistent but for the most part, it has I
not altered the Reserve's integrity. The present Virginia Coast Reserve has been
traditionally used for pastureland, pirateering, waterfowl and shorebird market
hunting, resort development, and homesites. These human impacts have had little
long term effect on the structure and function of the islands' natural systems.
Their resiliency, isolation, and inaccessability protect them from most direct
human influences.

vii

The Eastern Shore of Virginia is a peninsula bordered on the east by the Atlantic
Ocean and on the west by the Chesapeake Bay. It is the mainland adjacent to the
Virginia Coast Reserve's islands. The landmass is divided into two counties;
Northampton, the southern county, and Accomack, the northern county. The region
is the southernmost extension of the Delmarva Peninsula, a physiographic unit
encompassing Delaware and parts of Maryland and Virginia. The Eastern Shore is
75 miles long. It contains 70% of Virginia's total shoreline and 47% of her salt
marshes.

The peninsula supports a rural population dependent-primarily on agriculture
and fisheries for subsistance. Land use categories of the peninsula include 29.1%
agricultural land,'29% woodland, 32.2% tidal marsh, 1.5% coastal beach, and 8.2%
miscellaneous. The Shore has been historically isolated. Until 1964, the peninsula
was only accessible from the rest of the state by a ferry which crossed the
Chesapeake Bay. U.S. Route 13 entered the region from the north through Maryland.
Now, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel connects the southern tip of the Eastern
Shore to the mainland via a-17 mile span crossing the mouth of the Chesapeake
Bay. The area has traditionally been an isolated cul-de-sac.- This fact, more
than any other,-was responsible for the maintenance of a rural life style and the
preservation of the Virginia Barrier Islands until the time they were acquired
and-insured preservation by The Nature Conservancy.

In 1967 the sanctity of the' Virginia Barrier Islands was threatened when developers
considered building a bridge connecting Smith'Island, in the south of the island
chain, with the mainland. The ill-suited development typical of other coastal
systems had come at last. Convention centers, airports, and second-home subdivisions
were planned. The Nature Conservancy purchased the island from developers with
funds provided by The Mary Flagler Cary Charitable Trust to insure the preservation
of the island. This acquisition triggered the ensuing chain of purchases which
ultimately led to the formation of today's Virginia Coast Reserve, a chain of
thirteen islands preserving this coastal resource.
STUDY OBJECTIVES
The objective of The Nature Conservancy's involvement with the Virginia Barrier
Islands is to insure the perpetual preservation of this unique barrier island-lagoon
ecosystem.

The Conservancy's concern for the barrier islands has been exemplified through the
Virginia Coast Reserve Study. The objective of this investigation was to establish
a base line of information that would yield an understanding-of the operationally
significant factors governing the stewardship of the island system. The study was
divided into four separate sections. Objectives were set for each portion of the
research.

1. Objectives of the Legislative Compendium, Title Search and Acquisition
Priorities Section
a. Provide The Nature Conservancy with a clear image of its ownership
and inholdings within the reserve system.

b. Compile the legislation which pertains to the ownership of the islands,
marshland and adjacent riparian and subaquatic rights to determine
how it affects land stewardship.

c. Establish a strategy for the further acquisition of'key lands within
this island-lagoon system that are worthy of preservation from an
ecological or strategical perspective.

I "~~~~~~~~~~~i

2. Objectives of the Ecosystem Description Section-

a. Identify the limiting ecological factors which must be known in
order to administer-the Reserve, preserving its unique qualities.

b. Define the ecological components of-the system to begin the establish -3
ment of a monitoring program which will expose the scientific comr-
munity to the potential for innovative research possibilities within
the Virginia Coast Reserve. I

3. Objectives of the Social and Economic Analysis Section

a. Establish economic baseline information about the two counties within
I
the Eastern Shore of Virginia.

b. Assess effects of the preservation of the Virginia Coast Reserve
on the local communities of Accomack and Northampton Counties5

c. Assess the impacts of potential regional growth, land-use, and
recreational needs on the Virginia Coast Reserve.

d. Assess the indirect socio-economic benefits of the Virginia Coast
Reserve associated with preservation of the system. I

e. Determine popular opinion regarding the preservation of the Virginia
Coast Reserve. I

4. Objectives of the Stewardship portion of the Virginia Coast Reserve Study

a. Develop a list of the stewardship needs and procedures which offer
maximum protection for the system.

b. Determine agencies capable of accomplishing these goals and where
ultimate stewardship responsibility should lie.

c. Establish a preliminary management scheme accommodating preservation,
research, education, and if appropriate, recreation.

d. Determine the cost associated with this management scheme.

To achieve these objectives, the Virginia Coast Reserve Study coalesced the
efforts of more than thirty professional administrative and research personnel.
The experience and input of Eastern Shore residents also contributed to collecting
this data.

LEGISLATIVE COMPENDIUM, TITLE SEARCH AND ACQUISITION
At the time of the acquisition of the Virginia Barrier Islands, the Conservancy
became part of a parcel of difficulities including counter claims for ownership
of the system, diverging interpretations in the chain of title to certain tracts,
varying interpretations of existing island and wetlands-related legislation, and
threats to the effectiveness of our preservation scheme from "inholdings" within
the island system and lands owned adjacent to the reserve. We employed the full-
time assistance of an environmental lawyer to catalogue, interpret and resolve
these difficulties.

A complete title search was also conducted to determine the present ownership
pattern of the barrier islands. This ownership information provided a basis from

which to assess the security of the Conservancy's present position as the controlling
landowner within the island system, and of the intentions of insuring preservation
of the complex. A review of the situation fostered the preparation of an acqui-
sition strategy designed to fill the gaps in the present pattern of ownership.

At the same time, the complex environmental legislation pertinent to the administration
of this marine wetlands area at federal, state and local levels was collected. The
laws which may be used to insure the integrity of the reserve were compended. This
allows their quick and-efficient utilization in the administration of the reserve.

ECOSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Information already existing pertinent to the natural history of the reserve has
been collected. Additional basic field work was also completed to compliment this
data.

The documentation of existing material included compilation of publications, maps,
aerial photographs and other supportive material. The supply of existing com-
prehensive ecological data was scarce. Some information was available in the fields
of geology, ornithology, and rudimentary plant community associations. A substantial
body of material existed regarding the fisheries resources of the waters surrounding
the island chain.

Supplementary ecological work was undertaken with the intention of complimenting
existing data so that predictions and stewardship decisions based on a fundamental
understanding of the ecology of the Virginia Coast Reserve system could be made.
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The barrier islands represent a valuable resource to the Eastern Shore of Virginia.
They offer a livelihood to some by-protecting marshland which provides a haven for
marketable fish and shellfish. They offer attributes to residents of the "seaside"
of the peninsula by buffering the shoreline from storm surges and winds. More
intangible benefits are realized by a wider spectrum of the population. The is-
lands are an integral part of the rural life style, the preferred quality of life,
of the Eastern Shoreman.

These aspects, the benefits of the Virginia Barrier Islands to the local economy,
lifestyle, and the residents' perception of the Eastern Shore, are analyzed in this
section of the study. By the purchase of the barrier islands, the Conservancy has
become the largest property owner in both Accomack and Northampton Counties. Ad-
dressing both the economic and social arguments for and against preservation of
this huge system required the full-time assistance of a professional economist and
the assistance of several contractual personnel from Salisbury State College, a
local institution.

The economic analysis centered on the benefits and costs of barrier island preser-
vation. This approach incorporated their tangible benefits and costs to the local
communities and tangible and intangible benefits on a regional basis. Additionally,
a detailed analysis of Virginia's Eastern Shore economy, in terms of the utilization
of the local resource base, was conducted. The intent of this investigation was
to assess the effect of barrier island preservation from the economic perspective
of the Eastern Shore's citizenry.

The "quality of life" on the Eastern Shore is a well debated issue in local circles.
The average citizens' perception of their lifestyle and general well being are clues

to the satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the style of life that The Nature3
Conservancy' s natural area acquisition philosophy tends to preserve. The Con-
servancy was interested in determining whether its activities in the Virgini~a
Barrier Islands were-in accordance with or in opposition to the majority of sentimentU
of-local residents. To assess- these feelings, a broadly-based opinion poll of a
representative sample of Eastern Shore citizens was conducted. Its aim was to
gather data directly applicable to determining the "quality of life" dilemma here; I
were local residents happy with life as it is and the barrier islands as they are?
The: direct answers to these and associated questions have fostered conclusions
about the Eastern Shore residents' perception of The Nature Conservancy's operations3
in this area and their wishes for the future of the Eastern Shore.

-STEWARDSHIP
Effective administration of the reserve by any agency depends on the recognition
of stewardship'reali.ties. In this section of the Virginia Coast Reserve Study,
these were assessed and a scheme to deal with them is proposed.3

Initially, a list of needs and procedures prerequisite to preserving the Virginia
Barrier Islands was developed. The remainder of this section of the study dealt
with how best to insure their fulfillment.
One of the greatest unknowns for the Virginia Barrier Islands preservation strategy
was the ultimate managing agency for the system. It has traditionally been theI
Conservancy's policy to transfer some of its finest preserves to federal or state
agencies interested in their management. Recently, a decision to internalize the
management of selected preserves was made in accordance with The Nature Conservancy's3
model preserve 111980 Program".. These conflicting policies had to be resolved in U
the best interest of the Virginia Barrier Islands.

The stewardship capabilities and policies of The Nature Conservancy and selectedI
federal, state, and county agencies were examined. The interest each group had
in the islands was assessed. Each agency's program was inspected to see whether
it fit into the Conservancy's plan for the preservation of the Reserve. Finally,I
a review of their legislative, financial and enforcement abilities rounded out the
picture.

The success or failure of The Nature Conservancy's own participation in thisI
Virginia Coast Reserve management blend will be based on an operating budget.
Present operating funds have been fully utilized in the preparation of this document.3
To continue operation requires the coordination of our management priorities and
approximating an associated operating budget.

The stewardship option available to the Virginia Coast Reserve under the Conservancy' s
supervision is incorporated in this report. The scheme accommodates preservation,
research and educational uses in differing proportions. This proposed stewardship
plan addresses the number and functions of proposed Convervancy staff personnel
to fulfill this preservation scheme, equipment requirements, office space and
*housing needs, future acquisition, and required research costs. The plan's
implementation depends upon the identification of funding sources to power these

programs

- xii3

M~~~~~~~~~' ~ ~ i,1~i ~ ,.4H4 4~, 41'' 'ap 4 44

..4'4 ll4':4~ I '.4,1 I~ 4 4n~s
4''~4.I ,~it4,4i64 'D 'i'w4'444t 14thJan., ~j4

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i; Kuwit
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ti
7l-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. II'
M44"4 ill 4445

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hi IrceitcT

LAND USE HISTORY

A-STUDY OF MAN'S INFLUENCE

VIRGINIA'S BARRIER ISLANDS

Maria Ann Graham

1 � ~~~~~~~~~~INTRODUCTIONT

The purpose of this research was to collect historical information on the Virginia
* ~Barrier Islands. In order to understand an ecosystem more fully one must be aware
of man's past influence on-the plant and animal communities. The Virginia Barrier
Islands have been the scene of human activity for over four centuries and are thus
ecologically disturbed, although relatively less so than most other Atlantic Coast-

5 ~The following report will also be of value in determining future management -policy.
It was the sea isle flora and fauna that first attracted man, and hence, the'is-
lands have become a cultural part of Virginia's Eastern Shore. Local attitudes
3 ~and traditional use of the barrier islands must be given serious consideration.

The report is divided into two parts. The first is a chronological history of
man and the islands. The second part selects aspects of this history which are
I ~directly related to ecosystem development and magnifies them. The purpose of this
organization was to avoid destroying the continuity of such important subjects-as
hunting, the recorded history of which extends through almost four centuries.

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

-11TRODUCTION ........................ ................................. ........ 3

A CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY....... 7

5 THE 17TH CENTURY ........................................................ 7

The Aborigines ............................. 7
The Englishman ....8

THE 18TH CENTURY ........................................................14

THE 19TH CENTURY ............................. . ..... ................17

The Cobbs ..........................................................17
The Civil War ...................................2.........20
Lighthouses and Life Saving . . .........22
Resorts ............................................................26

THE 20TH CENTURY. .......................................................29

Hog Island's Community .............................................29
Habitation and Use of Other Barrier Islands ........................34
The Virginia Barrier Islands and National Defense ..................38
Coast Guard Facilities in the 20th Century .........................39
The Virginia Barrier Islands in 1975 ...............................40

SELECTED HUMAN'AND NATURAL INFLUENCES .45

GENERAL FAUNAL HISTORY .......................................................45

DISTURBANCE OF AVIFAUNA THROUGH HUMAN ACTIVITY ..........................46

Duck Trapping ..........46
Feather Hunting ....................................................47
Egging.. . .47
Birds of Prey ... .................................................... 48

STOCKING GAME ...... 49

PREDATOR CONTROL.. 50

TRAPPING ................................................................51

TERRAPINS AND OTHER TURTLES ............................................ 52

HUNTING .................................................................55

Market Hunting ..........................................55
Sport Hunting ......................................................58

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

LIVESTOCK GRAZING ......................................................67

RESOURCES OF THE SEA ......................................................71

STORMSiAND THE BARRIER ISL..ANDS. .... ............ .75

PHYSICAL CHANGES ...................................................... 7 9

FIRES .............. ......................................... -8 5

APPENDIX

Acknowledgements ...........................................Appendix A
Taped Interviews ........................................... Appendix B
Potential Sources of Information ...........................Appendix C
Additional References ......................................Appendix D

MAP(s)

1751 Map of the Eastern Shore . ...................................13

PHOTOGRAPHS

Cobb Island Hotel, (1890) .............................. 19
Cape Charles Lighthouse, Smith Island, (1885) . . . ...................21
Hog Island Lighthouse, (1896) ....................................... 24
Accomack CIub, (1900) ... . ..........................................28
Village of Broadwater, Hog Island, (1900's) ........................31
Broadwater School, Hog Island, (1900's) ............................31
Holly Island Club, Parramore Island, (1975).......................36
Caretaker's House, Parramore Island, (1975) ......................... 36
Schmidlapp House, Parramf'ore Island, (1975) .........................36
Hog Island Coast Guard Station, (1975) .............................41
Machipongo Club, Hog Island, (1975) .................................41
Squatter's Cabin, Metomkin Island, (1975) ..........................42
Coast Guard Station, Parramore Island, (1975) ......................42
Abandoned Jeep, Smith Island, (1975) ...............................42
Market Hunting, (1890) . . . ..........................................56
Accomack Club Interior, (1900) . . . ..................................60
Accomack Club, (1975) .............................................. 80
Abandoned Auto, Cedar Island .......................................80

i MRI

A CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY

THE 17TH CENTURY

THE ABORIGNES

When the English settlers arrived on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, they found it
sparsely populated by several small Indian tribes. Some evidence suggests that
these tribs may have been associated with the Powhatan Confederacy of mainland
Virginia.-L/ The Indians were primarily farmers and fishermen and secondarily
hunters, although many references have been found to the harvesting of terrestrial
I~~~~
fauna.

Early arrivals to the peninsula, in approximately 1620, are believed to have traded
cloth for beaver, otter, and wildcat skins.- Clothing wasoften deerskin; and
hawks'bills, eagle talons, and animal teeth were used as ornamentation. The Indians
utilized the marine resources as well. They fished and caught clams and oysters
in season.

They lived mainly on fish, oysters and clams, as piles of shells
near villages attest. Yet deer, bears, wolves, wildcats, beaver and small
game were plzetiful; and in one place I have seen that an Indian sold three
moose skins.-

Corn and other vegetables were grown and stored for winter use.

The Accomac and Accohannock tribes were friendly to the newly settled English, and
continued to be throughout their association.

The Indians here were a timid, harmless, kindhearted people, so far
as traditions and our court records show. They numbered about 2,000 in
1608, and were ruled by Debedeavon (the laughing king) and by Okiawampe until
1657, when the daughter of the latter became queen...He cautioned her, and
enjoined it upon the Indians, to preserve the good will of their white
friends, as he had done. What a travesty upon friendship was that of the 4
confiscators, who were fast driving his people from the face of the earth!-

By the year 1700, the Indians of the Eastern Shore were almost entirely gone. They
had lost their tribal land and were occasionally enslaved. Perhaps thg/greatest
blow came in 1677 when a smallpox epidemic swept the Indian community.-
1/ Weslager, C.A. 1959. The Accomac and-Accohannock Indians fromEarly Relations.
Published by the Eastern Shore of Virginia Historical Society.

2/ Turman, Nora Miller. 1964. The Eastern Shore of Virginia. 1603-1964. The Eastern
Shore News, Inc. Onancock, Virginia. p. 40.

31 Upshure, Thomas T. of Northampton County. 'Eastern Shore History'. An address
delivered at the Accomack Courthouse on June 9, 1900. In Virginia Magazine of
History and Biography. vol. IX p. 93.

4/ Ibid. p. 91.

51 Weslager, C.A. 1959. p. 25.

-7-

During their more peaceful years, prior to the white manes arrival, the Indians
may have made trips to the barrier islands. In many Atlantic coastal areas, tribes
traveled to the seaside to fish and to catch clams and oysters. They constructed 1
temporary dwellings and left large shell mounds as evidence of their presence. Hog
Island is believed to have been a favorite spot for this activity.

Theds were all small bands of Indians, but the Matchipungoes were a
large tribei, and had several villages - one at or near Wachapreague, another
lower down the neck, and yet another on the Woodlands and Brownsville fiams
in Northampton. Dr. Brinton says that the word Matchapungo means fine dst,
or flies, and, as the name belonged to Hog Island as well as to the rive=
and to the Indian tribe, we may reasonably infer, in the absence of anything I
to the/contrary that the sand or mosquitoes on Hog Island gave rise to the
name.-

Several former Hog Island residents claim that there is at least one Indian tshell
heap' on the island today. The former island road, running along the length of
the island, wEyt directly past the site three miles below the present Matchipongo
Club building.--

Further reference has been made to an Indian burial ground on the north end which
was accessible in the early years of 1900. It appears that the Hog Island residents I
found Indian artifacts at a spot now unigr the sea. "An Indian burying-ground, up
toward the north end is entirely gone."-

Whether the Indians ever sojourned on any of the other islands is unknown; however, I
it seems likely that they did. Perhaps the long residence of settlers on Hog Island
allowed time for exploration, and thus, on this island evidence was found.

North and south stretches the long; white strip of sand as far as
the eye can reach. Behind lies in shimmering beauty the mirror of
Broadwater Bay. There is. not a human habitation in sight -4yhe happy I
hunting ground the redman saw invisions of the olden time.-

II. THE ENGLISHMAN I

In 1608, one year after the settlement of Jamestown, Captain Joh /Smith, the explorer
and adventurer, landed on the island which today bears his name.-

1/ Upshure, Thomas T. 1900. p. 93.

2/ Bowen, Harvey. Taped Conversation. Tape #8. September 17, 1975.

3/ Eastern Shore News. April 4, 1957. In Mears Scrapbook vol. 4, p. 81. Eastern
Shore Public Library.

4/ Dixon, Thomas Jr. 1907. The Life Worth Living - A Personal Experience. Do ibleday
N.Y. Quote found in Mackey, William J., Jr. 1965. American Bird Decoys. E.~
Dutton & Co.,%:Inc. N.Y. p. 155. |

5/ The island may have been named for Sir Thomas Smith, the first president of the
Virginia Company, after Captain John Smith fell in disfavor. |

-8-

Near the peninsula, making green splotches in the surrounding seas,
are numerous islands, the description of which, given by the Indians in
1608, afforded Captain John <Smith "exceeding pleasure". Smith himself
speakes of them as many Isles both great ay small, some woody, some
plain, most of them low and not inhabited".-

Thus, with the discovery of Smith Island, Englishmen continued thegecosystem dis-
turbance begun by the Indians. henceforth, the evolutionary direction of the barrier
island plant and animal communities would be changed.

Thef irst industry of the Eastern Shore was salt making. In 1614 the London Company
sent men to Smith Island for this purpose, and the enterprise continued into the
1620's. At one point there was some question about the efficiency of the method used.
It was suggested that salt be made by evaporation using the heat of the sun instead
of "by that toylesome and erroneous way of boyling sea2yater into salt in kettles as
our people at Smyths Island have hitherto accustomed"t.- Although the method was
continued, the site may have been moved to a more convenient location on the mainland.

During the period when men were being employed at the salt works, settlement was
begigning on the Eastern Shore. By 1632, Accomack plantation had a population of
300.i "At that time farm after farm was being settled upon and improved, tobacco
and corn were the main crops, and tobacco and beaver skins were the commodities
that corresponded to our silver and gold, at the ratio of about ten to one."4/ Cattle
and other livestock were raised for local use, as well as for market.

The entire peninsula was originally called Accomack County, but was changed in
1643 to Northampton County. Twenty years later a division was made. Accomack became
the northernmost county while Northampton encompassed the southern portion. The
counties were again rejoined and the final, ag present day, division came in 1674.5/
The population had by this time reached 1000.-

The ever increasing numbers of settlers soon found livestock grazing a problem.
The islands were thus early employed as pastures for the previously unfenced and
wandering cattle, sheep, and horses.

1/ Travels and works of Captain John Smith. Edited by Edward Arber. Edinburgh Vol.
I & II. Quote found in Ames, Suzie M. 1940. Studies of the Virginia Eastern
Shore in the Seventeenth Century. Russell & Russell. N.Y.p. 3.

2/ Kingsbury, Records of Virginia Company. Vol. III, p. 304. In Ames, Suzie M.
1940. Studies of the Virginia Eastern Shore in the Seventeenth Century. Russell
& Russell. N.Y. p. 112.

3/ Turman, Nora Miller. 1964. The Eastern Shore of Virginia. 1603-1964. The Eastern
Shore News Inc. Onancock, Va. p. 28.

4/ Upshure, Thomas T. 1900. p. 94.

.5/ Turman, Nora Miller. 1964. p. 76.

61 Ibid. p. 51.

The vast areas in the ocean island of Assateague, Chincoteague, I
Wallops and smaller islands had been patented more than three decades
earlier (circa 1680). In order to hold his patent, the owner was required
to keep only four men on it and pay the king's rent. This small number9f
men could tend a large herd of livestock where no fences were required.-L

Below Wallops Island, Assawoman (Assawaman) and Metomkin Islands were patented in
1682. Some controversy seems to exist, however, regarding the details of the patent
due to the various names used in reference to the islands.-/ One year before this,
in 1681, Cedar Island was patented. Interestingly, in 1683 the patentees, William
Burton and Thomas Bagwell, petitioned3dhe court for a convenient road to a'lFanding
where one could embark to the island.-

A'patent of 800 acres was granted to William Custis in 1686 on "Feaks his Isli d".
The island was later left to Joanna Custis Hope who married Thomas Parramore.-
The island was thereafter known as Parramore's Beach or Parramore Island. Other
islands once located in the vicinity of Cedar and Parramore Island were claimed
in 1687. Isaac's Beach was between 'Ceedar Island' and 'Feches' and is believed to
have joined Feches. Also-in that year Will'm Custis was granted Cooney Island
(Cod's Calfe Pasture or Cow's Calf Pasture).-

In like manner, the next island in6the chain, Hog Island, was patented in the 1680's
as was its neighbor Rogue Island.- Prouts Island, situated in the general'area
of today's Cobb Island, was patented by John Floyd. This 400 acre grant was made
in 1687.7/ !

According to Whitelaw, Mockhorn (Mockon or Machone) Island was patented in 1657./ |
Some controversy-arises because according to old-timers, Mockhorn was not an island
in the 1800's but was connected to the mainland (see PHYSICAL CHANGES, p. 79).

Still greater confusion arises in regards to the patenting of Smith Island. One I
source suggests 16149/, another 163610/, and a third 1691/. In any case, ownership

1/ Ibid. p. 104. I

2/ Whitelaw, Ralph T. 1951. Virginia's Eastern Shore. 'Vol. I & II. Virginia Historical
Society. Richmond, Va. p. 1139, 1140. I

3/ Ibid. p. 880.

4/ Ibid. p. 780. I

5-/Ibid. -

6/ Ibid. p. 368.

7/ Ibid. p. 214.

8/ Ibid. p. 90.

9/Turner, Col. James S.G. 1975. Personal Correspondence, |

10/ Ames, SuzieXM., 1940, Studies of the Virginia Eastern Shore in the Seventeenth
Century. Russell & Russell, N,Y, p, 32,

11/ Whitelaw, Ralph T. 1951, p. 50, I

-10-

~,,,.~~.,,,, ,.,.. ,~~,~_..__-,.!

came into the hands of G Zeral John Custis and remained in the Custis-Lee family for
approximately 200 years.-

The islands'were, throughout the remainder of the 17th century, primarily livestock
pastures. Human habitation prior to 1700 was, for the most part, restricted to tem-
porary arrangements. Sterling, however, claimed in 1903 that Hog Island was first
settled by colonists in 1672. Twenty-two settlers were supposed td have lived on
the island for a short time before mysteriously disappearing Tw2/ other references
were flound to this early village in 20th century newspaper articles.324/ But,
as Striling himself said, "the tale would bear telling and would make fascinating
reading".

Whitelaw suggested that Thomas Coffin may have be-en the first inhabitant of Hog
Island in the late 1600's or early 1700's. He then went on to say that the first
sale of property for residence purposes was to Peter Dowty in 1692X5/ (The name
'Doughty' later became a predominant name-on the island.) -It is interesting to
X note that of all the islands,' Hog Island appears to have been the most attractive'
to not only the Indians but to the early colonists also.

The pirate scourge of the Atlantic coast lasted for approximately half a century from
1680 into the 1730's, and hence in this period the Virginia Barrier Islands were
drawn into this dangerous chapter of colonial history. One of the most notorious
pirates of eastern Virginia was Edward Teach, alias Blackbeard. There is contention
that'he may have plied the waters around the Virginia Barrier Islands.

He has been the embodiment of impregnable wickedness, of reckless
daring, a nightmarish villain so lacking in any human kindness that no
crime was above him.6/

Some say that Blackbeard came from Bristol, England, and others say that he was a
native of Accomack County.

An early edition of The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography
~I states that 'Blackbeard' the'pirate was a native of Accomack County...
The rendevous of his men were on Parramore's Beach, Revell's Island, Hog
Island and Rogue's Island - The latter island received its name from being
the hiding place of the band.

I/ Well-known owners included George Washington Custis, Robert E. Lee, and William
Fitzhugh Lee.

21 Sterling, Charles A. 1903. Hog Island Virginia. Copyright by Charles A. Sterling.
p. 6.

31 The Sunday Sun Magazine. Baltimore, Md. October 28, 1956.

I 4/ Barnes, Parker. "For the Barriers, An Ancient Conflict Continues". The Virginian-
Pilot Lighthouse. January 10, 1971. p. C1.

5/ Whimielaw, Ralph T. 1951. p. 368.

6/ Williams, Lloyd Haynes. 1937. Pirates of Colonial Virginia. The Dietz Press.
Richmond, Va. p. XIV.

7/ Horner, Dave. 1965. Ship'Wrecks, Skin Divers, and Sunken Gold. Dodd, Mead & Co.
N.Y. p. 26.

The islands and their inlets would indeed have served well as hiding places for the
wandering rogues, Here they could restock their ships and keep watch for pro-
spective plunder, There is little doubt that the area around Smith Island was
particularly attractive, Its location at the mouth of the bay made it vulnerable,
as the colonists soon discovered.

In October (1699), Colonel John Custis of Northampton County wrote
Nicholson (the governor) that pirates had landed on Smith's Island and
killed some beeves. He pointed out thatlYhe island was a safe place foril
pirates to land and victual their ships.- .:V

Smith Island was raided during the last decade of the 17th century, and cattle were
slaughtered for food. The coloni s responded by establishing'a militia to keep
watch at the entrance to the bay.- Lookouts were stationed on Smith Island; however,
"more than a league off the coast, the lookouts stationed on it were powerless to
give warning if a3yind was blowing, for they had nothing but canoes to convey them
to the mainland".-

Parramore Island may also have been a favorite landing spot for these despicable sea-
farers. The island was known after 1700 as Teach's Island; however, Whitelaw un-
romantically stated that there are no records to substantiate this tradition._ Further-
more, he pointed out that in a 1673 map the island was called 'Fetches Island'.5-/

Blackbeard was finally captured in North Carolina and given the ignominious distinction
of having his head mounted on the bow of his captors' ship. He is still remembered
locally. A point of land on Smith Island is named for him. Today we are reminded
I
of this long ago episode by treasure hunters who periodically search for buried gold
along the beaches of the Atlantic Coast.

At the close of the 17th century, the Virginia Barrier Islands had been 'discovered' I
as wonderful places to graze livestock. They were used as locations for salt making
and most certainly for hunting and fishing. The impact of human activity intensified
when the first settlers found life at the seashore appealing, or perhaps daring and
profitable. The sloping shoals trapped many sailing vessels and continued to do so
for the next two centuries. With an increase in the shipping business came a cor-
responding interest in pirating and a greater incidence of ship wrecks. The physical
and biological character of the barrier islands was, and is, responsible for directing-
man's interest in them.
I

1/ Williams, Lloyd Haynes. 1937. p. 8.

2/ Turman, Nora Miller. 1964. p. 86. I

3/ Williams, Lloyd Haynes, 1937. p. 51.

4/ Whitelaw, Ielph T. 1951. p. 39.
5/ Ibid. p. 780.

-12-

WidtkiurIuV rI It Cr I' X IJ.A

Itek
,',.4dd'f' , . . 'Ta es :tJfl~<

1/3h;c tckll aIeigo fl.ad.
* r � R~lSu7�awnore (llab d

in today's titles.
) ,g~tMlockentIfrelsalnd d

Part of Virginia..." drawn by Joshua Fry and Peter Jefferson in 1751. Some of the barrier
islands' names and configurations appear different than they are at present. Cthers have
remained the same while others have changed only sightly, their former names being reflected
in today's titles.

THE 18TH CENTURY

Relatively little information is available about the barrier islands in this century
I.
up until the time of the Revolution, Presumably livestock grazing continued and
surely the colonists hunted and fished in their vicinity. Habitation of the islands
in this period was insignificant if it occurred at all. -

The islands appear again in the literature in connection with the American colnists'
war for independence. Along the whole length of the Eastern Shore British sailors
raided, and attempted to raid, the mainland for food and supplies.

Early in the Revolutionary War, the British established an operation
base on Hog Island. Small ships called tenders and barges raided the
Eastern Shore to get food and livestock which were used to replenish the
supplies of British warships in the area.l/

Thus, although Hog Island was defended, the British established a foothold on the
island.

There was also concern for other islands in the chain and their potential use as
bases from which to supply the enemy.

When we consider the importance of the Eastern Shore as a food supply
for both American and enemy soldiers, it is understandable why the Con-
vention was concerned about the safety of livestock on the island earlier
in 1776. Incidentally, the stepson of General Washington* owned Smiths
Island and there is no doubt but that any livestock there was evacuated
before Lord Dunmore's tenders got there seeking food for his warship.-

The vulnerable location of the islands and the long-established tradition of live-
stock grazing made them attractive and ideal targets for the British forces. The
ports of Accomack and Northampton were main ports of entry after the closing of
the Chesapeake by the British, and hence further concentrated activity in this
region.

Supplies from overseas were brought into Metomkin and Chincoteague Creeks. In
order to protect incoming ships al to intercept British raiding barges, a fort was
established on Parramore's Beach.- We do know from the memoirs of General John
Cropper that Cedar and Parramore Islands were used to establish a defense on a
small scale in the late 1770's.

* Martha Dandridge married Daniel Parke Custis and lwas widowed. She later married
George Washington who became the step-father to her children.

I
1/ Turman, Nora Miller. 1964. The Eastern Shore of Virginia. 1603-1964. The Eastern
Shore News Inc., Onancock, Va. p. 131. :
ii:
2/ Turman, Nora Miller. "The Eastern Shore 1775-1783T"'. Column in the Eastern Shore
News. August 28, 1975.

3/ Turmnan, Nora Miller, 1964. p. 131.

-14-I

i~~~~~~~j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 4

About 8 olclock I landed a brass four pound gun on the north end of
the island (Cedar), and proceeded with all possible expedition to the
south end...
Saturday February 27 ,
I amalmost dead with fatigue. At ten o'clock P.M., Col. Parker came
to the Latin House, and informed that Col. Corbin had landed a four pound
iron gun on Parramore's Beach, and was endeavoring to prevent -the going
out of the tenders. I17ollected my neighbors and went on to C4dar Island
with a four pound gun.-

Several times during the course of the war prisoners were taken on or near the
barrier islands. An early reference to such a capture is the following in 1777:

The Court proceeded to examine the said Robert Pierson lately cast
away on Hog Island in this County, on consideration whereof it appearing
by his confession that the said Robert belonged to the schooner Molly of
the British Fleet bound from Chesapeake Bay to New York, and was cast away
by stress of Weather - Ordered that the skd Robert be delivered to Col.
Gist by the Sheriff as a prisoner of War.-

On January 10, 1782, Col. John Mapp wrote to Governor Harrison to sag/that a small
ship was taken by a New York Privateer in the inlet near Hog Island.- Later in
that same month a discussion was heU to determine the possible exchange of the
British men captured on Hog Island.-

Prisoners were still being taken the following year when Col. John Mapp again
wrote, this time to Commodore Barron.

February 12, 1783:
I have in my possession near Sixty Prisoners of War. A Capt. of a
Barge and four privates of the number were captured on Hog Island by
my militia: the remainder are the officers and crew of the British Privateer
called the Digby, mounting 18 guns, and lately run on shore near Cape
Charles./

A problem to be faced by both the British and American navy was navigation of the
treacherous barrier island shoals. Marx., in Shipwrecks of the Western Hemisphere,
supplied a long list of g1ips lost in the vicinity of Hog, Cobb, and Cedar Islands
during the 18th century.- The establishment of Life Saving Stations was not to come

1/ Wise, Barton. Reprinted 1974. Memoir of General John Cropper of Accomack County,
Virginia. Virginia Historical Collection Vol. XI, 1892. p. 14.

2/ Revolutionary Soldiers and Sailors from Northampton County, Virginia. 1812. Com-
piled by Stratton Nottingham. Onancock, Virginia. p. 3.

3/ Calendar of Virginia State Papers. January 1, 1782 - December 31, 1784. Vol. III,
ps 13.

4/ Ibid. p. 198.

5/ Ibid. p. 435.

6/ Marx, Robert F. 1971. Shipwrecks of the Western Hemisphere 1492-1825.
World Publishing Company. N.Y. p. 166.

for another century,
During the Revolutionary War, or shortly thereafter, the settlement of Hog Island
began. Sterling stated that Labin Phillips built a home on the island red cedar
which withstood salt air better than oak, pine, hemlock, or black jack.' According
,2/
to Whitelaw, people were definitely inhabiting Hog Island in the 1790' s.-
In the first half of the 18th century disturbance to island flora and fauna was
primarily a result of livestock grazing practices. By the close of this period,
however, other human activities were increasing in intensity, and they would iontinue
to do so for another 150 years.

. . ~~~~~I

1/ Sterling, Charles A. 1903. Hog Island Virginia. Copyright by Charles A. S-erling.
2/ Whitelaw, Ralph T. 1951. Virginia's Eastern Shore, Vol. I & II, Virginia Historical
Society, Richmond, Va. p. 454.

-16-

THE 19TH CENTURY

The 19th century'saw the most active period of man's influence on, ind use of, the
Virginia'Barrier Islands. This was the century of lighthouses, Co6st Guard Stations,
homes, schools, churches, swank hotels and elaborate hunt clubs; aind although the
inte est peaked in the early years of the 20th century the roots of that interest were
here'

I. THE COBBS

People had lived on Hog Island for many years, but it was Cobb Island that was the
focal point in the 1800's. Today the story of Cobb Island is well known becaIse the
descendents of the original Cobbs are enthusiastic and keep the story alive.-

Nathan Cobb was a ship builder in Massachusetts when. in 1833 he determined to move his
family south. His wife, Nancy, had tuberculosis and was thus unable to stand the
rigors of a New England climate. Nathan, his wife, and their three sons - Nathan,
Warran, and Albert, soon fnund themselves settled near Oyster, Virginia. The Virginia
Barrier Islands had always been challenging for navigators and wrecks were frequent.
Nathan Cobb saw a potential business in salvaging ships and consequently bought an
island.

On March 11, 1839, Nathan purchased Great Sand Shold(sic)Island from
William and Elizabeth Fitchett for one hundred fifty dollars. There is
a family story that part of the payment was a wagonload of salt, but the
deed makes no mention of this consideration. The ent e.family moved to the
island, and from that time it became known as Cobb's.--

Nancy Cobb died shortly after the move to the island. Nathan remarried, and along with
his sons continued their enterprise of salvaging ships. The business was profitable,
but the Cobb brothers also provided a valuable service in those years prior to the
establishment of Life Saving Stations. Many cargos and crews were saved through their
efforts.3/

As did the inhabitants of other islands, the Cobbs reaped the benefits of life in
the midst of abundant natural resources. 'A new opportunity presented itself in mid-
century with the growing demand for wildfowl in city markets. Thus with the Cobbs
began the market hunting of the Eastern Shore's seaside (see HUNTING, p. 55).2/

* See Part II section 6 for a conflict concerning the purchase of Cobb Island.

1/ Except as otherwise noted most of the information on Cobb Island's beginning comes
- from Amine Kellam, a great-granddaughter of Albert Cobb, and today the family historian

2/ Kellam, Amine. "The Cobb's Island Story." Virginia Cavalcade, Spring 1974. p. 22.

3/ A'list of stranded ships which the Cobbs helped is presently available at the
Harvard University Library. It was formerly in the possession of Arthur C. Cobb
of Newton, Massachusetts.

*I~~~~~ ~~-17-

Nevertheless, the most important Cobb Island enterprise was yet to come. I

An interest in sport hunting was developing rapidly in the United States; and who 3
should be better equipped to guide the city 'sport' than the man who had depended on
wildlife for his livelihood? The Cobb brothers began to take on small hunting parties.
By the close of the Civil War the resort business on Cobb's Island was flourishing.

Nathan decided to build a hotel and a clubhouse. He also erected
Tammany Hall, the Truitt House, and several smaller guest cottages;
enlarged the living quarters of his domestic employees; and sold a few I
lots. Cobb's Island, originally purchased because of its strategic location I
for salvage operations, had become a hunter's paradise and then a year-7i-
round resort accepting summer visitors as well as winter sportsmen. One
hundred guests could be accommodated, in addition to the fifty people who
lived year-round in the island community.i/

Visitors to the hotel came from all over the United States as well as from Europe.2/ |
At firs tthey came to the Eastern Shore by steamboat and later by the newly constructed
railroad system which was partially responsible for 'opening up' this area in the 1880's
The hotel provided bowling, billiards7 band music, and "the bathing is said by judges
to be the type finest on this coast .

The island became almost as famous for surf bathing, fishing, and gull-
egging as it was for wild-fowling in addition to being an elite small
social center.i/

The island was so popular that it became necessary to establish a farm and grist I
mill on the mainland to supply the food needs of the islanders. Ice was cut on ponds
in winter and stored for year-round use. During this period, a church was built and a
Life Saving Station went into operation. One of the more distinguished resoyt guests
in the 1870's was Jefferson Davis, the former President of the Confederacy.-

In 1868, opq could enjoy the healthy life of the seashore for $3/day, $18/we7, or
$60/month.- The seven mile long, three mile wide Cobb's Island was famous.-

There is a peculiar, indefinable charm about this spot which everyone who
lingers here twenty-four hours is sure to experience. It is a charm which

1/ Kellam, Amine. 1974. p. 23.

2/ The hotel guest register is in the possession of Mrs. Amine Kellam.

3/ Peninsula Enterprise. 8/9/62. "75 years ago" column, July 30, 1887. In Mears
Scrapbook Vol. 14, p. 37-38, Eastern Shore Public Library.

4/ Connett, Eugene ed. 1947. Duck Shooting. William Morrow and Co. N.Y. p. 153.

5/ Mackey, William J. Jr. 1965. American Bird Decoys. E.P. Dutton and Co. I:c.
N.Y. p. 152.

6/ "The Shoreline". January 6, 1950. In Meats Scrapbook Vol. 4, p. 57. Eastern Shore
Public Library.

7/ Mears, James Egbert. Chapt. XXVII. "The Eastern Shore of Virginia in the Nineteenth
and Twentieth Centuries." Reprinted from The Eastern Shore of Maryland and Virginia
Edited by Charles B. Clark. Lewis Historical Publishing Co. N.Y. 1950. p. 620.

-18-

This is the main buiding of the Cobb Island Hokte complex. Othert aciities inctuded guest cottages,
etrvant's quarter6, and an outdoor bowl-ing alley located beneath a gtape atbot. The Cobb IsRand teortt
induztry saw its heyday during the Zate 19th century. The otiginalC buildings were desttoyed by atoLms in
the mid 1890's. Phoato i&ca 1890. Courtezy of Amine Keltam.

overcomes all the inconveniences and discomforts which abound, for while
Nature has lavished her choicest gifts, man has done little or nothing.
August 26, 1896.-
/
Within a year it was gone. Severe storms had been pounding the coast for a decade
and the destruction of the buildings came inevitably in the mid-1890's.

1I. THE CIVIL WAR .'

The barrier island resort business began in the years following the Civil Wart The
Eastern Shore of Virginia was early occupied by Northern Armies and thus play4 a small
role in the war between the states. Some natives, however, escaped across the bay and
later fought with the Army of Virginia. The seaside islands were not devoid of activity
and are thus mentioned several times in the literature of the war years.

Even if President Davis and the Confederate War Department were
too preoccupied with major activities to give thought to wrestling Accomack
and Northampton from the Federals, there were brave souls in subordinate
positions who were unwilling that the stay of the Union invasionists on the
Virginia Eastern Shore should be merely a pleasant holiday. These made
occasional raids on United States Government property on the east side of
the Chesapeake.--/

The Smith Island Light was duly-attacked in August of 1863.

A bold and successful foray was made on Monday morning last on the
lighthouse and Government property on Smith's Island, just outside the
mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. A party of nine men in a boat issued out
from concealment on Mockhorn Island and made for Smith's Island, where
they landed. They gave themselves out as fishermen, but after asking
many questions, informed the keeper of the lighthouse, William Webb Stakes,
that they had come to destroy his light and carry off the movable property
in his charge. Setting hard to work, they removed 400 gallons of sperm
oil to their boat and deliberately, and, with some skill in the use of
proper tools, took down and similarly carried off various parts of the
lattern, reflectors, lamps, etc. They also possessed themselves of a
valuable clock there, the supplies being valued at $2,000. They kept
Mr. Stakes and family as well as four other families on the island under
pledge to give no information till the third day after they had left.
A part of their plunder they took in a new boat belonging to the Govern-
ment, which they towed away to seaward. They told Mr. Stakes they were
from Richmond, and that a similar raid would be made on Hog Island light,
a few miles further up the coast. They paid for a dinn�y they compelled
Mrs. Stakes to set for themewith a $5 Confederate note.-

i/ The Richmond Dispatch. August 26, 1896. In Mears Scrapbook, Vol. 4 p. 59. Eastern
Shore Public Library.

2/ Mears, James Egbert. 1957. The Virginia Eastern Shore in the War of Succession and
in the Reconstruction Period. p. 223.

3/ Mears, James Egbert. 1957. The Baltimore Sun of August 12, 1863, quoting the
Worcester County (Md.) Shield. p. 224.

~~~~TeCp htmLgtosSit adViinawoa154o at
*~ ~~s~cuebiti 84 n19 h ih a i v h iz ie
~~~Itwzcnendin91.Teit 4teoinabacninwude
I~~~h sea Pht7ae' 8.Cuts 6th a~et, uem epx
~~~Ne,,Vgin a

Protection was arranged for other barrier island lighthouses, and efforts were made to
capture Capt. John Yates Beall, the leader of the Smith Island "guerrilas". A
force of men arrived to protect the Hog Island light and were further instructed to
"cross to the mainland and break up and take or kill this party of guerrillas"l/. It
is interesting that in 1903 Sterling gave the following account of the Hog Island
light:

During the Civil War all of the islanders were true to their native
State of Virginia, and it is safe to say that the gleam of the Hog Island
light did not flash across the waters during the whole four years of
internecine strife.2/

The Civil War was fought in other ways on the barrier islands. Blockade running was U
not uncommon. It is believed that the Cobbs may have taken part in this intrigue.3/
Certainly the islanders' skill with ships would have made them ideal for such an
undertaking. "On the 24th (September 1863) all hands took to the larger schooner,
the Alliance, and sailed southward to Cobb's Island. Here Beall obtained a capable
pilot..." / Further evidence for the existence of this activity is found in an
October 1863 issue of The Baltimore Sun.

The schooner Swan, with assorted cargo, from Baltimore, arrived here
yesterday under a prize crew. She was captured near Hog Island by a
detachment of Third Pennsylvania Artillery. She was no doubt about to
run the blockade.5/

Furthermore, it seems that the Eastern Shoremen who refused to take the oath of al- I
legiance upon 01e arrival of the Union Army were held prisoner on Cobb and possibly
other islands.-

lII. LIGHTHOUSES AND LIFE SAVING

The treacherous waters along the Atlantic Coast prompted the Federal Government to
construct lighthouses as ship traffic in the 19th century increased. Human activity
was thus further intensified on the barrier islands of Virginia. Later in the century,
with first the establishment of Life Saving Stations and then the Coast Guard, a
new dimension was added to island use.

The Cape Charles Light was the first lighthouse on the chain below Assateague Island.
Located on Smith Island at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay in 1828 it warned passing
ships as its successor does today. There is a romantic legend that the body of a
woman, washed up on the island in 1813, was none other than the missing Theodosia Burr ]
whose father had been Vice President of the United States. Speculation was that she

1/ Nears, James Egbert. 1957. Letter on September 26, 1863 from Fort Monroe to Capt.
F. Von Schilling. p. 239.

2/ Sterling, Charles A. 1903. Hog Island Virginia. Copyright by Charles A. Sterling.
p. 22.

3/ Kellam, Amine. Taped Conversation. Tape #5. September 12, 1975.

4/ Mears, James Egbert. 1957. p. 228.

5/ Ibid. p. 241.

6/ Robertson, Dr. John. Personal Conversation. September 29, 1975. Father was detained
on Cobb Island until the end of the war.

-22- 1

had been "captured by buccaneers and made to walk the plank'"./ So it was that near
her grave, on six acres deeded by George Washington Parke Custis, the new lighthouse
was constructed./

The 1828 lighthouse, the first of three on Smith Island, was built at a cost of
$7,398 .82 3/ The sea began to encroach and in 1856, $35,000 was appropriated for
relocating the lighthouse.4/ The new light was completed in 1864 under the protection
of a~military guard because of the Civil War activity of the local'rebels. Twenty
year later, the sea was again threatening and jetty construction was begun. The
jetties had little effect because on August 15, 1895 the newest and present day light
was lit. The former site is under the sea.

The first lighthouse on Hog Island was completed in 1852 or 1853. Its location was
two miles east of the 'new' 1896 lighthouse whose foundation in 1975 is in5yhe ocean.
The second lighthouse was built in a wooded section at a cost of $100,000.- The
following is a sample of formation noted in the Hog Island Light Station Jourlnal
by George Lanson Doughty:-

May 1, 1873 - concern that the light was not bright enough due to "bad oil".
November 15, 1873 - note that one could see Smith Island Light in good weather.
Winter 1880-1881 - many snowstorms and severe weather.
August 31, 1886 - shock of an earthquake felt.
June 3, 1893 - "President Cleaveland(sic) left the island today. Having been
-~ stoping(sic) at the Broadwater Club House for a fishing trip."
January 31, 1896 - new light lit for the first time.
February 6, 1896 - Brant "attacked" the light - shot 20.
February 14, 1896 - Letter from inspector B. Lamberton ordering wire to be
placed around the lantern. "Keep the Brant away and.wild fowl from your
light...shoot if necessary."
February 18, 1896 - a second letter from Lamberton. "It is not reasonable to
suppose that a law would be made to protect waterfowl at the risk of human
lives at sea."
October 11, 1896 - "There is a severe storm from the North East. The Tide
has nearly submerged the island."

Generally, throughout the era, the light was periodically inspected and supplies
delivered. Many shipwrecks and life saving efforts were noted. Waterfowl were indeed
attracted to the light as mentioned by Sterling:

Often in the morning after a storm, over a hundred dead birds have
been picked up, and there are more killed in this way than by the sportsmen.-

1/ Snow, Edward Rowe. 1955. Famous Lighthouses of America. Dodd, Mead & Co. N.Y. p. 155.

2/ Whitelaw, Ralph T. 1951. Virginia's Eastern Shore. Vol. I & II. Virginia Historical
Society. p. 50.

31 Snow, Edward Rowe. 1955. p. 155.

4/ Ibid. p. 156.

5/ "Virginia's Drowned Village", Virginia Cavalcade. Winter 1957. p. 7.

6/ The journal is presently in the possession of Kellam Doughty, Deputy Sheriff of
Northampton County. The journal dates from June 14, 1872.

7/ Sterling, Charles. 1903. p. 24.

-23-

~~9~~~511~~ ~

- " i;> ; I
,:��.�~:� '~~I:�p~.il I
�r;~~~~~~~:-~ ~ Iib

:~~ I

~~~~1! I~~ O II/[ ~~8~~83
1-~~~~~1~~~-�1 ~~~

The tlog IQ~eand if htonewnb~eti 86 h ihtwt a~ eito
Mach17 748 It ra ;h~ea~th a~idne akk~e~t;t aiaiar ndIi
wan de~~l~tt~oyed if '0 h omatino teRg~hun.~~nwnaa~
06 th ~~~andn eah n aneue a eaainPh~t canksyu~TI
wattd.~~~

Operation of the 'new' light continued into the 20th century.

I The construction of lighthouses on the Atlantic was a first step in efforts to save
lives at sea. The second step was the establishment of Life Saving Stations at strategic
I locations along barrier islands. Inefficient, human-powered means of transportation
in the 1800's made closely spaced stations a necessity.

In 1873 a Congressional Commission recommended three classes of staion. For the area
betwe n Cape tIenlopen, Delaware,and Cape Charles, Virginia,the Life Saving Station was
chosen. This type of station was suggested for areas which:

3| a1) were exposed;
2) had flat beaches with outlying sand bars;
3) had few inhabitants;
4) had no experienced crews to render assistance to ships in distress;
5) did not offer shelter and aid to the shipwrecked people.l/

The following is a list of stations (later known as Coast Guard Stations) authorized
in 1874, however; some may not have gone into operation until a few years later:

Wachapreague Beach Station, located on the south end of Cedar Island, on the
I north side of Wachapreague Inlet.

Hog Island Station, located near the south end of Hog Island, 1� miles southwest
of Hog Island Light.

Cobbs Island Station, located near the south end of Cobbs Island, 7 7/8
miles southwest of Hog Island Light.

Smiths Island Station, on Smiths Island, � mile west of Cape Charles Light.

The last two authorized somewhat later:
I ,
Metomkin Inlet Station, located on the south end of Metomkin Island on the
north side of Metompkin Inlet.

Parramore's Beach Station, located on Parramore's Island 2 miles s~yth of
Wachapreague Inlet and 11 5/8 miles northeast of Hog Island Light.-
Shipwrecks were frequent because means of navigation and chartmaking were not as perfect
as they are today. The Coast Guardsmen saved lives and in general provided a much
needed service. One memorable shipwreck occurred in 1892 when a Spanis% steamer, the
San Albano, wrecked on Hog Island. The Coast Guard crew saved 25 lives.A/ The ship-
wreck, still visible on Parramore Island, is believed to have occurred in the late
1800's, but unfortunately its identity is lost.

The m~n who manned the island stations throughout most of the year hunted, fished,
carved decoys, and entertained their families who visited occasionally. The members of

1 Wi6ten, William H. Jr. 1970. Assateague. Penninsula Press, Salisbury, Md. p. 31.

* ' 2/ Turman, Nora Miller. 1964. The Eastern Shore of Virginia 1603-1964. The Eastern
I* Shore News Inc. Onancock, Va. p. 198-199.

3/ Whitelaw, Ralph T. 1951. p. 369.

-25-

the Cedar Island Station organized summer treasure hunting expeditions in the 1890's
and were often successful in locating Spanish, English, and Portuguese coins on Cedar's
wooded north end.,/

IV. RESORTS

Following the lead of the Cobbs but not heeding the warning of their ultimate mis-
fortune, other hotels and clubs appeard on the Virginia Barrier Islands at the end of
the 19th century. Most of the famous hunt clubs, covered in the Hunting Section on p.
had their origin prior to the turn of the century. Similarly hotels opened their doors
to summer vactioners.

Small hotels were operated during the latter years of the nineteenth
century, for the accommodation of summer visitors, at Metompkin Beach and
at Cedar Island, and on the latter during the first decades of the present2
century. Their patronage, for the most part, came from the Eastern Shore.--

The Cedar Island Hotel was owned by Mr. A. H. G. Mears and was auxiliary to his
Wachapreague Hotel. Healthy salt air was the attraction along with sunshine, cool
ocean breezes, bathing and fishing. Sail boat races in the bays were also a popular
form of entertainment. One wonders, however, about the mosquitos in those days before
screens and repellents.

Hog Island too had a brief foray into the hotel business. In 1898 a hotel was built
by people from Atlantic City, New Jersey.3/ -

It is most singular that Hog Island, possessing so many superior at-
tractions, should have remained so long unnoticed. Were it situated a
hundred miles further north, near the populous cities, it would doubtless
have become one of the most famous resorts of the New World. Atlantic
City, Cape May, and Asbury Park all sink into insignificance when compared
with this favorable isle.-/

The Hog Island Hotel ran into difficulties and only lasted a few years into the next
century, perhaps until 1912 or 1913. The inability to obtain a sufficient water supply
may have been one of the primary reasons for its decline.

The Virginia Barrier Islands changed in the 19th century. They were no longer primarilI
used for grazing. The Civil War had come and gone; and the islands became desirable
hunting, fishing and vacationing areas. Life saving efforts were based here and com-
munities were growing. Land speculation increased and many of the islands changed
hands. In 1871 Parramore Island went out of the Parramore family./ Earlier in the
century Robert E. Lee came in the possession of Smith Island through his marriage into
the Custis family. Prior to this an interesting use of the island was suggested by
George W. P. Custis, a grandson of Martha Washington. He offered Smith Island as a
location for holding captured Africans until they could be sent back to theirnative

1/Horner, Dave. 1965. Shipwrecks, Skindivers and Sunken Cold. Dodd, Head & Go. N.Y.
p. 13. 1

2/ Mears, James' Egbert. 1950. p. 621.

3/Bowen, Ralph. Taped Conversation. Tape #3. August 21, 1975. The Bowen family origi-
nated near Atlantic City, N.J.

4/ Sterling, Charles A. 1903. p. 26. |

5/ Whitelaw, Ralph T. 1951. p. 780. 1
-26-

continent.-/ -

Focus was trained on the islands as the 19th century closed. The mainland of the
Eastern Shore was entering a 'boom' period, and the islands were not excluded from7
high hopes of further development. Life on the islands was pleasant for the native
and attractive to the city sportsman and vactioner. The potentialv for damaging storms
did not over-shadow the appeal of seashore life; and thus the Virginia Barrier Islands
enttred the 20th century.

1/ The Kaleidescope. September 8, 1818. Source noted by Nora Miller Turman andiconveyed
in a personal conversation.

-27-
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

I ~~...i ,

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .

1/ The Kaleidescope~~~~~~~, .. Setme ,11.Suc oe y oaMle umnaccnee
in a personal conversation.~~~~~
I~~~i
:~ ~ ~ ~~-7
I ~ v,-.:

The. Accoma~ck C~ub wc6ty. tp-icaZ oj5 the. ZcwZsh Spo~tmne~n',s lub~s o6 ~the. tu~n o6 the. ce~n~twt~. Locaute~d on.
C~ub House. Marh, ~the. Cf~ub',s membeu we~e. p~timcati&L {6wrn the New Votdk cu~ea. The. boaut mo'v'kng act.uozz the.
6o~keguund powe~'e~d by a. ncp-that bu~niZng steam e~ngiLne.. Data c,'wca 1900. Cowutesy o~ Cap~tain acnd M~'u.
Ge~o'tge Pe~ppteA.

THE 20TH CENTURY

By the turn of the century the seaside islands of Virginia were well-known and well-
used by the sportsman. Hunting and fishing were excellent and hunt ,clubs had been
established as retreats for the wealthy city dweller. Hotel and sum'mer resort business
seemed promising. The most dramatic human influence on the barrier island ecosystem,
howevir, was on Hog Island in the early 1900's. The village of Broadwater was having
its hyday.

HOG ISLAND'S COMMUNITY

Life on Hog Island is depicted today as having been idyllic. The people were 'good
people' and the site of the town was perfect. The houses were located within a
one mile area on the south end.

"It was real pretty," the old man told me. "We all had trees and
gardens. The island had woods on it then, higher than on Parramore now.
The town was two milt behind the beach. We had to walk through the
woods to get there."-

Sterling described those woods as "patches of fine trees: pine, oak and red cedar".2/

The population prior to 1933 was approximately 250 permanent residents. Forty to
fifty well-built houses were clustered to form the nucleus of the community. Most
homes had five or six rooms, but many were larger. The structures were built to with-
stand the harsh conditions for which the sea was responsible.

December 12, 1903
The oldest house on the island, built 104 years ago, was torn down
some days ago pd the framing was as sound as the day it was built. It
was red cedar.-

Each house had the usual out-buildings for storage and livestock, as well as the essential
"grunt house". Yards were fenced to keep livestock from destroying much-needed vege-
table gardens.

Other buildings on the island included a school house, church, stores, Coast Guard
Station and, of course, the lighthouse and keepers buildings. Reportedly, the keepers'
homes were especially well-built and in the years following the '33 storm were sold,
taken apart, and moved to the mainland. They were saved at the last minute as may be
observed in a Life Magazine photo which shows the surf washing around their foundations.-

1/ Leonard, Jonathan Norton. 1972. Altantic Beaches. Time-Life Books. N.Y. p. 114.

2/ Sterling, Charles A. 1903. Hog Island Virginia. Copyright by Charles A. Sterling.

3/ Accomack News. December 12, 1903. On file at Virginia Historical Society, Richmond,
Virginia.

4/ Life Magazine. January 27, 1947. The photo also appears in The Best of Life.

-29-

Hog Islanders reminisce fondly of those years on the seaside isle when people were
good friends and helpful neighbors. No one needed to lock doors or use banks, and
there was always someone there to lend a hand. Some old-timers say that the island
was the island of liberty.

His ideal of freedom was probably what led him to become a Hog
Islander. As one of them he lived the freest possible life, fared
well and worked how he chose, when he chose - or not at all.! 1

The natural resources of Hog Island and its surrounding water made such a free life
possible. Everyone had a summer garden. "The soil of the island Yes then rich and
productive and the islanders grew vegetables, melons and flowers. - Considerable
mention has been made of the "wonderful" watermelons produced on Hog Island. Potatoes
and beans were also grown and pine needles were raked to provide winter storage for
potatoes. Fruit from fig orchards and blackberry bushes was harvested in season.
(In 1975 the same blackberry bushes are productive.)

In the first years of the present century, hunting for market was still profitable, but
the interest had shifted to sport hunting. The well-known Broadwater Club hosted
elite sportsmen at the turn of the century. Some native Hog Islanders thus made a
livelihood by guiding sportsmen or performing other tasks associated with club hunting.
The waterfowl and shorebirds also provided their families with a winter and spring food
supply.

As one 'old-head' said, "you can't starve a waterman"t, and so it was on Hog Island.
Most families harvested the fish and shellfish from the bays and waterways and thus.
supplied the needs of the community. "Over 90% of the Hog Island men went oystering
in winter and clamming in summer. '13/Seafood was both sold in the marketplace and
stored for winter use. The following are excerpts from a description of a Hog Island
work day:

Circa 1900 |
My captain said, "Well boys, this is October, the wind has been
to the southwest forthree days, the seashould be smooth, and the fish
should be close under the shore..."

We were at Sandy Point at daylight.

We were sailing in a twenty-two foot bank skiff powered with a five
horse power one-cylinder Royal motor. With good weather, we could move
along about seven miles anhour.

As we moved out of the upper creek, Mr. Coon Phillips was getting
under way in his oyster scow to go out on the Big Rock at the mouth of
the creek to work on his oyster beds. Mr. Shep Doughty was getting
under way in his Ben Jake Bateau for some destination out in the bay to.X
work the tide, and as usual, in a sailboat, there refused to be any wind.

1/ Wharton, James. 1954. The Sea Islands of the Eastern Shore, Commonwealth 21 (Sept.
1954) p. 14.

2/ The Peninsula Enterprise. Accomac Va. April 30, 1948. In Mears Scrapbook 1bl. 4
p. 52. Eastern Shore Public Library.

/ The Peninsula Enterprise. October 16, 1958. In Mears Scrapbook. Vol. 7 p. 2.
Eastern Shore Public Library.

-30-I

The Vieeage oj Buoadwa~teA, Hlog Is~and, Vinginia v i~it appeated in the
eaftty 1900's. This photogr~aph was ;taken 6tAom the leighthousne on ;the
soulthehn end oj the "Zan~td jacing noorthwatd. Photo cout~tesy oj Ted
Wand.

Ajte,% the 1933 hwz~icane the 84oadwataet S(~hoot Howse on Hoag Iz~and was;
barged ;to Oy.6teA, Vit~ginia where it was uzed az a c~am house. It: wa.6
onty tecenttey demoLished. Photoa, eakiey 19001,6. Comttezy oj Ted Wand.

It was really a beautiful morning~ and there was much activity
at the'sound end of the island, The last boat we passed was Mr. George
Doughty on his way to Roguels Island Sand to try to keep the people I
off of his clam ground,

The farther offshore we would go, the larger the fish would be.
t~~~~~~~~~
The main catch was trout and croaker. If we could get our bait below
the trout, we could catch croakers, but that was difficult to do. Mostof |
the time if a person wanted bass he would just move to an old wreck an :
was sure to get them.*

It was a matter in those days to pick the kind and size you wanted,
and we also knew when we arrived home, all of the fish had to be cleaned,
washed in plenty of fresh water, drained, and salted for winter food.

...a short distance offshore there was a four-mast schooner becalmed.
Our captain, Mr. Richard Carpenter, moved in close to give us some idea
of just how large this ship was. After looking this ship over, I felt like
we were on a corn cob in the middle of the ocean.

To make a perfect day, and give a boy a case of nerves, a large
whale surfaced just a short dista $e away, and blew a spray of air and
vapor, and then water in the air.-

Another natural resource harvested from the marshes and creeks was the Diamondback 2/
Terrapin. On the island itself, pine trees were cut and sold for use as mine timbers.-
Hence, the islanders lived 'off the land' for many years, profiting from the abundant
natural resources. "Indeed Nature s so bountifully endowed Hog Island that it dis-
counts the fabled isle of Calypso.'--

Fresh water was obtained from a few good wells, Ponds were kept open for livestock
and most of the people had cisterns and rain barrels which collected water for I
'washing and such'. Fuel oil was brought in, but wood was also burned.

Everybody burned wood in stoves and fireplaces, and there was plenty
of it. The whole island was a 4orest of old-growth pine, with enough
scattered wood for fireplaces.-

Although many of the Hog Islanders' needs were met by local natural resources, they I
were not lacking in the comforts of their mainland counterparts. The mail boat
arrived daily from Willis Wharf carrying with it the mail for the Broadwater post office
as well as supplies. Most people kept mail-order catalogues which soon became worn

* When the Parramore Island wreck was laying off shore it was a favorite fishing spot.

1/ The Peninsula Enterprise. January 22, 1959. "Fishing for Food - Not Sport Fi fty
Years Ago". In Mears Scrapbook. Eastern Shore Public Library. (Possible hat the
source is the Eastern Shore News and not Peninsula Enterprise.)

2/ Bowen, Ralph, 1.975. Taped Conversation. Tape #3. August 21, 1975.

3/ Sterling, Chairles A. 1903.

4/ Eastern Shore News. April 4, 1957. In Mears Scrapbook Vol. 4, p, 81. Eastern Shore
Public Library.

-32-

from frequent use.

UThe Methodist Church, built in approximately 1880, played an important role in the
community. A-minister fromthe mainland came on Sundays to preach, although it was
once a two hour boat ride from Willis Wharf. The school opened its doors around 1900
and had an enrollment of nearly 30 students during some years. Young school teachers
came to the island and almost invaribly married local fellows.

The?'rsland was not devoid of social life. When the automobile came on the scene,
sev zal Hog Islanders purchased Model T Fords for Sunday afternoon drives along the beach
The~ may have been as many as twelve of these along the pavement-like beach on a nice
day. Taffy and fudge-making parties were a common Saturday night pastime. Dances and
banjo playing were not infrequent; but the big event of the year was the 4th of'July
celebration.

The Ladies Aid of the church began in the spring to plan for the big
Fourth of July dinner to be served beneath the tall pines on the by-road
to the surf. f

Life was not always easy, however. The winter of 1917-1918 was particularly harsh.
For several weeks the bays were frozen making trips to Willis Wharf impossible. This
was also the winter when two Hog Islanders received notice of their World War I call
to duty, or more accurately did not receive notice until the bays were no longer frozen.
The flu epidemic of 1918 compounded problems on this island with no doctor. Hog Is-
land, however, was not totally without medical care. Dr. Sturgis made the long trip
from the mainland, often in exchange for a good home-cooked meal.

Despite the short-comings, people were content with their life on Hog Island. Even
the Depression had little effect on this community, so well supplied with food re-
sources. Several fellows worked a few hours a week on Civilian Conservation Corps
maintenance projects but, for the most part, 'made more money by going in the bay'.
It was about this time when changes in the shoreline began causing concern among those
who cherished life on the seaside isle. .

"If the sea cast up this island and blessed it, it did not forget to use a stern hand
at times."2/ The first unmistakable sign came in the late 1920's - the abandoned
1852 lighthouse washed into the sea. Then came the great storm that signaled the end
of the village of Broadwater. Although the islanders always had to contend with
storms, the storm of August, 1933. was worse than any in living memory. The erosion,
which had begun prior to '33, seemed to be accelerated as a result of the storm.
Thus, during the remainder of the 1930's, Hog Islanders gave up, and one by one moved
to the mainland.

The move in itself was fascinating. As was customary, people helped each other and
moved families, home included, to the towns of Willis Wharf, Oyster, and Quinby. The
houses were lifted off their foundations, placed on rollers and moved to the marsh to
awalk high tide. The house was then carried by barge ('monitor') to its new location.
If the day was calm and clear, one could make the crossing while relaxing in one's
livi g room. The church was likewise moved and is presently attached to the small

1/ Peninsula Enterprise (or Eastern Shore News). October 16, 1958. In Mears Scrapbook
Vol. 7 p. 2. Eastern Shore Public Library.

2/ -Wharton, James. 1954. Sea Islands of the Eastern Shore. Commonwealth 21 (Sept. 1954).

-33=

I
chapel at Oyster. The school house became a clam house in that same town until
it was torn down a few years ago.

The people did not all move immediately after 1933. They lingered with an understand-
able hesitation to leave their island life. A second, not so severe storm in 1936
further prompted the decision to leave. A newspaper article in 1939 stated that there *
were twelve families with a total of forty people still inhabiting Hog Island.l/ The
last mail delivery to the village of Broadwater was made on Friday, February 15, 1941.2/

As noted earlier, the lighthouse keepers' homes were sold and taken down in the late
1940's. The lighthouse itself was decommissioned on March 17, 1948 bece se the sea
had begun to undermine the structure once located a mile from the surf.- Believed
to be a menace to aviation, the 180 foot tower was destroyed within two years of its
abandonment. A reminder today is the heap of rusting metal on Hog's south end, for-
gotten by the scrap-metal dealers. This same metal had been laboriously moved by a
mule-pulled railroad car from dock to site in 1895. The lens had been displayed at
the Mariners Museum in Newport News, but was recently returned to the Coast Guard
Headquarters at Portsmouth, Virginia.

In the years since its habitation, Hog Island has been the scene of cattle and sheep I
grazing, hunting, fishing and camping. The Machipongo Club has used the old north end
Coast Guard Station since 1965 for a hunting and fishing headquarters. Camping by
groups of young people was noted within the last five years; but no one stays more than
a few days on Hog Island now.

II. HABITATION AND USE OF OTHER BARRIER ISLANDS*

Although Hog Island was the center of human interest in the 20th century, most of
the other islands also received their share of attention. Hotels had been built on -
a few islands while many had Coast Guard Stations, hunting clubs, and private homes.

Metomkin Island (or Beach) was the site of a small hotel at the turn of the century.
Located less than a mile from the Coast Guard Station, it was mainly operated for
local residents during the summer months. Vandalism was a problem and each year
more sand drifted into the fir& floor. It may have been abandoned as early as 1910 -
and was entirely gone by 1925.-

Cedar Island also had a small summer hotel in the early years of 1900. A passenger
boat ran from Wachapreague to take guests to this resort by the sea. Bath houses i
and a bowling alley were constructed to add to the entertainment provided by nature.
Precisely what year the Cedar Island Hotel business came to an end is unknown. Some
sources claim that the building was destroyed by lightning, others that it washed
away in a storm; but most agree that it was gone by 1933.

Hope for a revival of Cedar Island development plans was encouraged by Richard F. Hall
in the 1950's. A 1951 advertisement in the Peninsula Enterprise stated that Mr. Hall
*Note that hunt club, Coast Guard, and National Defense activities are locaitd else-
where in this text. Sportsmen's clubs are covered in Part II section 2. Cbast GuardI
and National Defense follow this section. -,~
1/ Peninsula Enterprise (or Eastern Shore News). March 31, 1939. Mears Scrapbook Vol. 7
p.2. Eastern-Shore Public Library.
2/ Peninsula Enterprise (or Eastern Shore News). October 16, 1958. Mears Scrapbook Vol.
p. 2. At Eastern Shore Public Library.
3/ Peninsula Enterprise. April 30, 1948. Mears Scrapbook Vol. 4 p. 52-53. Eastern Shore|
Public Library.

4/ Nock, Sara. Personal Conversation. October 9, 1975.

-34-

was selling oceanfront property on Cedar Islan'd at $300 an acre. Eastern Shore'
residents were to have the first chance to buy.A/ People did purchase lots and were
enthusiastic about development prospects.

Mr. Richard F. Hall, its part owner, and a prominant promoter of
seaside property, reports the sale of 2,200 building sites thereon. He
has issued an illustrated pamphlet describing the advantages of the proposed
community, which he has already named "Ocean City".

Residents of Accomack County agree that if the Cedar Island highway
!nd bridges go through it won't take long to build it up. It will be
iirginia's first ocean resort on the Eastern Shore...Construction of the
Ocean City road is one of the livest issues in the section. The owners
of island lots, together with several thousand youthful mainland residents
who want some surf-bathing near home, press for the work to start.2/

Their hopes were never fulfilled - a 'broader tax base was not created'. Causeway
building costs were prohibitive and potential water and sewerage problems were feared.
Today several small beach cottages are still in use, but access to this island is
still by boat only.

Parramore Island was primarily a hunting preserve for rich members of, first the
Parramore Island Club, and then the Holly Island Club. Hotel or resort interests
were never directed here because of the private and exclusive nature of the sports-
men's groups. A Coast Guard installation has operated on Parramore throughout the
20th century. A fine clubhouse and at least one caretaker's home were located on the
island. In the early years of the 1900's a few Model T Fords served as means of
transportation.

Since the mid-1930's the Schmidlapp family activity was limited to several vacation
periods during the year. Friends were invited for hunting and fishing and of course
relaxing at the converted Coast Guard Station/vacation home on the surf. The Holly
Island Clubhouse and caretaker's home, although still standing, have long since be-
come delapidated. The present-day caretaker travels to the island to fulfill his
duties, and several vehicles are available there for his use along the beach and
established roadways.

Others had greater hopes for Parramore during the ]950's. A controversy grew around
the suggestion to use Parramore Island as a bombing range, much to the disappointment
of the owners and local people (to be covered later in this section). Furthermore,
an oil company suspected that oil might3Pe found on the island, and wanted the rights
to search for it during the mid-1950's.- Neither scheme became reality.

An attempt to sell some of Parramore's old-growth timber in the early 1960's ended in
failure. The entire "raft" of logs was lost in-a storm and thus never reached the
market.-/

Reveli'sland was the base for another large hunting club in the 20th century. A

1/ Peninsula Enterprise. May 31, 1951.

I / Wharton, James. The Islands of the Eastern Shore. Commonwealth 21 (July 1954).

3/ Schmidlapp, Dr. Carl. Personal Conversation. October 2, 1975.

4/ Woodling, R. L. District Forester, Virginia Division of Forestry. As told to;-
Gerard Hennessey. November 19, 1975.

-35-

The Hotety Islan~d Ctuib wais a p,4,-
va-te., excusve spo)Vt~manl', c~ub
which {~Lowtihed on. Pa,,uwmolte
IizCan~d duwing -the 1930',s. WiLth
lavis~h hun~t clubs ended. Photo
by Jimn Mac~a't~an~d 1975.

This~ dilacpidated tuc~tu~e onI
PcuutamoiLe Ts~and once housed
~the islan~dr izes~iden~t ccte-takaeA.
The Na~tu~e Couvuewan~cy may -ten~o-
an. i&san~d )Lreseauch base. Pho~to
by Ji.m MacFa~'r.an~d 1975.

2 ~~~~~~~~~~~The o~igin~af Pabutamo-'~e 1,tan~d
Li~je Savin~g Station. was loca~ted
on. the ea&-tetn. sho~e o4 the
is6Zan~d. It is pi'teien.tty used
by the Schim&idapp FamitPy an~d I
__________ ___ -~thei&t asocLactes avs a vacaction.
_____ _ ~~~~~home. Pa,' uamote IzX-an~d was
purcasedwith the un~dexs-tan~d--
E~~~~~~n hat1 wtchae ~joJma one)
couild 'e~taiLn -the. exciuS'ive
___ ~~~~~ee~ea~tion~at ue o~ ~the a~'ea
~o't 20 yeaA6~. The w~'eckz iLn
- -~~~~~~~~~ -~~~the 4o'tegtoun~d occuAvted o44-
z.ho'te be~o,,e 1900. It hats
on.1y &ecentPty 'been waushedI
asho'te. Pho~to by Jim MacFoA-'
Zan~d 1975.

clubhouse and cottages were built there and a caretaker lived year round on the
island until the club's demise in the early 1930's.

South of Hog Island, Cobb Island had seen its peak of activity in the 19th century.
Nevertheless, a few members of the Cobb family ran a small hotel or boarding house
on the island in the early years of 1900. It was short-lived, however, and was lost,
as so many others were, in the storm of 1933.

Attempts to 'improve' Cobb Island during the last 25 years have had an effect on the
biojb gical and physical character of this island. A good well was'drilled and ponds
have'been kept open with tractors. Cedar and pine trees were planted in the 1950's;
and igame animals were stocked periodically up until recently. An effort was also made
to inhibit erosion by the construction of dune fences. Today use of the island is
restricted to occasional weekend visits by the owners of the island's three trailers,
and by the members of the former Laridae Corporation.

Mention was made of one home on Wreck Island, but more information was not available.
In 1975, Wreck is owned by the Virginia Division of Parks.

Mockhorn Island was inhabited in this century by the Cushman family and then later by
T.A.D. Jones. Both owners constructed comfortable homes as well as other out-buildings,
and planted productive gardens. Mr. Jones employed a caretaker and his wife
lived on the island and looked after his retreat. Gardens and cattle had to be cared
for and visiting sportsmen entertained. A vehicle known as a 'weasel' was the care-
taker's mode of transportation. / Today Mockhorn Island falls under the jurisdiction
of the Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries.

The Bungalow was a club located on Smith Island during the early years of 1900. It
was another private hunt club which required a year around caretaker. The caretaker
lived on the island with his family, raised a few head of livestock, and planted
gardens. The watermelons were reportedly 'too big to steal'. A few vehicles were used
on the island and occasionally an airplane landed on the beach. Many of the barrier
islands had some source of fresh water but cisterns and rain barrels were put to good
use.

Interest in the development of Smith Island was announced in 1951 by the owner,
Arthur H. Darling.2/ The King's Beach report clearly outlined more advanced develop-
ment plans in 1968 by the Smith Island Development Corporation.

During the 20th century, the Skidmore family occupied the island which today bears
their name.

Fisherman's Island, the most southern in the chain, was not inhabited but served as a
quarantine area during World War I. If immigrants died of infectious diseases on
arrival to the United States, they were cremated on Fisherman's Island. Today the
island anchors the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel system, and is a National Wildlife
Refu e.

A notorious activity of the 20th century no doubt involved some of the islands and
the!r residents.

I 1/ Birch, Capt. Moe. Taped Conversation. Tape #12 & 13. October 9, 1975.

2/ Peninsula Enterprise. May 24, 1951.

-37-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The desolation of the marshes and "sea-meadows" and defeating
nature of the labyrinthine channels of all this section were a constant
invitation to the rum runners of the Dry Years.l/

Small boats met ships off the beaches and carried their contraband through the water-
ways to the mainland. Waiting trucks then took the illegal liquor to its ultimate
destination. K

III. TIE VIRGINIA BARRIER ISLANDS AND-NATIONAL DEFENSE

During the years of World War II, and for a few years thereafter, interest ii the is-
lands was directed toward defense of this portion of the Atlantic Coast. Several smallI
boats had been destroyed by German submarines within eight miles of the beaches, con-
firming the need for added force on the islands. Coast Guard29 tations became training
areas. As many as 52 men were stationed on Parramore Island.- The beaches on all
of the islands were patrolled day and night to guard against saboteurs.

On Metomkin Island a center was established for training K-9 dogs. These dogs, of
various breeds, were able to detect the scent of a stranger who might have crossed the
beach.

Some of the southern islands in the chain were used as targets for bombing practice
during and immediately following the war.

I am not sure how large the bombing range was, but it ran north
from Smith Island and included at least Mink!Myrtle/Godwin's/Ship Shoal
The US government obtained two permits from the State of Virginia in
1942 and 1945 to use the islands as a bombing range. The only problem.
was that much of the area for which the Commonwealth of Virginia granted
permits was not owned by Virginia, but was in private ownership. After the
war, the military attempted to decontaminate the range by cleaning up the
old dud ordinance. They were successful on some of the higher ground,
but on at least one of the islands, they concluded that the duds had sunk
into the marsh enough that there was no way to sweep the island and render
it safe. The bombing range was called Cape Charles Range.l/

Small live charges were often used, and there is some evidence that Wreck Island beach
was strafed. Hog Island Bay was also the location of a bombing target. Although
there was concern among the local watermen, the feeling was that it was for the good
of the country. In 1951, however, this attitude changed considerably. A controversy
throughout the spring of that year began with the announcement by the Tactical Air
Command at Langley that suggestions were being made for a bombing range centered at
Ship Shoal Island. An aerial bombing, rocket firing and gunnery range danger zone !
was to be established in the Atlantic Ocean in a circle with Ship Shoal at its center.4/

1/ Wharton, James. Sea Islands of the Eastern Shore. Commonwealth 21 (Sept.1954).

2/ Bonniwell, Earl 1975. Taped Conversation. Tape #2 & 3. August 19, 1975.

3/ Turner, Coli' James. Personal Correspondence. August 19, 1975.

4/ Peninsula Enterprise. March 2, 1951.

-38-

-In several succeeding issues of the Peninsula Enterprise local people expressed their
opposition to the proposal._f On April 6th, the Navy enlarged the restricted area to
include part of Smith'Islandj- while on September 6th, the restricted area around
Myrtle Island was decreased.3/ If the target range was ever used in the 1950's, it
was only for a short period of time.

During 1952 there was a government effort to obtain Parramore Island for a similar
purpose. The people of Accomack County protested so vehemently that the plan was routed
with ihe help of Senator Byrd. Another proposal was made in 1956 but it ended in a
similar defeat.

A post-World War II incident of local interest occurred on Wreck Island. Two large
troop transports went aground in-a fog and were beached for almost a week before they
could be removed.

IV. COAST GUARD FACILITIES IN THE'20TH CENTURY i

At the close of the 19th century there were six Life Saving Stations located on the
island chain from Metomkin to Smith Island. All stations were in operation by the
end of the 1880's. These included the Wachapreague Beach Station, Hog Island Station,
I Cobbs Island Station, Smiths Island Station, Metompkin Inlet Station, and the Parramore's
Beach Station, the last two of which opened slightly later than the first four. In
approximately 1915 the Life Saving Service became known as the Coast Guard.

The Metompkin Coast Guard Station was located on the south end of the island until
1933. In that year the storm destroyed the building and it was deemed necessarya-to
rebuild the station on the north end of Cedar Island. It was still known &$ the
Metompkin Inlet Station when -it was closed in 1963 with a staff of 14 men.-

The first Wachapreague Station was built in 1875 on the south end of Cedar Island. It
may have been replaced in the same area (circa 1910). In 1933 it too was demolished
by the storm and was then merged with the Parramore Island Station.

On Parramore Island the station'was first located two miles south of the Wachapreague
---- Inlet along the surf.

The beach beyond is eroding, but this is something comparatively new.
Not many years ago it was advancing rapidly out to sea. The lifesaving
station, which was built in the days when launching boats through the surf
was the technique used to help a ship in distress, was abandoned because
the beach moved too. far away from it. /

1/ Peninsula Enterprise. March'23, and March 30, 1951.

I 2/ Peninsula Enterprise. April 6, 1951.

3/ Peiiinsula Enterprise. September 6, 1951.

4/ Pejinsula Enterprise. December 19, 1963. Mears Scrapbook Vol. 14 p. 36. Eastern
Shore Public Library.

I 5/ Leonard, Jonathan Norton. 1972. Atlantic Beaches. Time-Life Books. N.Y. p. 113.

*~~~ ~-39-

Whether this was the main reason for choosing a new site is unknown. Nevertheless,
the new,more convenient and modern station was built in the mid-1930's on its present
site. The Schmidlapp family uses the old station as their vacation, home.

During the early 1900's, when the old station was still in operation, small cottages
were located along the beach for families during the summer months. When children
finished school on the mainland, the Coast Guardsmen's families packed their belongings
and came to the seashore for a vacation. Small gardens were planted and surf-bathing
and fishing were enjoyed. During other seasons the presence of game did muchJ(and
still does) to relieve the monotony of island life. Although the Coast Guardsmen have
reported poaching on the island byothers, they have also participated in ill,,egal
hunting practices.

The Parramore Island Station is the only station still in operation today on any of
the barrier islands under study. Vehicle use is permitted on roads and beaches by
those employed on the island.

Hog Island's first Coast Guard Station was located on the island's southeastern side
in the 1890's. In 1933 a Coast Guard Station was lost from this site but whether it
was the original building or a successor is unknown. The Hog Island Station was then
rebuilt on the western side of the southern end in the mid-1930's. At this same time
the Little Machipongo Station was opened on the north end along the inlet.

The building on the south end still stands today although it was abandoned after
World War II. A boardwalk once ran from the main building to the now crumbling boat -
house. The observation tower is intact as of this writing, and one can still recognize
the cross-like drill pole.

The Little Machipongo Station was destroyed by fire in 1958 ard rebuilt in 1959.
Activity there was short-lived and the installation was abandoned in 1963. Two years
later it was purchased from the United States Government by the Machipongo Club, a
private hunting and fishing organization.

Cobb Island was also the site of one of the original Coast Guard Stations. A second
one may have been built around the turn of the century, but the abandoned structure
on the island today was built in the mid-1930's. This home of the 'watchdogs of
the sea' was closed in 1963. The neighboring delapidated structure is believed to
be the old station.

The Smith Island Station was located on lighthouse property in the late 1870's or I
early 1880's. A new Coast Guard Station was erected in 1916 and in 1927 both buildings
were moved a mile back from the surf. The old and new Coast Guard Stations are gone
today.

V. THE VIRGINIA BARRIER ISLANDS IN 1975

Today the islands are owned either entirely or in part by The Nature Conservancy.
Full ownership of the following islands is recognized: Metomkin, Parralmore, Revel,
Sandy, Rogue, Cobb, Ship Shoal, Myrtle, Mink and Smith. 95% of Hog Island is'Powned
and portions of Cedar and Godwin. Total acreage is in the vicinity of 30,000 acres.

The Nature Conservancy's management policy is geared to allow traditional, non-
destructive use of the islands by people of the Eastern Shore. The goal of The Nature
Conservancy is to protect the island system which has been such an integral part of
life here.

-40- I

~~~TeaadndCatGadSaio n o h ot n 6Hgiln si
~~~~pedin95.TeosraintwAadtecosikdiUpe

The mgnZLt. abcandoneg Coas5t GLuatd Station at ithe. nowth e~nd o6ffgltada~ &
HopeIVtand wa ul n 17.the. mid-930z. t~ owas an t ~ yd byhe c'i4-5eA~ din~~ o
(To he ub, enuig ids mnte os o the.taon le .~L C o ~nzc~.Avbancylfz poneity
honneacte~d a thew -atdship tbZith o6the. c~wubfln meobeuhowpe Phwlo e4teqo~
3 ~ ~~oxeyo John CZaAkk 1975 .

* 7Tis sL quatters' cabi n i s eocated
K : on -the mauhes weslt o6 Metomkin
Is Pand. Simieat cabins, on oathe
ma&thes pe)pLnsent one oj -the many
uses6 which have been conducted on
the isZbandc s o yedairu. The acti-
vi-ti.e associated wi&th such &s-uct-
I wteACue. ate o{6ten cat odds with -the
protection oa -the is-and6' ncautwaZ
&esou,&ceA. Photo by J-&im MacFartand
7975.

The U.S. Coas-t GuaLd Staction,
I Pcuv~ano.'e. Be~ach, is -the. Zast
acttive Coaslt Guahd S-taction wi&th-
in the Vtgilnia Coast Reze.ve.
Stations. Zocacted withiLn -the
JsRe.'wve act the -tu'n o6 -the
centuty weAe the Metomkin In-
Zet Station, Wachapcteague Beach
S~ta~tion, Pcuamamnoe Seach S~ta-
tion, Hog ltsancd mtation, Cobb
LIPeand S~tcation, and Smiith TsZand
IStaction. Photo by Jim MacFaut-
Zan~zd 7975.

The use oj motoa vehiclei pte.-
zevnt6 a pemi -teunt stewatdship
oubtem on -the. isnand6. The.iL
impact on sensuiLtive p-anlt and
anrcimae communi ties and diturwp-
tion o6 s~tabilizing geoZogicaf
4eatutwel vafidiy ptectude,
the.ijttegiUtimate use. The
ConseAvancyl'z poe~icy p-wtoib-Lt,6
mo-to-r ve~h-icles and ui~tcAa~t
From usiLng -the ~isands. -Ve-
h ic te. a oe {ten discarded on
si -te, Zeaving a tuswting huLk
6or. yeawtz to come. Photo by
Jim MajcF&tnd 7975.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SELECTED HUHA1T AJ>ID NATURAL INFLUENCES
I..
This section magnifies those aspects of barrier island history which have in-
fitienced their ecological development.

I
I _____
I
I
I
U
I
I
I
I

SELECTED HUMAN AND NATURAL INFLUENCES

I GENERAL FAUNAL HISTORY

We know that through geologic time the area of the Atlantic Coastal Plain has changed
dramatically. Climate and ocean levels have fluctuated and ultimately determined
the ,persistence of certain types of terrestrial and marine plant and animal life.
The ;lterations brought about by these factors are relatively gradual when compared
with~ithe changes wrought by human manipulation of ecosystems. Little is known of
the prehistoric fauna of North America and likewise little is known of the animal1.
life of the seaside islands when settlement of the Eastern Shore was in progress.-

Some evidence of prehistoric animal life has been found on the barrier islands in
recent years. In 1973, Mrs. John Rogers found a portion of the jaw of the extinct
Mastodon americanus on Cedar Island. Identification was confirmed at the Museum
of Comparative Zoology of Harvard University. The mastadon lived on the North American
continent during the Pleistocene Epoch, approximately one million years ago, and
preferred a temperate or cold climate. "So many teeth of mastodons and bones of
other animals have been discovered in the sea coast that it seems unreasonable to
think upon transport by water currents or iceberg rafts, rather than to assume that
the animal lived where the bones are found and it is possible that the ocean level
must have been lower than it is now."!-

In a similar fashion, a walrus tusk was found on Parramore Island on August 27, 1955.
Reference is also made to an earlier (1827) find of another portion of a walrus skull
on the same island.3/The range of the Walrus is believed to have extended southward
during the Ice Age.- Hence, the discoveries are further evidence of a biologically
different shoreline than we see today.

The Indians and early explorers and settlers of the Atlantic Coast also knew a
different faunal population than we are presently studying. Surely many animals no
longer live on the barrier islands and likewise some, especially bird species, exist
today that would have been unfamiliar to the earliest human inhabitants. For example,
a legend persists that when John Smith first landed on Smith Island a species of
bear was found to live on the island. "He named the island upon which he landed
Shooting Bears Island; as the small species of bruin which to this day (1903) 4bound
in the cane-brakes of the Dismal Swamp were numerous on the new found isle."-
Although difficult to believe, it is possible that other plant and animal species
once thrived on the offshore islands that today we would find equally surprising.
Presumably man's interference was felt immediately on the delicateisland ecosystem.

1/ Extensive research of historical documents of Virginia might turn up bits of
information. This information in conjunction with a knowledge of the contemporary
island flora would facilitate the compilation of a tentative species list.

2/ SPhaff, Dr. Charles R. 1973. Letter to Mrs. John G. Rogers. Museum of Comparative
--Zoology. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

31 Steirly, C. C. Virginia Wildlife. January 1956.

4/ Sterling, Charles A. 1903. Hog Island Virginia. Copyright by Charles A. Sterling.
p. 3

-45-

DISTURBANCE OF AVIFAUNA THROUGH HUMAN ACTIVITY

The group of birds most affected by the arrival of man have been those species prized
as a food supply and more recently, as a focal point for sport hunting. Wild
migrating waterfowl have used the Atlantic Flyway for thousands of years; but it has
taken less than a century for the hunter and trapper, in cooperation with the bull-
dozer, to reduce the flocks that have only in the last few years begun to recover
from the onslaught. Old-timers can still remember the flocks of brant that 'extended
five miles long and one mile widei Similarly, 3000 broadbill, covering acres of
1/~~~~~~~~~~~e
water, could be seen at one time.- Residents of Hog Island claimed that thfy
"couldn't sleep nights" for the flocks of geese, brant and ducks that fed inathe
marshes.m/ (See HUNTING: SPORT HUNTING, p. 58).

A. Duck Trapping

Trapping ducks, especially black ducks and mallards, increased in intensity with the
decline in market gunning. Traps were easily concealed, and the man in the marsh
could harvest his birds under the cover of darkness. The trap is simply constructed
with-mesh wire fastened to stakes in the mud. A funnel leads inward toward the corn
bait; and the duck is unable to return through the opening. This method of obtaining
birds has one great advantage to the buyer - the birds are neatly killed and no pel-
lets are scattered throughout the flesh.

Many an Eastern Shoreman, from Chincoteague south, made a living from duck trapping
in the first half of this century. Chincoteague Islanders were particularly notorious
for their skill in capturing the birds and eluding the game warden. Nevertheless,
the more southern islands have not been excluded from this activity. Duck trapping
on Parramore Island was discouraged if possible by caretakers whose job it was to
see that the club members had something to shoot. The private ownership of this is-
land was probably responsible for some curtailment of the trapping business; however,
traps were set along the marsh edges and have been found as recently as fifteen years
ago.

Residents of Hog Island trapped ducks to varying degrees for many years and were
particularly protective of their territory. During the 1920's some outsiders (from
Quinby) had to be chased away. Smith Island also has been a location for the illegal
trapping business in recent years. Most certainly all of the barrier islands have
served at one time or another as hiding places for traps in the battle of trapper
versus game warden. The market continues to be made today by the connoisseur of
wild duck. Some birds are sold locally, but others continue to be sold outside of
the area to buyers ordering 'birds shotin the head'.

Human activity has not been entirely destructive in regards to waterfowl. Attempts
have been made to encourage waterfowl nesting on several seaside islands, albeit
not always with altruistic motives. Ducks need fresh or brackish water on which to
feed and breed, hence the ponds on Parramore, Hog, Cobb, and Smith Islands ate
potentially valuable for this purpose. Hog Islanders kept ponds open for livestock
and inadvertently improved duck breeding habitat. Furthermore, within the list few
years ponds have been cleaned out on Cobb Island for the same twofold purpose.

1/ Bowen, Ralph. 1975. Taped Conversation. Tape #3. August 21, 1975.

21 Eastern Shore News. Historical article about Hog Island. April 4, 1957. Hears
Scrapbook Vol. 4 p. 81. Eastern Shore Public Library.

-46-

Ducks and geese of the Atlantic Flyway experienced a setback in the 1930's when
a prime food source, the eelgrass,was eliminated by a blight. The result was
to further compound the difficulities facing those persons interested in restoring
dwindling wildlife to -its previously stable condition.

B. Feather Hunting

Another group of birds tremendously affected by an increasing humin populaticn has
beer the shorebirds and other coastal avians. Migrating species here killed in great
num ::rs along the whole Atlantic Coast for decades. Nesting birds!3 were shot and ex-
ploe ed for their eggs or feathers. Shorebird shooting reached a peak around the
tur, of the century. Since then populations have begun to return in substantial
numbers (see HUNTING, p. 55). Although the trade in feathers no longer exists,
egg collection continues on a minor scale to the present day.

Dictates of fashion in the United States and Europe were responsible for the decline
of many North American mammals and birds. The classic case is that of the beaver
whose existence east of the Mississippi River was threatened due partially
to the demand in Europe for beaver hats in the 19th century. Birds of the Atlantic
seaboard were by the same design exploited for their feathers. Egret plumage was
fashionable-for ladies hats, and thus feather hunters brought these birds to a low ebb
before restrictions were imposed. Today, however, the egret population is expanding
along the entire East coast. Another bird similarly harvested was the tern:"...the
beautiful little terns (known as strikers) were shot and their skins shipped northly
the barrel to ornament millinery for thoughtless women who 'wouldn't hurt a flyt".-

C. Egging :

Egging was a practice on the barrier islands and surrounding marshes from the time of
the earliest settlers. Eggs were collected and eaten in the spring of the yearand
proved to be another example of the bounty offered by the sea isles. Egging b'eame an
established tradition which is still carried on by a few natives today.

The most desired eggs were those of the gull, tern, marsh hen, and willet. "Ncne but
those who have tasted can judge what a delicate morsel a spotted marsh-hen's egg is,
or how savory that of the gull - surprisingly large for the size of the bird - or the
sharp-pointed egg of the willet". Not only were eggs gathered and eaten on the is-
lands, but they were carried to the mainland as well. "The overseer had carried a
bushel or so of these beautiful little eggs (~grsh-hen) over to the main-land to sell,
but luckily left enough for our consumption."-

By the last decade of the 1800's egging had become popular with the seaside residents
of the shore and boat trips were made to Gull Marsh or other desirable nesting areas.

At this time people went 'egging' on seaside islands in the spring in
the same sporting spirit as they went gunning in winter. A gallon or a
. bushel of eggs might be collected in a half day. Some were frequently boiled
and eaten on the island along with a packed lunch. The greater part of

1/1 onnett, Eugene ed. 1947. Dtck Shooting. William Morrow & Co. N.Y. p. 146.

2/ Pyle, Howard. 1878-1879. A Peninsular Canaan. Harper's Magazine. N.Y. Vol. 28,
p. 809.

3/ Ibid. p. 814.

-47-

the harvest was brought home to be eaten by the family and shared with
friends and neighbors after a real successful trip./-

The awakening awareness of the scarcity of game and non--game birds in the early 20th
century hindered the practice of egging to a small degree. Birds which provided good
sport were given priority in protection, and thus marsh-hen egging was discouraged.
Nevertheless, it took many years to re-educate the native to this philosophy of con-
servation. An-anonymous note written to a local gmme warden in 1907 informed him that -
parties were gathering eggs: "Yesterday a friend of mine showed me 30 marsh-4en en es
(I ate three of them) that a friend of his had received by express and given im. -- I
Today the old-timers are emphatic about not disturbing marsh-hen nests, but Cd ntinue
to harvest a few of the relatively 'useless' bird's eggs. ?

In the first quarter of the 20th century, gull, tern, and skimmer eggs were collected !
by the bucket, barrel, wash tub, and lard tin full. The nests were closely observed
so that only the first and second eggs were taken. If the nest contained three eggs,
they were no longer fresh. A floating egg in a dish pan of brine was also discarded.
The eggs, unlike our familiar chicken eggs, are very rich and consequently help make
"delicious cakes". Apparently the game wardens did not concentrate on gull egging
violations and so the tradition is still followed today. Due to the unusual flavor of
the eggs, the practice will surely die out with a new uninitiated generation.

A form of avian exploitation that does not fit our other categories is guano use.
"Cedar Island guano is highly recommended by our farmers, who have3 sed it and Mr.
T. J. Killmon, the agent here, is selling large quantities of it.''

The low point for populations of island bird life in the early 1900's has been followed !
by a period of rapidly increasing numbers of birds, In as early as 1938 an article in
the Peninsula Enterprise pointed out that wild bird life was on the rise: "Cobb's
Island is the most important seabird nesting place on the Middle Atlantic Coast."4/
Not only have indigenous species gained strength but other birds have expanded their -
range to cover this area. Egrets, ibises, and oyster catchers now nest along Virginia's
Eastern Shore in growing numbers, bringing about further changes in the island eco-
system.

D. Birds of Prey

The tree covered barrier islands were at one time a haven for nesting osprey. The
fish hawks found ideal breeding and feeding territory on and around the islands.

Hog Island -
A favorite resort of thousands of fish-hawks, which mate, brood, and
rear their young at this spot, finding ample means of sustenance in the treach-
erous shallows of Broadwater shoals...On almost every tree on the borders of this
swamp, standing stark and solitary, is seen a huge mass of twigs, indicating
a fish-hawk's nest. Some of these are

1/ Turman, Nora Miller. 1964. The Eastern Shore of Virginia. 1603-1964. The E-astern
Shore News Inc. Onancock, Va. p. 206.

2/ Anonymous letter. May 1907 to Mr. Dennis, on file at Kerr Place. Eastern ShAre A
Historical Society.

3/ Peninsula Enterprise. March 27, 1886. In Mears Scrapbook Vol. 12. Eastern Shore
Public Library.

4/ Allen, Robert P. National Association of Audubon Societies. Peninsula Enterprise. |
June 6, 1963. Column "25 Years Ago" (July l, 1938). Mears Scrapbook Vol. 14, p. 50.

-48-1

*I ' of enormous size, the interstices between the sticks in some cases being
occupied by families of grackle, or common crow-blackbirds. The smalls
solitary, stunted trees that stand at the feet of the sand-dunes are
also frequently -burdened by one and sometimes two of these huge, unwieldy
nests, and in some case~.they are perched on the bare sand atop of some
bald, melancholy knoll.- -'

One hundred years later there are seventeen active osprey nests on bhe islands under
the jurisdiction of The Nature Conservancy. The 'old-heads' can reidember a time in the
I 20th c4ntury when there were still many osprey on Parramore, Hog, and probably Smith
Island . An attempt in the 1960's to erect osprey platforms on Hog Island met with
little, success. Unfortunately, it will require more than nest sites to bring back a
populaiion that has been so biologically disrupted by human activity.

The barrier islands play an extremely valuable role as a feeding and nesting area
for migrating hawks and falcons. The migration begins in late September and a few
birds are still traveling through the region as late as December. Small birds and
rodents are captured on the islands to sustain the hawks in their energy-expending
migration southward. During the time of more extensive human occupation of the is-
lands, the hawks supplemented their diets with chickens;and young boys had the pleasure
of shooting the marauding birds. The predator has always been an assumed competitor
of man and so this activity was encouraged and often rewarded.

* The seaside islands have in recent years supplied the falconer with birds for his-
sport. The peregrine falcon appears annually along the beaches and is easily caught.
An old method of capture requires the falconer to bury himself in the sand while
holding on to a specially harnessed pigeon. The harness is such that the attacknhg
bird becomes entangled in its loops. A more up-to-date method employs the same Harness
arrangement but the pigeon is allowed to fly above a moving vehicle. This second`�
technique was practiced on HIog Island within the last five years. Birds have been
captured on Cedar, Parramore, Hog, and Smith Islands within the last ten years. "

Frequently many falcons are trapped while only a few are of the appropriate age and
sex to be kept for training. The selected birds are then taught to hunt and recover
crows, quail, or pheasant. The condition of the peregrine falcon population, however,
makes this trapping activity illegal at the present time.

II. STOCKING GAME

I The three-pronged approach of the early wildlife manager included limiting bags and
seasons, predator control, and stocking game. The island faunal population was thus
I further disturbed by the introduction of game-birds and mammals. Organizations such
as the American Game Protection Association and sportsmen's magazines promoted the
stocking idea until it became widely accepted. One problem of the wildlife manager
today is to eliminate the ingrained faith in stocking practices.

Some stocking programs were aimed at returning animals to areas where they once existed
and fl!urished; however, others directed efforts toward providing exotic hunting.
A note in 1912 to the Eastern Shore Game Protective Association from a game farm in
Englanj listed eggs available for brooding and raising. Mongolian, ,Chinese, ringed or
ringle'ss pheasants and Hungarian partridges were among the selections.-
|I 1/ Pyle, Howard. 1878-1879. p. 808, 810.

2/ Note to T.W. Blackstone, Accomac 1912, from Essex and Suffolk Game Farm, England.
3 On file at Kerr Place, Eastern Shore Historical Society.

-49-

In the interest of hunting, the barrier islands have been stocked with various game
animals. The introduction to Parramore Island with the most far-reaching impact was
that of the deer. The white-tailed deer on the Eastern Shore had become scarce with- I
in the first twenty-five years of the present century and only an occasional deer
was spotted on the marshes and islands of the seaside. Although there is some question
about the actual date of introduction, most evidence points to the late 1920's or early !
1930's as the probable time. The introduction may have been made by the Holly Island
Club in its last, years. The Schmidlapp family, after their purchase of the island in
1934; possibly added a few "Oregon deer" to the population. The influence of? hese
deer on the Parramore Island gene pool is unknown.

Deer have thrived on Parramore and have populated many of the other barrier islands.
They have been observed traveling back and forth to Cedar, Revel, and Hog Island in
the years following the peak of human habitation. Occasionally a deer is poached,
but hunting pressure in general is minimal. Many local residents claim that the deer
on the more southern islands (from Cobb to Fisherman's) are also escaping the hunting I
and population pressure on Parramore. Nevertheless, the close proximity of the mainland
makes it highly probable that an exchange is occurring with this source and not Parramore
Island.

Pheasant and quail have also been released on Parramore but have not fared well. The
unsuitability of some species to island life was demonstrated in 1925 when one wealthy
clubman introduced one hundred pair of Hungarian partridges. Within thirty days, they
had disappeared without a trace. Hence, attempts to stock Parramore with exotics
declined after the 1930's. An attempt to introduce one hundred quail in 1969 has met
with little success.

The interest in stocking Hog Island developed after human population of the island had
ceased; however, it is possible that some was accomplished prior to the '33 storm.
The stocking effort was primarily concentrated in the last ten years. Pheasant and
quail were introduced to the island between 1965 and 1970 on several occasions. Some
reference has been made to the stocking of partridge in this period also. Within the
last three years pheasant were again released on Hog Island along with several guinea
chickens. Rabbit hunters carried rabbits to the island in order to improve that form
of hunting. '

The earliest confirmed report of similar activity on Cobb Island occurred in the 1940's
at WPhich time-pheasant and jack rabbits were introduced. The jack rabbits have adapted
well to the rigorous barrier island life. Although restocked later, the pheasant |
persist and according to natives live on the 'beach pea' found growing on the island.
Chukkar partridge introduced five years ago have not survived nor have the Japanese
pheasant released in approximately 1966. The most recent stocking of Ring-necked
pheasant occurred two years later and these birds can still be observed on the island. !
Only two years ago quail were stocked on Cobb Island in still another endeavor to
'improve' hunting.

Vague mention has been made to stocking attempts on other islands, and it is rasonable
to assume that game birds and rabbits have been carried to other seaside barrier and
marsh islands. The emphasis on stocking in wildlife management has indeed had 'an
impact on the barrier island ecosystem; however, the extent of this induced disturbance
is difficult to assess.

III. PREDATOR CONTROL

Predator control was another wildlife managenient technique espoused by hunter-oriented X
game programs throughout most of the 20th century. Any bird or mammal which preyed on

-50- ~~~~~I

game species was classified as 'vermin'. As a result of this thinking, fish and game
departments and private groups spent millions of dollars in their war against vermin.
Again, sportsmen's magazines and organizations encouraged the elimination of these
competitors. Today increased knowledge of ecosystem function has to a large degree
eliminated this form of management.
.I
Prior to the colonization of the Eastern Shore, the barrier island-kpredator population
was surely somewhat different than we observe in 1975. It is not fnlikely that wolves,
bead and big cats roamed this region but succumbed early to pressure from man. The
onr i predator of concern to sportsmen in the present century are the fox, raccoon,
had., crow, and house cat.

Though foxes have always been hunted for sport, they were hunted and trapped with a
purpose on Parramore Island. The fox was considered a hindrance to any program of
game breeding and stocking. The fox hunter not only removed the potential threat but
procured a marketable hide. During the 1920's a specialist was hired to rid the island
of foxes to facilitate the introduction of game birds. Only a few dens were ever
found. Occasionally, since that time, fox have been spotted and sometimes hunted,
Hunting is frequently accomplished with the aid of a dog; or snare traps are set in
likely places. As one old- mer put it, "there's more 'an one way to kill a devil
than beatin' him to death".-

During this same period the campaign against predators on Parramore Island included
crows, house cats, and raccoons. People from the mainland had discovered that the
island served as a wonderful depository for unwanted cats and kittens. A boat to the
island frequently carried felines which were released and allowed to forage freely.
Before game stocking could be achieved in the 1920's and 1930's, the cats were trapped
and destroyed. The battle against crows was waged with strychnine-injected eggs.
Raccoons have up until recent -years been trapped or poisoned with strychnine bait;
however, this program is unsuccessful. 'Coons are presently abundant on the island.

Natives of Hog Island can recall very few foxes or raccoons on their island. Broad-
water club members and villagers in general may have made life on this island difficult
for the predator prior to 1900. The few foxes that did appear in the first quarter
of the 20th century were quickly trapped and rarely hunted with dogs. Today a few
raccoons and an occasional fox or house cat hunt the island.

The only disclosure made about predator control on Cobb Island concerned house cat
trapping. It seems that feral cats were killing ducks around the ponds, and were
hence themselves eliminated by local trappers. There may be a few house cats on Smith
Island at the present time, but other predators are rarely observed. Hunting or
trapping foxes was seldom done on Smith Island even in the early 1900's.

The elimination of species,-either inadvertently or purposely, brought about a change
in ecosystem structure during the 20th century. Concurrently, the addition of species
through stocking further disturbed the natural course of plant and animal relation-
ships. In like manner, the islands' supply of other marketable fauna encouraged man
to extend his influence to the marshes and waterways.

IV. TRAPjING ~

The old-timers today can remember periods of mink, muskrat, and otter trapping, but
indications are that the peak of this activity had already passed at the close of the

1/ Capt. Moe Birch. Taped Conversation. Tape #12, October 9, 1975.

-51-

19th century. The naming of Mink Island would suggest that these fur-bearers were I
once numerous on the seaside. Infrequently mink are spotted on Hog, Mockhorn, Smith
and; of course, Mink Island. Rarely are otters seen today. At one time a trapper
found their numbers sufficient to supply a profitable business. The muskrat was -
trapped along the Eastern Shore primarily for its hide and secondarily for its meat.
Once in a while, a few enterprising natives still trap these rodents.

V. TERRAPINS AND OTHER TURTLES

The diamondback terrapin, a salt marsh turtle, is another form of seaside lift harvested!
for its food value. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the terrapin was
considered a delicacy, demanding a high price in city markets. Once again, the local
people utilized their natural resources to supplement incomes. Just as the waterfowl -
market hunters became skilled in their work, so also did the terrapin hunter.

Of the terrapin little need be said. It is not by any means a numerous
tribe, which fact accounts for the high price it always commands, and which
places it beyond the reach of any but the wealthy. As sportsmen are not in
the habit of hunting for it, and would not be likely to be rewarded with
success if they did, they are referred to terrapin hunters themselves for
further information.l/
2/-
The market price of the terrapin was $2.50 a piece in the first decade of 1900/ |
Within a few years the scarcity of the Diamondback pushed the price much higher as
shown in the following story about Hog Island's famous banjo-playing resident, Sud
Bell.

Let Brooks Mapp, well-known Accomac Attorney, tell you about Sud's
visit to a New York broker who, enthralled by his playing, had invited him
to come see him. Sud walked into his lavishly appointed office carrying a
bulging suitcase and announced, "Itve brought you a present from the Eastern
Shore." At that moment the suitcase came apart and its contents, about
twelve lively diamond-back terrapins, began crawling over the floor and under
the furniture. The New Yorker's heart was touched; at that time terrapins
were worth $100 a dozen. He called in his office staff to help retrieve
them and told Sud to go over to the Racquet Club, using his name, and wait
for him. An hour passed; the telephone rang; it was the club secretary.
"We have a man here," came the querulous voice. "He says you sent him.
He's got turtles running all over the place. And he's playing that banjo
in our quiet reading room. Shall we throw him out or keep him?"
The broker replied: "Hold everything! I'll be right over!"
when he got there the terrapins had been packed away, but Sud, his
banjo in action, was surrounded by a group of clapping, singing, stomping
members, and the crowd was growing by the minute. The staid old Racquet
Club was in the process of being thrilled to the rafters.3/

1/ A Paradise for Ounners and Anglers. Passenger Department Philadelphia, Wilmington I
and Baltimore Railroads Inc. 1883. p. 36. On file at Kerr Place. Eastern S4'Are
Historical Society.

2/ Culley, Jennings. April 1968. The Islands. The Commonwealth p. 42.
_ I:
3/ Wharton, James. September 1954. The Sea Islands of the Eastern Shore. The Common-
wealth. p. 13.

-52-

The terrapins were caught in the marshes surrounding the islands and shipped alive in
boxes. Some natives actually started their own turtle farms. The farm consisted
of a finely meshed fence in a marsh area. Turtles laid their eggs within this enclosure
and when the young hatched,; they were unable to escape through the fence and were
raised in captivity. One such enterprise was carried out on Revel Island in the late
1930's and an earlier one may have been in operation on Smith Island.

Oth'i turtles disturbed by man include the snapping turtles found in the island ponds.
Occasionally a working waterman, who planned to be out for a few days, would capture
several snapping turtles in Parramore's Goose Lake to supply him with fresh meat for
his ~journey.

Large sea turtles reportedly came ashore on Smith Island to lay eggs as recently as
the first quarter of the 20th century.I/ Changes in the physical geography of the
island, climate, and perhaps human activity seems to-have eliminated these reptiles
from this northern portion of their former breeding range.

Human activity has indeed had an impact on the fauna of Virginia's Barrier Islands.
Despite man, some animals have nonetheless managed to persist in great numbers. The
bothersome mosquito, which once sent Cedar Island Hotel guests into the surf at
night, is thriving. Similarly, in 1878 "the wooded portions of the island are in many
cases swampy, and tangled with a thick growth of vines and underbrysh - excellent
harborage for that most abominable of nuisances the wood-tick..." One hundred years
of man's presence has not affected these creatures noticeably either.

1/ Hogg, Granville. Taped Conversation. Tape #13. October 16, 1975.

2/ Pyle, Howard. 1878-1879. p. 810.

-53-

HUNTING

Hunting activity in the United States can generally be divided into three over-
lapping phases: hunting for survival, for market and for sport. Hunting on the Eastern
Shore and on the barrier islands has paralleled this national trend from the time of
the earliest settlers to the present day. Because of the strategic location of the
barrier islands in one of the major North American flyways, migrating waterfowl and
shorebirds have played an important role in the development of man's association with
the islands and their adjoining marshes.

The earliest arrivals to the Eastern Shore in the 17th century were for the m6st part
farmers and stock raisers who hunted and fished to help meet the food demands of growing
and active plantations. Game on the Peninsula was probably sufficient to meet
these needs, thus making trips to the islands less important than in the years to
come. Nonetheless, a few references to hunting on the sea isles are available. In
1675 John Custis set up a notice at the Northampton court threatening to sue those in-
habitants of the county who, in contempt of the laws, were ranging and shooti'g upon
the islands of Smith andMockhorn. He claimed that they disturbed his cattle.' A
few years later in 1681 a patentee of Hog's 3350 acres put up a similar notice pro-
hibiting hunting.2/ Thus it appears that livestock grazing in the 1600's was a more
influential factor in island utilization than was hunting.

Faunal disturbance from hunting was relatively minor throughout the 17th, 18th, and
early 19th centuries. The few inhabitants of the islands were scattered and could
hardly make a dent in the abundant waterfowl with their less than efficient weapons.
For the people of the mainland, a trip through the marshes and across the bays had to
be made slowly by sailing boats, hence hindering their employment of island resources.

MARKET HUNTING

When it became obvious that man-was not going to die in this new land, a new phase
of wildlife use came into being. Killing game to survive was no longer of dire
necessity, and gradually a business began to evolve. "It was the intoxicating pro-
fusion of the Americ� continent which induced a state of mind that made waste and
plunder inevitable".' The early market hunter took advantage of the seemingly
endless abundance to make a living, as did his contemporaries in every area of the
growing American economy.

The first references (mid-1800's) we have to market hunting on the Virginia Barrier
Islands concern the Cobb family of Cobb's Island. "It was only natural that the Cobbs
should engage in market hunting, since game was plentiful and the limit per person
was restricted only by one's skill with a gun.".' Nathan Cobb and his three sons,

I / Ames, Susie M. 1940. Studies of the Virginia Eastern Shore in the Seventeenth
Century. Russell and Russell. N.Y.p.32.

2/ Ibid. p. 33.

3/ Udall, Stewart L. 1963. The Quiet Crisis. Avon Books N.Y. p. 66.

4/ Kellam, Amine. 1974. The Cobb's Island Story. Virginia Cavalcade (spring) p. 22.

-55-

A hunte,~ would no,,cLma~y cove,, -'rma (bmii~tvh di~ied eet gA"~ o,,L ~imicuL mcleuiuicd- Dcoys' wut'd then bttivz9
,shoitebi~tcts to wi&thin 5hooting iLang~e. B~ix&5 werez hacestd byj mcUke~t hu~nteLs and spomttsmen atikez iU an
ag~e when bag9 {cnits tvvte. 6aL le ss ~,ttic~tive than ~tudayj. Thesec activities~ hctc a te>Ctng 'Crnpact on spciuA
,su,,vivate. The~ huniteA' show hn -ec> wa,5 Geotge Doughvty. Photo c>Utca 1890. Cowuttny o6 Ke~tman Doughty,.

Nathan Jr., Warren, and Albert built an active business with their bag of 150 birds
a day.1,Evenings were spent cleaning and packing game to be sent northward on passing
ships.-'/ Black duck) brant, canvasback and redhead brought 50 cents a piece on the
New York market.2/ - It seems likely that the inhabitants of Hog Island were also in-
volved in this form of hunting which included spring shorebird shooting.

Through the years, market gunning evolved a high degree of specialirution. Special
equipment was needed and in order to be successful, the 'gunner' had'to know the unique
behavior of his target, which varied from species to species. During this period
decoy tarving developed into-a truly American art. One of the earliest and best was
Natha nCobb Jr. (1825-1905). Other Cobb Island decoy makers were Albert Cobb,
Elkanah Cobb, Arthur Cobb, John Haff, J.E. Tatum, and Capt. Joe Crumb. Thomas, George,
and John Doughty were the Hog Island counterparts. And in the late years of the 1800's,
members of the Smith Island Life Saving Station were active also, including Robert
Andrews, Alma Fitchett, and Henry Downes.3

Hunting with a shotgun over decoys continued to be a popular method while more intri-
cate ways of killing in large numbers began to appear. The punt gun and battery were
two widely used guns devised especially for this growing business. The punt gun had
one large barrel that was loaded once on shore. The hunter then paddled stealthily in
a small boat toward his flock of floating targets. One shot was all that was needed
by an expert. The battery was a 'finger-like' gun comprised of several barrels joined
in a'block of wood. This gun was often used in conjunction with a light mounted on
a small skiff for night hunting. A special boat known as a sink box layout was used
on the bayside, but there is some question as to whether it was also popular on the sea-
side.-

These methods allowed the market hunter to kill ever increasing numbers of ducks and
'geese as well as wound and cripple many more. Nevertheless, gun manufacturers con-
tinued to develop more efficient shotguns and hence, they remained favorite weapons
of the sport and market hunter. In the 1870's the breechloader gained in popularity:

Chincoteague - 1883

Our young gunners were making sad havoc with the birds in this vicinity,
and our crack shot, Oliver Hagon Wimbrough, with his breech loader, is as-
tounding the sports by his marvelous execution of the feathered tribe. It
is said that in one day's gunning he brought down more than Mr. Taylor could
pick up, but now that a cargo of ice has arrived at this port there is no
damage of the gamn/spoiling for the want of facilities to ship the same to
the N.Y. markets.-

Later in 1887, Jq1n Browning invented the first repeating shotgun, "the market
hunter's dream".- Hence the gufi manufacturers continued to make hunting easier.

I/ Ibid. p. 22.

2/ Connett, Eugene ed. 1947. Duck Shooting. William Morrow & Co. N.Y. p. 150.

31 Bul:, Roy. Chapter on Eastern Shore of Virginia in R.H. Richardson ed. Chesapeake
Bay Decoys. Crow Haven Pub. Cambridge, Md. p. 169.

4/ Peninsula Enterprise. April 17, 1883. Mears Scrapbook Vol. 6. p. 48. Eastern Shore
Public Library.

5/ Walsh, Roy E. 1960. Gunning the Chesapeake. Tidewater Pub. Cambridge, Ad. p. 91.

-57-

One loc-- fellow is said to have shot 76 brant simply by unloading the gun once (5
shots).- John Browning went one step further in the early y�rs of 1900 and "gave
the market gunner his greatest tool" the automatic shotgun.-

The technique of flock shooting with an automatic shotgun and the
judicious -use39f corn constitute the deadliest method of duck destruction
ever devised.--

The market was created in northern cities (New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore) by a
demand for the delicacy of wild duck. Geese and shorebirds also came in for iheir
share of exploitation during this period. "For they shot the seemingly stupid shore-
birds even more unmercifully than the ducks, simply because they traveled in larger
flocks and could be shot in warm weather with so little effort."A/ This type of
hunting was done along the island beaches and frequently required the use of decoys.
The birds shot most zealously were called the red-back sandpiper (or dunlin),
dowticher (or robin snipe), yellow legs, curlew, willet, plover, calico-back (or
turnstone) and the knot. The fact that the birds were killed in the spring limited
marketing in the days without refrigeration, and hence, the 'beach birds' were sub-
jected to the most pressure from sportsmen.

The men involved in this marketing enterprise were simply making a living off the
l].and as were many thousands of Americans in the 19th century. It was a way of life
on the Eastern Shore, and for some of the islanders it alternated with fishing and
clamming in the summer for providing the means of support for families. Many of the
old-timers today can remember their fathers thus engaged. Later when legislation
restricted this form of hunting an ongoing demand in the cities stimulated the illegal
gunning which has become so infamous.

Many factors combinied to put an end to market hunting-on the scale that it had reached
by the end of the 1800's. The birds were getting scarce and prices reflected this
scarcity. They rose from 50 cents to $2.50 for a redhead. Destruction of breeding
habitat, market hunting and the growing pressure of sport shooting served to shock
legislators and the sport hunter into making laws and forming groups for the protection
of wild game.

SPORT HUNTING i

Hunting for sport grew in popularity at the time market hunting was flourishing. The
Eastern Shore, and especially the barrier islands, became famous for their fall and
winter wildfowl shooting, as well as for spring shorebird shooting. Again, the Cobbs
were at the forefront of a new enterprise and their hotel on Cobb Island became well-
known to the hunting enthusiast.

If ever a locale deserved to be described as a sportsman's paradise,
Cobb Island in the second half of the nineteenth century was that place.
Gifted by nature to an unbelievable degree, this bit of land off the

i/ Parson, Tom. Taped Conversation. Tape #11. October 1, 1975.
: :' ~~~~~~~~~~~~I
2/ Walsh, Harry M. 1971. The Outlaw Gunner. Tidewater Pub. Cambridge, Md. p. 25.

3/ Ibid. p. 29,

4/ Connett, Eugene. 1947. p. 153.

-58-

Virginia Shore had no equal on the Atlantic coast as a stopping place for
every variety-of wildfowl: shorebirds, geese, and brant lingered through
the fall and winter, and it was unexcelled for the sporty shooting provided
by the Hudsonian curlews, who stopped there in great numbers.-/

Hence, the club on Cobb Island became the first in a series of clubs located on the
barrier islands. Guests came from all over the United States and Europe to take
part in the increasingly prestigious sport of hunting. "They were literally swamped
with wealthy sportsmen who did not ask price - only a place to sleep and someone to
take them out where they could shoot until their desire to relax and kill was
sati"1ted."2/ The Cobb family skill in making decoys became an asset to this new
business of guiding hunting parties. The activity on Cobb Island peaked before the
turn of the century and its decline was speeded by a period of particularly severe
storms in the 1890's. At least one smaller club was organized later, but never gained
the acclaim of the original hotel.

In this same period Cobb's neighbor to the north, Hog Island, was the location of a
private hunting club whose most noteworthy guest was Grover Cleveland. The club, located
on the south end, was owned by a group of businessmen who came throughout the year
to hunt and fish. It seems that in 1886, William J. Doughty sold a tract of land to
Joseph L. Farrell who bought additional land and formed the Broadwate Land and
Improvement Co. This parcel was then leased to the Broadwater Club .- The town on
H6g Island took the name Broadwater also.

The clubhouse was a large, twelve bedroom structure, lavishly furnished and outfitted.
During the active periods of the year, cooks, guides, and other servants catered to
the well-known members "including Grover Cleveland, who braved the bleak waters of
Hog Island Bay for duck shooting".-- The sportsmen came to hunt ducks, geese, shore-
birds, and an occasional fox, guided by the native Hog Islander. The club is said
to have had a large grass field on which the 1895 University of Pennsylvania football
team trained.5/ There is some question as to when the club actually discontinued its
activity, but it is possible that discord among members forced its closing as early
as 1912. In any case, the building was later torn down and supplied the lumber for a
few local homes.

Another old club on the seaside was the Accomack Club located on the marsh behind
Parramore Island, known today as Clubhouse Point. This club was incorporated January 12,
1887 and its members were primarily from the New York area. The opening of the rail-
road on the Eastern Shore was partially responsible for the 'discovery' of this region
as a sportsman's paradise, and indeed it was in 1887. Local men served as guides and
women cooked and waited on the harried New Yorkers who came to relax and hunt. One
of the most exciting forms of entertainment for the natives and club members was
the sailboat regattas held in front of the club house (complete with clam chowder
and prizes).

1/ Mackey, William J. Jr. 1964. The decoys of Nathan Cobb Jr. Antigues. August 1964.
p. 192-193.

2/ Connett, Eugene. 1947. p. 151.

3/ Willis, Kit. 1974. Hog Island. Shatters (a publication of the Eastern Shore Com-
munity College) Vol. 1 No. 2, P. 38.

4/ Mears Scrapbook. Vol.4 p. 43. Eastern Shore Public Library.

5/ Bowen, Harvey. Taped Conversation. Tape #8. September 17, 1975.

-59-

The. inte,'io't o6 the. Accomazck C~eub c~eavy Show-s -the. sumptuous elegacnce. o6 the. Ls.Zand sp~ mn, c>tub6
o6 the. eaVL. Photo da~te ci~caL 1900. Cou'tny~t o6 Captain& and Mui . Ge~wtge Pe~pp-evA.

As was the case with many of the clubs of this period, several factors came together
to end the gay days of the rich sportsman on the barrier islands. Game began to get
scarce and the hunter could see his bag getting smaller each year. In an attempt to
save what was left, wildlife enthusiasts pushed for hunting regulations, and seasons
and limits came into being. But perhaps the greatest hindrance to this form of hunting
was the onset of the Depression. Nature joined forces with the economy to bring down
the buildings that for a few seasons had stood empty. The Accomack Club saw its last
full year in 1929 and in 1.936, a storm completed the work begun by the great hurricane
of 1933. Only the water tower remains today to remind us of the spot that had known
such a heyday.

The Revel's Island Club was another splendid club of the time. Although slightly
younger than the Accomack Club, its activity extended through most of the same period.
Predominantly known as the Revel's Island Club, it may have been officially called the
Old Dominion Gun and Tackle Club.!/ Members were from the Pittsburgh area. Aside
from the main building, two cottages were built later by members to accomodate extra
guests, perhaps because at certain times wives were not welcomed at the club. The
Revel's Island Club was used primarily for duck hunting and sporadic shorebird shooting.

This club too succumbed to the pressures experienced by the Accomack Club, however,
the building was not entirely lost in the storm. Lumber from the main house was used
to build structures on Chincoteague.

Parramore Island with its forests and glades was not to be overlooked as a site for
a sportsman's haven. In approximately 1920 the PIA (Parramore Island Association)
Club was built on the north end of Parramore along the inlet. The best known member
of the 125 member club was Mr. Chrysler of automobile fame. Again, they came to
shoot ducks primarily and to fish occasionally. At some time in the late 1920's or
early 1930's, a storm washed the underpinnings from the main h6use and it was moved
to the location where it can still be seen today (along the marsh south of the present
Coast Guard Station).

During the same decade, the club and island were sold and became known as the Holly
Island Club. In the same fashion as their neighboring clubs, the Holly Island Club
employed local guides and men to run the boats. Throughout most of the year, a
caretaker lived in the small house still standing near the boat landing.

The ponds on Parramore Island afforded ideal duck hunting conditions. Migrating
waterfowl need fresh or brackish water in which to feed and were thus virtually forced
into the hunters bag. To facilitate congregation of birds even more, the ponds were
heavily baited with corn, and several local fellows were hired to complete this task
daily. Parramore is also known for its live decoy use. Tame ducks and geese were
anchored with weights to lure their unsuspecting wild relatives to a spot in front of
a blind, and ultimately to the club dinner table. The live decoys were kept in the
enclosed area still visible in Goose Lake. To make hunting still easier the North-
South road was built to connect the glades which previously were reached by walking
in from the beach. Reputedly, telephones were installed at ponds to communicate with
the club house.

Financial problems overcame the Holly Island Club in the 1930's also, and thus ended
the large and lavish clubs of the era. Nevertheless, other smaller and often privately
owned clubs began in this period and drew attention to the favorable climate and
location as well as the abundant resources of the barrier islands.

l / Walker, Mrs. Wade. Personal Conversation. September 22, 1975.

-61-

I
To the south, Smith Island had a clubhnouse, known as the Bungalow, belonging to Mr. O.S.
Campbell, The 23 room house was built in about 1911 on the land bought from Robert
E. Lee's grandson. Mr. Campbell, believed to by/a member of the New York Stock Ex-
change, invited guests for winter duck hunting.-: The ponds on Smith were baited with
corn that could be purchased for $1 a cartload; and contests were held ?r killing
birds. The 'sport' to kill the most ducks and geese won a new shotgun.-
I
The Bungalow's recreational facilities included tennis, golf, and fishing along with
good hunting, but once again, financial problems arose and the building was sold in
1927. The sea had also taken its toll of the island as evidenced in 1922 when the
entire structura had to be moved 1800 feet back from the encroaching surf. Later the
house was divided in sections and moved off the island.

Other small clubs were established on Skidmore Island, Mockon, Elkins Marsh, and, of
course, Hog and Cobb Islands. Mockon or Mockhorn was owned by the Cushmans who
began a wildlife refuge by planting food and experimenting with other forms of manip-
ulative management. Hog Island had two or three small clubs run by local people and
Cobb had one remaining club, all of which were seriously curtailed by the storms of
the 1930's.

The most recent efforts to re-establish the old-style clubs were made by Mr. T.A.D.
Jones on Mockhorn in the 1940's and by the present day arrangement of the Machipongo
Club on Hog Island. Mr. Jones entertained his friends on Mockhorn Island by offering
good shooting in season. He is reported to have been a sportsman who observed bag
limits, although encouraging wildfowl with corn and live decoys was not frowned upon.
A large house and caretaker's cottage stood on the 'walled island'.

In this same category, the Schmidlapp family bought Parramore Island as a retreat
and a place to entertain friends with hunting and fishing. Although the Holly Island
Clubhouse still stands, the Schmidlapps converted the old Coast Guard Station into
their vacation home.

Today the Machipongo Club is the last vestige of the sportsmen's fellowship that had
once been an all important force on Virginia's Barrier Islands. The club consists of
a group of West Virginians who bought the Coast Guard Station on Hog's northern end
in 1965. Members are primarily fishermen who do some duck and rail shooting.

So it was that for decades the barrier islands were a hunters' haven. Their location
made them ideal for duck and goose hunting as well as for shorebird shooting. Deer
hundting is relatively recent and limited in extent. After the introduction of deer
on Parramore a few were shot each year (poached as well as legally) and occasionally,
one would wander elsewhere to the joy of a lucky native. It was the waterfowl then
that suffered. "It took nearly a century of unmerciful slaughter to make a noticeable
dent in the countless thousands By waterfowl that once frequented the Eastern Shore,
especially the Seaside marshes."-

1/ Hogg, Granville. Taped Conversation. Tape #13. October 16, 1975.

2/ Martin, G. Taped Conversation. Tape #6. September 3, 1975.

3/ Connett, Eugene. 1947. p. 157.

-62-

The market hunter, the careless sportsman, and an expanding human population combined
to bring many species of American waterfowl to the brink of extinction. The ducks,
geese, and shorebirds that once blackened the sky were no longer coming in such great
numbers. State and Federal regulations on hunting methods and seasons, in conjunction
with a new emphasis on sportsmanship in hunting technique, have made the comeback
in game populations of the late 20th century possible.

At the time when the island hunt clubs were beginning in earnest, laws in Virginia
were4!ltaking the first steps to end market hunting.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia, That it shall not
be lawful within the jurisdiction of the counties of Accomack and Northamp-
ton for any person to shoot at, or kill, or capture any wild water fowl, at
any time during the night; or to kill or shoot at them with a gun which can-
not be conveniently raised and fired at arms length from the shoulder without
a rest; or, at any time to capture them in traps or nets, or by other contrivances.
If any person violate any of the provisions of this section he shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor, and, in either case, be fined one hundred dollars in each
offence, and imprisoned in jail until the fine be paid, but not exceeding
ninety days; all guns, vessels, boats, or other appliances, and all traps,
nets, and other contrivances used in the commission of the offence shall be
forfeited to the Commonwealth. In any prosecution of any person under this
section, the possession of swivel guns, reflectors, traps, or other contri-
vances for the violation of these provisions shall be prima facie evidence
of his guilt; and in all cases of conviction one-half the fine shall be to
the informer.l/ Approved March 5, 1894.

Another Act of The General Assembly in 1896 set a season from Septe 0er 15 to January 15
for shooting marsh hens, and no eggs were to be taken after June 1.- Furthermore,
Sterling in his 1903 book on Hog Island stated that "the law allowing the shooting
of wild fowl only on alternate days and from sun up to sun down, has put a stop to
the indiscriminate slaughter of the noblest of wild birds. the brant, by brainless
clubmen, unprincipled pot hunters and market gunners..."- These early laws were
helpful, but it would take more drastic measures to curtail the kind of hunting that
had become a part of the culture of the Atlantic seaboard.

In 1913 a duck and goose season from November 1 to January 1 had come into effect; and
a closed season for swan, curlew, willet, gray-back, calico-back, dowitcher, knot,
plover and other beach birds had been instituted.-- Market hunting received its
greatest blow when Congress adopted the Lacey Act in 1900 which controlled the trans-
portation of wild animals across state lines. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty
Act in 1918 more specifically regulated the hunting of our dwindling wildfowl resources.
Throughout the early 1900's and to the present day, many local, state, and national

I/ The Eastern Shore Game Protection Association of Virginia. 1901. Constitution,
Charter, Laws. On file at Eastern Shore Historical Society, Kerr Place. p. 11.

2/ Turman, Nora Miller. 1964. The Eastern Shore of Virginia. 1603-1964. Pub. by The
Eastern Shore News Inc. Onancock, Va. p. 206.

3/ Sterling, Charles A. 1903. Hog Island Virginia. Copyright by Charles A. Sterling.
p. 25.

4/ Richardson, R. H. ed. Chesapeake Bay Decoys. Crow Haven Pub. Cambridge, Md. p. 113.

-63-

I
regulations have been proposed and accepted to protect game and non-game species. Un-
fortunately, without proper law enforcement facilities, laws are useless.

The geographical location of the barrier islands made early attempts to enforce federal
regulations by game wardens difficult, if not impossible. Sailboat travel through-
out the area by a few game wardens did little to curtail the local violators. The
people here had grown up with a tradition which condoned killing enmasse and for profil
The waterfowl belonged to them, and hence their children grew up with a new tradition -
outwi.tting the game warden. it was with this frame of mind that duck trapping grew toI
its inmmense proportions on both the bayside and seaside. Only in recent years has
duck trapping been thwarted by local wardens, and allegedly been given up with resig-
nation by most of the local people.

Legislation was only a part of the solution to the game problem. A joining together
of sportsmen, to promote a new attitude toward hunting, was instrumental in turning ths
tide for American wildlife. "...the hunters not unparadoxically, are more than anxiouf
to keep these animals alive in order to have something left to kill".l/ One cf the mok
influential of these early groups was the American Game Protection Association which
had a chapter on the Eastern Shore in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The
orgavizatior exemplified the new trends in wildlife management and the increasing
emphasis on sportsmanship:

Objectives:

1) The Association of Sportsmen, with a view to procuring and securing the enforce-
ment of a wise and judicious system of laws for the preservation of the game of
this Shore.

2) Restocking, as far as the means of the Association will permit, such portions of l
the shore as are depleted of game.

3) Offering rewards, as far as the means of the Association will permit, for the
killing of hawks, foxes, and other game-destroying animals.

4) The encouragement of an interest on the part of the people in preserving game.
Observing the game-laws, and informing upon and securing the punishment of the vio- l
lators of such laws.

5) The assembling together of gentlemen, fond of field sports, from all portions of
the shore, for friendly enjoyment, mutual acquaintance and cooperative effort, for
the general objects above set forth.-

How much heed was paid to the Association by the native is unknown. Conversations
with old-timers have revealed that knowledge of the organization is non-existent.
Perhaps a lack of enforcement power diminished potential strength on the Eastern
Shore. It appears however that there was cooperation with local government.

Owing to tihe reports of flagrant violations of the law prohibiting
the trapping and "lighting" of waterfowl, resulting in their wholesale
slaughter for market purposes, the Board of Supervisors in response to the

1/ M.tthiessen; Peter. 1959. Wildlife in America. Viking Press N.Y. p. 144.

2/ The Eastern Shore Game Protective Association of Virginia. Constitution, Charter,
Laws. James E. Goode, printer. Richmond 1894.

-64-

representative of the Eastern Shore Game Protective Association at its
meeting on Wednesday last rescinded a f -mer order of the Board permitting
the shipment of such game out of state.-

The strength of the organization of sportsmen was felt more fully by the out-of--
state hunt club member. A fee of first $5 and then $10 was charged for the privilege
of hunting on the Eastern Shore. The reaction of the vacation hunter is made clear
in the following letter to the editor of The Eastern Shore News:

- It is natural to ask why this class (non-resident gunners) should be
ostracized, if they should be, when all other classes who come to the county
for business purposes are welcomed and patronized. No class will eyjr leave
as much money for what it takes from the county as does this class.-

The uniting of sportsmen in groups such as the American Game Protective Association
was an important factor in changing attitudes toward wildlife, but more specifically
toward game animals. The trend in management supported stocking and predator
control and hence the barrier island faunal population was further manipulated by
human activity (see SELECTED HUMAN AND NATURAL INFLUENCES, p. 45).

Federal and state game regulations on seasons and bags,combined with an education
program by sportsmen's groups and publications,have begun to direct the hunter to a
greater awareness of conservation. Nevertheless, the Eastern Shore with its deep-
tooted traditions and close family ties holds tenaciously to many of its old ways.
Fathers and grandfathers shot over the limit or out of season, used live decoys,
and lured birds in with corn. Likewise, they trapped to supplement their incomes
and kept a watch for the game warden. It is not unusual then that today we have
the native still fostering the belief that the waterfowl and shorebirds of the barrier
islands and marshes belong to the Eastern Shoreman. He may shoot and trap for his
family and friends and perhaps make a little on the side as well. "In this day of
sophisticated living, fifty years after the laws were enacted, market gunning still
flourishes...estimated3t a Congressional hearing that it reaches nearly one-half
million ducks a year."--

.1/ Eastern Shore News. January 20, 1906.

2/ Eastern Shore News. January 27, 1906.

3/ Walsh, Harry M. 1971. p. 160.

-65-

LIVESTOCK GRAZING

The Eastern Shore of Virginia was first settled in the early years of the 17th century.
The new arrivals were farmers and stock-raisers who depended heavily on meat from
cattle, hogs, and sheep for their ocu consumption as well as for the market. Like-
wise, horses were a necessity for survival. A grazing problem was anticipated and
materialized in this region without fences. The recognition of the barrier islands
as the perfect pasture proved to be the solution to the problem. Hence, man began
his first serious disturbance of the natural island flora and fauna.

No land of the Eastern Shore was quite so desirable to the stock-
raiser as one or more of the islands that bordered its coast, for on those
grass-covered, sea-fenced areas,cattle Iwhether for dairy purposes or for
sale, could be raised very profitably.!/

The realization of the islands' value occurred sometime after 1670 as evidenced by
the patenting, one after the other, of the islands. Machipongo Island was patented
in 1672 and soon became kno%1,as Hog Island, presumably because hogs foraged through-
out its forests and marshes.--* In like manner, Metompkin and Cedar Islands were
patented in 1681 with the stipulation that the patentees, William Burton and Thomas
Bagwell, and their heirs should3)ave the liberty to land cattle upon any part of
the island as often as desired.- Smith Island was also prized for this purpose.

Until this year (1691) the island probably was considered worthless
as no patent for it was found until one was issued to General John
Custis as 2,600 acres.** About this time the barrier islands became
recognized as valble for cattle ranging and all of them were taken up in
a very few years.-

Although conditions were rigorous for the domestic herds, the arrangement was ideal
for the owner. The animals could be released and allowed to roam freely. Later they
could be recaptured at the owner's convenience. The only problems occasioned by
this practice involved the few marauding seafarers who stopped ashore to supply
their ships with fresh meat.

In all probability, livestock grazed on most of the barrier islands, from Chincoteague
to Smith Island, continuously throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. Their presence

*The name of the island was often spelled 'Hogg' suggesting that it may have
originated from a family name.
See The Englishman, p. 10, for discrepencies in patent dates.

1_/ Ames, Susie M. 1940. Studies of the Virginia Eastern Shore in the Seventeenth
Century. Russell & Russell. N.Y. p. 32.

2/ Anonymous. Virginia's Drowned Village. Virginia Cavalcade. Winter 1957. p. 7.

3/ Ames, Susie M. 1940. p. 33

I4/ Whitelaw, Ralph T. 1951. Virginia's Eastern Shore. Vol I & II Virginia Historical
Society. Richmond, Va. p. 50.

-67-

on Smith Island in 1807 is confirmed by the following letter: B

I very much fear we shall be obliged to go to war with the imperious I
English, their conduct is not to be born with, they have landed on Smiths
Island since the Presidents Proclamation & robbed & plundered Beef &
Sheep; we nTY have a Gard of 40 or 50 men there to receive them should they
come again.'

We know nothing of the vegetation of the islands prior to the arrival of Eiuropeans
to the Atlantic coast; but one can assume that some plants may have been eliminated
by the grazing and foraging stress placed on the island ecosystem. The sporadic
and less intense livestock raising of the 20th century also had had an effect on
plant community structure.

The grazing of cattle, sheep, hogs, goats, and horses in the late 1800's and up to
the present time has been concentrated on Parramore, Hog, Cobb, Smith, and Mockon
Islands; and to a certain extent Assawoman, Cedar, and Revel Islands.

The size of Parramore Island and the quality of its vegetation made it a more desirablI
island for livestock raising than some of its sandy northern neighbors. As is the
case with Chincoteague Island, ponies were allowed to roam and become wild along
the beaches and among the trees of the island. A local newspaper article in 1890
advertised "pony penning on Parramore's Beach next Wednesday - transportation free
from Wachapreague - ponies to be sold at public auction"./ Whether all the ponies
were removed at this time is unknown; however, 75 we~ stocked at the period 1897- -
1917 along with as many as 600 cattle and 800 sheep.-' The livestock fed on grass
and the leguminous beach pea. The island again changed hands in approximately 1917,
but the new owner did not purchase the animals. By 1919, however, all of these had
been removed with the possible exception of a few horses.

Another stocking effort in the 1920's was a failure. An attempt was made to introduce
Texas longhorn cattle. They were unable to cope with the relatively low nutritional
value of the vegetation and the insects of the seaside isle. Natives remember the
removal and slaughter of cattle in Wachapreague at some point in this period, but
whether it was the long-horns or some earlier cattle is unknown. Also vague Mention
was made to the trapping of a few wild hogs for meat in the first quarter of the
20th century.

Throughout the late 1920's and 1930's interest in the island focused on hunting and
improving the island for that purpose. Fifteen years passed before livestock was
again introduced. Deer had, however, been placed on the island in the interim. In
1940, 100* goats were released on Parramore with the hope that they would clean out
the heavy underbrush within the forest. The goats thrived and multiplied until 1950
when their numbers had reached into the thousands.* Watermen marveled at the white-
dotted shoreline as they passed the island.

*Figures range from 20-100 introduced goats, and from several hundred to several
thousand captured.

1/ Bowdoin, Peter. August 6, 1807 letter in Whitelaw, Ralph T. 1951. p. 297.I

2/ Eastern Shore News. September 16, 1975. "75 Years Ago" column (September 6, 1890). *
Mears Scrapbook Vol. 17 p. 38. Eastern Shore Public Library.

3/ Powell, Herbert. Taped Conversation. Tape #1. August 14, 1975.

-68-
Im

The goats were sold to Texans who arrived and attempted to round them up on horseback
(cowboy-style), much to the amusement of the local people. The roundup was finally
accomplished with sheep dogs. Some of 1he gcats were used for meat and range stock,
others were sold for antirabies serum.- Henceforth, except for an occasional straggler
Parramore Island was devoid of domestic livestock.

The grazing situation was somewhat different on Hog Island due to the human habitation
of the island. Surely the earliest settlers brought livestock with them, and some in-
dications are that that may have been in the 1600's. The villagers, throughout the
late 1800's and up until the 1930's, kept cattle, sheep, horses, and frequently a
few hogs and goats. The animals roamed freely and thus fences were constructed
around buildings and gardens for fencing out (not fencing in). Each fall a few of
the cattle were slaughtered and the meat was divided among the inhabitants. Similarly,
the sheep were rounded up in a joint effort each spring for shearing.

The stock browsed in the forest and along the marshes. Although the vegetation
supplied sufficient nourishment, evidence suggests that animals did not grow as
vigorously as their mainland counterparts.

On the west of the island is a great stretch of waste, comprising
sea meadows, shoals, sand dunes, shallows, and mudbars extending some four
miles to the banks of Great Machipongo Inlet. On this waste land there are
patches of swamp-grass and fields of sea-meadow grass, which, oarse and short
as it is, yet gives sustenance to herds of small wiry cattle._7

An Eastern Shore News article in 1957, on the history of Hog Island, mentioned that
the flocks of sheep on the island kept the 'woods clean as a penny'.3_ Interestingly,
some Hog Islanders claim that the livestock did keep the underbrush down and for
this reason fires never started within the forest.

Estimates of the number of livestock prior to the 1933 storm include 100 cattle,
100 Chincoteague ponies, 300-500 head of sheep, a few hogs and goats, and, of course,
chickens-./ Many of the animals drowned in the storm and most of those that sur-
vived were removed gradually to the mainland during the remainder of the 1930's.
Today Hog Island is the only island on which livestock are grazed in the same wild
manner as they were in the 17th century.

Grazing pressure on Cobb Island during the late 1800's and early 1900's was minimal.
No doubt the Cobb family kept a few head of livestock for their own use, but the
food Equired for their booming resort business was obtained from their mainland
farm.- More recently, 300 sheep and 100 cattle were released on the island, found
to be too many, and subsequently removed.

As was stated in the first part of this section, cattle were pastured on Smith Island
in the 1600's. Cattle, horses, sheep, goats, chickens, and turkeys have been kept

1/ Life Magazine. Cowpunchers get Virginia's Goats. January 23, 1950. p. 30.

2/? Sterling, Charles A. 1903. Hog Island Virginia. Copyright by Charles A. Sterling.
p. 6.

3/ Eastern Shore News. April 4, 1957. Mears Scrapbook Vol. 4 p. 81. Eastern Shore
Public Library.

4/ Simpson, John. Taped Conversation. Tape #12. October 1, 1975.

-69-

there periodically up until the 1960's. During the time of the Bungalow Club, the
herds of cattle and flocks of sheep numbered in the hundreds. Fifteen to twenty
horses roamd the island for a few years after the other livestock and prior to the
1933 storm.8--' One of these horses had originally been kept for buggy rides along
the beach. A small goat herd established around 1950 is rumored to have been elim -
inated by the high tides of the March 1962 storm.

Of the other islands in the chain, Mockhorn is said to have had several hundred
cattle during the Cushman ownership in the 1920's and early 1930's. Many ofthese
were lost in the 1933 storm.2-A few animals have, from time to time, been kept on
Cedar, Wreck, Fisherman, Skidmore, and Revel Islands, and on Elkin's marsh.-

Due to the extent and longevity of grazing practices on a few of the barrier islands,
we can assume that disturbance to vegetation was inevitable. Unfortunately, we are
not able to assess accurately the full impact of this human-related activity.

?~~

�~~

I/ Kellam, Amine. Taped Conversation..-Tape #5. September 2, 1975.

2-/ Martin, G. Taped Conversation. Tape #6. September 3,.1975.

-70-

RESOURCES OF THE SEA

The waters surrounding the Eastern Shore of Virginia provided the earliest settlers
with and other seafood were harvested and preserved for local use through-
t the year. A commercial fishery soon established itself and products of the sea
were exported to Europe by the American colonists. The following is a description
of marine life, and although not directly related to the islands, it depicts nicely
the changes which have occurred in the sea since man's arrival in Virginia.

Another attempt to correct the waste in fish life was occasioned by the
pollution of the waters of lower Chesapeake Bay by the killing of Whales.
A petition to the Governor in 1698 requested:
Wee the Councill and Burgesses of the present General Assembly being
sensible to the great mischiefs and inconveniences that Accrew to the In-
hatitants of this his Maj'ts Colony and Dominion of Virginia By killing of
Whales within the Capes therof Doe in all humility take leave to Represent
the same unto your Excellency And withall to acquaint you That by the means
there of Great Quantityes of Fish are poysoned and destroyed, And the Rivers
also made noisome and offensive, For prevention of which Evills In regard
the Restraint of the killing of Whales is a Branch of His Majestyes Royall
Prerogative.
Wee humbly Pray that your Excellency will be pleased to issue out a
Proclamation for biding All Persons whatsoever to strike or kill any Whales
within the Bay of Chesapeake in the Limits of Virginia which wee hope will
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I/
prove Effectuall meanes to prevent the many Evills that-Arise there from...-

By approximately 1840, the seafood industry was well established. Oysters were being
marketed in northern cities and conservation measures were taken by the General
Assembly. Oyster sales were prohibited between May 1 and September 1. Similarly,
laws were enacted which specified appropriate use of seines or nets. Turtles could
not be marketed nor could their eggs be disturbed between March 1 and Octobe 1.
Lawbreakers forfeited their nets, seines, tongs, and boats, and paid a fine.-

Not only was commercial fishing an important enterprise, but sport fishing was also
becoming a tradition by the mid-19th century. For example, Cobb Island after the
Civil War was famous for its hunting and fishing.

Advertisement for the Cobb Island Clubhouse:

Open all year for sportsmen. BRANT, DUCK and GOOSE shooting in winter
over live decoys. Shooting and good fishing in summer. Surf bathing un-
excelled.

1/ Pearson, John C. 1942-1943. The Fish and Fisheries of Colonial Virginia. William
and Mary College Quarterly Historical Mag. Vol. 23, no. 3, p. 281. Original
Petition: Council Papers of Virginia 1698. Printed in the Virginia Magazine of
History and Biography XXI, no. 1 p. 76.

2/ Turman, Nora Miller. 1964. The Eastern Shore of Virginia 1603-1964. The Eastern
Shore News Inc. Onancock, Va. p. 174.

I
The veteran sporting journalist, Major Alex. Hunter, says of the
place: That "it is the finest brant shooting grounds on the Atlantic coast,
and the finest sea fishing in the summer north of the Gulf of Mexico".
And what he says goes./

"Lovers of piscatorial sport" found an abundance of sheep's head, striped and black
bass, bluefish, weakfish, kingfish; drum, flounder, blackfish, bay "makeral"(siq),
and horse "makeral"(sic), perch, spot, sunfish or moccasin, pike, and "catty"
Shark fishing was a favorite at the Cobb's resort, especially with one well-known
guest.

Governor Fitz Lee will not soon forget his shark fishing; how, when
the monsters were drawn up along side the boat he mauled them to death with
a ponderous club. He could command a sharking fleet as well as a division
of cavalry...that place suits him better than any other seaside resort
he has visited.3/

Drum fishing too was Rypular and 100 pound drum fish were taken with harpoons from
the Hog Island beach.-

Commercial fishing was an active enterprise in this period. During the 1880's
commercial interests were engaged in the manufacture of fertilizer and extraction
of oil from tg? menhaden catch. Reportedly, a plant was located on Cedar Island I
at this time.- Clamming continued to be a profitable business and the famous
Virginia oyster grounds were productive.

Other marketable marine fauna included the Diamondback Terrapin and the soft crab, I
both of which were considered delicacies in the Philadelphia and Baltimore markets.

By the turn of the century, many Eastern Shoremen were making a living by harvesting I
the natural resources supplied by the bays, inlets, and open seas. The waterman whose
life was ruled by tides, seasons, and weather gradually became a predominant feature 3
of this seaside culture. The work was hard and the hours long. Equipment and trans-
portation were not as efficient as today. Poling or sailing were the only means of
reaching- fishing, clamming, or oyster grounds. Although some sport fishing went on, *
primarily with the vacationer, the local people fished for a livelihood.

Seines and various other nets were used as well as hand lines. The rod and reel
arrived with the sportsman. One of the more interesting methods of commercial fishing3

1/ Advertisement in Charles A. Sterling. Hog Island Virginia. 1903.

2/ A Paradise for Gunners and Anglers. Passenger Department. Philadelphia, Wilmington, I
and Baltimore Railroad Co. 1883. Kerr Place File. Eastern Shore Historical Society.
p. 20.

3/ Peninsula Enterprise. August 9, 1962. "75 Years Ago" column. (July 30, 1887).
Mears Scrapbook Vol. 14, p. 37. Eastern Shore Public Library.

4/ Pyle, Howard. 1878-1879. A-Peninsular Canaan. Harpers Mag. Vol. 28, p. 810.

M/Mears, James Egbert. 1950. The Eastern Shore of Virginia in the Nineteenth
and Twentieth Centuries. Chapter 27. Reprinted from The-Eastern Shore of Maryland
and Virginia. Ed. Charles B. Clark. Lewis Historical Publishing Co. Inc. N.Y.
p. 583.

-72-

__I

on Virginia's seaside involved the construction of traps These traps, known as
pounds, were located off the beaches of the barrier islands and were the basis of
the pound fishing industry. This form of fishing was begun on the seaside in the
early 1900's and proved to be successful through the 1930's.

Several fishing companies in Wachapreague and Willis Wharf employed the method of
trapping fish in huge quantities. The traps consisted of large poles set in deep
water which then served as a frame for netting. Each day pound boats with crews of
approximately twelve men left the mainland to empty the nets. Catches usually in-
cluded sea trout, croaker and other local fish. Occasionally, sea turtles were caught
and killed.

Markets for the fish, throughout the 1920's and 1930's, were in cities such as
Philadelphia and Baltimore. Old-timers remember trucks leaving Wachapreague daily
for many months of each year. Often if market conditions were not good, fish would
be held in pens constructed on the 'inside' of the islands. Later when the market
improved the fish were easily recaptured. Fishpen Gut, located in the marsh between
Wachapreague and Parramore Island, was used for this purpose.

Pound fishing had its drawbacks, however, and it was not long before fish were not
as numerous as they once had been. Furthermore, the storms so frequent in this period
were destroying the traps. To compound the problems of the pound fishing companies,
accidents occurred in which several lives were lost. All of these factors came to-
gether to bring about a decline in this commercial venture. In the 7riod 1935-
1970, there was a 66% decrease in the number of licensed pound nets.19

Another commercial fishery of the 20th century was shark fishing. Shark meat was
sold as 'steak fish' and the livers were used for vitamin extraction. The 3-9 foot
sharks were caught with nets at night. This fishery was not extensive and thus,
within a few years, interest declined.

The shellfish industry of the Eastern Shore was a source of income for the native,
and particularly the Hog Islander in the years prior to the 1933 storm. The prices
during the Depression, however, would Brad one to think otherwise. Clams were $1
per thousand and oysters 10� a bushel.- Although oysters and clams are still
profitable, the scallop population has declined to a point which precludes commercial
exploitation. Harvesting scallops was a relatively short-lived business in the
bays of the seaside. Interest in scallops began in the 1920's, but the bivalve
population was seriously effected during the 1930's when a blight destroyed the eel
grass to which the juvenile scallop attaches itself.31

Fishing on Virginia's Eastern Shore is a way of life, especially for those living in
close proximity to the bays and waterways which surround the barrier islands. Al-
though fishing for market is not on the scale that it once was, many of the old
commercial fishermen use their expertise by 'taking out parties'. Other 'old-heads'
fish daily simply because it is customary to do so. Their catches are given to friends

I/ Richards, C.E. Ch. VII. Recreational Fishing. From Burrell, Dias, and Castagna.
1972. Study of Commercial and Recreational Fisheries of The Eastern Shore. Un-
published manuscript. Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences.

2/ Simpson, John. Taped Conversation. Tape #12. October 1, 1975.

3/ Castagna, Michael. Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. Personal Conversation.
November 7, 1975.

-73-

and relatives. U
Sport fishing, on the other hand, is drawing more people to the seaside each year.
Private boats are launched or party boats are rented for bay, inlet, ocean, and
beach fishing. There was once great hope for the barrier islands regarding this
later form of fishing.
Surf casting from the beaches is supurb wherever engaged in. One of
the great drawbacks to the Eastern Shore - something which in time will be
corrected - is that there is hardly a point anywhere along the wonderful
outershores where one may drive his car, park and cast his bait into the
surf.-
I

1/ Wood, Leonora W. 1952. Guide to Virginia's Eastern Shore. Dietz Press Inc. Richmonl
Va. p. 67.
!
-74-

I ~~~~~~~STORMS AND THE BARRIER ISLANDS

I The position and nature of the Virginia Barrier Islands along the Atlantic coast make
them highly vulnerable-to hurricanes, tropical storms and the unpredictable 'Northi-
easter'. Throughout history, storms in this region have effected the physical con-
I figuration, vegetation, and-human use of the sea islands. Unfortunately, records
a-re often incomplete and inaccurate, making the pinpointing of exact storm dates
Iimpossible.

The size of the island, type of vegetational cover, and the direction of the storm
Icombine to determine the extent of the damage inflicted by a particular storm.

Although storms have made life difficult on the sea isles, people have been willing
to contend with this uncontrollable force to reap the benefits of life on an island.
I Habitation of the islands south of Chincoteague and Assateague was sporadic in the
early years of the 19th century, but people on those two northern isles were already
experiencing the horrifying uncertainty of life so close to nature.
Many traditions of the island are handed down from mouth to mouth by
the natives, but few of them being able to read or write. It is thus we
receive a full account of the great storm and accompanying tidal wave of
te year 1821; telling how the black wrack gathered all one dreadful day to
the southeast; *how all night the breathless air , inky black, was full of strange
moaning sounds, and pine needles quivered at the forecasting hurricane that
lay in wait in the southward offing; how sea-mews and gulls hurtled screaming
through the midnight air; how in the early morning the terrified inhabitants,
looking from their windows facing the ocean, saw an awful sight; The waters
had receded toward the southward, and where the Atlantic had rolled the
I ~ ~night before, miles of sandbars lay bare to the gloomy light, as the bottom
of the Red Sea to the Israelites; then how a dull roar came near and nearer,
and suddenly a solid mass of wind and rain and salt spray leaped upon the de-
I ~ ~voted island with a scream. Great pines bent for a moment, and then, groaning
and shrieking, were torn from their centuried growth like wisps of straw and
hurled one against another; houses were cut from their foundations and thrown
headlong, and then a deeper roar swelled the noise of the tempest, and a
monstrous wall of inky waters rushed with the speed of lightening toward the
island. It struck Assateague, and in a moment half the land was a waste
of seething foam and tossing pine trunks; the next instant it struck Chin-
I ~ ~coteague, and in an unbroken mass swept across the low south marsh flats,
carrying away men and ponies like insect T rushing up the island, tearing
its way through the stricken pine woods.-!

Whether the south-lying islands were as drastically affected at this time we do
not know. Again, the intensity of such a storm may vary t hroughout the region. None-
theless, the southern islands experienced their share of destruction during the
1800's.
* The earliest mention of a storm and its results on the islands now under The Nature
Conservancy's jurisdiction is as follows:

Ill Pyle, Howard. 1877. Scribner's Monthly. no. 13 (April) p. 743-744.

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~-75-

A severe storm in this year (1851) cut a wide channel through
the island (Smith), making two is ands out of it. The upper part,
became known as Myrtle Island....

Storms play an important role in determining the physical configuration of the islands
and their surrounding waterways. This in turn influences thevegetation of the
islands as evidenced by the above description of the pine trees in the Chincoteague
storm. It is believed that t7 cedar trees, for which Cedar Island was named, were
destroyed by a storm in 1857.-'

The 1800's was also a difficult time for livestock raising on the barrier islands.
We can only guess at whether the indigenous fauna experienced the same mortality
rates as the grazing cattle and sheep. The following is a portion of a newspaper
account of a storm in 1878:

We were visited on Tuesday night last with one of the severest wind
storms ever experienced in this section, and unquestionably the highest tide
within the knowledge of any one now living, the water reached a point at least
3 feet higher than the great September blow of 1822*...On Cedar Island
nearly all the stock perished, Cap. O.A. Browne being a heavy loser. His loss
there will be fully seventy-five cattle, and as many sheep...No report has
reached us from Revel's or Hog Island, but on the former, it is feared
that Charles M. Dunton, Esq. has lost heavily in stock.3/

Thus, although the islands afforded good grazing conditions most of the time, a
certain risk had to be taken in dealing with an area so susceptible to the vagaries
of nature.

For the most part, a barrier island is exactly what its name implies - a barrier
between the mainland and the pounding surf. The quiet inner bay waters then allow
the build-up of marshes to occur undisturbed. Infrequently, however, a storm is
so severe that even the island falls short of its task. The 1878 storm was apparently
such a storm.

It may have been, that the sea broke entirely over the beach, and
was driven b the wind on the mainland.. .had something of the nature of a
tidal wave.-

The potential for inundation of an island depends naturally on its height abovesea
level, thus some of the Virginia Barrier Islands are more vulnerable than others.

* Dates on storms are often incorrect by a year or more. It is possible that the
1821 storm at Chincoteague is the same storm as one mentioned here in 1822.

1/ Whitelaw, Ralph T. 1951. Virginia's Eastern Shore. Vol. I & II. Virginia Historical
Society. Richmond, Va. p. 51.

2/ Richardson, Preston. Wachapreague, Va. 1958 school notebook in which the s.tudent
noted interviews with old-timers.

3/ Eastern Virginian. Saturday October 26, 1878. On file at Virginia Historical
Society. Richmond, Va.

4/ Ibid.

-76-

In 1878 the Cobb's Island Life Saving Station was carried from the foundation and
damaged. Ten years later, "a high tide in 1888 engulfed the nearest island to
the south, called Cobb's. But it left Hog at least a.9ve water. This proved to
the latter's folk the superiority of their location. Little did the islanders
know that this was to begin a decade of devasting storms that would end the good
life on Cobb's Island; and later, Hog Island would have its turn.

There is considerable discrepancy as to the exact date of the final blow to
the famous Cobb's Island resort. A series of storms and perhaps a decline in
strength of the family leadership combined to bring an end to the business and
the buildings. Some references give 1893, others 1896, and still others 1898, as
the year of the 'tidal wave' which destroyed the hotel and surrounding structures.
Sometime in October of 1896 seems to be the most likely choice.

A search through the Hog Island Lighthouse journal revealed the following brief
statement on October 11, 1896: "There2~s a severe storm from the North east. The
tide has nearly submerged the island.`' Why then did the storm have such a
tremendous effect on Cobb Island and an obviously lesser impact on Hog Island?
The explanation can only lie within three factors: height above sea level, vegetation
cover, and relative direction of the storm.

The Hog Islanders, who once thought that their high, tree-covered, island was safe
from the sea, began to notice a gradual erosion of the south end. The storms had
begun to take their toll. A storm tide in Oc~gber, 1903, which covered the whole
island, was a foot deep at the highest point.-' Another storm in September, 1928
supposedly made the largest dent in the island's eroding southern section.-, It
was the hurricane of August, 1933, however, that is undoubtedly the single most
significant event in the history of human use of the barrier islands.

The Great August Storm washed over all of the islands, with perhaps the exception
of Parramore, the wind and the waves carrying livestocktrees, and buildings into
such mainland towns as Wachapreague and Willis Wharf. Contrary to recently'pub-
lished accounts of the storm, this was merely the beginning of the end for the
village of Broadwater. One house on Hog Island washed away because no one was there
to open the doors and windows to allow the sea to wash through without sweeping the
house from its foundation. No one drowned. The trees and direction of the storm
are believed to be responsible for diminishing the storm's impact. Much livestock
was lost and erosion was extensive, but the people stayed. They knew, however, that
the end of their happy island life was nearly upon them and hence gradually, over
the following few years, began to move to the mainland.

The '33 storm was felt on the other barrier islands also. On Cedar Island, the
Coast Guard Station was demolished and the old hotel building was washed doum. On
Cobb Island, Mr. George Cobb was drowned and the Coast Guard Station and small clubhouse

I/ Anonymous. Virginia's Drowned Village. Virginia Cavalcade. Winter 1957. p. 9.

2/ Journal of Hog Island Light Station, Va. kept by George Lanson Doughty. Began
June 14, 1872. Presently in the possession of Kellam Doughty, Eastville Deputy Sheriff,

31 Sterling, Charles A. 1903. Hog Island Virginia. Copyright by Charles A. Sterling.
p. 29.

Newspaper article, probably Peninsula Enterprise. March 31, 1939. Mears Scrapbook
Vol. 7 p. 2. Eastern Shore Public Library.

-77-

destroyed. Along the whole length of the seaside, oyster watch-houses were washed
away. Furthermore, the inundation of the islands was destructive to both flora and
fauna; and the extensive movement of sand westward by storm currents resulted in the
burial of bottom dwelling organisms in the bays. Nevertheless, the most far-reaching
damage was that done to the beaches by a swiftly moving sea.
"A great ltorm in 1933 flattened the town; carved up the island. Only the dead
stayed."--L Although the end of Broadwater was not quite so dramatic as suggested
here, the results were ultimately the same. Another storm in 1936 convinced the
remaining wishful thinkers that habitation of the barrier islands was risky'ynd po-
tentially expensive. By 1940, the threat of storms and the noticeably increasing
rate of erosion ended the many decades of island habitation. A Northeast storm, known
locally as the Ash Wednesday Storm, in March, 1962, served as a present day reminder
of the hazards of seaside life.

3
I

i
I
l

1/ Culley, Jennings. April 1968. The Islands. The Commonwealth p. 39.
~~~~~~~-78-~~I
�-78-

PHYSICAL CHANGES*

The physical appearance of most of the barrier islands has changed strikingly since
man's first association with them. Storms have done their damage; but other unex-
Ilaineda changes in erosion patterns have occurred which cause-old-timers to shape
their heads about the future of the islands. Certainly the drastic alterations of
Hog Isand within the life-time of many natives is sufficient justification for their
pessimism.

The transformation in the appearance of Hog Island occurred swiftly. For example, in
newspapers of the turn of the century, advertisements for the new store in Broadwater
were common; hence, people obviously felt secure in the. potential longevity of their
community. The following is taken from a newspaper in 1903:

Hog Island, bathed in the mellow light of the moon, is indeed a paradise
(when the mosquitoes don't bite) nestling in the bosom of old ocean like a
gem, from the Life Saving Station on the sands with its band of stalwart
seamen, to the top of the tall light tower, which sends its comforting gleams
to the distressed mariner, is full to overflowing with a mysterious interest,
which gives the impression of prodigious strength, with calm peaceful
security...I_/

The islands, however, had been eroding and building up for centuries. The people
either did not notice, or perhaps simply decided to take a chance on, the precarious
nature of their island existence. Nevertheless, the evidence was there in 1878 when
Pyle noted that "in some places the s~ydhills were eighty feet high, covering every
vestige of trees they have buried...--'

I Hog Island from 1900 to the early 1920's was approximately eight miles long and two
miles wide at the widest point on the south end. Fully half the island was forested
as Parramore is today, and the beach in some places was almost a mile wide. In other
places, some of the cld-timers can remember as young boys watching huge sand slides
as dunes cracked and fell into the surf. The old brick lighthouse, which once stood
on the eastern edge of the forest, was surrounded by lapping waves. The foundation
of the new lighthouse, built in 1896 on the western side of the island and destroyed
in 1950, is now under the sea.

The erosion was gradual yet persistent'up until 1933. By the time of the great August
storm of that year much of the forested areas had dwindled. The sea had begun to
wash in around the roots, thus, "the lordly trees which once sheltered the community

Expert geological analysis will appear elsewhere in the Virginia Coast Reserve
Study. This section merely outlines some of the historical evidence of physical
changes in the barrier islands.

I/ AcComack News. Saturday, September !9: 1903. On file at the Virginia Historical
Society, Richmond, Virginia.

2/ Pyle, Howard. 1878-1879. A Peninsular Canaan, Harpers Mag. N.Y. Vol. 28, p. 810.

-79-

OW~~~~~~~~~~~

The wate~~~~t toweA ~~isathtpeetyemisothAcockubn

M- ~~ In ~wbtttnts )oes

The. wwt~~~~~~~~e~'.-ovid' ~t-tatp entcj 'emau oj -teA manfz aC sub onth
Crab How~~~~e Mcut~Zssn, . Tesn aand wmthno~t nd ~P~rzoe snd. Th e hi
't em a~~~~ned ot~~~ othedadamagaed twtt i~ ~~h 93h - c fte. ah -temoa
eou ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~uimoniat o tohna', Caevz 197.o

tame this bafivLiln ytm
Photoc~edi Cukis agL

of Broadwater have become a graveyard too. Sand dunes march implacably over what was
once a carpet of pine needles..."' The storm sparked the human exodus which was
finally complete in 1941. As late as 1939, however, hope was being held out for the
continuation of the Hog Island community.

There's no immediate danger for the inhabitants. The homes and stores
are on the wese rn side of the island, and, as you know, the Atlantic washes
the east side.-

Today the location of the village is under water. The site of the famous Broadwater
club is gone too. During the i950's low tides revealed the headstones of the village's
graveyard. A gruesome reminder of the cemetery's existence occurred in 1956 when
the petrified torso of a man, buried 25 years earlier, was washed from his grave.l/

Like the pine forest, the little church around which the graves clustered,
stood almost two miles from the beach within living memory. Near it were
the half-a-hundred homes, sportsman's club, hotel and other buildings com-
prising the only vil�-ge in America to flourish for a century and then be
engulfed by the sea.-

The accelerated rate-of erosion after the '33 storm was obvious to the native Hog
Islander, but measurements made by the Coast Guard during the 1940's confirmed these
observations. The distance from the lighthouse to the ocean was measured elah month
from 1943-1947 and it was found that 2,700 feet were lost during that time.- 'Local
thinking' attributes some of this increased erosion to the decline of the eel grass.
Natives claim that the eel grass used to wash up on the beaches and serve to trap
and hold sand.

Fifteen years ago an attempt was made to build tp the beaches'with dune fencing.
At that time the south end of Hog Island was split by a small channel which has since
filled in. Because the erosion of beaches seems to occur cyclically, the possibility
of such stabilizing efforts.bringing about the change is slim.

The other barrier islands experienced similar periods of erosion, but because they
were not so heavily populated, documentation is not as complete. Indirect evidence
of the changes in Metomkin Island was given by a turn of the century vacationer on
the island. Each summer for several years mo;q and more sand had to be removed from
the small hotel as the beach washed westward.2/ Similar reports suggest that Cedar
Island has shifted its location several times since 1900.

l/ Wharton, James. 1954. The Sea Islands of the Eastern Shole. Commonwealth 21 (Sept.)
p.15.

2/ Peninsula Enterprise. March 31, 1939. Mears Scrapbook. Vol. 7, p. 2. Eastern Shore
Public Library.

3/ Baltimore Sun. Ncvember 25, 1956.

4/ The Sunday Sun Magazine. Baltimore, Md. October 28, 1956.

5/ Matthews, Greet. Taped Conversation. Tape #6. September 8, 1975.

6/ Nock, Sara. Personal Conversation. October 9, 1975. Family owned the hotel in the
first decade of the 20th century.

-81-

Natives remember relatively little about changes in Parramore Island, One immediately
assumes that height and vegetational cover have served to protect it, but one must
also remember that Hog Island was once similarly endowed. Fear of erosion prompted
the planting of dune grass after the '62 storm. The beach, which served as a landing
strip for the owners in the 1930's, is today studded with tree stumps.
.r.I
Pig Island, which is no longer visible, was a small (approximately 500 acres) island
located to the south of Hog Island. Similarly, Prouts Island located in thissame
vicinity, has joined to the north end of Cobb Island. Whitelaw has the follo"ning
to say about Prouts Island:*

Patent(1687) to John Floyd for 400 acres called Prout's Island.
In the years following, sales for parts of the island were noted, but no
effort was made to trace each component part. 1815 Patent to H.W. Cobb
for 210 acres of Prouts Island. As time went on, storms cut a channel through
the upper part of the island and the north part thus cut off became Prout's
Island, whil. the remainder was called Cobb's Island. The former is now en-
tirely gone.-/

During the early years of the 20th century, Cobb and Prouts Islands were still separated
by an inlet which gradually accreted before 1920.

Cobb Island has changed in size and shape many times throughout the 19th and 20th
centuries. A building up of the island occurred in the mid 1800's. "In 20 years,
Cobb Island grew from the size of a corner lot in suburbia to an island of 260
acres". It declined again in size during the stormy period of the 1880's and
1890's. "Why is it that ~ye sea has never washed Cobb's Island destructively, until
within the past 6 years?"- This question asked in 1897 may well have been asked by
the Hog Islander in 1937.

Attempts were made in the mid-20th century to stablize the constantly changing north
end of Cobb Island. A 3/4 mile board fence was constructed because the sand was
washing over valuable oyster grounds. Reportedly sand then built up to the top of
this fence. Within the last five or six years, another attempt was made, but this
time with snow fencing.!/ Whether this project or a smaller effort on Hog Island
made any appreciable change in island structure is unknown. Local people feel that
a long shelving beach is the only assurance of a relatively stable island.

Mockhorn Island, although not a barrier, has also been subject to change by the forces
of the sea. According to one old-timer Mockhorn and Skidmore Island were connected
o57
to the mainland one hundred years ago.- They became islands only when channels

* Some controversy exists here as to the purchasing and naming of Cobb's Island,
see Part I section 3.

1_/
If Ihitelaw, Ralph T. 1951. Vitginia's Eastern Shore. Vol. I & II. Virginia Historical
Society. Richmond, Va. p. 214.

2/ Culley, Jennings. 1968. The Islands. The Commonwealth. April. p. 41.

3/ Sturgis, Rev. i.R. Peninsula Enterprise. November 13, 1897.

4-/ Bowen, Harvey. Taped Conversation. Tape #6. September 17, 1975..

5/ Martin, G. Taped Conversation. Tape #6. September 3, 1975.

-82-

separated them from the main portion of the Peninsula. During both the Cushman and
Jones ownership of Mockhorn, walls were built around the island at tremendous cost.
The walls were built to hold back the sea,

The barrier islands in this southern sector also have been altered over the years.
Am island known as Bone Island has, within the last fifty years, partially washed
and partially fused with Wreck Island.

Towards the end of the last century when its neighbor Cobb's
Island was a popular summer resort, lots were sold here by the Bone Island
.Development Associat1?n, but erosion since had been severe and there is
not much left today.-

Not only have islands fused but they have been divided as well. Old-timers claim
that from Wreck Island to Smith Island was once a continuous island, New inlet,
Ship Shoal, and Little Inlet are thus approximately one hundred years old. Similarly
in the 1930's Bungalow Inlet and Redhouse Inlet were cut through Smith Island but
have since filled in.

The only serious attempt below Wallops Island to stabilize beaches with jetties occurred
on Smith Island. The second Cape Charles Lighthouse was finished in 1864 and by 1885,
Congress appropriated $10,000 for a jetty. Unfortunately, before the rock structure
was complete, large portions were destroyed in a storm. In the interim, it was
decided to build a new lighthouse. Four jetties were, however, completed by 1891.2/

Tradition holds that Fisherman's Island, sometimes called Linen Island, was formed
from a shipwreck nucleus. Natives, who have watched the transformation of many of
the barrier islands, can recall driving horses and carts over to this southernmost
island.

The Virginia Barrier Islands are not on firm bedrock foundation as are the well-
known islands of New England. They had, however, built up to a height in the early
20th century which could support fertile soil and consequently productive gardens
and orchards. Yet, shifting ocean currents continue to move islands elsewhere.

Miles away, you see the white breakers on the distant shoals. Those
shoals are on the old foundation of the island. There it uplifted its forest
of cedar and pine. And, as we do now so then, its aborigines fished its
waters and trod its shelving shors.3

Sands may be eroded in one area and accreted in another along this portion of the
Atlantic coast, but most old-timers will argue otherwise. For the mostpart, they
are convinced that the 'ocean will be beatin' on the mainland? someday.

Yes, the sea is eating through Hog Island, as it will eventually
eat through other islands that protect the mainland of the Eastern Shore

1/ Whitelaw, Ralph T. 1951. p. 213.

2/ Snow, Edward Rowe. 1955. Famous Lighthouses of America. Dodd, Mead & Co. N.Y. p. 156.

3/ Sturgis, Rev. J.K. Peninsula Enterprise. November 13, 1897. Mears Scrapbook vol. 4
p. 53. Eastern Shore Public Library.

-83-

and when that barrier is gone the surf wiil reach out for its first taste
of the peninsula and gradually may eat its way until it joins in wedlock
with the Chesapeake B ...but don't start worrying, for it will probably
take a million years.-

Whether the islands will be gone within a time-frame to cause us concern is open
to conjecture. Nonetheless, man has learned through hard experience the folly of
putting any hope in their permanence. And, as pointed out by Leonard in 1972,
"history should give pause to qnyone who is minded to build on Virginia's lovely
but fickle offshore islands."'- �

.61Z

1/ Peninsula Enterprise, March 31, 1939. Mears Scrapbook. Vol. 7, p. 2. East jrn Shore
Public Library.

~/ Leonard, Jonathan Norton. 1972. Atlantic Beaches. Time-Life Books. N.Y. p, 115.

-84-

FIRES

I Fires are frequently a human-related phenomenon which have the potential to change
the biological character of an area in a brief period of time. The barrier islands
have burned periodically during the present century and undoubtedly in other
centuries as well. The following section has been compiled totally from the re-
collections of natives, hence all references are to fires since 1900. There was no
mentioh of fire in any of the literature searched in connection with the islands.

Parramore Island fauna and flora were effected by two fires in the 1920's. In
both cases, it is believed that the fires started through carelessness rather than
from-a natural source. The first and most severe began on the south end and burned
up to the east-west road now leading to the Schmidlapp house. The caretakers of the
island were forced to elicit help from the mainland to fight the two day fire which
was finally contained by the road. Although the fire could be seen at night from
Wachapreague, damage to the large trees was apparently minimal. Its primary effect
was to destroy underbrush.

The second fire within ten years on Parramore began at the north end road and stopped
short of the clubhouse. This fire was brought under control by a few men when it
reached areas with little burnable vegetation. Since 1936 there have been no fires
of any significance on Parramore Island.

During the time of the flourishing Hog Island community, there were no major fires.
There was, however, an occasional grass fire. A suggestion was made that these may
have been started to improve grazing conditions for livestock. Similarly, mention
was made in the section on livestock, p. 69, that the lack of underbrush, attributed
to animal browsing, was a factor in the low incidence of forest fires on the island.
A couple of houses in the community burned, one of which was the result of a "chimley"
fire. The rain-barrels kept at each house served as good sources of fire-fighting
water.

West of Hog's south end, Rogue Island has been very much changed as a result of fire.
According to local sources, the island was once heavily wooded with cedar and pine.
A fire, accidentally started by a group from the Coast and Gcodetic Survey, is said
to be responsible for bringing the island to its present vegetational condition.

The most common answer to questions about fires on Cobb is that the island burns
almost annually. Grass fires seem to be frequent and occasionally a small house
was burned. The last extensive fire on Cobb, however, occurred approximately fifteen
years ago. At that time, blame was placed on the back-firing of a truck in heavy
grass. The fire reportedly was visible from the mainland.

W'reck!Island too has not been excluded from the influence of fire. During the days
when boat travel to the waters around Wreck was slow, w-aterren often stayed for days
in make-shift homes on the island. During the summer, island grasses were burned
in an attempt to rid the area of mosquitoes and thus make life there more bearable.

A fire on Smith in the mid-1960's burned a small house. Prior to that, the only fire
mentioned on this southern island occurred 40-50 years ago. At that time, one fire
burned from one end to the other and destroyed most of the large timber in the process.

-85-

The general feeling among the local people is that fires on the barrier islands have
been insignificant. The fact remains, however, that any disturbance to plant and
animal life of this nature perturbs the ecosystem in accordance with the magnitude
of the disturbance. Certainly the burning of timber has a far-reaching effect on
community structure, while perhaps the destruction of grasslands may only be felt
for a year. Again, human activity has been responsible for directing the course of
ecosystem development.

'8 6.

-86-

I Climate

and Soils

I
I
I
I ~ ~ ~ ~ r
I~r�~3~*u;~-~1~t14i~
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lY~2

SECTION CONTENTS

CLIMATE, WEATHER ANND SOILS

CLIMATE AND)WEATHER OF THE VIRGINIA.COAST RESERVE ..........................89

SOILS OF THE VIRGINIA'COAST RESERVE ........................................ 93

General ........ 92
Descriptions of Soils and Use Interpretations .........................92

Beaches ................................................. 95
Corolla Series ................95

Corolla Fine Sand .............................................100
Corolla Fine Sand, Overash Phase .............................100
Corolla-Duckston Complex ......................................101

Duckston Series ................ .101

Duckston Fine Sand .......................................... ..102
Duckston-Corolla Complex ...102

Newhan Series ....................................................103

Newhan Fine Sand ..............................................103
Newhan Fine Sand, 10 to 35 Percent Slopes .....................103
Newhan-Corolia Complex ........................................104

Sulfaquents ...................................................104

REFERENCES .................................................................105

LEGEND .....................................................................106

TABLES
Climate and Weather:
Table 1, Precipitation and Temperature ................................90
Table 2, General Climatic Data ........................................91

Soils:
Table 1, Taxonomic Key .......................... ..................... 94
Table 2, Classification of Soils ......................................94
Table 3, Characteristics of the Soils .................................96
Table 4, Use Restrictions for Soils ...................................97

FIGURE
Figure 1, Hypothetical Island Cross Section ...........................93

-87-

SECTION CONTENTS (Continued)

MAPS

Metomkin Island
Cedar Island
Parramore, Revel Islands
Hog, Rogue Islands
Cobb Island
Ship Shoal, Godwin, Myrtle, Mink Islands
Smith Island

THE CLIMATE AND WEATHER OF THE VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE

The barrier islands are part of the Delmarva Peninsula, a region which has a humid
mesothermal climate. The area lies in the zone of prevailing westerlies where
most pressure systems track from east to west. Extensive periods of bitter cold
or tropical heat are infrequent. Winters are rather mild; however weather systems
are usually more intense then. During this season, rapidly moving storm fronts
and outbreaks of cold polar air occur. Summers are long and warm, characterized
by stable high pressure cells dominating the area. Summer low pressure systems
occur infrequently and are weak.

The barrier islands' Atlantic exposure and low profile frequently subject the
Virginia Coast Reserve to storms. Winds are usually strongest from June through
November. It is during this period that hurricanes may occur. At least ten have
affected the islands between 1901 and 1955. -Hurricanes originate from June to
September over the Atlantic in the vicinity of the Bahama, Windward, or Leeward
Islands. They move inland across the southern states or northward, paralleling
the coast toward the Delmarva Peninsula. Storms' centers usually pass off shore,
affecting the area by excessive percipitation, high tides, and rough seas. Later
during the season, the western Caribbean spawns more hurricanes. Most of these
pass over large land areas before reaching this region and have lost their inten-
sity.

Summer hurricanes are complimented during the fall and winter by northeast storms.
These occur as low pressure systems moving up the coast. They generate storms
caused by their counterclockwise cycling-of moisture ladened air. Northeasters
are typified by heavy rain, strong northeast winds, high tides, and rough seas.
These conditions may last for two to five days.

Reliable weather data for the barrier islands themselves is scarce. Mainland
stations along the adjacent peninsula provide good estimates of island conditions.

Temperature and precipitation information is summarized in Table 1. Rainfall is
uniformly distributed with a light peak during the summer months, reflecting the
influence of the subtropical climate. Snow is not uncommon on the islands; how-
ever, accumulations do not occur. Visibility from Assateague Island has been
reported limited to less than five miles for 20-40% of the time. Similar conditions
prevail over the rest of the Virginia Barrier Islands. Most clear weather occurs
on the islands during the summer. Table 2 provides additional climatic information
for the Delmarva Peninsula.

References

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 1976. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (Delmarva Waterway). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Natural Resources Institute, Univ. of Md. 1970. Assateague Ecological Studies
Part I. Environmental Information. Contribution No. 446.
Smith Island Development Corporation, 1968. King's Beach Report. Draft Copy.
Typewritten manuscript owned by The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

-89-

TABLE 1

Precipitation Normals and Temperature Means for Mainland Sites Near the Virginia Coast ReserveL/

LOCATION Period of Annual JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
Record

Precipitation
Normals (in.)

Cheriton, Va. 1941-70 40.78 3.0 3.35 3.72 2.71 3.02 3.34 4.30 4.29 3.81 2.94 3.06 3.21

Painter, Va. 1941-70 42.25 3.30 3.27 4.01 2.94 3.24 3.60 4.47 4.24 3.48 3.39 3.07 3.24

Temperatures
Means (�F)

Cheriton, Va. 1941-70 59.5 40.4 41.2 47.9 57.5 66.7 74.6 78.6 77.4 72.3 62.8 5].3 42.5

Painter, Va. 1941-70 57.9 38.9 40.1 46.5 56.2 65.3 73.2 77.3 75.8 70.2 60.4 50.5 40.7

I/Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 1976. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Delmarva Waterway),
Philadelphia, Pa.

-90-

TABLE 2

General Climatic Data for the Delmarva Peninsula!/

Normal Daily Maximum Temperature: January 45�-50�F
July 85�F

Normal Daily Minimum Temperature: January. 30�-40�F
July 65�-70�F

Mean Annual Number of Days Minimum Temperature:
32�F and below 30-60 days
90�F and above 5-20 days
Mean Daily Temperature Range: January 15�F
July 15�-20�F

Mean Annual Temperature Range: 30�-40�F

Mean Date of last 32�F temperature, in Spring April 1-15
of first in Fall Nov. 15-Dec. 1

Mean length of freeze-free period 210-240 days

Mean annual total precipitation 32-48 inches

Mean annual number of days with 0.01 inches or more rain 120-140 days

Mean annual total snowfall 6-12 inches

Mean annual number of days with 1.0 inches or more snow 1-5 days

Mean annual number of days with ice pellets 4-8 days

Mean annual number of days with freezing rain 1-2 days

Mean annual number of days with thunderstorms 20-40 days

Mean annual number of days with hail under 1 day

Mean annual number of days with heavy fog 20-30 days
(1/4 mi visibility or less)

l/Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 1976. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (Delmarva Watewasv, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

-91-

THE-SOILS OF THE VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE

I. GENERAL

Soils information had been previously gathered for the islands of the Virginia
Coast Reserve in 1917. At that time, the United States Department of Agricul-
ture's Bureau of Soils catalogued the soils of the islands into four groups:
dune sand, coastal beach, tidal marsh, and Norfolk fine sand.l/ Soils classi-
fications have been refined considerably since then.

Observations of similar coastal areas of Virginia indicated that soils likely
to be observed would. be in the Newhan, Corolla, and Duckston series on the
islands, and mineral soils high in sulfur content in the tidal marsh areas.
The soils found in these regions are part of a definable soil series. The
series is the category of soil classification most often used in a soil
survey. The Newhan, Corolla, and Duckston series constitute readily definable
bodies or segments of soil that can be mapped and classified.

Tables 1 and 2 indicate a provisional taxonomic key for the identification and
classification of the soils. Soil phases are used in soil surveys to show
differences within a soil series that influence use and management. For
example, Newhan fine sand, 2 to 10 percent slopes is one phase of the Newhan
series.

In some survey areas, categories of classification other than the series are
used. For example, sulfaquents are a higher category of classification than
the series. Although various sulfaquents can be defined to a series level,
it was not desirable or necessary to differentiate series of sulfaquents in
this survey.

The purpose of initiating the soil survey was to further develop the baseline
of scientific data available for the Virginia Coast Reserve. The soil survey
was conducted from April 28, 1975 to May 9, 1975 by soil scientists of the
United States Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service. Soils
phases were mapped on field sheets. This information was later transferred
to an overlay format. Soil scientists observed and recorded the morphological
features of each soil. They observed plant growth of both native and cultivated
plants; the moisture regime of the soils, slope of the soils and other soil
characteristics including pH and soil texture. The observations and knowledge
of soil properties, together with available research data were used to pre-
dict limitations or suitability of soils for present and potential uses.

Ii. DESCRIPTIONS OF SOILS AND USE INTERPRETATIONS

IDENTIFICATION LEGEND OF THE SOILS AND SYMBOLS USED ON FIELD SHEETS

Map Symbol Soil Name

33 Beaches

3B Corolla Fine Sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes

3B0 Corolla Fine Sand Overwash phase, 0 to 6
percent slopes

1/ Stevens, E. H. 1920. Soil Survey of Accomack and Northampton Counties, Virginia
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
-92-

FIGURE I

HYPOTHETICAL ISLAND CROSS SECTION ILLUSTRATING THE RELATIONSHIPS OF SOILS, TOPOCRAPHY AND MAPPING UNITS

SOILS
Sulfaqueate Duckston Corolla-Ducks ton Corolla Newhan Beaches

Salt hrsh
Island 1 Forest
Slough

REPRESENTATIVE .
MAPPING UNITS
(McCaffrey, 1975)

a, M S 1975)m, M, F, G, S AT tG A, AG, g, Ag, At, AT,t B
J, P, H, PH

TABLE 1

TAXONOMIC KEY FOR SOILS ON THE VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE

Order ------------------------------------------- ENTISOLS

Suborder AOUENTS PSAMMENTS

Great Group : Psammaquent : Sulfaquents Udipsamments

Subgroup : Typic : Typic Typic Aquic

Family : Mixed,thermic : Mixed,thermic Mixed, thermic Mixed, thermic

Series : Duckston : Undifferentiated : Newhan Corolla

MISCELLANEOUS LAND TYPES

Beaches

TABLE 2

CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS ON THE VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE

Series Current Classification

Corolla mixed, thermic Aquic Udipsamments

Duckston mixed, thermic Typic Psammaquents

Newhan mixed, thermic Typic Udipsamments

Sulfaquents mixed, thermic Typic Sulfaquents

-94-

Map Symbol Soil Name

3B-4 Corolla-Duckston Complex, 0 to 6 percent
slopes

4 Duckston Fine Sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes

4-3B Duckston-Corolla Complex, 0 to 6 percent
slopes

93B Newhan Fine Sand, 2 to 10 percent slopes

93D Newhan Fine Sand, 10 to 35 percent slopes

93B-3 Newhan-Corolla Complex, 0 to 10 percent
slopes

44 Sulfaquents, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Special Symbols

I Intermittent Water

The barrier islands surveyed constitute a unique, highly dynamic, extremely
fragile ecosystem. These aspects of this area are noted in the descriptions
of the soils and mapping units. Associations of soils, topography, vegetation
mapping units and other characteristics are shown in Figure 1 and Table 3.

A. BEACHES (33)

The beaches mapping unit occurs on the ocean side of the islands and
adjacent to inlets. Beaches consist of long narrow sandy strips between
mean low lying sandy areas which are inundated daily by tidal action.
They include a slightly higher "berm" which is less affected by normal
tidal action. Sand sediment size of the beaches varies as does the wide
range of shell fragment size and content.- The beaches are highly transitory,
being affected by tidal action. In some areas, this mobility is obvious.
Characteristics for beaches and other soil types are presented in Table
4.

Tidal flooding of the beaches is a severe limitation to all uses other
than beach-related recreation activities.

B. COROLLA SERIES

The soils in the Corolla series are nearly always level or gently sloping.
They are poorly or moderately well drained with a seasonally high water
table.

Typically, the surface layer of a Corolla soil is dark grayish-brown fine
sand about 5 inches thick. The next layer is grayish brown, loose, fine
sand about 27 inches thick. Below this layer are several feet of dark
grayish brown loose fine sand. Free water commonly occurs in the Corolla
soils at depths of 20 to 40 inches. Locally, Corolla soils are recognized
in areas where beach or dune sands have migrated over the wetter Duckston
soils. In these areas, buried dark gray surface layers occur at depths

-95-

TABLE 3

CHARACTERISTICS OF TIHE SOILS OF TEE VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE

Map Permeability Available Water Corrosivity Suseptibility to Water
Soil Type Symbol in/hr Capacity (in/in) pH _Steel Concrete Wind Erosion Flooding Table

Beaches 33 . - -- high low moderate tidal variable
flooding

Corolla fine 3B0 20.0 0.04-0.06 5.6-7.8 high low severe (inadequate frequent 2-4 ft.
sand over- vegetation) moder- brief moderately
wash phase ate (adequate vege- duration well-poorly
(0-6% slope) tation) drained

Duckston fine 4 20.0 0.04-0.06 5.6-7.8 high low slight frequent 0-1.0 ft.-
sand (0-2% long dur- poorly
slope) ation drained

Newhan Fine 93B 20.0 0.04-0.06 5.6-7.3 high low severe (inade- none (except 6 feet
sand quate vegetation) during high excessively
moderate (adequate intensity) drained
vegetation)

Newhan fine 93D 20.0 0.04-0.06 5.6-7.3 high low severe (inadequate none 6 feet
sand (10-35% vegetation) moder- excessively
slope) ate (adequate vege- drained
tation)

Sulfaquents 44 --- --- 6.6-8.4 high high none frequent, very poorly
continuously drained
saturated
with salt
water

-96-

-~~~~~~- -- -- - - - - - --- - -- -
TABLE 4

USE RESTRICTIONS FOR SOILS OF THE VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE

Sanitary Facilities Community Development
Map Septic tank Sanitary Dwellings Small Comm. Local Rds.
Soil Type Symbol Absorption Flds. Landfill (trench) w/o basement Buildings & Streets

Beaches 33 severe floods severe floods, severe floods severe severe
seepage, wetness floods floods

Corolla fine 3BO severe floods, severe floods, severe floods, severe floods, severe
sand, over- wetness seepage, wetness wetness wetness floods,
wash phase wetness
(0-6% slope)

Duckston fine 4 severe floods, severe floods, severe floods, severe floods, severe
sand (0-2% wetness seepage, wetness wetness wetness floods,
slope) wetness

Newhan fine 93B slight (pol- severe, seepage 0-8% slight, 0-4% slight, 0-8% slight,
sand (2-10% lution is a 8-10% moder- 4-8% moderate 8-10% moder-
slope) hazard to ate slope slope ate slope
ground water)

Newhan fine 93D severe slope, severe slope, severe slope severe slope severe slope
sand (10-35% (pollution to seepage
slope) ground water
is a hazard)

Sulfaquents 44 severe floods, severe floods, severe floods, severe floods, severe floods,
wetness wetness, seepage wetness wetness wetness

-97-

TABLE 4 CONTINUED

USE RESTRICTIONS FOR SOILS OF THE VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE

Map Source Material Excavated
Soil Type Symbol Roadfilr Sand Gravel Topsoil Ponds

Beaches 33 good fair unsuited poor severe floods
texture,
excess
salt

Corolla fine sand, 3BO fair, fair, unsuited poor, severe salty
overwash phase wetness excess too sandy, water
(0-6% slope) fines shells

Duckston fine sand, 4 fair, fair unsuited poor, too slight, salty
(0-2% slope) wetness excess sandy, wet- water in places
fines ness

Newhan fine sand 93B good fair, unsuited poor, too severe, deep
(2-10% slope) excess sandy water
fines

Newhan fine sand 93D fair, fair, unsuited poor, too severe, deep
(10-35% slope) slope excess sandy water
fines

Sulfaquents 44 poor, variable un- poor, wetness, slight
wetness suited too sandy

-98-

TABLE 4 CONTINUED

USE RESTRICTIONS FOR SOILS OF THE VIRGINIA COAST-RESERVE

Map Recreation
Soil Type Symbol Camp Areas Picnic Areas Playgrounds Paths & Trails

Beaches 33 severe floods, severe floods, severe floods, floods, too
too sandy, too sandy, too sandy, sandy
soil blowing soil blowing soil blowing

Corolla fine sand, 3B0 severe floods, severe floods, severe floods, severe floods,
overwash phase too sandy, too sandy, too sandy, too sandy,
(0-6% slope) wetness wetness wetness wetness

Duckston fine 4 severe floods, severe floods, severe floods, severe floods,
sand, (0-2% wetness wetness wetness wetness
slope)

Newhan fine sand 93B severe, too severe, too severe, too severe, too
(2-10% slope) sandy sandy sandy sandy

Newhan fine sand 93D severe slope, severe slope, severe slope, severe slope,
(10-35% slope) teo sandy too sandy too sandy too sandy

Sulfaquents 44 severe floods, severe floods, severe floods, severe floods,
wetness wetness wetness wetness

-99-

of 20 to 50 inches. In practically all areas of Corolla soils, there
are dark colored minerals and fine shell fragments in varying proportions.

Corolla soils support a wide range of plant species. Woody and herbaceous
species occur here. The relationship of plants, soils and island topo-
graphy for all of the islands' soils are illustrated in figure 1

1. Corolla Fine Sand, 0 to 6 Percent Slopes (3B)

This Corolla soil occupies a wide range of positions on various
islands. It may occur behind the frontal dunes. Such areas are
typically elongated in shape and range in size from 4 to 30 acres.
In some locations, this soil occupies small insular positions sur-
rounded by wetter soils. These small Corolla patches are typically
elongated and range in size from 2 to 5 acres. It can be interpreted
that these are eroded remnants of formerly higher, drier dunes.

Included in this soil mapping unit are narrow strips or remnants of
Newhan soils along the frontal dunes and small wetter inclusions of
Duckston soils. These included soils comprise 15 to 25 percent of
the unit.

Surface infiltration of water and water movement through the soil is
very rapid above the water table. Surface runoff is slow. The soil
is mildly acidic to mildly alkaline throughout.

This soil has severe limitations for most uses. Use restrictions
for the soils of the Virginia Coast Reserve are illustrated in
Table 3 . Disturbance of the surface vegetation creates a high
potential for wind erosion as a result of the fine sand texture of
the soil. Native plant species flourish here affording resistance
to wind and water erosion. This wide range of plant adaptability
also provides excellent wildlife habitat. Excessive traffic or
disturbance of this soil will result in deterioration of the native
grass species.

2. Corolla Fine Sand, 0 to 6 Percent Slopes, Overwash Phase (3B0)

This nearly level to gently sloping soil consists. essentially of
beach material overwashing areas of Duckston soils. In some areas,
it lies immediately adjacent to the beach, as on the southern ends of
Shipshoal and Parramore Islands. In other areas, it occupies areas
behind low frontal dunes where these have been breached. In some areas,
the Corolla overwash extends from the beach to the tidal marshes.

The soil is characterized by a pavement of shells and ocean borne debris.
Areas of this soil are most prominent on Metomkin, Parramore, Hog,
Cobb, Shipshoal, Myrtle, and Smith Islands.

Included with this soil in mapping are narrow strips of Newhan soils
along the beaches. These strips are 15 to 40 feet wide and in places
are not continuous.

Corolla, overwash soils uniformly have a water table at a depth of
about 20 to 30 inches. Permeability is very rapid and available water

-100-

capacity is very low. Runoff is slow. Some plant species may
periodically establish themselves between incidents of overwash.
This soil has severe limitations for practically all uses as a
result of periodic ocean overwash.

3. Corolla-Duckston Complex, 0 to 6 Percent Slopes (3B-4)

A soils complex mapping unit maps soils that are so intermingled that
they cannot be feasibly separated at the scale used for mapping.

This soil complex consists of about 60 percent Corolla fine sand, 30
percent Duckston fine sand, and 10 percent of either Newhan soils or
sulfaquents. The Corolla part of this complex is moderately well
through poorly drained. The Duckston fine sand is poorly drained.
The Duckston soils are more completely described below.

This Corolla-Duckston complex occurs on those islands having zones of
well defined dunes. In some places, delineated areas consist of numer-
ous low areas surrounded by the wetter Duckston soils. These areas are
too small to delineate separately.

A very striking example of this complex occurs on the diagonal ridges
of Smith Island. There, low Corolla ridges are interspersed with
pockets of wetter Duckston soils.

The included drier Newhan soils occur on some of the higher areas of
the Corolla part of this complex and small contained areas of dunes.
These soils commonly are more sparsely vegetated than the Corolla or
Duckston soils.

Both of the major soils in this complex are well suited to various
kinds of vegetation., Both have an available dependable supply of
moisture. The abundance of moisture supports woody vegetation such
as marsh elder (Iva frutescens) and groundsel (Baccharis halmifolia).
On some islands, the Corolla part of this complex supports loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), yaupon holly (Ilex vomitoria), sassafras (Sassafras
albidum), and some American holly (Ilex opaca). The drier part of the
Corolla soils also supports herbaceous species.

The prevailing winds pose an erosion hazard to slightly higher
Corolla parts of this complex. Removal or destruction of the existing
protective vegetation would result in the eventual disappearance of
the Corolla areas. Wind erosion would cause them to flatten and merge
with the adjacent wetter Duckston soils. Uses of this complex are
limited by a high water table, sandy textures, and very rapid per-
meability.

C. DUCKSTON SERIES

The Duckston series consists of poorly drained sandy soils that are nearly
level. These soils occur at low elevations in close proximity to the
Atlantic Ocean.

Typically, the surface layer of a Duckston soil is gray fine sand about
six inches deep. Subsurface layers to a depth of about 26 inches are

dark gray fine sand. Lower layers to a depth of 60 inches are commonly I
dark grayish through black fine sand. Dark colored sand sized minerals
and shell fragments occur throughout the soil.

Duckston soils have a nearly permanent high water table. They occupy
areas subject to seepage from higher lying adjacent sandy soils. Low
areas of these soils are subject to tidal inundation, but not so fre-
quently that they accumulate sulfides to any significant extent. Free
water in the Duckston soils is only slightly brackish. Water movement
through this soil is very rapid. Free water forms shallow lakes and
ponds in many areas of Duckston soils. In some areas, these shallow
ponds are persistent for long periods of time.

The Duckston soils support herbaceous plant species. Iva fautescens and
Baccharis halimifolia commonly occur along the "edge" zone between I
Duckston and Corolla soils.

1. Duckston Fine Sand, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes (4) |

This nearly level poorly drained soil occupies areas between the
frontal dunes and interior dunes on Parramore and Hog Islands. On
most of the other islands, they are largely between the frontal dunes
and the tidal marsh sulfaquent soils. The Duckston soils between the
Corolla-Duckston ridges on Smith Island are unique in that these areas
have an organic, mucky surface layer 4 to 14 inches thick. Areas of
this soil are typically 3 to 50 acres in size.

Included within this soil type are small areas of the Corolla soils
and sulfaquents. These inclusions comprise about 10 to 20 percent of |
the mapping units. The Corolla inclusions occur as small islands that
are slightly higher in elevation than surrounding soils. The sulfaquents
occur at lower elevation along the high tide line. Also included are
some areas that are low enough to be subject to some tidal inundation
or seepage from higher lying areas. These areas accumulate sodium or
chlorides. They appear to be salt flats. They are largely devoid |
of plant species except halophytes such as glasswort, (Salicornia
virginica).

As noted in the description of the Duckston series, this soil has a I
high water table for long periods of time. Surface runoff is slow.
Water may be ponded. Duckston soil is intermediately acidic to mildly
alkaline.

This soil has severe limitations for practically all uses because of
its high water table and susceptibility to tidal flooding. It provides
most of the shallow ground water pond areas on the barrier islands.

2. Duckston-Corolla Complex, 0 to 6 Percent Slopes (4-3B) l

This complex consists of about 65 percent Duckston soils, 25 percent
Corolla soils and 10 percent other soils. In most respects, this
complex is very similar to Duckston fine sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
(4). It differs by having a higher proportion of Corolla inclusions
that are drier than the surrounding Duckston areas.

-102-

The soils in this complex have slow runoff. They are mildly acidic
through mildly alkaline. The major limitation to the use of the soils
in this complex is due to a high water table and possible flooding
during high tides.

D. NEWHAN SERIES

This series consists of excessively drained soils that are on either
frontal or interior dunes. The soils vary in elevation as the dunes
vary in size. The Newhan dunes are typically elongated areas situated
roughly parallel to the Atlantic Ocean.

The surface layer of a typical Newhan soil is loose pale brown fine sand
about 4 to 6 inches thick. Lower subhorizons. are loose pale brown fine
sand to a depth of six feet or more. Strata of dark colored minerals and
fine shell fragments occur throughout the profile. Except on low elevations,
there is no seasonal water table within a 60 inch depth in Newhan soils.

The Newhan soils constitute the highest parts of most of the barrier islands.
Where they occupy the frontal dune, they are largely vegetated with her-
baceous species. Interior dunes support more woody species.

The Newhan soils and associated dunes are generally widest and highest on
the northern parts of the islands where they occur. They are low and
narrow on the southern portions of the islands. The most extensive areas
of Newhan soils observed occur on Parramore and Myrtle Islands. On islands
such as Cobb and Hog, the Newhan soils are at low elevations and have been
breached by tidal action. In some locations, the Newhan soils are on dis-
continuous low ridges parallel to the beaches.

1. Newhan Fine Sand, 2 to 10 Percent Slopes (93B)

This gently sloping to sloping soil occupies both frontal and interior
dunes. Slopes are irregular, complex and less than 75 feet long. Areas
of this soil are typically 20 to 75 acres in size. Included in mapping
this soil are small areas of Corolla soils in low spots.

Permeability of this soil is very rapid and the available water
capacity is very low. Surface runoff is slow. The soil is mostly
intermediately acidic to neutral throughout.

In some areas, the Newhan soils on the frontal dunes are only
slightly vegetated. On these areas, sand movement occurs during
mildly windy periods. Small dune blowouts occur on exposed areas
of this soil type.

This soil is droughty. It is highly vulnerable to wind erosion
unless a dense vegetative cover is maintained. Traffic and recre-
ational activities on this loose sandy soil will quickly cause
deterioration of existing plant cover.

2. Newhan Fine Sand, 10 to 35 Percent Slopes (93D)

This moderately steep through steep, excessively drained soil is
on the highest and steepest parts of the barrier island dunes,
typically on the northern parts of those islands that have the

-103-

Newhan soils. The soils have irregular slopes that are less
than 100 feet long. They occupy elongated areas parallel to
the Atlantic coast line and are commonly 40 to 85 acres in size.
This soil occupies both frontal and interior dunes on several
islands, most notably Parramore Island. Included in mapping this
soil are small wetter areas of Corolla fine sand and Duckston soils
which comprise less than 10 percent of the area.

This loose sandy soil is highly subject to wind erosion unless it
is well vegetated. Sand movement by wind is visible on areas that
have sparse vegetation. Blowout areas 20 to 60 feet in diameter
are evident in a few places. This soil has severe limitations for
most uses because it is loose, has a very low available water capa-
city and is highly susceptible to wind erosion if disturbed.

3. Newhan-Corolla Complex, 2 to 10 Percent Slopes (93B-3)

This complex of excessively drained soils and moderately well
drained soils occupies an interior position on Hog Island. The
slopes on this landscape are highly irregular. The Corolla part
of the complex occupies the lower areas. The complex consists of
approximately 65 percent Newhan soils, 25 percent Corolla and
small areas of Duckston soils in the lowest areas and along the
fringes of the footslopes.

One depressed area of the Corolla soil type of this complex had
been excavated to create a shallow pond. Such areas might similarly
be utilized to creater other fresh water ponds.

This complex supports a wide range of plant species due to a wide
range of moisture regimes that exist within the mapping unit. These
soils have severe limitations for most uses because of their uncon-
solidated condition, and their susceptibility to wind erosion when
disturbed.

E. SULFAQUENTS

The sulfaquents are an undifferentiated group of soils that have histori-
cally been referred to, and mapped, as "Tidal Marsh." Sulfaquent soils
are mineral soils that have a high concentration of sulfides in the
upper 20 inches as a result of daily inundation by tidal action. Different
soil series within the sulfaquents can be recognized and mapped on the
basis of soil texture. For the purposes of this survey, individual series
were not recognized. The sulfaquents have similar kinds of vegetation;
and in general, they have similar limitations to use.

For the most part, the sulfaquents occur on the western side of the
barrier islands. There are extensive areas of sulfaquents along the
entire chain. These soils constitute the largest single soil type in
the Virginia Coast Reserve.

Sulfaquents are either basically sandy or silty to clayey. Dark areas
of this soil that are noticeable on the aerial photograph field sheets
were dominantly sandy. The lighter shaded areas are dominantly silty
to clayey.

-104-

Typically, the sandy sulfaquents have a dark gray, fine sandy surface
about 6 inches thick. This surface layer contains a mass of plant
roo.ts. Below the surface layer are 5 feet or more of gray fine sand.
The silty to clayev sulfaquents have a dark gray silt loam surface
layer with many plant roots. Below the surface layer is 5 feet or
more of extremely viscous silt and clay and decomposing organic matter.
Some of the areas which were more lightly shaded in the aerial photo-
graph consisted of thin silty layers overlying sandy material. These
areas result from recent depositions of silt over sandy sulfaquents.

The sulfaquents merge mostly with Duckston soils along the high tide
fringe, although a clear demarcation line is not too apparent. Tidal
drift mats offer a field clue to the separation of Duckston soils and
sulfaquents, as do subtle changes in vegetation and the presence of a
sulphidic odor in the sulfaquents. The sulfaquents normally have a
neutral to moderately alkaline reaction while saturated. When they
are exposed to drying, the soils become extremely acidic. When drained
or dried out, they are poorly suited to plant production.

The sulfaquents, in their natural state, are important ecologically
because of their potentially high primary productivity and the habitat
they provide fish, shellfish, and diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin).

Any disturbance of the silty sulfaquents would have a much more detri-
mental effect than disturbance of the sandy sulfaquents. When disturbed,
the silty sulfaquents tend to stay in suspension for long periods of time
and would be subject to deposition by tidal action. This deposition
could be hazardous to existing benthic communities.

REFERENCES

Anon. 1975. Soil Survey Report: Barrier Islands of Virginia. U.S. Soil Con-
servation Service, Richmond, Virginia.

McCaffrey, C.A. 1975. Major Vegetation Communities of the Virginia Barrier
Islands: Metomkin Island Through Smith Island Inclusive, a research project
of The Nature Conservancy.

Stevens, E.H. 1920. Soil Survey of Accomack and Northampton Counties, Virginia.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

-105-

L E G E N D
LEGEND

SOIL MAP

Map Symbol Soil Name

33 Beaches

3B Corolla Fine Sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes

3B0 Corolla Fine Sand Overwash phase, 0 to
6 percent slopes

3B-4 Corolla-Duckston Complex, 0 to 6 percent
slopes

4 Duckston Fine Sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes

4-3B Duckston-Corolla Complex, 0 to 6 percent
slopes

93B Newhan Fine Sand, 2 to 10 percent slopes

93D Newhan Fine Sand, 10 to 35 percent slopes

93B-3 Newhan-Corolla Complex, 0 to 10 percent
slopes

44 Sulfaquents, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Special Symbols

I Intermittent Water

DoI Io Scan

Rep~ren-Insert Do Not; Scan
Document Here

Document ID: F
(N

Page H:

Geology

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

THE COASTAL PROCESSES AND GEOLOGY

VIRGINIA BARRIER ISLANDS

Thomas E. Rice
Alan W. Niedoroda
Anthony P. Pratt

The Coastal Research Center
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Massachusetts

(Metomkin Island to Fisherman s Island)

SECTION CONTENTS'

THE COASTAL PROCESS AND GEOLOGY

PREFACE. ..117

ACKNOWLEDCEMENTS ......... .............................................iii

INTRODUCTION 118

GEOLOGY OF THE SOUTHERN DEULARVA PENINSULA .............................120

General Geology of the Southern Delmarva Peninsula ................120
Crustal Movement in the Southern Delmarva Peninsula ...............120

BACKGROUND ON BARRIER ISLA-ND PHYSICAL PROCESSES ........................122

Origin of Barrier Islands .........................................122
Sea Level Changes .................................................129
Barrier Island Processes ..........................................133

Beach Systems ................................................135
Longshore Processes ..........................................135
Role of Tidal Inlet ..........................................137
Inlet Processes ..............................................137
Other Modes of Sediment Transport ............................138

Barrier Island Migration ..........................................140

THE VIRGINIA BARRIER ISLAND STUDY ......................................143

Setting, Purpose, and Nature ......................................143
Original Work .....................................................143
Base Maps .........................................................144
Shoreline Change Maps: (1850's to 1960's) ........................144
Analysis of Error. 145
Second Set of Shoreline Change Maps ...............................145
Geomorphology and Geology .........................................i46
Field Work........................................................146
Geologic Features Mapped ..........................................146

Active Beach .................................................146
Present Berm .................................................147
Old Berms (numbered) .........................................147
Back Beach Flats .............................................147
Ridge (bars welded to the beach front) .......................147
Runnel (trough behind a ridge, and within ticdal range ........147
Vegetated Former Beach (on marsh areas behind inlets) .....1.47
New Dunes (mostly unvegetated) ...............................147
Active, Established Dunes ...................................148
Old, Stabilized Dunes ........................................148
Dune Area Cut by Multiple Overwash Channels ..................148
Dunes Developing on Oven_.ash .................................148
Parramore Pimples ............................................148
Beach Ridge (no certain origin) .......... ...................148
Beach Ridge (strandline origin) .148

-109-

CONTENTS (Continued)

Distinct Overwash Channels, Overwashed Deposits From
Multiple Channels ......................................149
Vegetated Overwash Deposits .....................1 ............49
Distinct Overwash Fans Related to One Channel ...............149
Recent, Unvegetated Overwash (without dunes) .................149
Sand Flats (uncertain origin) ................................149
Vegetated Sand Flats ....................................149
Salt Pans ....................................................149
Inlet Deposits ...............................................149
Inferred Inlet Deposits in Marsh Areas .......................149
Established Marsh ............................................150
Young Marsh and Vegetating Mud Flats .........................150
Mud Flats ....................................................150
Dredged Spoil .................................................150
Artificial Fill ..............................................150
Ridge Lines on Beach Ridges ..................................150
Old Strand Lines .............................................150
Old Inlet Openings ...........................................150
Position of Former Marsh Channels ............................151
Qualifying Statement ..............................................151

THE VIRGINIA BARRIER ISLANDS .151

METOMKIN ISLAND ........................................................152

Geography .........................................................152
Physiographic Description ......................................... 152
Shoreline Changes .................................................154
Tidal Circulation .................................................164
Geology ...........................................................165

CEDAR ISLAND ............. .............................................167

Geography .........................................................167
Phyiogaphc escipton.......................................17
Physiographic Description..167
Tidal Inlets ........................................ .........169
Shoreline Changes .................................................169
Tidal Inlets - Shoreline Changes ..................................175
Summary of Changes ................................................177
Geomorphology .....................................................177
Modern Geomorphic Features .........................................180
Geologic Interpretation and History ...............................183

PARRAMORE ISLAND - REVEL ISLAND ........................................187

Geography .........................................................187
Physiographic Description ..........................................190
Shoreline Changes .................................................204

Wachapreague Inlet ..........................................204
East Facing Beach ...........................................208
Northern End of Parramore Island Beach ......................208
Middle and Southern Reaches of Parramore island Beach .......209
Quinby Inlet ................................................210

-110-

CONTENTS (Continued)
Geomorphic Description and Interpretation .................. 21.0
Geologic History ........................................... 213

HOG ISLAND AND ROGUE ISLAND ...........................................214

Descriptive Geography ............................................214
Physiographic Description ........................................214
Shoreline Changes ................... .............................219
Inlet Changes ....................................................224

Little Machipongo Inlet .....................................224
Great Machipongo Inlet ......................................225
Interpretation: Inlet and Shoreline Changes .....................226
Geomorphic Description and Interpretation ........................230
Geologic Interpretation and History ..............................235

COBB ISLAND AND LITTLE COBB ISLAND ...................................236

Descriptive Geography ............................................236
Physiographic Description ........................................238
Shoreline Changes ................................................242
Inlet Changes ...................................................248
Geomorphic Description and Interpretation ........................249
Geologic History and Interpretation ..............................250

WRECK ISLAND ..........................................................252

Descriptive Geography ............................................252
Physiographic Description ........................................253
Shoreline Changes ................................................254

1853 - 1871 ............................................257
1871 - 1911 .........................................257
1911 - 1942 .............................................259
1942 - 1949 ...........................................259
1949 - 1968 .......................................... 261
1968- 1974 ............................................263
Summary ............................................263
Discussion of Shoreline Changes ..................................263
Geomorphic Description and Interpretation ........................265
Geologic History and Interpretation ..............................267

SHIP SHOAL ISLAND AND GODWIN ISLAND ...................................268

Descriptive Geography ............................................268
Physiographic Description ........................................269
Shoreline Changes ................................................270

Tabular Presentation of Data ................................273
Bathymetric Data ............................................3
1853 - 1.871 ............................................277
1871 - 1911 .........................;...................278
1911 - 1921 ............................................279
Summary ............................................ 279

Sumay .............................7

Ship Shoal .................................................279
Godwin Island ........................................... ..280
Geomorphic Description and Intepretation ...................280
Geologic History and Interpretation ........................281

MYRTLE ISLAnD AD MINK ISLAND .........................................282

Descriptive Geography ............................................282
Physiographic Description .........................................283
Shoreline Changes ................................................284

Tabular Presentation of Data .................................287
1853 - 1871 ..................... .......................287
1871 - 1911 .............................................292
1911 - 1921 ............................................292
1921 - 1960's .............................................293
Most Recent Shoreline Changes ................................293
Discussion of Shoreline Changes ..............................293
Mink Island .......................................................295
Geomorphic Description and Interpretation .........................295
Geologic History ..................................................296

SMITH ISLAND ...........................................................297

Descriptive Geography .............................................297
Physiographic Description and Discussion .........................299
Shoreline Changes ................................................. 305

Tabular Presentation of Data .................................305
Summary of Retreat ...........................................311
Discussion of Retreat ........................................311
1853 - 1.911 ............................................312
1911 - 1929 ........... .................................312
1929 - 1942 .............................................312
1942 - 1950's .............................................313
Mid-1950's-1968 .............................................314
1968 - 1974 .............................................316
Geomorphic Description and Interpretation .........................317

Area West of Barrier Islands .................................317
Smith Island: Ancient Beach Ridge Province ..................319
Modern Features ..............................................324
Geologic History and Interpretation ...............................325

FISHERMANS ISLAND ......................................................331

Descriptive Geography .............................................331
Physiographic Description .........................................333
Shoreline Changes and Coastal Processes ...........................338
Geology ............................................................340

REGIONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND PROCESSES ...................................346

Comparison with Other Atlantic Barrier Islands ....................346
General Subdivisions of Virginia Barrier Island Chain .............347

-112-

CONTENTS (Continued)

Processes with Amplified Effects ..................................349

InletTypes ......................................... 349
Inlet Control of Ocean Beach .................................350
Ebb Tide Deltas ..............................................351
Rapid Marsh Changes ..........................................351
Rapid Retreat ................................................353
Historical Development of the Barrier Islands .....................353

Pre-Wisconsin ................................................353
Early HIolocene ...............................................354
Late Holocene .................................................354
Historical Retreat ........................... ................355

SPECIAL TOPICS .........................................................357

Origin of Parramore Pimples .......................................357
Infrared Photography for Coastal Processes Data Base . .............358

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ........................................359

General Statement .................................................359
Specific Projects .................................................359

MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................361

Inlet Stabilization ...............................................363
Beach Erosion Control Plans .......................................363
Dune Stabilization Plans ..........................................364
Control of Island Breaching .......................................365
Waterway and Canal Dredging .......................................366
The Use of the Virginia Barrier Islands as a Scientific Reserve.. .367
Potential Harbor Expansion ........................................ 367

REFERENCES ............................................................369

FIGURES

1. Location Map for the Virginia Barrier Island Group ...........119
2. Geologic Column for the Eastern Shore Area, Virginia .........121
3. DeBeaumont-Johnson Model for Barrier Island Formation ........124
4. Gilbert-Fisher Model for Barrier Island Formation ............125
5. Hoyt-Godfrey Model for Barrier Island Formation ..............126
6. Otvos-Schwartz Model for Barrier Island Migration ............127
7. Sea Level Rise Curve for Barnstable, Massachusetts ...........128
8. Sea Level Rise Curves for Various Atlantic Seabord Locations.131
9. Sea Level and Crustal Movement Curves for the Area of
Chesapeake Bay Entrance .................................132
10. Annual Rates of Elevation Change in the Vicinity of
Chesapeake Bay ..........................................134
11. Idealized Longshore Sand Transport Conditions ................136
12. Sediment Paths at inlets in a Barrier Island System ..........139
13. Relation of Sea Level Changes to Barrier Island Migration....141

CONTENTS (Continued)

14. North Metomkin Island and Gargathy Inlet ...................... 153
15. South Metomkin Island ........................................155
16. Metomkin Island Shoreline Positions: 1888 - 1963 ............156
17. Metomkin Island Shoreline Positions: 1910 - 1961 ............157
18. Recent Shoreline Positions on Metomkin Island: 1949 - 1975..158
19. Sequential Changes in Barrier Islands East of Metomkin Bay ...159
20. Sediment Movement--South End of North Metomkin Island ........161
21. Beach Migration on Metomkin Islands ..........................163
22. South End of Cedar Island ....................................168
23. North End of Cedar Island ....................................170
24. Cedar Island Shoreline Positions: 1852 - 1963 ...............172
25. Cedar Island Shoreline Positions: 1911 - 1961 ...............173
26. Recent Shoreline Positions on Cedar Island: 1949 - 1974 .....174
27. Cedar Island Sand Spit .......................................176
28. Cedar Island Beach ...........................................181
29. Overwash Channels on Cedar Island ............................182
30. Sand Delta--Cedar Island Sand Spit ...........................184
31. New Part of Cedar Island Sand Spit ...........................185
32. Physiographic Features of Parramore Island ...................188
33. The Swash and Revel Island .................................. 189
34. Physical Features--Parramore Island ..........................191
35. Physical Features--Mid-Parramore Island ......................192
36. Ancient Beach Ridges--Parramore Island .......................194
37. Field Work on Parramore Island ...............................195
38. Field Scenes .................................................196
39. Field Work on Parramore Island ...............................197
40. Beach Erosion on Parramore Island ............................198
41. Beach Erosion on Parramore Island ............................201
42. Beach Features on Parramore Island ...........................202
43. Features--North End of Parramore Island ......................203
44. Parramore Island Shoreline Positions: 1852 - 1963 ...........205
45. Parramore Island Shoreline Positions: 1910 - 1961 ........... 206
46. Parramore Island Shoreline Positions: 1949 - 1974 ...........207
47. Human Activities on Hog Island ............................... 215
48. Views of Hog Island ............................ ............. 217
49. Hog Island--Overwash Channel ................................ 218
50. Shoreline Changes on Hog Island: 1852 - 1963 .............220
51. Shoreline Changes on Hog Island: 1911 - 1961...............221
52. Shoreline Changes on Hog Island: 1949 - 1974 ...............223
53. Rotation of Hog Island and Adjacent Inlets .................. 228
54. Ancient Barrier Island Positions ............................ 232
55. South End of Cobb Island .................................... 237
56. Northern Portion of Cobb Island ........................ .....239
57. Abandoned Coast Guard Facilities ............................241
58. Shoreline Changes on Cobb Island: 1870 - 1963 ..............243
59. Shoreline Changes on Cobb Island: 1911 - 1960 ..............244
60. Recent Shoreline Positions on Cobb Island ...................247
61. Grasslands on Wreck Island ..................................253
62. Northern Portion of Wreck Island ............................256
63. Shoreline Changes on Wreck Island: 1871 - 1963 . . ...........258
64. Shoreline Changes on Wreck Island: 1911 - 1960 . ............260
65. Shoreline Changes on Wreck Island: '1949 - 1974 . . ...........262
66. Northern Half of Ship Shoal Island . . . . ....................... 271
67. Shoreline Changes on Ship Shoal Island: 1871 - 1963 ........272

CONTENTS (Continued)

68. Shoreline Changes on Ship Shoal Island: 1911 - 1960 .........274
69. Shoreline Changes on Ship Shoal Island: 1949 - 1974 .........275
70. Myrtle Island at Ship Shoal Inlet ............................286
71. Shoreline Changes on Myrtle Island: 1871 - 1963 .............288
72. Shoreline Changes on Myrtle Island: 1911 - 1960 .............289
73. Shoreline Changes on Myrtle Island: 1949 - 1974 . ............290
74. Ebb Tide Delta at Little Inlet ...............................294
75. South End of Smith Island ....................................298
76. Large Overwash Channels on Smith Island ......................302
77. Overwash Fans on Smith Island ................................303
78. Peat Exposures on Beach at Smith Island ......................304
79. Shoreline Changes on Smith Island: 1871 - 1963 ..............306
80. Shoreline Changes on Smith Island: 1911 - 1960 ..............307
81. Shoreline Changes on Smith Island: 1949.- 1974 ..............308
82. Southern Group, Virginia Barrier Islands--Ancient
Configuration and Shoreline Position ....................328
83. Views of Fishermans Island ...................................332
84. Southern Beach of Fishermans Island ..........................334
85. Growth Stages of Fishermans Island: 1852 - 1911 .............335
86. Growth Stages of Fishermans Island: 1911 - 1968 .............341
87. Shoreline Changes on Fishermans Island: 1949 - 1974 .........342
88. Schematic Representation of Retreat Since 1852 in the Sub-
divisions of the Virginia Barrier Island Chain . .........343

TABLES

Table I, Rates of Retreat for the Southern Part of rareck Island
in Various Time Intervals ..........................264
Table IT, Summary of Shoreline Changes on Ship Shoal Island:
1852 - 1975 ........................................276
Table III, Summary of Shoreline Changes on Myrtle Island:
1852 - 1975 ........................................291
Table IV, Summary of Shoreline Changes on Smith Island:
1853 - 1974 .........................................309
Table V, Table II Reproduced for Smith Island Section ............310

MAPS (follow pages 369)

Metomkin Island
Cedar Island
Parramore, Revel Islands
Hog, Rogue Islands
Cobb Island
Ship Shoal, Godwin, Myrtle, Mink Islands
Smith Island

The following is the final report of a study conducted for The Nature Conservancy by
the .Coastal-Research Center of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. The study
concerns the coastal processes and geology of the Virginia Barrier Island Group from
Metomkin Island at the north to Fisherman's Island at the south. Wallops Island.and
Assawoman Island at the north end of the barrier island group were not included in this
study. The study was carried out to provide an informational base that The-Nature Con-
servancy could use in making management decisions concerning their holdings among these
islands. The concerns of the study therefore include geographic parameters of the islands
and the marsh and bay areas to the mainland, the history and analysis of documented
changes in the shorelines of the islands, the coastal processes that have been at work on
the islands and adjacent lagoons and tidal marshes, and the geologic history of the area
as it can be interpreted from the geomorphology. The study began on July 22, 1975 and
was completed on February 20, 1976.

This report has been deliberately written for the reader who has neither an extensive
knowledge of coastal geology nor a familiarity with the literature. Technical language
has been limited, and jargon has been eliminated. Sections on the general geology of
the area and on coastal processes have been included to provide a basis for understanding
the island descriptions, and for the purpose of defining terms, concepts, and processes.
Persons familiar with coastal processes and the literature of the subject may wish to
skim this introductory part of the report.

INTRODUCTION

!
During the summer and fall of 1975 a study was conducted on the geologic history and
coastal processes of the Virginia Barrier Islands named Metomkin, Cedar, Parramore, Hog,,
Cobb, Wreck, Ship Shoal, Myrtle, Smith, and Fisherman's. Hereafter when the islands
are referred to as a group, they shall be addressed as the Virginia Barrier Island Group.
The first part of the following report discusses the general geology of the southern
Delmarva area, the geologic processes which are known to act and shape all barrier is-
lands, and the methods and procedures used during the course of this study.

The main body of the report consists of an island-by-island discussion of shoreline
changes, coastal processes, geomorphology, and geologic history for each island. The
final section of the report addresses overall characteristics and changes of the Virginia
Barrier Island Group and provides management recommendations. An extensive bibliography
is also included. I

The intention of this report is to provide the reader with an in-depth appreciation of
the physical processes and history of the individual islands so that rational decisions
can be made concerning the future development or preservation of this island system. -

The islands of the Virginia Barrier Island Group have been considered individually for I
the purposes of detailed study and description. The reader is advised not to allow this
procedure to obscure the basic idea that the entire chain of islands operates as an
interrelated system. Interrelationships between one island and other nearby islands
are treated in the section dealing with that island. A section is provided toward the
end of the report to discuss other aspects of this interrelationship. However, there are
many areas of future study which should be conducted in order to more fully appreciate
how the physical system acts in unison. Recommendations for such future study are made
at the end of this report.

ng t 4 RS 3~L L OPS .

A\ VI A 3 A s o MA,/ /V /.

~) %~ F/SHEAeM,~/VS /. ' ~--~.... , .'TO.KN -.

B 9 g u CEDAR /.
REVEL /

ROGUE I. I.

3 GOD WA' WREICK 1.

MINK A.zSH/P SHOAL A.
l h57CMYRTLE I. E
SM/ITH . 0 5 10 15 20 25
Vt FISHERWA NS I.
/ oIh~~~~~~0 5 10 15 20 25
kilometers

FIGURE 1. LOCATION MAP FOR THE VIRGINIA
3 LBARRIER ISL- .9D GRO UP

GEOLOGY OF THE' SOUTIJERN DELMARVA PENINSULA

The overall geologic history of an area is usually determined through a careful analysis
of the rock units which lie at the surface and below the surface in the area. However, i
the emphasis of this report is on very recent and modern geologic processes so that only
a very brief treatment of the general geologic history is given in this report.

I. GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE DELMARVA PENINSUILA I

The Southern Delmarva Peninsula and the adjacent Virginia Barrier Island Group are shown
in Figure 1. In general this area is underlain by poorly consolidated to unconsolidated I
deposit- ranging in age from very recent to more than 1.35 million years. The oldest
rock material known in the area is encountered at depths varying from 7,500 ft. in
northern portions of this region to 3,000 ft. in the southern part of the region. I:
is thought to be made up of crystalline metamorphic and igneous rocks. Overlying this
crystalline basement complex there is a thick sequence of clays, sands, and minor gravel
deposits which vary up to 1,500 ft. in thickness. These deposits are recognized as
Cretaceous in age (63-135 million years ago). Above this unit there are formations of
interbedded sands and clays of varying thickness. These deposits range up to 500 ft,
in thickness and they are thought to be of Eocene Age (36-58 million years ago). A
simila= series of deposits including intarbedded sands, clays, and marls of Miocene
Age (13-25 million years ago) overlies the Eocene deposits, As with the other formations
in this area rhe thicknesses of the Miocene deposits are quite variable. The apparent
range of thicknesses is from 500 to 800 feet. Above the Miocene deposits there are de- i
posits of clays, sands, and gravels of Pleistocene (approximately 2 million years to
15,000 years ago) and recent (Holocene) age. The distribution of the individual sand,
clay, and gravel deposits is very discontinuous. These deposits often appear in the l
form of thin lenses which are continuous for only a few miles in any given directions,.
Overlying the entire section of sediment, which can be from 3,000 to 7,500 feet in thick-
ness, there are sands, muds, and peats in the vicinity of the barrier islands which have
resulted from present and recent marine processes. (See Figure 2 for geologic section)

For a geologist, the sedimentary deposits overlying the crystalline basement record a
fantastic story of great advances and retreats of the sea, changes in climate, and the |
evolution of life. However, this information is of little value for comprehending manage
ment schemes. The interested reader is directed to reports by Moody (1964) and Sinnot
and Tibbits (1966) for much more detailed diagrams and descriptions of the subsurface I
geology in the general area of this study.

The important pieces of information from the limited data concerning the subsurface
geology of this area are related to possible sediment sources which are presently in- I
corporated in the barrier islands, lagoons, and marshes, and to the distribution of
groundwater resources beneath these barrier islands. The general sequence of deposits
beneath the Southern Delmarva Peninsula is thought to continue beneath the adjacent I
portions of the continental shelf.

If these sedimentary formations do extend eastward beneath the Virginia Barrier Islands, *
two possibilities exist: first, that offshore erosion of these formations may provide
a source of sand for nourishment of the barrier islands, and second, that freshwater
aquifers among these formations may extend eastward beneath the barrier islands. These
possibilities will be considered later in this report.

II. CRYSTAT, MOIE/ENT IN THE SOUTHEMR DELMARTVA PENINSULA

A second major area of the geology of the Southern Delmarva Peninsula which is relevent I
to our study is an evaluation of the amount of crustal movement which may have cccurred

-120- I

HOLOCENE Uannamed gifts a/nd cravols
C olr,7biG Group (up to/00 oft.)
PLEISTOCENE .*.~.C)'yey sand1cs and gr-avels5
(sballow wells)

......Che3apeakef Group (500 to 800,fI)
I ~~MIOCENE - Sands, Cla~YS a.qd Mar/s
(dee wels)

I -. ~~~~~~~~~~Cbickaliominy and~lajro
EOCENE Fra/os(>20fft)
i ~sa;?ds anda clays

CRETACEOUS !~~Nci'attaoni Formation (up to
LATE ~~~~~~~~500 ft.)
& PALEOCENE .clays and minor fine sands

Potomac Group (up to100f)
CRETACEOUS clays, Sands and70 min~or
~~ grvel deposits

PRE CRETACEOUS i2~ �Crystalline b'asement

* ~~~~~FIGURE 2.
* ~GEOLOGIC COLUMN FOR THE EAST11ERN SHORE

AREA2 VIRGIJN IA

Mod'ified ftMM Sifnnot Ofd TibfbitS, f958

in this area during xelatively recent times, Such crustal motions can either be rapid
and associated with earthquakes or may be exceedingly slow, and, therefore, unnoticed.
A fundamental point in considering geologic processes of any nature is the influence
of very log periods of time and very slow processes. The relative rates of some very
slow processes are very important in controlling the equilibrium, or lack of equilibriumI
of the barrier islands. In the case of crustal movements in the Southern Delmarva
Peninsula, there are no indications of reported earthquakes. Maps and publications
prepared by Brazee and Cloud (1956), Neumann (1958), Talley and Cloud (1960), and Hadley
and Devine (1974) all indicate that the Delmarva Peninsula is located in one of the leas j
earthquake prone areas in the United States. There are no indications of recorded earth-
quakes in this area since earthquake recording has been routinely carried out in this
country. Therefore, if there are crustal deformations inthis area, they must be oc-
curring without rupture of the crustal rocks. There is a general indication that crustail
move;ments do occur along the eastern seaboard of the United States. Balaza (1975) in-
dicates that the general region of the Delmarva Peninsula is uplifting at a rate of ap-
proximately 3.0 mm. per year relative to the areas located near Dover, Delaware, or soutl
of Norfolk, Virginia. Actually, all of these areas appear to be undergoing slow sub-
mergence as a result of worldwide sea level rise. The area of the Delmarva Peninsula
appears to be seeing a slower rate of submergence when compared to coastal areas far to
the north and south. Harrison et al. (1965) has used evidence from buried and submerged
channels in the Chesapeake Bay to obtain data which suggests an uplift of 175 feet which
occurred sometime during the past 18,000 years. This magnitude of crustal uplift in
the vicinity cf the Delmarva Peninsula appears to have been greater than the rate of sea
level rise during some portions of this period. As a result there may have been a
period of slow emergence of the sea floor adjacent to the Delmarva Peninsula during the
time 15,000 years to 6,000 years before present. Currently the information concerning
these crustal movements in the Delmarva area is spotty and subject to dispute. We will
show later in this report that there seems to be additional evidence to support Harrison'
conclusions.

BACKGROUND ON BARRIER ISLAND PHYSICAL PROCESSES

Barrier islands are thin strips of sand deposits and inshore marsh which parallel the
mainland coast at distances ranging from only a few tens of feet to several tens of
miles. They are comiion features of the East Coast and Gulf Coast of the United States. 3
Worldwide, they most commonly appear in areas where there is a wide continental shelf
located immediately offshore. These islands are generally characterized by extremely
low relief, and are frequently quite narrow. If regarded naively, they appear frail
and easily subject to destruction by the sea. However, all lines of evidence indicate
that the barrier islands are remarkably durable even in the face of extreme storms.
This durability must be regarded in terms of the long-term and overall existence of the
islands rather than the existence of the islands at any particular time or location, or 3
for any finite short term period. That is, barrier islands tend to be extremely mobile
and subject to migrations parallel and perpendicular to the coast.

ORIGIN OF BARRIER ISLANDS I

The mode of origin of barrier islands has been debated by scientists for many years. At
present there is no well substantiated theory to answer this question. However, several
theories have been introduced and all are worthy of review. One of the first explanations
for the origin of the barrier islands was given by de Beaumont (1945), and later given
strong support in this country by Johnson (1919). Both of these individuals felt that
barrier islands must have formed at a time when sea level was lower than its present
elevation and the beach system was located further seaward than its present position.
The theory, as modified by Johnson, involves the production of longshore sand bars far 3
from the shore line on the gently sloping inner continental shelf. Johnson proposed
that these sand bars could, on occasion, grow slightly above the mean sea level. Once

-122- 1

these islands became emergent, he proposed that wind transported sand would develop sand
dunes upon the new islands thus giving them additional height and width. Johnson further
indicated that this addition of windblown sand would allow the thin barrier island to
migrate in a coastward direction in the presence of a slow rise of sea level. This model
for barrier island development is shown schematically in Figure 3,

An alternate hypothesis for the development of barrier islands was first produced by
Gilbert (1885) and more recently has been defended by Fisher (1962), In this model,
barrier islands develop from the successive elongation of a coastal sand spit, They
argue that the sand transport along beaches tends to be limited to the surf zone with
little significant onshore or offshore exchange of sand, Thus, as the sand is moved along
a narrow peninsula, such as a sand spit, it eventually encounters the end and is de-
posited, elongating the peninsula or sand spit, EventuallyD the sand spit becomes so
long that it can be torn open by wave attack during a severe storm. This then produces
an inlet in the system and an isolated barrier island. Gilbert and Fisher envisioned
these barrier islands and inlets as migrating in the general direction of longshore sand
transport so that a new island is shed periodically from the original sand spit and all
islands move like beads on a string. Fisher, recognizes that Iany other more complicated
processes also act on these barrier islands during their development causing them to
close old inlets and form new ones, as well as migrating landward in the presence of a
sea level rise. However, the argument for the origin of these islands remains that they
are shed from coastal sand spits. This model of the origin of barrier islands Us shomn
schematically in Figure 4.

An additional hypothesis has been proposed by Hoyt (1967) and supported by Dolan et
al. (1974) and Godfrey, (1974, 1975). This hypothesis holds that barrier islancs criginat
from ordinary beach deposits during the lowest stand or sea level, The argument is that
coastal dune ridges ordinarily develop behind beach systems, If such dune ridge systems
existed during a time of lower sea level, than these systems would be subject to dropmi4ng
as sea level began to rise. However, early rise of sea level would invade the land be-
hind the coastal dune ridge (by seeping through the ridges or flowing across low points)
and thus produce a lagoon between beach deposits and the coast. This theory argues
that once the coastal dune ridge system has beet partially inundated by the sea. it
would begin to function as a barrier island. The processes of temporary inlet formation,
and of sand from the beach washing over the islands during a storm would allow the island
to migrate landward. Thus, the method of originating the barrier island in this theory
is somewhat different from the other theories, but all agree that processes for the
maintenance of the islands during sea level rise and landward migrations must exist in
order to preserve these islands in their unique configuration. The development of bar-
rier islands according to this theory is shown schematically in Figure 5.

The theories listed above stress that their particular scheme for the origin of barrier
islands is most likely, but that alternate modes of origin may occur in restricted
cases. Thus, some of these theories are exclusive of the others. This point is most
emphasized by Otvos (1970). In his studies of Gulf Coast barrier islands, he has been
convinced that these islands are capable of originating from any of the processes des-
cribed above. Furthermore, he shows that the principal rate and direction of movement
of Gulf Coast barrier islands is often landward, but in many cases may be longshore or
seaward. Coring on several. of these Gulf Coast islands has demonstrated that the se-
quence of deposits is somewhat unpredictable, owing to the fact that the direction of
island migration determines the sequence of geologic strata encountered at shallow
depths beneath the island.

Sediment sequences associated wnith different barrier island migration directions are
shown in Figure 6. The sediment sequence of the compound barrier island could be formed
by oscillatory onshore, offshore movement, of the barrier island, or by longshore mi-
gration of the island. Schwartz (1971].) has expressed similar beliefs about the migration

-123-

Initial stcage9

J~~~~~~~

evelopment ofI

Ion gSk5ore bar

barr/er island

FIGURE 3. DeBEAUMOINT-JOHNSON MODEL FORI
BARRIER ISLAND FORMATION

dle~ecumont (1845), supportedt by dohnSon (19/-92

-1 24-

r ni/f/a stage

._ , ~,/ of spit

barrier ,' 4Is/d 0/2d
ad recis of system

FIGURE 4. GILBERT- FISHER MODEL
FOR BARRIER ISLAND FORMIATION

/6,/rx' / ,88,5), Fisher (f96J2]

-125-

_, < >t~ / beach and dune
ridcfge during low
/ stand of sea level

teach by rising

=.. ~,.Wes / ward
/ retreat of system
sea level rises

FIGURE 5. HOYT-GODFREY MODEL
FOR BARRIER ISLAND FORMATION

t-0oyt (1967), Godfrey (1972)
-126-

barrier is/and

A I/ Ad'GanOc/ng
-I //~~~ barrier S/k7/7d

bariier /s/arnd

FIGURE 6. OTVOS-SCHWARTZ MODEL
FOR B ARR I E R I S LAND MIGRATION

Ov/ts (1970), Schwartz (f9711

-127-

-_ -.. -I -HW2

P . *
HIGH MARSH PEAT i HW2

Ip~a/vo I I~u I S

sFIGURE 7. SEA LEVEL RISE CURVE
FOR BARNSTABLE, MASSACHUSETTS
Li 10~-
LLJ
1- --

w 20-

-0-
30- from Rvben a Redfield (1962)
6 5 4 3 2 0
65432103
TIME 0 YEARS BP

-128-

I
and origins of barrier islands,

All theories for the formation of barrier islands are similar in that they attribute
their ultimate origin to processes in existence at a time several thousand years age,
when sea level was lower and the shoreline was located many tens of miles seaward of
its present location. The development of 'arrier islands is then seen to be the result
of a series of processes which permit these islands to migrate up the continental slope
at a rate which is in adjustment with local sea level stands, A recent study by Kumar
(1973) has shown that there is evidence for drowned barrier islands off the eastern shore
of Long Island. This indicates that it is possible for the combined processes to fail
to maintain a proper rate of shoreward migration so that the island is totally submerged
and thus destroyed. It is unknown how common such relics may be in other places on the
continental shelf but surely the eastern Hog Island area must not be the only exanple.

It can be seen from the above discussion that the origin of barrier islands is a poorly
understood subject. However, this question is fundamentally of philosophical inaterest
and need not be considered as having large significance in determining the geologic
processes in action on modern barrier islands or future trends of such islands. There
is common agreement concerning an interrelationship between barrier islands and sea
level stands. In addition, the processes responsible for the maintenance of barrier is-
land systems in the presence of sea level rise must be understood. For these reasons, a
brief discussion of the subject of sea level xra and barrier island processes has been
included in this report.

I I. SEA LEVEL CHANGES

It is well known that during the recent geologic past great continental glaciers covered
most of northern North America, western Europe, areas inside Siberila, Greenland, and
Antarctica. The time of the initiation of these great ice sheets is presently J.n dis-
pute, but it appears to be in the order of at least two million years ago. During the
period from the initiation of these great continental ice sheets to approximate.ly fif-
teen thousand years agog there were at least four major advances and retreats of the
ice. There is, of course, an intimate relationship between the amount of ice residing
on the continent and the volume of water in the sea. Seismic studies in Greenland and
Antarctica indicate that thicknesses in the order of 10,000 feet are not uncommon for
such continental glaciers. By taking a figure of this magnitude and multiplying it by
the area of land covered by the glaciers during their maximum extent, it can be seen that
a volume of water comparable to the upper 350 feet of the present ocean would have to be
temporarily removed from the sea to produce this ice. Thus, sea level was substanti.ally
lower at times of maximum glaciation, As the continental glacier advanced and retreated
during the ice age, sea level rose and fell. Many marine deposits on the mainland of
the Delmarva Peninsula appear to have been deposited during high sea level associated
with the interglacial (between glaciers) stages of the past ice age. It should be
understood that these great advances and retreats of continental ice and concomitant
changes in sea level occurred at very slow rates. Of the great advances and retreats
of the ice, only the most recent retreat is of significance to the development of modern
barrier island systems along the east coast of North America.

Several studies have been conducted to determine the rates of sea level rise. The first
classic study was conducted by Redfield and Rubin (1962) on the rate of sea level rise
at Barnstable marsh on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. They recognized that the salt marshes
in this area must have grown vertically upward at the same rate at which sea level rose,
In addition to growing vertically, the marshes extended themselves further inland and
seaward over pre-existing sand deposits, By obtaining samples of the organic peats
which are in contact with underlying sands at different depths within the marsh. Rubin
and Redfield were able to assemble a rate of sea level rise using Carbon 14 dates ob-
tained from those peats. This sea level rise curve is given in Figure 7. Their data

I~~~~~~~ ~~~~-129-

indicate that sea level has risen approximately 23 feet in the past 3,700 years.
The rate of sea level rise is not constant but appears to have been in the order of
0.01 feet per year in the interval from 3,700 years before present to 2,100 years be- 3
fore present. Since the time 2,000 years before present, the rate of sea level rise
appears to -have decreased to 0.0033 feet per year. Since the time of the Rubin and
Redfield study, the rate of sea level rise has been determined at many other locations
in the world, In addition to determining these rates at different locations, the timet
span of these determinations has been increased. The full treatment of the information
presently available on sea level changes would be extremely voluminous; therefore,
only information relevant to the present study is included in this report. Additional
information can be obtained from references cited in the bibliography of this report.
Significant information concerning sea level history in the southern Delmarva Penin-
sula is data related to sea level change since the last major advance of continental
glaciers. This last advance is thought to have terminated somewhere between 18,000
and 15,000 years ago. However, data are not always available for this entire period
of time because the coastal deposits which represent the lowest stand of sea level
are now either destroyed or located far out in the continental shelf. A significant
study was conducted in the Wachapreague area by Newman and Numsart (1968). Their data
wereobtained from basal peat samples from the lagoon east of Wachapreague, Virginia.
These samples range back to a time 5,120 years before present. These data, as well
as data from several other locations along the seaboard, are given in Figure 8. It
is significant that the data for the Wachapreague area are incomplete during the period
from 2,500 years ago to present. Furthermore, as the other sea level curves in this
figure show a rather uniform rise of sea level over the past 7,000 years, the data
from the Wachapreague area indicate a decrease in sea level during the period from 5,200
years ago to 4,400 years ago. This suggests that there has been crustal movement in
the Virginia area relative to other locations on the Atlantic seaboard. Thus, the
history of sea level rise in the area of the southern Delmarva Peninsula may not be
as simple as it is elsewhere. Additional data from independent techniques also sug-
gest that the rise of sea level relative to local land elevations in the southern
Delmarva area has significant departures from the patterns established elsewhere on
the east coast. A study by Harrison et al. (1965) suggests the possibility of a rise
in the land level approximately equal to the rise in sea level (2.8 feet per century)
during the period 15,000 to 8,000 before present. This information is obtained by
comparing the gradientsof various channels for the Elizabeth River. James River,
York River, and Susquehanna River. The channel depths in the Susquehanna River are
less than those expected and indicate the possibility of 170 feet of uplift some time
during the last 18,000 years (see Figure 9). This uplift has not proceeded at a con-
stant rate, and therefore the uplift of the southern Delmarva area, and the rise of !
sea level both influence the relative position of the shore line during post-glacial
times. Further indications of even more recent uplift is given by Harrison et al.
(1965) through their dating of peat deposits and shell beds located near the south end
of Hog Island. These deposits are presently approximately three feet above mean
high water and date at 1,170 years before present for the peat and 1,900 years before
present for the shell bed. This suggests that after the subsidence documented by the
study of Newman and Rusnak during the period from 4,500 years ago to 2,500 years ago, 3
there may have been a period when the southern Delmarva area rose more rapidly than sea
level. This event must have occurred since 1,900 years ago. If these events did take
place, then the area has witnessed a recent retreat of the sea, which preceded the
present condition of rising sea level.

In addition to the evidence given by Harrison et al. (1965) for a complicated sea level
rise history in the southern Delmarva area, a study by Newman and Munsart (1968) gives
evidence for a relative emergence of this area between 5,100 and 4,400 years before
present. Further, they show evidence which may indicate a second, more minor regression.
or at least a slowing of the rate of sea level rise in this area in the order of 1,000
years before present. A more complete description of their evidence for these changes I
of the sea level rise curve in the area, and other pieces of information from the report

-130- 1

FTK .

EI -./o-' _-

B 10- /

LLi
.,0~"t~ 0 )Virginia
o //
O I New Jersey
1J 3Q- / / , Z Connecticu
C o ,,g/t ~~~~~~~~0 Cape Cod 0
I-- / ,/ +N.E. Mlassachusetts _

40 - 12
z0 4C- // 6/
jJ from ANewmon 8 Rusnak (/96521

6 5 4 3 2 i
YEARS (xi3 ) B. P.

FIGURE 8. SEA LEVEL RISE CURVES FOR VARIOUS
ATLANTIC SEABOARD LOCATIONS

-131-

4-20 I --T- ' ' I + I I I I I I
cc M LW -. PRESENT MEAN LOW WATER MLW
t - -\ X N CRUST A L AMO VEMENT m

- \\ "s RELATIVE SEA LEVEL
oJ (ML W) 0
Z \ m
Li EUSTATIC SEA LEVEL \ >
z
(MLW) \
o m

C-i4 DATES \
z
< -200- E) Peat >
>'- L\ Shell z
M - X Slump, log or wood fragments 0

IJ_ from Harrison et cl. (71965) -
--90 m
--300 1I I I I I t I I I i I I I I I i I , , I
5 10 15 20
THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE THE PRESENT ERA

FIGURE 9. SEA LEVEL AND CRUSTAL MOVEMENT CURVES

FOR THE AREA OF CHESAPEAKE BAY ENTRANCE

-132-

by Newman and Munsart are given later in this report, in the section concerning the
geologic development of this barrier island system.

A very recent study Of elevation changes in the area of the southern Delmarva Peninsula
is provided by Holdahl and M4orrison (1974). They used long-term tide gauge records and
precision surveying techniques to determine the relative rates of absolute elevation
changes going on during the past thirty years (see figure 10), This figure indicates
that there are relative differences in the rate of sea level rise between the northe-rn
and southern end of the barrier island chain. Sea level appears to be advancing at an
annual rate of two millimeters per year on Assateague Island and at an annual rate of
1.2 millimeters per year at Cape Charles, Therefore, it is clear that in most recent
times sea level has been rising in this area. The possible significance of the dif-
ferential rate of rise of sea level along the barrier chain is also covered in a later
section of this report.

In summary, the sea level change curve for the southern Delmarva area over the past
8,000 years appears to have a more complicated characteristic than in most other east
coast areas. There appears to be evidence for a rapid rise of sea level from 15,000
years to approximately 6,000 years ago which may have been coincident in average rate
and time with a rise in the earth's crust, This may have been foll.owed by a minor re-
gression of the sea, beginning about 5,100 years before present, followed by a return
to rising sea level conditions after approximately 4,400 vears before present, The
evidence from the shell beds and peats given by Harrison et al. (1965) suggests the
possibility of a sea level stand above present sea level some time in the order of
2,500 to 1,900 years ago. It will be shown later in this report that there appears to
be further independent evidence to suggest this occurrence, resulting from this study.
At present, sea level is rising in the area of the southern Delmarva barrier isJands
as it is elsewhere throughout most of the world. The rate of sea level rise in toe
southern Deimarva area is not constant but varies in a north/south dir.ction. The sig-
nificance of all of these data is given later in our general interpretation of the geolog:
processes shaping these barrier islands.

III.BARRIER ISLAND PROCESSES

It is important to have a general understanding of the processes which are significant
in shaping barrier islands. Therefore, a brief summary of these barrier island pro-
cesses is provided. Work on understanding beach and barrier island processes has been
under way for more than 200 years and our current level of understanding is the result
of a large number of studies. Important studies related to barrier island processes
are cited. Apologies are proffered in advance for pieces of information which are in-
cluded without accurate reference. In most cases the cause of these oversights is
that the information has become widely accepted and is generally utilized by most authors
discussing beach processes and barrier islands.

3 There are many ways to organize a summary discussion of the barrier island processes.
A system was selected wherein processes which are responsible for the longshore migration
of sand are discussed first, and then processes resulting in on-shore/offshore movement o:
sand and general onshore/offshore translation of barrier island masses are described.

The fundamentalpoint in discussing any coastal system is that beaches represent geologic
deposits which are constantly in motion. It is well known that beaches can alter their
profiles and shapes in a matter of a few hours. These changes in the geometry of beaches
are often oscillatory in nature and cannot be used to form an appreciation of long-
term and average changes which are occurring to the beach system.

- .-j~b-2
-0:8 /-2.0

- 398

~~~~2. 0 DL
-2.4~~~~~~~~~~- iD.
2.8 38 370
2A.
-1324

r~~~~~~~~ Io

-20~~~~~~~~...7 3=~

Gs gCI~~~~~~

/ from 1-/oldahi7 a Morrison (1974)

FIGIJIRE 10. 770 76" 750
ANNUAL RATES OF ELEVATION CHJANGE (m m. /yr.) I
iN\ THE? VICINT11Y OF CHiiESA PE A KE B AY1
-134-I

A. Beach Systems

Beaches can generally be viewed as consisting of two prismatic bodies; one located
between the top of the active beach and the low tide line, and the other located between
the low tide line and the seaward edge of the surf zone, The seaward limit of the off-
shore beach prism is ll-defined. Most of the movement of sand related to the beaches
does take place within the surf zone. However, there is leakage between the surf zone
and more distant portions of the inner continental shelf.. The depth of approximately
10 to 15 meters is commonly assumed to represent the outer margin of the seaward beach
prism. Considerable exchange of sediment develops between the offshore beach prism
and the onshore beach prism as the wave conditions vary. These changes will be discussed
in greater detail later in this section. In addition to the onshore/offshore exchsnge
of sediment, there is a strong component of motion of the sand parallel to the shore,
This sand motion develops both within the surf zone of the offshore beach prism, and
along the active face of the onshore beach prism. The mechanics of this motion are
related to momentum transferred from the motion of breaking and spilling waves (across
the surf zone, and in the swash of the beach face) to the sand particles, Ultimately,
the wave momentum is converted into sediment transport and surf zone currents, When the
waves are breaking at an angle to the shore, the sediment is moved along the beach
according to the longshore component of the wave propagation direction, Recent theo-
retical studies by Komar (1969), Komar and Inman (1970), Bowen (1969), Longuet-Riggins
(1970 a & b),and others indicate that the rate of longshore sediment transport is pro-
portional to the wave energy, or the square of the breaker height, the slope of the
beach and surf zone, and the angle of wave attack. The transport is maximum when the
waves are breaking at a 450 angle to the beach. Ultimization of these theoretical ad-
vances is limited in applied studies because the rate of sediment transport is dependent
upon the instantaneous wave climate, and the wave climate is constantly changing, There-
fore, the overall changes in beach systems are governed by the time-averaged rate of
longshore transport. Thus, storm waves from one direction vlay more than overccome the
sand transport of waves from another direction, eN;en though those other waves may hrve
operated throughout most of the year.

Unfortunately, it is extremely rare to have adequate information concerning the long-
term average wave conditions so that quantitative models of average beach changes can
be assembled. In the absence of these data, other forms of information must be used
to understand the average longshore processes acting on a beach system.

B. Longshore Processes

For the purposes of a general discussion of wave processes, it is best to consider an
ideal beach system where the time-averaged wave conditions are knomn. In such a system
tremendous volumes of sand can be shifted along a beach during a year w�i.h no change in
the position of the beach. This will occur when thie average wave conditions and breaker
angles remain constant all the way along the beach. For any given control volume lo-
cated on such a beach, an equal amount of sand is moved into this volume from the up-
drift direction as is removed from it in the downerift direction. It is not uncoimon
for ideal beaches facing the Atlantic Ocean to transport quantities of sand in the order
of 300,000 to 500,000 cubic yards per year. Long-term erosion and deposition occurs
in response to accelerations and decelerations of the rate of sand transport along a
beach. If offshore topography substantially blocks or bends the waves so that the average
wave height or average breaker angle at the beach are reduced, a situation develops
where more sand is carried into a control volume than is removed. The difference is then
deposited within this control volume, leading to accretion of the beach. The opposite
effect occurs in areas where the average breaker height or wave approach angle is in-
creased along the shore in the direction of the longshore current, In this condition
more sand is removed from a given control volume than is brought in, and the dif--
ference is made up by erosion of the beach within the control volume, These three
conditions are illustrated in Figure 11. It must always be stressed that the long term
transport of sand along beaches is in response to time-averaged conditions. Tberefore,

-135-

surf zone

beach .-b
___ - _

.L1ONGSHORE � 9LONGSHORE

EQUILIBRIUM LONGSHORE SAND TRANSPORT

surf

FIGURE 11. IDEALIZED LONGSHORE SAND
TRANSPORT CONDITIONS

-136-

the preceding explanation represents an enormous over-simplification of actual longshore
processes, Nevertheless it is sufficient to provide the basic understanding of longshore
sediment transport along uncomplicated coasts, Finially, it must be pointed out that
determinations of longshore sediment transport rates are difficult to make. Transport
rates may be computed from estimates from the time-averaged wave conditions and theo-
rectical relationships. However, such estimates are subject to wide error even when
large amounts of information are available concerning the local wave climate, In other
places, natural or man-made features may trap most or all of the sand being transported
along a beach system, In these cases the rate of increase of the volume of sand trapped
by a breakwater or a rocky point can be measured by successive mapping of these der-
posits. From this the rate of longshore transport can be determined easily. In areas
free from man-made structures and natural sediment dams, determinations of longhbore
drift rates may be almost impossible.

C, Role of Tidal Inlet

.Longshore transport of sand along barrier island chains is considerably more complex
than it is on continuous beaches as described in the p-eceeding paragraphs. The basic
patterns governing erosion, depositions, or stability (equillibrium) are the sare,
However, barrier island chains are broken by tidal inlets, which may be permanent or
temporary. The overall functioning of tidal inlets and their interactions with the
longshore drift system strongly affect the overall processes related to the stability
and history of barrier island chains. Tidal inlets through barrier island ch-airns are
known to originate primarily as a result of storm activity. Inlets may be fondred by
storm waves from the ocean breaking over low and thin portions of the barrier island.
It has been shown, however, by Fischer (1962), Dolan et al. (1973), and Godfrey (1973,
1974) that tidal inlets provably form most frequently as a result of lagoon water piled
up against the back side of barrier islands by strong offshor6 winds. These winds fre-
quently accompany storms. Such piling up of lagoon water ultimately results in its
escape over the barrier island at a low point, The water rushing to the ocean rapidly
erodes a channel, which may become permanent. The permanence of tidal inlets is primarily
controlled by the relative ability of the longshore sand transport system to silt up
and close the inlet, versus the power of the tidal flow through the inlet to clear
it of sediment and keep it open. Thus, the average wave conditions and the volume of
water exchanged through an inlet during each tidal cycle, ultimately determine whether
the inlet will become a long-term feature of the barrier island, or quickly disappear.

The opening of a new inlet can affect older, adjacent inlets. If the tidal flow is
preferentially re-directed through the new inlet then the older inlet often silts up
and closes. Thus, position of inlets and the number of inlets along the barrier island
chain is usually quite variable.

D. Inlet Processes

Tidal inlets obviously segment the longshore transport system into units related to
each island. However, these long-shore transport systems are seldom totally isolated
from each other. Sand and other sediment which is swept seaward by the ebbing flow
through an inlet usually accumulates in the form of tremendous offshore sand bars,
ringing the seaward mouth of the inlet. These sand bars are called ebb tide deltas.
When an ebb tide delta begins to form outside of an inlet, sediment, at first, is re-
moved from the longshore transport system and deposited to form the initial sand bars.
Upon complete development of the ebb tide delta, it usually functions to permit the
bypassing of substantial quantities of sand around the inlet. Sand enters the inlet
area from the domndrift end of one island's longshore transport system, is carried
around the ebb tide delta by inlet currents, and enters the updrift end of the next
island's longshore drift system, However, this sediment bypassing is generally
incomplete.
-137-

I
Some substantial portion of the sand deposited on the updrift side of the tidal inlet
or moving onto the ebb tide delta is swept through the inlet and into the lagoon during !
the flood tide. A series of irregular, but grossly crescentic, sand bars and shoals
develop within the lagoon surrounding the tidal inlet. The sand which makes up these
deposits, called flood tide deltas, is lost from the longshore transport processes of
the open beaches of the barrier islands. The degree to which the longshore transport
of sand is bypassed around an inlet is thus highly variable and at the whim of wave and
current activity at the inlet. Partial to complete trapping of sand from the longshore
transport process can occur at an inlet. Separate and careful analysis of each individLt
inlet must be conducted to determine the degree to which sediment is lost from the long-1
shore transport system due to these inlet processes. Secondary effects also develop
about tidal inlets. |

It has been shown by Boothroyd (1972) that wave bending or refraction about the ebb
tide delta deposits on the downdrift side of tidal inlets often results in a reversal m
of the longshore sand transport direction on the beaches immediately adjacent to ebb
tide deltas. This reversal in the drift direction can serve to stabilize the position
of the downdrift beaches near the inlet. A generalized sketch of the interaction of
tidal inlets with longshore transport systems is given in Figure 12. 3

A further complication in the transport of sand near tidal inlets results from asym-
metries in the flood and ebb flow. The geometry of the inlet throat and adjacent sea I
floor often cause ebb flow to be concentrated along one bank of the inlet, and flood
flow to be concentrated along the opposite bank. In extreme cases this alternate
deflection of ebb and flood currents through the tidal inlet can produce a series of I
shoals and ephemeral islands in the center of the inlet throat. In addition to asysm-
metries in the ebb and flood flow through the inlet throat, asymmetries can develop
in a vertical direction as well. If the lagoon waters are significantly warmer, or
less saline than the ocean waters, a distinct density interface can develop in the !
inlet throat. The less dense warmer or brackish lagoon water tends to float above
the more dense saline or cooler ocean water. This condition is referred to as density
stratification. When it exists, the flood flow through the inlet throat may be
concentrated against the bottom while the ebb flow is concentrated at the surface. 1
As most sediment residing in or near such tidal inlets is of sand size, it is obvious
that such an inlet would tend to move more sand to the flood tide deltas than it
may bypass. All of these factors combine to make rapid analyses of the overall
action of the tidal inlet difficult or impossible. Careful measurement of the tidal
flow through the inlet over long periods of time, determinations of long-term changes
in the inlet throat and nearby sand bar configuration, and knowledge of the long- 3
shore transport system are required before adequate assessment of tidal inlets can
be made.

Finally, it must be pointed out that some tidal inlets tend to maintain their position
for indefinitely long periods of time. These inlets may be stabilized as the result
of deep pre-existing channels, by compacted or partially lithified sediments on one m
or both banks as shown by DeAlteris and Byrne (1973) or influenced by the offshore wavel
climate as indicated by Goldsmith (1973). In other cases, tidal inlets on barrier islands
have been known to migrate rapidly. The direction of inlet migration is most frequentlyi
in the direction of longshore sand transport along the island chain, but not always.
Updrift migration of tidal inlets is apparently controlled by the hydraulics of the
tidal prism in the lagoon adjacent to such inlets.

E. Other Modes of Sediment Transport I

The interactions of longshore sand transport systems and tidal inlets form only part
of the story of the processes controlling the development and stability of barrier is-
lands. Other processes lead to onshore and offshore motion of sand. These processes

-138- 3

____
- 11
-I (A

- -- /1
---- -- / //
/
I, (
$ */'

-- 7-- - ----- OQ 4X/sV/

- --- 1/
7J.
- - -
*
- - -
0
- . -4

-0 _

/ff

-z
'(IT- { - / - 2
c -
. *-

.o. -'c-

2
T7 /

- a- c /
n. /ci -
V t?
c '::'-
�'t-
cii- /
-

FIGUPE 12. SEDIMENT PATHS AT INLETS IN A
EARFIER ISLAND SYSTEM

-139-

include the transport of sand across the inner continental shelf, and to and from the
beach tidal prism. This may occur in the form of migrating sand bars whose long axes
are parallel to the beach, or through sediment transport along the crest of sand bars
whose axes are at a high angle or perpendicular to the beach (Niedoroda and Tanner,
1970, Niedoroda 1973) Such exchange of sediment between the ocean floor and the
beach face may be of an oscillatory nature and lead to no net change in the overall
shape of an island, or it may have a preferred direction. Pierce (1969) has shown that
the area of barrier islands between Cape Lookout and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina ob- I
tains 441,000 cubic yards of sand annually from the adjacent sea floor. However, losses
of similar magnitude are quite likely on other coasts with barrier island chains. In
addition to these transfers which occur beneath sea level, sand is transported perpen-
dicular to barrier island beaches by wind and is stored inland in the form of sand dunes s
and sand dune ridges, These dunes may be vegetated or unvegetated, They frequently
develop innmmediately behind the active beach prism and may extend great distances inland,

IV. BARRIER ISLAND MIGPATION

The processes previously described are strongly influenced by the slow world-wide rise
in sea level resulting from the continued melting of Antarctic and Greenland continental
glaciers. To understarcn the effect of vertical changes in sea level, it is appropriate
to view barrier islands as small scale topographic features on the average. slope of
the coastal plain and adjacent continental shelf. The position of the barrier island
beaches on this slope is adjusted relative to present sea level.

The slope of the inner continental shelf in the southern Delmarva area is on the order i
of 0.1 to 0.05 . For an average slope of 0,05 , a one-inch rse in sea level would
result in a 95 foot advance of the sea in a horizontal direction. This is to say that
a small rise in sea level causes an instability in the location of the beach and bar-
rier island systems. A small change in sea level then can cause the barrier island
beaches to tend to migrate large horizontal distances. This is illustrated in Figure
13.

In an earlier part of this report, it was shown that sea level may have alternately
risen and fallen in this area with the net balance predominantly toward sea level rise,
Also, at present, sea level is rising in the area of the DeLmarva Peninsula. Thus,
there is an overall tendancy for the Virginia Barrier Islands to retreat westward.

There are four major mechanisms which permit the landward migration (retreat) of barrier I
islands. First, the prcsence of calm water within lagoons behind barrier islands pro-
duces high rates of sedimentation. This is frequently accompanied by the development
of salt marshes which add organic material to the sediment as well as forming efficient I
traps for fine inorganic sediment. The overall result is a gradual uplifting of the
floor of the lagoon and the production of a sandy, silty, or peaty substrate behind
the barrier islands. A second mechanism pointed to by Shiedeler (1973) among others,
is the general movement of beach sand to sand dunes on the barrier islands. These dunes I
thus provide a reservoir of sand which can feed the longshore drift system during times
of storms or can be redistributed along the barrier islands as they retreat.

A third mechanism has been discussed by Fisher (1962), Godfrey (1970), Pierce (1970), |
Godfrey & Godfrey (1972, 1974 a & b),and Dolan et al. (1973). These authors show that
at times of storms, occasional wave surges carry over the beach and through low points I
in the dune ridge or discontinuous dune system. This wave surge is often charged with
a high volumle of suspended sand which is deposited in a channel and fan-like deposit.
These deposits have been called overwash deposits, The ecologic studies carried out
by Godfrey indicate that Jn many instances the influx of sand carried by the overwash
across the barrier islands has a beneficial effect on the salt grasses of the adjacent
salt marsh. In addition, the long-term effect of randomo overwash at various locations

-140- 1

Present/leve/
Former level

/ m~~171grati'on
Present ~~~~~Forme0r
tarrA~~'r I~~lond . L,,ry-ler Island
posit,'or DOSti'

F I G URE 1 3. R E LAT,1-iON O F SEA LLEVEL CHANGES TO

BARRIER ISL AND M'IGRA~TION

in all the barrier islands is to increase the overall height and width of the islands.
Indeed, in some cases, particularly where salt marshes do not exist behind the barrier
islands, the sediment from the overw7ash can be carried and deposited in the still waters
of the lagoon. In such situations, overwash channels frequently become the sites of
short-term ephemeral inlets. Sand swept through these inlets on the flood tide is addedl
to the overwashed sand in the lagoon to produce a much larger deposit. In this report,
deposits of this nature are called sand deltas. Such deposits can become sites of new
marsh development. Thus, as the ocean side of a barrier island erodes in response to
rising sea levels, the overwash processes continue their existence.
The final mechanism for the maintenance of barrier islands (in the presence of in-
stabilities caused by rising sea level) is related to the flood tide deposits behind
tidal inlets. Studies by El-Ashry and Wanless (1965), Pierce (1970), and Godfrey and
Godfrey (1972, 1974 a & b) , show that the flood tide deltas are abandoned when their adj
cent tidal inlet is closed. In the resulting calm lagoon conditions, these shallow
sand bars become the site of new marsh development. Organic peats and fine sediments
trapped within these marshes are, thus, added to the mass of sand in the flood tide
deltas.
The combined effects of sedimentation in the lagoons, dune building, overwash, and
the developrment of flood tide deltas help to maintain the overall width of many barrier
islands as sea level rises, and they are forced to retreat landward.

-142- I
I

THE VIRGINIA BARRIER ISLAND STUDY

I I. SETTING, PURPOSE, AND NATURE
The Virginia Barrier Island Group is part of a general coastal system which lies be.-
tween the mouths of Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay. A significant ph-ysiographic
division can be made between the northern portion of this system and the southern portion
The dividing point appears to be the southern tip of Assateague Island, North of this
location the beaches are characterized by more continuous lengths, larger and more
permanent inlets, and larger scale washover and sand dune deposits. The southern tip
of Assateague Island is a massive, hooked sand spit adjacent to Chincoteague Inlet,
From this point south, the style of the barrier islands changes, Permanent or sami-
permanent inlets are more abundant, resulting in a shorter aver. ge island length, In
addition, the scale of temporary inlets, washovers, and the overall width of the sand
beach systems becomes markedly smaller than that of similar features to the north,
The human development of the area parallels the natural patterns, The beaches nort.h of
Chincoteague Inlet are tied to the mainland by highways and have been developed pri-
marily for recreational and vacation use. Wallops Island, located immediately south of
Chincoteague Inlet, has been developed by N.A.S.A. as an airfield and missile test
facility.

South of Wallops Island there is minimal human development along the islands because
most are inaccessable by highway. However, there have been past attempts at developing
the islands which have met with limited success. (See Graham, 1976. Landl Us Hist.or--
A Study of Man's Influence on the Virginia Barrier Islands: in this volume of the
Virginia Coast Reserve Study,)

The present study is devoted to the Virginia Barrier Island Croup. Thelse include a
total of twelve islands between Wallops and Fisherc-an's. At present, tine interests of
The Nature Conservancy do not include Wallops Island and Assa-woman Island; therefore
these islands have been excluded from the study.

The general aim of this study was to analyze the geologic history and natural processes
acting on the ten islands along the southern portion of this barrier island chain. The
study is concerned with the history of shoreline erosion and depositionr the processes
which are significant in introducing those changes to the beach, the nature o( all inlets
in this barrier chain, and the development of lagoon and marsh systems behind these
barrier islands. From the background material presented in earlier sections of this
report, it should be clear that a comprehensive study of this nature would require
years of conscientious and well planned research. Therefore, this report covers an
overall reconnaisance study, which represents an attempt to gather togerther and analyze
the most useful general data and information concerning this coastal system in the brief
months allocated for the study. The report synthesizes and presents significant in-
formation produced by previous studies in this area.

II. ORIGINAL WORK

In addition, a program of mapping and original study has been conducted to determine
the geologic history and geomorphology of each island, the nature of geologic processes
acting on each island, and to quantitatively measure the changes in shoreline position
and overall migration of each barrier island. Significant characteristics and changes
in the marsh and bay areas have been reported also.

An additionally important objective of this study was to demonstrate the value, im-
portance, and reliability of remote sensing techniques for th!e rapid analysis of large
scale coastal systems. A secondary purpose was to highlight the value of short-term
remote sensing imagery to such studies.

-143-

A primary source of information for this portion of the study has been extensive false
color, thermal I,R4 imagery provided by the Chesapeake Bay Ecologic Program Office at I
the N,A.S.A, Wallops Flight Center at Wallops Island, Virginia, The I,R, imagery was
supplemented by vertical black and white aerial photographs, and black and white and
color oblique photographs flown by the investigators in July and September, 1975,
Additional information wlas obtained from U.S Coast and Geodetic Survey hydrographic
charts, and topographic maps of the U,S. Geological Survey and the U,S. Army Map Service,'

III. BASE MAPS I

The June 4, 1974 N.A.S.A. false color I.R, imagery is of excellent photographic quality
It was, therefore, selected for use in preparing a planimetric base map for this study.
A major difficulty in working with the N,A,S,A, imagery is that it is released for use
as uncorrected aerial photography, It is, therefore, subject to scale changes due to
variations in flight altidude, and distortions due to lense abberations, including
vignetting, and flight vagaries such as pitch, roll, and yaw. The latter are not too
significant because the altitude (10,000 feet) and the plane (C-54) worked to produce
a relatively stable platform for the camera.

The base maps of the islands that were produced from this imagery resulted from careful,
frame-by-frame tracing of features shown on the imagery. A Variscan Projector was I
used to produce the images that were traced. A magnification ratio of 3X was employed,
The fine focus control of the Variscan Projector provided sufficient variation in mag-
nification to permit adjustments of scale from frame to frame. Distortion problems
were minimized by utilizing only the central portion of each frame, and by skipping I
individual frames that were badly distorted. The rotational effect due to vignetting
was calculated by comparing positions of man-made lan&tmarks and corrected manually for
those distortions, These maps are preferred as the best result that could be produced,I
considering the imagery, equipment, economics, and time frame allowed for that portion
of this study.

The base maps produced from the 1974 N.A.S.A. imagery (I.R,) have been used for the |
geomorphic and geologic mapping of the islands, as well as for a base for a second set
of shoreline change maps. It must be made clear that no claim of geodetic accuracy is
made for these maps. There are systematic variations in scale along the length of some
of the islands due to changes in altitude of the aircraft along the flight line. These!
variations could not be corrected during the preparation of the maps. Therefore, ad-
jacent scale bars were provided for different positions on a map according to the scaleI
of that portion of the map. An average scale bar for the entire map is provided at
the legend on the map, The scale differences are not great, but they exist, and are
acknowledged. There are also slight residual rotational errors from the vignetting I
that could not be removed with the mapping technique employed. Because these maps
were produced for the sole purpose of relative comparison and interpretation, these
errors are not considered significant. The maps are intended only for the geologic
purposes of this study.

IV. SHORELINE CHANGE MAPS: (1850's to 1960's)

The U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey hydrographic charts used in the study were obtained I
from the U.S. National Archives. They are 2X1 Xerox reductions of the original charts,
The information shoewn on those charts is based upon a series of hydrographic surveys m
begun in 1847. In later years the U.S.C. & G.S. hydrographic data was supplemented by
topographic (and sometimes hydrogranhic) data provided by other U.S. Government agencies.
Each succeeding edition of a hydrographic chart issued by the U.S,C. & G.S. is a com-
posite of information available from all sources up to, or just prior to, the date of |
the edition, Successive hydrographic surveys of the .,S.C. & G,S. and the area covere

-144-'

by them was also obtained .f-or, the National Archites, (See bibliography for a listing
of the hydrographic charts and index sheets used in the study)1 These indices mede it
possible to indentify the updated portions of each of the' charts utilized. Additional
information on historical shoreline positions was obtained from Bylne's (1972) Historical
Shoreline Positions maps which include hydrographic information not available from the
National Archives, US. Geologic Survey and U.S. Army Map Service topographic quad-
rangle maps provided additional data that supplemented the hydrographic charts, These
maps were obtained from the tap Library and Repository at the University of iMassdcchusetts,

The data obtained from the preceeding sources was redrafted, island by island, to pro-
duce overlay maps to illustrate the nature of the shoreline changes that have occurred,
Up to four successive shoreline positions were overlain for each illustration, de-
pending upon the intricacies of the shoreline changes� Generally, two illustrations
were prepared for each island to cover the time span from the 1850's to the early
1960's. Landmark features whose position remained stable through time were employed
for indexing the shoreline overlays, and for making scale corrections where necessary.
Scale changes were made on a Kail Plotter.

ANALYSIS OF ERROR

Errors are introduced at every step in the process of copying and redrafting maps and
charts. Therefore, the steps in the redrafting process were kept to a minimum. A
small, but unknovn; error due to lense distortion is introduced in the Xerox reduction
of the charts. The lense system in the Kail Plotter also introduces small errors, but
these can be minimized by avoiding the peripheral areas of the lense field. It is dif-
ficult to evaluate the c-umulative effect of compiling errors, but it is believed that
the the maximum introduced error has been held to less than 100 feet, and most- error
probably lies within a range of several tens of feet of the correct position. At the
scale of the hydrographic charts employed, the width of a very fine pencil line is
approximately 120 feet. Because the final shoreline positions maps were produced on
the Kail Plotter, the scale of a line varies from island to island, and the width of
a line portraying the shoreline varies according to scale. The range of max;imum pos-
sible error in tracing is thus between 80 feet and 120 feet. Measurements of historical
shoreline changes were not made from the illustrations produced, but were madei in
sequence, from the original (Xerox copies) charts, maps, and photographs available for
the study.

I VI. SECOND SET OF SHORELINE CHANGE MAPS

A second set of historical shoreline positions maps was created from imagery dated in
1949, 1966-67, 1974, and in some instances, 1955-56, and 1975. This set of maps was
developed to illustrate in more detail the relatively short-term changes which have
occurred in the study area. These data revealed that short-term changes occur at much
higher rates than can be extrapolated from the first set of long-term historical shore-
line changes maps. In fact, comparison of all variable data for the time period from
1949 to 1975 indicates that an even shorter interval of comparison (2-5 years) would
yield a truer appreciation and understanding of shoreline oscillations and migration,
The approximately ten-year interval used for this set of shoreline positions maps stJil
resulted in time-averaging of many significant shoreline changes.

The shoreline positions for the other dates used in this second set of maps were care-
fully translated onto the 1974 base maps. Control for this translation was based upon
both man-made landmarks on the islands and natural features located in the bay areas
landward of the islands. Data for the 1949 shoreline positions was derived from a
complete set of 1949 black and white aerial photographs furnished by The Nature Con-
servancy. Data for other dated shoreline positions was derived from U.S.G,S. topo-
graphic maps and from supplemental aerial photographs that were available for the study.
In all cases, control points were plotted, and shoreline positions were carefully drawn
between the known points. The spacing of control points varied from less than 100 feet

-145--

where the shoreline was changing shape rapidly, to more than half a mile where the beach
was uniform, In spite of distortions that are residual from the N.A,S,A, imagery, the I
shoreline changes portrayed on these maps are considered to be quite accurate because
of the care expended in translating the other shoreline positions to the base maps,

VII. GEOMORPHOLOGY AND GEOLOGY

The major effort in this study was directed toward the production of a highly detailed
series of geologic maps. The purpose of those maps was to define the different types
of deposits which comprised the islands and to infer from these the relative importance
of the different geologic and coastal processes involved in shaping and modifying the
islands. The maps were constructed by interpreting the June, 1974 series of false
color I.R. imagery. The first operation in this study consisted of the construction I
of a detailed base map. This operation has been described above, The resulting base
maps are included separately with this report, Upon the completion of the base map I
tracings from the 1974 imagery, individual acetate sheets were placed on the viewing
screen of the Variscan Projector and the geology visible on each image was transferred
to the acetate. WIhenever doubt existed about an interpretation, other N.A.S.A. false
color imagery from 1971 to 1975 was consulted to verify the nature of the geologic I
study. Without it, many of the irnterpretations of this study would not have been pos-
sible. To the authors' knowledge, few similar attempts have been conducted at precise
and detailed geologic mapping of coastal systems from remote imagery. No other large 3
scale, coastal system study has previously been completed using false color I.R. imagery
The authors are quite pleased and impressed at the level of detail and the amount
information which can be obtained in this process.

VIII. FIELD WORK

Upon completion of the initial geological mapping, a field visit was conducted to |
selectively spot check various key groundtruth locations. Serious delays in receiving
the N.A.S.A. imagery in the early part of the project, combined with the unpredictated
high level of detail which the photo geology interpretation analysis require, caused i
this field visit to be conducted in September. As a result the time spent in the fieldE
was more limited than originally intended. Thus, the procedure of spot checking
critical areas which had previously been identified on the photographs was adopted.
In addition, the entire area was overflown, maps in hand, to verify interpretations,
During the five days spent in the field by the investigators in September, areas on
Cedar, Parrarore, Wreck, and Smith Islands were visited. The previous period of field
work, during July, allowed Fisherman's, Wallops, and Assateague Islands to be visited.
During both field visits, light aircraft reconnaisance and oblique aerial photography
was carried out over the entire chain of islands. The results of the ground truth
observations were extremekl encouraging. Not only was it shown that all interpretations*
of the photographic data were read correctly, but it was also learned that much more
information could be obtained from the photos than could be obtained from the field
work, owing to the very subtle topographic expressions of most important geomorphic I
features.

VI. GEOLOGIC FEATURES MAPPED

A legend showing the meaning of all geologic units and symbols used in the Virginia
Barrier Islands mapping program is provided with the geologic map series. In order
to clearly define what is meant, and what can be inferred from each of these mapped
deposits, the following definitions are provided,

A. Active Beach I

This category generally includes all deposits forming between high and low tide, This

-146---

represents a conservatiye estimate of the June, 1974 location of the active beach which
certainly extends well into the surf zone and can be considered to extend landward to
the first scarped dune ridge or at least to the location of the highest recent storm
bern,

B. Present Berm

Berm deposits generally appear as a low ridge immediately landward of the active beach
face, or as breaks in the slope between the active beach face and the back beach areas.
Where these features could be determined on the false color I,R. image'ry, they were
mapped as the location of the present berm.

C. Old Berms (Numbered)

In many locations, it was possible to distinguish a pattern of several old beach berins
which usually represented accretion of the beach front. These appear as low ridges
of variable length. These units have been given a distinct map 'ymhbol and furthler
distinguished by sequential numbering from the youngest to the oldest whenever the
development succession was apparent.

D. Back Beach Flats

In many areas, extensive sand flats developed landward of the modern beach. These
generally consist of nearly horizontal surfaces with scattered remains of old berms and
other hummocks which presumably represent early stages in dune formation. In scma lo-
cations these deposits developed behind a large offshore bar which had migrated to the
beach face and welded to it.

E. Ridge (bars welded to the beach front)

As described above, offshore bars appear to commonly migrate onshore and weld to the
beach front. This results in a seaward advance of the island shoreline and a distinct
ridge is formed in the beach terrain.

F. Runnel (trough behind a ridge, and within tidal range)

Areas of deposition of this type are similar to one form of back beach flats. They
are created as low areas behind offshore bars which have migrated to the beach, in
the mapping, only those portions of the area behind a ridge that are still within the
tidal range were mapped as runnel. All of the areas mapped as runaiels still have con-
nections to the sea. Such areas are still receiving sediment brought in by the flood
tide, overwash, and the wind. Most of these areas, if they survive, will become a
type of back beach flat.

G. Vegetated Former Beach (on marsh areas behind inlets)

In many locations, distinct beach prisms can be recognized, surrounded by marsh. These
appear to develop as the result of changes in the geometry of an inlet, which allows
storm generated waves to drive sand over the marsh areas inside the inlet.

H. New Dunes (mostly unvegetated)

This symbol was used to represent areas where accreting beach deposits are being re-
worked by wind (and perhaps overwash). Small new dunes are abundant, and small cver-
wash channels are evident, Younger areas included in this cat:egory often slhow multJple
berms, and are not vegetated. Older areas show larger dunes, less overwash, no berrels,

-147-

and scattered patches of vegetation, I

I, Active, Established Dunes

This designation was given to areas where previously established dunes are not I
stabilized by vegetation, and are therefore subject to migration, Such dune areas tend
to have more relief than new dune areas, typically in the range of 5 to 10 feet. |

J. Old, Stablized Dunes

This designation was given to many areas on the barrier island where a continuous grass |
cover has developed on sard dune deposits. In general, these dunes are no longer visibly
migrating. Although many such areas lie inshore of beaches that are retreating at
appreciable rates, most areas included in this categor? are not being overwashed. The
dunes in this classification are also backed up by marsh areas, in almost every instance

K. Dune Area Cut by Multiple Overwashed Channels I

In many areas, particularly those areas where the barrier island deposits are narrow
(1.50 to 250 feet maximuml), there are patterns of small vegetated sand dunes and narrow I
overwash channels, intimately interlaced. Where it was practical to separate such
fine detail, the entire area was mapped with this symbol, Such areas are intermediate
between normally retreating sections of beach, and stretches of beach that are ex-
periencing rapid "rollback" by large scale overwash. I

L. Dunes Developing on Overwash

In some areas of rather extensive overwash deposits, new dunes are evident. In order
to preserve the infoirmation concerning the overwash origin of these deposits which are
being modified by dune building processes, a separate symbol was used for these areas.
In many parts of the barrier island system, this unit indicates areas that are beginning
to stabilize after a period of "rapid rollback" of the beach.

M. Parramore Pimples I

On many islands, particularly on Parramore Island, peculiar circular, or nearly circular
features are readily distinguished. An explanation for this formation is given later inN
this report, All features throughout the Virginia Barrier Island Group that resemble
the classic mounds on Parramore were mapped as Parramore Pimples.

N. Beach Ridge (no certain origin) I

The subject of the formation of these ridges remains controversial in the geologic
literature. Some argue that these deposits represent major berms of ancient beaches
while others argue that all such ridges are dune ridges. The argument may be specious.
Rather than assigning a positive description to areas of beach ridge which could have
originated through either mode, this symbol was used I

O. Beach Ridge (strandline origin)

In areas where a definite strandline origin for the beach ridge was apparent on the |
photographs, this pattern was used to show the beach ridge deposits. In some instances
units marked with this symbol may be recurved sand spits and old berm ridges,

P. Distinct Overw.ash Channels, Overwashed Deposits from Multiple Channels

In order to display the relative significance of overwash processes in different areas
of these islands, it was important to distinguish overwash channels of small size,
Below this size, the overall character of an area transacted by multiple overwash
channels was mapped with a separate syrmbol,

Q. Vegetated Overwash Deposits

In many locations, overwash origin of sand deposits which are now vegetated could
readily be distinguished on the I.R. imagery. Such deposits were mapped with a unique
symbol so that their mode of origin would stand out.

R. Distinct Overwash Fans Related to One Channel

At the landward margin of an overwashed channel, the sands are generally deposited in
a radial, or fan-shaped pattern. These are readily distinguished on the I.R. imagery,
and were so mapped.

S. Recent, Unvegetated Overwash (without dunes)

This symbol is used tc portray areas of overuash of all sizes that were of sufficiently
recent origin (2-3 years) to be easily identified on the I.R. imagery because they lacked
vegetation.

T. Sand Flats (uncertain origin)

In many areas of a barrier island, extensive sand flats develop which have few, if
any, distinguishing features to indicate their mode of origin, This symbol has been
used for these cases. However, in many locations, sand flats develop as a result of
extensive matts of marsh detritus being stranded on the lagoon side of the barrier is-
lands. As the organic material decays, it appears to kill the vegetation of the area
and results in the production of a wide and often long barren salr. flat area. Care has
been taken to relate such areas to the fundamental geology of the area and not to
such ephemeral events. Mud flats are distinguished from sand flats in such cases.

U. Vegetated Sand Flats

These areas are identical to the above areas except that they are generally completely
vegetated by grasses.

V. Salt Pans

In many locations on the marsh, the water from high tide does not completely drain
during low tide. These puddles evaporate and produce salt encrustations. in a few
areas these features were mapped. In most cases, little attention was paid to salt
pans as they have questionable geologic significance.

W. Inlet Deposits

In many areas within the marsh and lagoon, it is possible to easily distinguish old
flood tide delta deposits which have grown above sea level and are often vegetated.
These deposits may lie in the vicinity of a presently active inlet or may be entirely
surrounded by marsh and thus represent the position of an inlet which has closed,

X. Inferred Inlet Deposits in Marsh Areas

In many places within marshes, there are topographically higher areas which are sandy.

-149-

These deposits often are of the size and geometry which suggests an origin as flood tide
inlet deltas,

Y. Established Marsh

All areas of well-established tidal salt marsh plants are mapped with a symbol, No I
attempt is lade to dSstinguish between high marsh or low marsh vegetation, because
these vegetative patterns have little relation to the local geology. 3

Z. Young Marsh and Vegetating Mud Flats

Areas within and adjacent to established marsh which appear to be sparsely vegetated |
or flooded daily are lmapped with this symbol. These areas represent recent develop-
ment of salt marsh.

AA. Mud Flats I

Areas which appear to represent unvegetated mud flats, primarily within the lagoon,
have been mapped with this symbol. Where possible, the existence of mud at these lo-
cations has been substantiated from published reports and field work. However, many
submerged or inter-tidal sand flat deposits may easily have been mistakenly placed in
this category.

BB. Dredged Spoil

Many areas of salt marsh have been buried with sediment from recent dredging operations.
Where these areas could be recognized, they are distinguished with a pattern. A star-
shaped symbol in the pattern indicates the location of the end of the outflow pipe
used in pumping the spoil tc that location. The outer contact line indicates the recog-
nizable boundary of flow of the dredged spoil.

CC. Artificial Fill

Areas which have been artifically filled for the purposes of creating building or road
sites are shown with this symbol.

DD. Ridge Lines on Beach Ridges

Very often the overall mode of growth of an island can be determined by noting the
succession of beach ridges. In some areas, such as the southern tip of Smith Island,
the beach ridges are extremely obvious. In other areas beach ridges may be very subtle.
In each case where the linear trend of a beach ridge could be determined from the I.R.
imagery, this symbol was used. In addition, the symbol was used for discontinuous
beach ridge deposits that clearly exhibited a linear pattern. This includes many areas
of Parramore Pimples within which linear patterns could be determined.

EE. Old Strand Lines

At many locations former shoreline positions can be distinguished by features such as
old beach ridge systems or continuous long depressions. This information is highly
significant in determining the processes leading to the growth of these islands. There-l
fore, features showing this information were mapped with this symbol.

FF, Old Inlet Openings

This symbol was used in areas where beach ridge and strand line patterns coupled with I
other information concerning the deposits definitely indicated the location of former

inlets, The lines were used to mark the maximum width of those inlets inferred from
the geomorphic features and lineations. In many cases those inlets correspond to inlets
shown on the historic shoreline maps, In other cases they show inlets which existed
prior to the mid-1800's.

IGGG., Position of Formler Marsh Channels

Linear features within the marshes often follow boundaries of old tidal canals. These
boundaries may be obscured on the I.R, imagery by more recent deposition of sand, silt,
|1 and mud, and by the vegetation of the area. Ho^wever, the geometry of these former
marsh canals and their relative size is often very significant in determining long term
history of these islands. Therefore, wherever former marsh channels could be inferred
from linear features in the marsh, these s7ymbols were used. In areas where several
I marsh canals existed, or in some cases intersected and even crossed, patterns involving
one, two, three, or four dots between the dashed segments were used to distinguish
different canals.

X. QUALIFYING STATEMENT

In concluding this section, several points should be clarified for the benefit of the
reader who casually may use these maps in the future, First, the maps were prepared
from false color I.R, imagery that was photographed in June of 1974. Therefore, the
maps reflect the geology at that time. This is particularly true for the seaward side
of the barrier islands where change occurs most rapidly. Secondly, geologic processes
are on-going in time, and the future user must take into account the effect of time.
For instance, an inshore area mapped as new dunes on over-'ash in June, 1974 could appear
as stable vegetated dunes in 1984. Finally, an explanation of the use of the work
"vegetated" as a qualifying criterion in setting the geologic symbols is offered. The
presence, or absence, of vegetation is an important factor influencing geologic processes
in the coastal environment. Its presence at one location can cause the trapping of
sand that deprives another location of sand that it needs, to make up for erosional
losses. The reader should be aware that on-going geologic processes can change the
physical conditions for a plant community, and consequently lead to changes in that
community. i.e., species changes. The interaction of the plant community and the geo-
logic processes that affect the barrier islands may therefore result in features and
conditions that differ from those recorded by researchers at the time of the 1974
Coast Reserve Study.

THE VIRGINIA BARRIER ISLANDS

The islands in the Virginia Barrier Island Group have been investigated one by one,
beginning with INetomkin Island near the north end of the group. A series of maps
was produced for each island. Shoreline ccnparison maps (2-4) are included in the text
of this report, in the section treating the island to which they apply. Two large
scale maps were also produced for each island at scales of approximately 1: 6900 (1
in. = 575 feet). These maps are planimetric. One shows the geography of the island
and adjacent marsh area, and is intended primarily for locations reference and general
use by The Nature Conservancy. The second shows the geology of the island, super-
imposed upon the first, and is intended as a specific scientific reference map for the
section of each island description dealing with the geology of the island. These maps
have been delivered to The Nature Conservancy in roll-form, separate from the text of
this report. The reader may wish to have both maps available when reading the island
descriptions. These large scale maps are accurate as of June 4, 1974 when the I.R.
imagery from which they were prepared was flown. A few of them have been corrected for
significant changes through April, 1975, and these can be identified from the shoreline
positions maps, where a 1975 section of shoreline is noted. Finally, the Virginia part
of Chincoteague Island, Wallops Island, and Assawoman Island are not included in the
following descriptions because the interests of The Nature Conservancy did not encompass
them.

-151-

METOMIKIN ISLAND

I. GEOGRAPHY

MIetomkin Island is the northernmost island in the study area and is the third island frol
the north in the Virginia Barrier Island Group, Adjacent con-nunities on the mainland
are.Metomkin and Daugherty, and further inland are the towns of Accomack, Onancock, [
Onley, and Tasley. The island is separated from Assawoman Island on the north by
Gargathy Inlet, and from Cedar Island to the south by Metomnkin Inlet. The June, 1974
imagery, upon which the mapping is based, shows that Metomkin Island is made up of [
three parts separated by lesser inlets, The parts are designated North, Middle, and
South Metomkin Islands, respectively. The seaward beach face at the north end lies
approximrately 1.5 riles from the mainland and this distance increases down the island
to 1.9 miles at the south end. |

II. PHYSIOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION

North Metomkin Island may be described as a narrow linear barrier island backed by 3
extensive marsh except at its southern end where perhaps 15% of the island's length
is backed by Metomkin Bay with little or no marsh present. The roughly circular and i
smaller Cargathy Bay is contained in the marsh behind the northern portion of the is-
land. Except for the portion of the island hacked by Netomkin Bay, most of the length
of this island exhibits dune fields and scattered beach ridges. The maximum relief of
this part of the island is 8 feet (U.S.G.S. Topographic map, 1968). The southern portioil
exhibits an array of old berms and new, mostly unvegetated, dunes with a relief of
several feet. There are numerous reaches of active overwash consisting of small scale
overwash channels and small fans or narrow aprons. During a storm on April 1, 1975,
the southern end of this island was cut off when a new inlet opened at the south edge
of the marsh. This inlet had not sealed when the area was visited on September 27,
1975. The new inlet, cargathy Inlet, and most of North Metomkin Island, are shown in thU
photographs which are reproduced in Figure 14.

Middle Netomkin Island is an accreting and mobile barrier island with little marsh be-
hind it. The present length is 0.9 mile. The beach face is 0.3 mile closer to the 3
mainland than that of North Metomkin. The inlet that separates it from the southern tip
of North Metomkin is clogged with flood tide deposits, many of which are emergent as
beaches or low islands with new dunes beginning to form on them. However, well defined 3
channels connect into the bay, and a deep inlet channel turns toward the northeast
behind an inlet island on the seaward side of the inlet. This seaward island is built
upon marsh peat that had been overridden by the retreating barrier island. Other out- [
croppings of marsh peat are found seaward of the beach all along Metomkin Bay.

The inlet at the south end of Middle Metonkin is protected on the seaward side by a
large outcropping of marsh peat and has a well defined channel directed northeasterly [
and outward from the inlet. The flood tide deposits on the bay side of this inlet
clearly show ebb and flood current influences with established new channels connecting
into Metomkin Bay. There is also some accretion of sand around and upon the peat on [
the seaboward side, but no visible evidence of an ebb tide delta. Portions of earlier
inlet deposits lie along the bay side of this island, and new marsh is forming on and
around them. On the island, itself, new low dunes are forming and some are beginning [
to vegetate. The relief of the entire island is very low, reaching a maximum relief
of 3 to 4 feet above the most recent storm berm. This island has moved, grown, and
closed a major shallow opening into lietomkin Bay that is shown on the 1968 topographic
map of the area. |

-152- 1

a. View is northward. 1975 ephemeral inlet at south end
of North Metomkin Island.

b. View is northward. Gargathy Inlet, center, and North
Metomkin Island, bottom, in July 1975.

FIGURE 14: North Metomkin Island and Gargathy Inlet

South Metomkin Island has a longer and straighter beach than Middle Metomkin Island,
This island is backed by some marsh areas which contain large tidal canals, These
channels are remnants of an older and more extensive marsh and tidal canal system.
The island is separated from Middle Metomkin by the inlet described above, and from 3
Cedar Island by Metomkin Inlet. In the 1974 and 1975 imagery, a majox inlet island is
shomwn to be moving into Metomkin Inlet. Numerous flood tide deposits are forming in
the bay inside of the inlet, These deposits have been formed in former channel areas, 3
restricting those channels and enlarging mud flats and other inlet deposits, This
suggests that the tidal circulation in Mfetomkin Bay may be shifting in the direction
of establishing one of the new inlets as the major inlet, with the shifting or closing
of Netomkin Inlet being fostered by the northward growth of the north end of Cedar 3
Island, This will be discussed further in the part of this section dealing with tidal
circulation. Figure 15 shows the beach and recurred sand spits at the north end of
this island and the southern end of the older marsh behind the island, The photograph
of the marsh area shows an old dredge spoil dump in the marsh.

SHORELINE CHANGES 3

Historical charts (U.S.C. & GS. charts) have been used to prepare the Historical
Shoreline Positions Maps of Metomkin Island (Figures 16 and 17) included with this
report. (Dr. Robert Byrne of V.I.M.S, has prepared a similar set of Historical Shore-
line Position Maps for his studies in the area.) These maps indicate that Metomkin
Island was a single barrier island in 1852 and that the shoreline retreated quite uni-
formly until 1955. Shoreline retreat during this period varied from 0,25 to 0.35 3
mile at various locations alorg the island's length for an average rate of retreat of
15.4 ft./yr. between 1852 and ]955. By 1955, the southern portion of the island,
east of Metomkin Bay, had been reduced to a thin barrier island with little marsh behindI
it except at the southern end. Figure 18 shows recent shoreline positions for Metomkin
Island, and Figure 19 portrays the changes to Metonkin Island along Metorkin Bay since
1955. -

Between the 1955 mapping of the area and the 1957 plane table survey of the island,
an inlet was opened through this thin portion of the island to create South Metomkin
Island. Hurricanes Connie and Diane (Truitt, 1968) in August, 1955 hit this area two 3
weeks apart, and it is reasonable to attribute the inlet opening to them. (However, I
Kenmerer (1972) cites a damage producing storm in January, 1956 that could also have
caused the island to breach, or could have enlarged a previous breach,) In the inter-
val between 1957 and 1966, the barrier island north of this new inlet retreated rapidly
northward until this inlet opening approached 6000 feet in width, Hurricane Donna in
September, 1960 and the Great March Storm of 1962 (Truitt, 1968) undoubtedly accelerated.
this process. Byrne (1975, unpublished communication) notes that the rapid widening
of this shallow inlet was accelerated when the 1962 storm broke through the thin re-
maining barrier beach in several places.

In the interval from 1955 to 1961, the rate of erosion of the shoreline of North
Metomkin Island increased from an average of 15.4 ft./yr. to an average of 17.6 ft./yr.
with the rate being somewhat higher along the beach at both the north and south ends. 3
In the interval from 1961 to 1963, the shoreline retreated an average of more than 300
feet. How much of this is attributable to the March, 1962 storm and how much is due
to the changing regime of sediment transport is uncertain.

During the period 1955 to 1961, the beach on the southern half of newly formed South
Metomkin Island was eroding back at an average rate of 47 ft,/yr. with the rate higher
at the southern end and falling to zero at a point about two-thirds of the way up 3
the island where the shoreline positiono remained essentially unchanged, The shoreline

!!!Uliii :0: f : i�

II!~|ll~lEl~llul�Ell~l , $ I,| |

tern of advancing recurved sand spits, bypassed inlet
deposits, and peat outcrops seaward of the beach.

b. Established marsh area behind south end of South Metomkin
Island. Old dredged spoil dump is at center.

FIGURE 15: South Metomkin Island

FIGURE 16. // /"I'
METOMKil N ISLAN\lD IJ |
SHORELINE POSITIONSOS,
(1888-1963)- ,�I I

I: I

;'X'" /I
an' /-..."' I
�; I

9 Rf' / . I

- r / I .-/' I

I.t. i
"//"' i

/,,/ I

1;~~ ~ ~ 188
2,' I
I/

/~ //~ /./1
I / '~~

' '-"/ 0 2_000 yar
� .I
I / /,I I
fry! r

;,/. -1955 ,, ,
C I:~~~~~~~
!" o /' IIr 15-
�? ' :
~.~ . . - ' / ~~~~~1965
'.i /
./ 1955
"'"' .......................~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'""''" "

t 888 I

FIGURE 17. METOMKIN ISLAND ) .,
SHORELINE POSITIONS " ''

/ /

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1~~~I, " L ...,,

i /il
3 7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.'
/I,

I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=
1,
/' /
I //~~~~~~~~~~I

/ .- 0 2000 yards

./,, y ..
0 1 93ils
I~~~~I/
I

I I -19~~~~~~~I

I" 910

-157-

m.- m m _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _._ - - - - - - - - - - - - Q4

-~~~~~~~ Al S A l, F9,C,,,
1A.' 914 Al I'R, 0'.
M it I ii N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-0-LI CL

-GE~c SCAL.E
'AlAS~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FIGURE 18. RECENT SHORELINE POSITIONS ON METOMKIN ISLAND

(1949 -1975)

-158-

- - m -__ _ __ - 1- m - m1 -974

R955 9i57 96 193 1968

Cedar C1dar Cedar Cedr Cedaro
Islona / islandTIsl Islid Island d Island

FIGURE 19 SEQUENTIAL CHANGES IN BARRIER ISLANDS

EAST OF IdETOM KIN BAY

-159-

along the northern quarter of this island retreated more rapidly as the end of the
island recurved toward the bay and the new inlet opening,

In the two years from 1961 to 1963, South Metomkin Island was reduced about one-third
in area, presumably during the March, 1962 storm. By 1963 the north end of the island
had been shortened by more than 2,500 feet and the south end by about 840 feet. The
beach on the southern third of the reduced island had remained in place, From just
south of the midpoint on the island to the north end, the beach had retreated about
425 feet. The gap between the north end of South '�etomkin Island and the south end of
the barrier beach on North Metomkin Island had widened to more than 8,500 feet. An
unstable island occupied about 3,900 feet of this gap so as to form a narrow northern 3
inlet and a broad southern inlet.

Rapid changes in the section of Metomkin Island bordering Metomkin Bay continued(Figure
19) and presumably will continue until the tidal circulation in Metomkin Bay becomes
established in a more stable pattern. By 1974, South Metomkin Island had grown in
length from 7,600 feet to 10,850 feet, a gain of 3,250 feet. The unstable island that
lay in the gap had stabilized to an elongated barrier beach 4,850 feet in length,
and had moved northward as a barrier beach at the south end of North Metomkin Island
was shortened by about 1,950 feet. The broad, shallow, ephemeral southern inlet of
1963 narrowed from 3,500 feet to 750 feet as it shifted northward and developed a channe3
system, The northern 1963 inlet, while shifting northward and becoming established,
had diminished only slightly in width, from 1,270 feet to 1,000 feet.

Shoreline positions for the part of Metomkin Island east of MIetomkin Bay during this
period of break-up of the island are shown in Figure 19, The maps of this figure
indicate that South Metomkin Island, after a period of very rapid washback, had slowed
its rate of retreat to an average of 71.4 feet/year, and is now extending its length
northward. The path of inlet migration is clearly shown in this figure. Because Middle
Metomkin Island has been forming and stablizing during this period, changes in shore-
line position are of little meaning. However, it is worth noting that this island is
reforming 2,800 feet west of the. 1957 shoreline position, a measure of the magnitude
of change for this portion of the island. The creation of yet another new inlet at
the beginning of April, 1975 near the south edge of the marsh behind North Metomkin
Island suggests that the processes of adjustment of the north end of Metomkin Bay are
continuing.

This analysis of shoreline changes, and a consideration of the map of shoreline changes |
over the past quarter century (Figure 18) leads one to certain inferences in regard
to these changes. First, it is apparent that as long as Metomkin Island presented a
uniform beach face to the sea, the rate of retreat remained quite uniform for the whole 3
island. This implies an undisturbed longshore drift pattern, whatever it may have been,.
Second, it is apparent that once the barrier island was breached and a new inlet con-
nected to Metomkin Bay, the pattern and rate of beach erosion changed abruptly. This
implies both a change in the pattern of longshore drift and a change in tidal circulatic
in Metomkin Bay.

Figure 18 shows that since 1955 the shoreline of Metomkin Island has been literally 3
sucked into Metomkin Bay. DeAlteris (1976) has suggested that following breaching of
a barrier island, flood tide currents produce rapid beach erosion and bay filling,
which would result in the effect of "sucking-in" the shoreline. The effects of this 3
change extend to the north nearly half way up the length of North Metomkin Island. How-B
ever, this change does not appear to have affected appreciably the north end of Cedar
Island, or the northern half of North Matomkin Island where shoreline changes more
closely follow the previous pattern. The implication of this is that the component

-160-

W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I-

~~~~~~~' ~~~~~~~~~~~Sand entering Or leaving
storage
71HIGH 8EA CH PRiS4'
(storage )
L___~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S NO DEL TA S

ACTIVE 8EACH.IPP/SM
FIGURE 20. SEDIMENT MOVEMENT !soae

SOUTH END OF NORTrH METOMKIN ISNLAND Fe]NAS'P PS
(storage)

associated withL the nearshore sediment prism has not changed appreciably, 3

Figure 20 illustrates what appears to be happening to the sediment drift along thesouthern
shore of North Metomkin Island, In cross-section, the diagram shows the sediment
mass of the barrier island and the nearshore sediment associated with it. It does
not portray the substrate, or marsh and bay deposits, Along the barrier island, this
sediment mass can be treated in three parts; the high beach prism, the active beach
prism, and the nearshore prism, This is not the usual manner of addressing these
sediments, but in this instance it is useful, and seems to fit with observed evidence. U

The high beach prism represents sand in storage above the high tide line and behind
the storm berm, Sand in this prism is under the influence of wind, and storm events.
It comprises what is commonly recognized as the upland barrier island, but within the
longshore drift system, it is stored sand. The active beach prism represents that mass -
of sand which is frequently set in motion by wave activity along the beach. This prism
is most directly responsive to diurnal events; tides, wind and wave direction, storms.
The prism responds quickly to immediate forces, and over the longer period to averaged
forces such as seasonal changes in wind and wave direction and changes in the local
tidal circulation. Most active drift of sediment along a shore is through this prism. *
The nearshore prism represents a mass of sediment that lies outside the normal surf
zone. It is influenced by at least two factors, longshore currents and storm activity. 1
The nearshore side of this prism is more susceptible to disturbance than the portion
which lies in deeper water. Although sediment in this prism experiences both slow drift
and abrupt movement due to storms, it otherwise can be considered to be in storage. I
Along the east side of Metomkin Bay, sand deltas may be the storage analogue of the high
beach prism of a retreating barrier island,

Along the seaward face of a barrier island, interchanges of sediment between these |
prisms is noticed only as a result of time-averaged changes in the appearance of the
barrier island; ie.,, evidence of gradual accretion or erosion of the high beach prism.
In a situation where the active beach prism is being rapidly depleted of sand, this 3
loss can only be made up by removal of sand from storage and that will be reflected in
an accelerated and noticeable rate of erosion. Sand will be rapidly brought back into
circulation from storage in the high beach prism by daily wave activity, and more slowly
from the nearshore prism as offshore slope adjustments occur. This appears to be the
process that is operating along the southern half of North Metomkin Island, and at the
northern end of Metomkin Bay.

The separate geographic and geologic maps of Metomkin Island that accompany this report I
show that large volumes of sand have been deposited in Metomkin Bay as flood tide and
inlet island deposits. Cherry (1968) noted that large amounts of sand had been washed I
back over the marshes and remarked that little beach remained on Metomkin Island at that
time. Byrne (1975, unpublished personal communication) has indicated that large sand
deltas were spread into Metomkin Bay at the onset of this shoreline change in the mid- I
1950's. This was before the migration of the new inlets began. These earlier sand
deltas have been partially reworked as the beach has continued to roll back, and their
sand is contributing to the growing active beach prisms of South and Middle Metomkin
Islands (See Figure 21). 3

As the inlets have migrated north, additional sand has been carried into the bay and
deposited as flood tide deltas. The increased rate of washback of the south end of
North Metomkin Island indicates that active beach prism is being sapped as sand is being I
shunted into Metomkin Bay through the inlet between North and Middle 'Metomkin Islands.
There is some indication that this disruption of longshore transport associated with I
the active beach prism is increasingly being restricted to the shoreline section as-
sociated with the south end of North Metomkin Island and the inlet located there,

-162--

a. Multiple overwash channels and overwash fans in
marsh, south end of North Metomkin Island.

b. Offshore peat outcrops, multiple sand spits, and
overrun flood tide deposits at north end of South
Metomkin Island show nature of island's migration.

FIGURE 21: Beach Migration on Metomkin Islands

In recent years, the shoreline of South Metomkin has been following a parallel mode I
of retreat, and the rate of retreat is less,

That longshore transport associated with the nearshore sediment prism has been less
affected by these shoreline changes may be seen at etomkin Inlet, The north end of
Cedar Island (Figure 19), while retreating landward since 1852, has retained its po-
sition remarkably well, Byrne's Historical Shorelines Position Maps (1972) show that t
from 1852 to 1962 the dimensions of the inlet opening have increased steadily, and that
the inlet has become progressively offset as the south end of Metomkin Island moved
into Metomkin Bay.

Kemmerer (1972) reports migration of MIetomkin Inlet, but neither Byrne's maps nor the
work of this study show any evidence to support a thesis that Metomkin Inlet has mi-
grated within the past one and one-quarter centuries. Since 1966, approximately 350 I
feet have been lost from the beach of Cedar Island along the half-mile south of Metomnkin-
Inlet. In the same time period, the north end of Cedar Island has grown to the north
approximately 350 feet, and the beach a mile south of the inlet has grown seaward I
by up to 150 feet for a distance of over a mile. During this same time interval, large
volumes of sand have been carried into Metomkin Bay and deposited as flood tide deltas
and inlet islands, All of this evidence tends to indicate that longshore drift as-
sociated with the near shore sediment prism has continued to operate at nearly the same !
rate as it did prior to the breaching of Metomkin Inlet in the mid-1950's. It is worth
pointing out at this point that the growing offset of Metomkin Inlet appears to be
related more to the retreat of the MetomkiD beach and the disruption of longshore
transport in the active beach prism than to wave activity (Goldsmith, 1975) or to bar
building on the down drift side of the inlet (Boothroyd, 1972).

IV. TIDAL CIRCULATION
The rapid changes along the eastern edge of Metomkin Bay that began in the mid-1950's
clearly disrupted the former pattern of tidal circulation within the bay that had 3
maintained Meto:-kin Inlet. This study has shown that during the preceding period of
rapid change that led to the formation of the present South and Middle Metomkin Is-
lands, the two new tidal inlets have shifted north. This northerly shift has been
accompanied by a shift in tidal circulation in the southern part of Netomkin Bay to-
ward increased ebb flow through the new inlets. There is clear evidence of ebb flow
through both of the new inlets. The 1975 inlet appears to be kept clear by ebb flow
from the marsh behind North Mletomkin Island. The pattern of inlet deposits at these
inlets indicates that ebb flow leaves the inlets along their northern sides, and dis-
charges toward the northeast. Flood flow through these inlets appears to be directed
toward the west and southwest. In the imagery from which the 1974 planimetric and
geologic maps were made there is evidence in the pattern of tidal Canals, marsh rilling,
and bars that tidal flow in the marsh behind North Metomkin has a net north to south
component directed into Metomkin Bay. |

These observations would suggest that prior to the mid-1950's, discharge through
Metomkin Inlet had a net ebb flow component due to north to south tidal flow in the
marsh behind North Metomkin, The circulation pattern that now appears to be developing *
allows that net ebb flow to discharge through the new inlets with the result that Me-
tomkin Inlet is shifting toward a flood dominant inlet, The evidence of this study m
indicates that Metomkin Inlet will close, allowing Cedar Island to grow rapidly north-
ward, annexing South Metomkiln Island. Eventually one of the new inlets will stabilize,
Present evidence would indicate that the inlet between North and Middle Metomkin Is-
lands will migrate further north and then stabilize, allowing the inlet between Middle I
and South Metomkin Islands to close and join Middle Metomkin Island to Cedar Island,

-164- 3

V. GEOLOGY.

Because of the recent rapid changes in the shoreline of Metomkin Island, the modern
beach deposits, as shown on the accompanying geologic map, are both young and simple
in form, consisting mostly of low dunes, berms, and overwash areas, These forms ap-
pear to have developed since the beach was devastated in the early 1960's (Cherry, 1968).

There is a line of vegetated dunes behind the beach along the middle reaches of North
Metomkin Island that is built upon older overwash. The relief of these dunes is about
8 feet above high tide level. This line of dunes has been breached by overwash in
several places, notably at the north end. Seaward of this line of dunes there is a
strip, up to 400 feet in width, that consists of very low and partially vegetated dunes
and abundant small overwash channels. This strip ends at the upper edge of the active
beach, and is attributable to the process of rollback of the beach. About a mile
south of the north end of this island, there is a recent overwash area approximately
3,000 feet in length. Sand from this overwash spread over the adjacent marsh. There
is another smaller area of recent overnash just south of the north end of the island.
At the very north end of this island there is a pattern of recently added berms that
indicate some northward growth of the island. All of these forms indicate that roll-
back of the beach on North Metomkin Island is continuing, but that earlier damage has
healed.

Middle Metomkin Island has developed a sufficient width (200 to 300 feet) to allow new
dunes to begin to build along its length. Sand for these new dunes would appear to be
derived from a pattern of berms that are being added along the beach face. This island
is accreting at the present time.

South Metomkin Island has reached a width of 300 to 500 feet over most of its length,
and a field of low dunes has been established. Vegetation has colonized these dunes
which will facilitate their continued growth and stabilization. On the southern half
of the island the dune field has been cut by overwash channels in several places. One
or more berms have been built along the beach side, and these extend into spits at
both ends of the island. This island, too, is presently accreting.

Both Middle and South Metomkin Islands are now backed by extensive sand deposits, many
of which occur as tidal sand flats. There is some older marsh behind the southern half
of South Metomkin Island. Marsh vegetation has been established on the new deposits
behind these islands, which should facilitate further development of new marsh.

In the marsh behind North Metomkin Island there are a number of older landforms that
stand out in the marsh. In the southwest corner of the marsh, and at its north end,
there are a series of deposits which have been interpreted as submerged former beach
deposits.

Throughout the marsh there are numerous former inlet islands, which are indicated
on the geologic map of Metomkin Island with two symbols. Those which could readily
be associated with former inlets have been marked with the inlet island pattern.
Others, of uncertain association, are simply indicated by a marsh symbol.

In the southern portion of the marsh behind the modern beach deposits of North Metomkin
Island, there is a pattern of recurved ridges, berms, and inlet deposits. These and
the inlet islands north and west of them (up to the line on the geologic map indicating
a former inlet opening) record the northward migration of a former inlet and the con-
commitant northward growth of the island south of it.

In the middle portion of the marsh behind North Metomkin Island there is evidence of

-165-

a former very wide inlet opening and of a later and smaller inlet opening, The shape
and size of the inlet islands in this area attest to the magnitude of the inlet opening.
Beach retreat in the last century or'more has obliterated evidence to the east which
might have yielded more information about this inlet and the islands associated with
it. The younger, and smaller, inlet at the northern edge connects through the marsh
to vestigal canals which are visible on the false color I.R. imagery. Only the major
canals which are readily discernible were portrayed on the geologic map.

Near the north end of the island another inlet opening is shown on the geologic map with l
several associated inlet islands behind it. It is known that this inlet was closed
between 1955 and 1957. This inlet was formerly a branch canal leading from Gargathy
Inlet to Gargathy Bay. The 1949 black and white aerial photograph shows that retreat
of the beach has progressed to the point where the inlet opening coincided with the
merging of drainage canals from Gargathy Bay and Kegotank Bay, with the inland waterway
joining the two through the intervening marsh. Between 1949 and 1955, the north end 3
of Metomkin Island grew rapidly until it coincided with the southern margin of drainage
from Kegotank Bay. Between 1955 (U.S.C. & G.S. charts) and 1957 (U.S.G.S. Plane Table
Survey), this inlet closed, and the beach merged with the segment of marsh cut off by 3
the inland waterway. Since that time, the inland waterway has functioned as the inlet
opening to Gargathy Bay. Gargathy Inlet is now much narrower than it was in 1949,
and appears to be dominated by ebb flow from Kegotank Bay.

ExCept for a small portion of marsh (containing former major tidal canals) which still
exists behind South Yetomkin Island, all other geomorphic evidence of the earlier history
of this island has been destroyed by beach retreat. Interpretation of the limited
older geomorphology yields a sketchy geologic history of the island. The previously
mentioned strand lines in the north and southwest portions of the marsh appear to be
the oldest features in this island's history. Those in the southwest portion of the 3
marsh indicate the absence of a barrier island system with the beach against the main-
land. Other marsh features near the mainland tend to support this. The northern set of
strand lines indicates a beach migrating southeast from the mainland, although the nature
of this occurrence is less clear. Both of these features indicate the onset of a de-
crease in sea level at some ancient time.

The pattern of ridges, berms and inlet deposits of the southern portions of the marsh 3
behind North Metomkin Island indicate a continuing drop in sea level with the subsequent
formation of a barrier island that migrated northward until inlet processes arrested
its further migration. At this stage of development, it appears that Gargathy Bay,
Kegotank Bay, and Metomkin Bay were connected and bay circulation was through this major
inlet at the mid-point of the present North Metomkin Island, There is little other
geomorphic evidence of the earlier history of Metomkin Island. Presumably another island.
was present north of this inlet, but its position must have been offset to the east of
the modern beach deposits because there is no recognizable evidence of that island in
the marsh north of the old inlet. The smaller inlet opening marked at the northern
margin of this inlet area was probably a large tidal canal that connected to the bay 3
when the island and marsh extended further to the east.

The present changes in the island east of Metomkin Bay are a normal part of the barrier 3
island processes. The barrier island migration mentioned in the preceding paragraph
was a similar event that occurred in a more ancient time. The processes and results
remain essentially the same, and when the present adjustments along Metomkin Bay are
complete, the new island will display similar ridges, berms, and inlet deposits as a
partial record of its growth.

_166-

31~~~~~~ ~~CEDAR ISLAND

TI. GEOGRAPHY
Cedar Tsland is the fourth island from the north end of the Virginia Barrier Island
Group. It is located between Metomkin and Parramore Islands, and is bounded on the north
by Metomkin Inlet and on the south by Wachapreague Inlet, This island, like Metomkin,
has an extensive marsh area behind it at the north end, and a long thin spit at the
south end. The marsh area at the north end extends to the mainland and contains the
nearby circular Cedar Island Bay which is approximately a mile in diameter. The much
larger Burton's Bay extends from the southern sand spit on Cedar Island to the main-
land and reaches up into the marsh behind the mid-portion of Cedar :Island. The island
is about 6.5 miles long on its seaward side, and lies at a slight angle to the mainland
coast. At the north end, the island is nearly two miles off the mainland wn;-ile at
the south end, it is almost four miles from the mainland.

The barrier island itself varies in width along its length. At the north end where the
beach ridge area is most developed, the barrier island reaches a width of 2.500 feet.
Kemmerer (1972) reports a width here of 900 yards, which indicates a 200--foot disagree-
ment with this figure. It is unclear whether one or both of the measuremen.s are in
error. It is likely that there is an error factor in the measurements jntroduced by
the reduced scale Xerox copies of charts obtained from the G.S,A,, Archives Division.
However, it seems unlikely that the Xerox reproduction system could introduce an 8%
error, and other possible sources of error have been rechecked. South of the widened
north end of the island, the upland portion of Cedar Island rapidly narrows to a width
of about 200 feet in the section east of the extensive marsh area. At Burton's Bay,
the island narrows again to an average total width, including marsh, of 600 feet. This
width is maintained along Burton's Bay until the island widens again at the ,.'te of an
ephemeral inlet north of Trout Channel. Here the island widens again to betv',e-n 800
and 1,200 feet before it narrows again at its southern sand spit. There is a smnall
area of older marsh behind the island in the vicinity of Trout Channel. However, much
of the marsh behind this part of the island has been colonized recently on inlet deposits
and overwash associated with the closing of the ephemeral inlet north of Trout Channel.
This part of the island is shown in Figure 22, a & b.

Daugherty and Locustville are the nearest mainland communi.ties, The town of Onley,
which is on the main highway (US-13) lies west of the north end of Cedar Island. Folly
Creek Landing, Burton's Shore, and Wachapreague have landings from wi-hich the island nay
be reached by boat. The reader who wishes to visit Cedar Island is caut:ioned that the
waters of Burton's Bay are very shallow, and the guidance of a. local waterman should be
sought before attempting to reach the island.

II. PHYSIOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION

Physiographically, Cedar Island may be described as a long, thin barrier island composed
throughout of beach and low dune fields with scattered, isolated areas of beach ridges.
The relief of the low dune fields behind the beach is in the range of 6 to 10 feet. The
relief of the beach ridges at the northern end of the island reaches 15 to 20 feet (see
Figure 23), while those at the southern end of the island (Figure 22) are slightly
lower. There are isolated remnants of beach ridges in the marsh behind the barrier
island. Sneads Beach is one such isolated and partially submerged beach ridge found
in the marsh,

There are two bays behind Cedar Island, Cedar Island Bay is situated near the mainland,
in the marsh behind the northern third of the island. This bay is connected to Met:omkin

1 -167-

a. Aerial view of sand delta formed in Burtons Bay
during the lifetime of the 1950's - 60's ephemeral
inlet on the southern sand spit.

b. Wachapreague Inlet, sho wing nort h end of Parramore !
Island, Dawson Shoals, and the southern part of
Cedar Island.

FIGURE 22: South End of Cedar Island

Inlet through Longboat Creeks and to Burton's Bay by Teaglets Ditch, Cedar Island Bay
| has filled with sediment in the past century, to the extent that much of it is now tidal
flats, Teagle's Ditch, which began as a narrow 4-5 foot, man-made canal is now approxi-
mately 400 feet wide (Hennessey, 1975, personal communication). The Inland Waterway
follows a course through Longboat Creek, Cedar Island Bay, and Teagle's Ditch as it con-
* nects Metomkin Inlet to Burton's Bay. Dredging of the Inland Waterway on its course to
the Town of Wachapreague by the U.S. Annry Corp of Engineers has kept the passage open
through Cedar Island Bay, and has undoubtedly helped to widen Teagle's Ditch, However,
there is strong evidence in the I.R. imagery used for this study to indicate that tidal
circulation in the marsh behind Cedar Island is now from north to south, and one cannot
but wonder about the role of Teagle's Ditch in this circulation pattern,

Burton's Bay, the larger of the two bays, extends along the mainland behind Cedar Is-
land for 3-5 miles. The southern portion extends an equal distance east from the main-
land to the southern sand spit of Cedar Island, but the northern part of the bay is
narrower and ends against the marsh behind the mid-portion of Cedar Island. Through-
out most of the area, Burton's Bay is shallow, and large parts of it are navigablle only
at high tide. In addition to the through-going Inland Waterway Channel there are
well-developed tidal channels that conduct tidal circulation through this bay. The
marsh areas, the bays, the tidal channels, and the sedimentation of this area have all
been extensively considered by other authors, Callahan(1972); Kerr.erer (1972); xKnowl-
ton (1971); Newman and Rusnak (1965); and Newman and Munsart (1968).

i II. TIDAL INLETS

The tidal inlets bordering Cedar Island are Metomkin Inlet on the north and Wachapreague
Inlet on the south. All evidence on Metomkin Inlet indicates that it began to develop
extensive flood tide deposits as the southern spit of Metomkin Island narrowed in the
quarter century prior to the breaching of the island in the mid-1950's. In the past
two decades, the influence of flood tides on this inlet has increased rapidly. It is
a conclusion of this study that at present time, Metomkin Inlet is flood-tide dominated,
and is in the process of closing. On the other hand, Wachapreague Inlet appears to be
dominated by ebb flow. There is a remarkable scarcity of flood tide deposits inside
this inlet and there is an extensive, and well Studied ebb tide delta on the outside
(seaward side) of this inlet. The ephemeral Dawson Shoals, which appear and disappear
at frequent intervals, are a visible portion of the ebb tide delta on the updrift side
of Wachapreague Inlet. The ebb tide dominance in this inlet has been extensively
studied by Byrne et al. (1974), and the nature of Dawson Shoals has been related to
sediment circulation within the inlet. Byrne has also indicated that inlet forces
and processes are such that the southern flank of this inlet is kept at a steep slope
and subject to some erosion, while the northern flank slopes more gently into the inlet
and comes under the influence of drift of sediment from the north. He also indicated
an asymmetryof tidal flow at this inlet, suggesting that ebb flow is directed to
the northeast along the north flank of the inlet, whereas flood flow follows a nore
southerly path through the inlet.

IV. SHORELINE CHANGES

Shoreline changes for Cedar Island are best described in relation to each portion of
the island. The reader is referred to the Geographic Map of Cedar Island included with
this report, It can be said that between 1852 and 1968 there was a general retreat
of the seaward face of the island of about 1,950 feet, This averaged amount of retreat
yields an annual retreat rate of 16.8 ft./yr. Kemmerer (1972, Thesis) has cited a
retreat of 16.7 ft,/yr. It is worth noting that these retreat rates do not differ
significantly from the average retreat rate for Metcmkin Island which was 15.4 ft./yr.
in the century prior to 1955, and 17.6 ft./yr. in the following decade. However, there

-169-

a. Abandoned Coast Guard Station: north end of
Cedar Island at Metomkin Inlet.

b. Accreting beach near north end of island. Note
bars comming ashore, an older, forested, beach
ridge, ORV trails, and cottages.

FIGURE 23: North End of Cedar Island

are differences between the two islands that are apparently related to sediment supply.
The barrier island east of Metorlmkin Bay breached again and again between 1955 and 1967,
with resulting drastic changes in tidal circulation in lMetomkin Bay, The barrier is-
land east of Burton's Bay was breached between 1955 and 1957 and remained open through
1961, but had healed by 1963, Tidal circulation in Burton's Bay and through Wachapreague
Inlet was not permanently disrupted as was the case at lMetomkin Bay, This would suggest
that the ephemeral inlet did not receive enough ebb flow through Burton's Bay to keep
it open long enough to develop a network of tidal channels. Indeed, the size of the sand
delta that grew in Burton's Bay at the site of the inlet indicates that sand trapping
on the flood tide was the dominant event during the short lifetime of this inlet, The
enormous volume of sand moved through the inlet also indicates that there was an abundant
supply of sand from the longshore transport system.

Examination of the shoreline changes on Cedar Island for different periods of time is
useful (see Figures 24, 25, and 26). In 1911, the shoreline for about a mile at the
north end of Cedar Island occupied almost the same position as it did in 1852, Between
1911 and 1928 the beach at this location retreated, but thereafter remained at about
the 1928 shoreline position until sometime after 1955, whereupon it began to retreat
again. It should be recalled here that Metomkin Inlet was breached sometime between
1955 and 1957.

During the same time interval, the beach south of that northern section retreated. Over
the next 3,000 feet south, retreat increased from zero at the north end to 1,200 feet.
From that point south, to near Trout Channel, retreat varied between 1,150 feet and
1,290 feet, reaching 1,325 feet in a few places. The 1955 beach lay parallel to, but wes
of, the 1852 beach. The average rate of retreat in this time period was 11.8 ft,/yr.

Between 1955 and 1963 the seaward beach retreated all along the island's length south
to Trout Channel. Just south of Metomkin Inlet, retreat varied from 130 to 325 feet,
being greater toward the inlet. For this 8-year period, the average rate of retreat
for this reach of beach was 35.8 ft./yr. From this northern reach south, to Trout
Channel, the retreat varied from 265 feet to 530 feet. This yields retreat rates be-
tween 33 ft./yr. and 66 ft./yr. An average retreat for this main length of beach would
be on the order of 53 ft./yr.

In this time interval, Metomkin Inlet was trapping large volumes of sand which un-
doubtedly reduced the volume of sand moving in the longshore drift system. The ephemera.
inlet at Burton's Bay was open, and also was trapping sand from the longshore drift
system. There is an obvious relationship between the accelerated rate of beach erosion
along Cedar Island, and the volume of sand removed from the longshore drift system
at the ephemeral inlet into Burton's Bay.

From 1963 to 1968, beach retreat slowed abruptly, and measurements indicate it to
have been on the order of 10 ft./yr. This was after the ephemeral inlet at Burton's
Bay had closed and during the period that the southern tip of the spit was growing
southward. Between 1968 and 1974, shoreline changes along this beach were minimal.
The northern reach of shore just south of Metomkin Inlet retreated (see descriptions
of Metomkin Inlet), while the beach southward to just north of Wachapreague Inlet either
accreted slightly or remained unchanged.

The sand spit at the southern tip of Cedar Island has been very active during the time
period since 1852, first growing south, then retreating to the north, then shifting
west, and finally growing to the south again. These movements are portrayed in the
Historical Shorelines Maps of Figures 24, 25, and 26. It is interesting to note that
in 1852 the sand spit extended as far south as it did in 1963, but lay to the east or

-171-

FIGURE 24.
CEDAR ISLAND
SHORELINE POSITIONS I
(1852 - 11963) /.. t

:/ I

~~I.

I~~~~~~~~~

,' A 0 2000 yards

KI~~~~~~~~~ kIj ,J / _
I~ -l Il'1
Q 'I o 1 ~~~~~~~2 miles

1965
1955
1928
1852

-1 72-

FIGURE 25.
CEDAR ISLAND (
SH-11ORELINE POSITIONS
* (1 911 �r - ~ 1961) S

...

-1 - S

-I

L. ~ I .r
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I~~~~~~~I1

I r ,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I ~~~~~~~~~~~~II
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
,' .: I----- 2rnile

111 ��������� �� 1961I

I~~~~~~~~~

I~~~~~~~~~~~~13

FIGURE 26. RECENT SHORELINE POSITIONS ON CEDAR ISLAND

(1949 '1974)

HISTORiC SMO;ELPIES
"')74
'957

.1-'. 1.974 , 1 n~,,

BURTON'S BAY
0 I/7~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~..... 94

-174-

its 1963 position, Between 1852 and 1911, the sand spit built 1,550 feet to the south,
which was about equal to its present southern extent (1975), However, between 1911
and 1928, the sand spit retreated 700 feet and by 1934 had retreated an additional
3,500 feet, to a point near the south end of Trout Channel, A series of storms be-
ginning in February, 1920 and culminating with the devastating storm of 1933, probably
contributed to this rapid retreat of the sand spit. Between 1934 and 1955, the sand spit
had shifted 1,125 feet to the west, without any significant change in length. A period
of rapid growth began after 1955. By late 1955, the sand spit was recurved sharply
to the west and had developed dune ridges. The 1957 U.S.G.S. Plane Table Survey showed
that it had grown 1,500 feet to the south and almost as far to the east, having become
a broad, blunt sand spit on which dune ridges had begun to form, By 1963, the sand
spit had extended another 825 feet and still retained its broad, blunt character. By
1968 another 750 feet had been added as a thinner sand spit that by 1974 had begun to
recurve and migrate to the west. When visited in September, 1975. this most recent
extension of the sand spit already had 6 to 8 foot dunes and showed evidence of continuing
to grow and recurve to the west. The Cedar Island sand spit as it appeared in July,
1975 is shown in Figure 27. It is also shown in other figures included in the section
on Parramore Island. The present extension of the southern tip very closely matches
the 1911 extension, but lies slightly west of that position. The island is presently
about 1,080 feet longer than it was in 1852.

V. TIDAL INLETS

Shoreline changes at Metomkin Inlet have been described iin the section on Metomkin
Island. U.S.C. & G.S. charts show that between 1852 and 1955 the inlet widened from
about 1,330 feet to 3,640 feet, but that the centerline of the inlet opening remained
unchanged. Shoreline changes at Wachapreague Inlet have been similar to those at
Metomkin Inlet. From 1852 to 1955, this inlet changed from a width of 2,130 feet to
a width of 3,733 feet, but in 1934 it was 4,670 feet wide, and may have been wider at
the maximum extent of the retreat of the Cedar Island sand spit.

Throughout this period and up to the present, the north shore of Parramore Island has
remained at about the same position shifting slightly north and south. Most of the
change in width is attributable to the changing length of the Cedar Island sand spit,
The deep inlet channel has also been quite stable in its position through this long
period, showing only a slight shift to the south on the U.S.C. & G.S. charts. Between
the 1955 and 1963 charts, the south shore of Wachapreague Inlet shifted about 270
feet to the south. having previously shown little net change in position since 1852.
This period is coincident with the time when the ephemeral inlet was open into Burton's
Bay. Several change-pr~Jucing storms also occurred during this interval. Combined,
these may have worked to increase ebb discharge through Wachapreague Inlet and cause
erosion along its southern flank. Byrne (1974) cites a southerly shift of 1 m./yr.
during the previous century. Byrne also notes the continued presence of a well developed
ebb tide delta (including the ephemeral Dawson Shoals) on the seaward side of the inlet
that has maintained itself over the past century and a quarter.

Across Burton's Bay on the north side of the inlet there are five inlet islands that
have remained essentially unchanged since 1852. These inlet islands are shown in
Figure 26, and they lie west of Trout Channel at the north end of the southern sand
spit. However, Clubhouse Marsh which lies directly athwart the inlet and about .8
mile west of the south end of Cedar Island has shcwn an average westerly retreat of
800 feet during this time period. There are beach ridges and extensive overwash
deposits along the edge of this marsh that faces the inlet, obviously built by waves
breaking against the marsh. Because these deposits are now covered with vegetation,
it is apparent that such wave attack is no longer occurring. It can be concluded that
wave attack on this marsh was concurrent with the retreat of the Cedar Island sand spit

-175-

Waharegu Inltaei h akrud

FIUEw porio o Cedar Island Sand Spit. h rs

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and the maximum surface opening of Wachapreague Inlet, This study would place that time
interval between 1920 and 1968.

The ephemeral inlet that opened about 2,000 feet north of Trout Channel was first
established in the time period after the November 14, 1955 U.SC, & G.S, chart was
drawn, and before the 1957 US.G.S. Plane Table Survey of the island. The damage-
producing storm of January, 1956 was probably the storm that opened this inlet.
The inlet remained open and is shown on the June 12, 1961 chart. It closed sometime
after that and is not shown on the March 11, 1963 chart, which shows instead an inlet
deposit stretching 2,225 feet from the beach to the bay side. Ker-nerer (1972) re-
ports that the inlet was opened by the May 7-8, 1962 storm, but closed shortly there-
after. The data of this study suggests that overwash from the March, 1962 storm probably
initiated the closing, if it did not, in fact, close it,

I VI. SUIMMARY CHANGES

In concluding these sections on shoreline and inlet changes, several points should be
noted. Shoreline retreat from 1852 to 1955 closely paralleled that on Metomkin Island.
In the decade from the mid-195C0's to the mid-1960's, shoreline retreat was accelerated
along Cedar Island beach. Two events coincide with this decade: the disruption of
Metomkin Bay and the opening of the ephemeral inlet on Cedar Island. Because both of
these events caused sand to be diverted from longshore drift to storage in the bays,
either or both could be the cause of an increased rate of beach retreat on Cedar Island.
However, there is evidence from other islands to the south that shows that there lwas
an increase in the rate of beach retreat on those islands that began in the mid-1950's;
and those islands are far removed from Cedar Island. This would suggest that the full
explanation of the temporarily accelerated retreat of Cedar Island may not be simple.
From the late 1960's, the rate of retreat has dropped to a rate comparable to, but
lower than, that of the century prior to the mid-19150's,

Another notable observation is that during the twenty years since 1955, two large
volumes of sand have been placed in storage by the longshore transport system along
Cedar Island. The first of these is the huge inlet deposit (sand delta) formed behind
the ephemeral inlet to Burton's Bay. The second of these is the enormous volume
* of sand deposited as the southern sand spit of Cedar Island grew southward about 3,100
feet at a width of nearly 1,500 feet; and dune ridges grew upon it. No attempt was made
in this study to compute sand volumes, but the data of the study creates the impression
I that more than simple longshore redistribution of sand was involved in forming these
deposits. One possibility is that some of this sand was removed from the nearshore
prism or the north side of the ebb tide delta at Wachapreague Inlet.

VII. GEOMORPHOLOGY

On the Geologic Map of Cedar Island, there are a number of older landforms shown in the
marsh behind the island. These will be considered from oldest to youngest.. However,
between the mainland and the east side of Cedar Island Bay, there are numerous areas
of topographically higher marsh which have been interpreted as former bay and inlet
islands. These areas are marked with a marsh symbol, rather than with an inlet island
symbol because they could not easily be associated with any former inlet or tidal
channel. A number of vestigial marsh channels, one of major proportions, are also found
in this part of the marsh, but more to the east and north of Cedar Island Bay,

in the marsh between Cedar Island and Cedar Island Bay, there are a number of inlet
islands, some topographically high areas that show ridge patterns, and vestigial tidal
channels and inlet scars. The inlet islands that could be associated with a former
inlet opening have been shown with the inlet island pattern, and others. are marked with

-177-

a marsh symbol. Consult the accompanying legend sheet for other geologic symbols.
These vestigial channels and inlet deposits are cited here to explain the way in which
they were mapped. They are not the oldest features on the island, and are, in fact,
of various relative ages. Patterns of one age will be discussed with other features
of the same age.

About 0.3 mile southwest of Sneads Beach, which is located due cast of Cedar Island
Bay, there is a group of three inlet islands that show ridge lines. These three in-3
let islands suggest a flood tide delta by their arrangement. However, the ridgeU
patterns on the larger of these islands does not fit that interpretation, nor does
it fit with the pattern of old marsh canals bordering it. It is, therefore, inter-
preted as a partially drowned remnant of a former beach ridge. About a mile northeast
of this feature, in the pond at the north end of the island, there is a group of
five topographic units marked with the beach ridge symbol, and connected with a ridge-
line symbol. These also heave been interpreted as the remaining evidence of a former,
partially drowned, beach ridge. Together, these two remnants lay along a NE-SW-
line and represent an ancient shoreline position which is believed to be the oldest
geomorphic feature on Cedar Island.

At the south end of the large pond near the north end of Cedar Island there is a
small island marked with the beach ridge symbol. It is connected by a ridge-line
to another beach ridge unit south of it. These two units are the drowned remnants
of another (younger) ancient beach ridge that paralleled the shoreline trend described
above.

Sneads Beach is an obvious ancient beach ridge with numerous sand spits and berms
associated with it. One quarter of a mile northeast of Sneads Beach at the south end
of the pond there is a complex ancient beach ridge unit with an array of sand spits
and berms. Some of the separate beach ridges sections in this unit are believed to I
'be of different relative ages. The small section of beach ridge at the western edge
of the unit, as shown on the false color I.R. imagery, relates best to the island in
the pond to the north of it, and is therefore older than other sections. The sections
of beach ridge in the middle relate best to Sneads Beach, and those on the east side
relate to other, younger features. Between the port-ions of this unit that relates
to Sneads Beach, and Sneads Beach, there is an ancient inlet opening. Some of the
inlet island deposits and vestigial tidal channels that can be seen on the I.R.imgr
in the marsh area west of this ancient inlet, appear to be related to the inlet but
others do not.

About 0.7 mile south-southwest of Sneads Beach, and again about 1.3 miles in the same
direction, there are inlet islands with ridge 'Lines on them that recurve in westerly
directions. West of these inlet islands there is a dense distribution of other inlet
deposits extending toward the mainland between Cedar Island Bay and Burton's Bay. To-
gether, these features apparently outline the northern and we-stern embankment of a
large former tidal channel which migrated (extended) to the south. Great Channel,
which was formerly very much larger than at present, is aligned with the position of
the ancient channel. This evidence suggests that Cedar Island Bay was initially
separated from Burton's Bay by deposits from this ancient tidal channel. These de-3
posits fostered the development of a marsh area that gradually enlarged to the south
and west, increasing the isolation of Cedar Island Bay. Growth of the marsh area to
the south would have caused the southward extension of that former tidal channel.
Tidal circulation for the isolated northern end of the former bay was through tid~al I
channels at the -north and south ends of Sneads Beach. Large vestigial tidal channels
have been mapped parallel to the present tidal chanals called Straight Creek and
Sneads Beach Channel.

-178-

East of Great Channel and the other features previously described in this section, and
/landward of the modern barrier island deposits, there are a number of ancient geo-
morphic features. Beginning at the north end of Sloop Channel, where the modern
barrier island deposits are encroaching upon it, and extending westerly to Great Channel,
there are at least two intersecting vestigial tidal channels. North of those features,
for the next 0,75 mile, the marsh between Great Channel and the beach is studded
with inlet island deposits. Along the east side of this marsh area there are several
areas mapped as beach ridge in which the ridge lines recurve into the marsh from the
south.

At the north end of this marsh area there is a large area of beach ridges and berms
that extend westward to Great Channel. The northern edge of this beach ridge area is
mapped as the south embankment of an ancient inlet opening. The northern embankment
of this inlet is mapped about 0.4 mile northward. All of these features record the
northward migration of an ancient inlet and the north end of a barrier island, The
ancestral Great Channel described in the previous paragraph was connected to this ancient
inlet, and became more defined as the inlet migrated north. Other vestigial channels
show that this inlet was also connected to Cedar Island Bay and to the marsh west of
Metomkin Inlet.

The pattern of ancient beach ridges and sand flats that lie northward of the inlet
described in the preceding paragraph is difficult to interpret� Imvmediately north of
the inlet, and south of the large pond, there is a broad sand flat. There are nearly
parallel lines of small mounds (Parramore Pimples) strung out across the sand flat
with an orientation close to that of the modern beach. Along the east side of this
sand flat there is an area of ancient beach ridges that reach ele-vations of five to
eight feet. The ridge line pattern in this beach ridge area is confusing. This beach
ridge unit is being encroached upon by modern active sand dunes and by shoreline
retreat. At its northward side the sand flat is truncated at what has been inter-
preted as an ancient, shallow inlet opening because of the pattern of ancient berm
ridges associated with it.

On Assateague Island, Parramore Island, and elsewhere on the Virginia Barrier Islands,
sand flat and beach ridge patterns similar to those in this area have been produced
during periods of rapid accretion of a barrier island.

At the south end of the large pond and north end of the sand flat just described, there
is a compound beach ridge unit that was previously referred to in the paragraph on SneadE
Beach. The east end of this unit is partially encircled by a pattern of curved benn
ridges. These berm ridges, and the berm ridges associated with the inlet opening that
is shown there, appear to relate to two different periods of time; an earlier time
period before the sand flat to the south was formed and a somewhat later time after
the inlet had shifted south and partially eroded the sand flat. The northern embank-
ment of this inlet is found near the north end of the pond where it is associated with
a pattern of curving beach ridges and berms. This inlet does not appear to have been
either a major or deep inlet. There are no significant vestigial tidal channels as-
sociated with it. It is interpreted as a breach in (or washover of) a former narrow
barrier island.

Within this shallow inlet and east of the pond, there is an area of sand flat and east
of that an area of current beach ridges, berms, and back beach sand flats. These
features record the closing of this ancient inlet opening by the northward migration
of the north end of a barrier island. East of the middle of the pond a section of the
curved beach ridges is enclosed with an inlet opening line in such a way as to define
a narrower northern inlet and a broad tidal channel south of that. The tidal channel
disappears under modern barrier island deposits, but it formerly connected to a bay

-179-

or marsh area southeast, or south, from its present remnant, The reduced northern inleli
was closed by island encroachment from both sides of the inlet but dominantly from
the south side. The sand flat extends beneath the pond to the marsh, where an area
that is mapped as vegetated beach seems to mark its western limit. This sand flat
is interpreted as a sand delta similar in magnitude to the one formed at the recent
ephemeral inlet near the south end of Cedar Island.

The only other older geomorphic features are the ancient channels and marsh area be-
hind the southern sand spit of Cedar Island. Most of the marsh seen in this area is
new marsh growing upon sand deposited in the past two decades. However, there are two
ancient tidal channels, Trout Channel and Brandywine Channel, which still survive al-
though their function has been lost. The marsh areas west of each of these channels
are built upon flood tide islands. These older marsh islands are at the eastern end
of an east-west group of five islands. Cedar Island has retreated westward against
this group of islands, and now incorporates the easternmost two of them. These islandsI
are shown in their present form on the oldest charts available for this study, and are
therefore older in origin. However, their relative age and origin is unknown, par-
ticularly with reference to other ancient features described on Cedar Island.

VIII. MODERN GEOMORPHIC FEATURES

The geomorphology of the modern, retreating barrier island is straightforward. At
the northern end of the island there is a prominent nub protruding toward Metomkin
Inlet. This nub exhibits a pattern of accreting beach ridges and berms which are
known to have formed in the past decade. Along the third mile of beach immediately
south of the north end of the island, erosion has been dominant in the past decade.
Here the beach and berml are narrow, and there is a field of young, active, partially
vegetated sand dunes which are covering older geomorphic units as they migrate toward 3
the marsh. At the south end of this section, the active beach and berm lay against an
older beach ridge that has been partially eroded away.

From this point south to the tip of the southern sand spit, the beach (see Figure 28) 3
has been stable or has accreted in the past decade, after an earlier decade of rapid
change. This section of the barrier island has a broader active beach and berm with
a strip of older berms and back beach flats. Low, frequently breached, foredune
ridges have formed in the vicinity of the ephemeral inlet (see Figure 29) and along
the beach seaward of the marsh behind the northern part of the island. Landward
of this berm strip, sections of new sand dunes alternate with sections of overwash
channels along the northern half of the marsh, but overwash of various recent ages
(Figure 29) is all one finds along the southern half of the marsh and down the length
of the southern spit to the north side of the ephemeral inlet. The new sand dunes
and overwash have been encroaching en the marsh and older geomorphic features of the
northern half of the island. At Great Gut Cove, at the east end of Burton's Bay,
overwash is carrying through into the cove.

From just north of the ephemeral inlet (shown in Figure 26) to the southern tip of I
the sand spit, the beach has accreted rapidly since the mid-1950's. All evidence of
the inlet opening has been erased by overwash, and beach and new sand dune accretion.
Behind the position of the inlet there is now a huge sand delta which has been added
to by continuing overwash since the inlet closed. The bay side ef this sand delta has
been colonized by Spartina a. but the central portion is still open and occupied by !
a salt pond that is floored with an algal mat. The eastern margin of this sand delta
is sparsely vegetated and wind-blown sand from tongues of overwash is forming low
sand dune mounds. A field of low (3-5 feet) sand dunes, still cut by overwash channels
is beginning to form. When visited in September, 1975, evidence of fresh overwash
was seen in these channels, The area is pictured in Figure 30.

-180-

a. Accreting beach east of the 1950's - 60's ephemeral
inlet. Dr. Niedoroda is photographing a small
Al overwash channel opening.
I

b. Cheryl McCaffrey, Botanist in the Virginia Coast
| Reserve Study, poses in mired ORV on accreting
Acreting beach east of Trout Channel.

oveFIGURE 28: Cedar Island Beach

a. Seaward end of a medium sized overwash channel
east of north end of Trout Channel. Jeep trail
follows bottom of overwash channel.

b. Location of a former medium sized overwash channel
now closed by a low dune. Shell pavement denotes
floor of channel, and jeep trail marks the low
point in the dune.
FIGURE 29: Overwash Channels on Cedar Island
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,? :???? ?? i t�l ?0S.?0 0???.l ;S0?t

I~ ~~~~~~~~~~~?3 . i i:?5? ?3? Y,0j:0 jSjigj9' ?0???.??t
I~ ~~~~~~~~~~~3 ?;: to ,;': 3<<? ;;? ? ~,, z??iE '33?'

I S

From the north end of Trout Channel southward, there is an area of beach ridges and
active sand dunes, all of which are partially vegetated. Several overwash channels
cut these ridges. The ridges on the west side recurve sharply toward Burton's Bay
and record the 1955 position of the southern tip of the Cedar Island sand spit. The
other ridges are all younger and have grow~n mostly in the period 1955-1968, and near the
south end of the spit the youngest have already been truncated by beach retreat since
1968. The area is pictured in Figure 31.

IX. GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION AND HISTORY

The geomorphic features found on Cedar Island are sufficient to allow some inter-
pretation of geologic history to be made. The oldest features found are sections of
a drowned beach ridge that still rise above the general level of the marsh, and mark
the position of an ancient shoreline. The orientation of that ancient shoreline is
N400E. Southeast of that ancient shoreline there are remnants of two more drowned
beach ridges that parallel the first. These record parallel, but younger, shoreline
positions. The youngest of these three shorelines includes Sneads Beach.

The age of these shorelines is not known, beyond the fact that they are ancient. They
also record an ancient regression of sea level. No published radiometric age dates
were found that could be related to these shorelines. An appropriate subject for
further study would be the determination of their age.

From the data base available for this study, a reasonable case can be made for sug-
gesting that these shorelines may record the early Wisconsin regression of sea level
in this area. The geomorphic evidence on Cedar Island indicates a long period of time
after the formation of those shorelines, during which the shoreline advanced seaward,
and then retreated with a different orientation. The orientation of those ancient
shorelines is N40OE, while the orientation of the next younger features is about N28�E
The orientation of the shoreline trend along this type of coast usually reflects the
general trend of the coastline. Therefore, this large change in orientation of the two
shoreline trends represents a significant change in coastline orientation. Such
changes occur only over long petiods of time.

In the bay and marsh areas west of the islands south of Hog Island, there are ancient
beach ridges that can be related to the early Wisconsin regression of sea level by
radiometric dating. All of those beach ridges show a progressive clockwise rotation
with increasing distance from the mainland. The ancient shorelines of Cedar Island are
also rotated in a clockwise direction from the mainland. In both cases the angle of
rotation, approximately two miles off the mainland, is about 120 even though the bearings
of the ridges are different at the two locations. A last point of interest to be
made in respect to this argument is that the bearing of those ancient Cedar Island
beach ridges is the same as the bearing of a number of undersea ridges that are found
at depths of about 60 feet, on the continental shelf, east of Chincoteague Inlet. The
projection of the ancient shoreline on Cedar Island is coincident with the position
of those undersea ridges.

Whatever the age of the ancient shorelines, there followed a long period of time during
which the shoreline advanced and then retreated. The retreat of the shoreline appears
to have been against an area that was largely bay, without large marsh areas. At
the time that the retreating shoreline began to approach the ancient shorelines, there
was an inlet to an ancestral Burton's Bay that was located east of the modern Sloop
Channel. The barrier island north of that inlet was offset to the west of the barrier
island south of the inlet just as the modern Cedar Island is offset to the west of
Parramore Island.

-183-

a. Salt pond and jeep trails on sand delta at ephemeral
inlet location. White spots are shells.

b. View toward beach from sand delta. Low spot in
dune ridge is an overwash channel opening.

FIGURE 30: Sand Delta - Cedar Island Sand Spit

a. Foredune ridge along new part of sand spit. Cheryl
McCaffrey examines dune face that is overriding
vegetation. Note wind fluting on dune surface.

b. Western half of new part of sand spit. Note over-
wash channel leading back into dunes.

FIGURE 31: New Part of Cedar Island Sand Spit

The geomorphology in the area north of Sloop Channel and east of Great Channel was
formed as those ancient barrier islands continued to retreat to the west, and the inle
migrated northward to a location just southward from Sneads Beach. By that time, the
northern of the two barrier islands had migrated west to a position against the ancient
shorelines in the area northward of Sneads Beach. It had also breached at the
location of the large pond at the north end of Cedar Island and sand was being carried
through the breach into the bay area west of the ancient shorelines. Sneads Beach
was partially reworked by waves and inlet currents during this period of time, and may 3
have been enlarged by new sediment deposited around the ancient beach ridge. The pattet
of low berms surrounding it would suggest that this had occurred.

The southern barrier island had migrated to a position that was nearly coincident
with the modern Cedar Island, so close that only parts of it are still preserved in
the marsh of Cedar Island. Sediment carried through the migrating inlet had been
deposited across the ancestral bay in a sufficient degree to begin the isolation of I
Cedar Island Bay from the ancestral Burton's Bay. Great Channel was established as the
main tidal channel between the inlet and the north end of Burton's Bay.

Following this period of time, the islands began to accrete rapidly, and the shoreline I
began to prograde to the southeast. The onset of this rapid progradation is recorded
in the ridged sand flat and ancient beach ridge area found east of Sneads Beach. As *
progradation continued, the breach in the northern barrier island closed as beach ridge:
built seaward of the breach. A broad sand flat was left where the breach had been.
The inlet to Burton's Bay through Great Channel was also closed and Great Channel began
to fill in.

It is not known how far the island prograded to the southeast before retreat began
again. Certainly the distance was great because retreat since 1852 has approached 20003
feet, and retreat was in progress long before 1852. The ancient geomorphology of Cedar
Island clearly records a regression-transgression of the sea. However, none of the
data available for this study gives any indication of the dates for those events.

PARRAM4ORE ISLAND - REVEL ISLAND

GEOGRAPHY

Parramore Island is the fifth island from the north end of the Virginia Barrier Island
Group. It is located between Cedar Island and Hog Island, and is bounded on the north
by Wachapreague Inlet and on the south by Little Machipongo Inlet, which is also
called Quinby Inlet. Another barrier island, Revel Island, lies close beside the
southern third of Parramore Island on the landward side. Parramore Island, at present,
protects Revel Island from attack by ocean waves. A broad tidal channel called The
Swash separates the two islands. The south end of Revel Island is bounded by Sandy
Island Channel, which merges with The Swash at Quinby Inlet.

Parramore and Revel Islands differ in geographic description from the previously de-
scribed islands. Parramore Island has a large land area above high tide level with
much of the interior of the island protected from the sea by beach ridges. The beach
ridges on this island are forested, with many large mature trees. The northern two-
thirds of the island's land mass averages about a mile in width but the southern third
narrows rapidly to a width of 0.3 to 0.4 mile, and ends in a sand spit less than a mile
in length. Overall, Parramore Island is 7.9 miles long. The interior of the middle
third of the island is a broad low swale between eastern and western beach ridge units.
Midway in the length of this swale there are two large shallow salt ponds which appear
on the 1968 U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Wachapreague Quadrangle) as a single large inter-
mittently flooded area. There also are numerous smaller ponds in the swale.

Figure 32a shows Little Beach which is part of the western beach ridge unit. One of
the large salt ponds on the interior swale can be seen behind Little Beach. Figure
32b is a view to the north along a southern portion of the interior swale. The eastern
beach ridge unit may be seen at the right of the picture. Small ponds and nearly
circular topographic features known as Parramore Pimples are scattered along the length
of the swale.

Parramore Island has a contiguous strip of marsh on the mainland side that is contin-
uous from the Coast Guard Station at the north end of the island to the sand spit at
the south end of the island. The marsh varies in width from 0.1 mile to 1.25 miles. Thi
marsh area terminates against Swash Bay, or against broad tidal channels that connect to
this bay from both ends of the island. Revel island, lying protected from the sea by
Parramore, is surrounded by marsh. Figure 33 depicts portions of Revel Island and The
Swash. Figure 33a shows a western portion of the marsh area of Revel Island, while
Figure 33b shows The Swash and some of the beach ridges of the eastern part of the island

The beach ridges on Revel Island rise out of the marsh, and like those on Parramore
Island, they are forested. The overall length of Revel Island from the north end of
the ridge area to the southern end is 2.3 miles. The seaward face of the island is
curved and the ends of the island are approximately a half mile closer to the mainland
than the mid-portion of the island. The upland of Revel Island forms an irregular vee,
opening to the south, and the marsh and tidal canals reach back into the open vee. Each
arm of the vee has a beach ridge along its length. The western arm of the vee varies
in width from 500 to 1500 feet and is about 1.3 miles long. The eastern arm varies in
width from 750 feet to 1,750 feet and is about 1.8 miles long.

The beach face at the north end of Parramore Island lies 5.4 miles off the mainland
coast. At the midpoint of the island, the beach is 5.5 miles off the mainland coast,
and at its southern end, the beach is 5.8 miles from the mainland coast. The bearing
of the straight mainland coast behind Parramore Island is N31.50E, while the bearing of

-187-

a. Little Beach, an ancient beach ridge, with small
Parramore Pimples in foreground. Interior swale
is at top of picture. Note dendritic drainage
at bottom right.

b. Parramore Pimples on the interior swale south of
Little Beach.

FIGURE 32: Physiographic Features of Parramore Island

a. Houseboat in marsh canal on Revel Island.

b. The Swash. View is toward Quinby Inlet with Revel
Island on the right and Parramore Island on the
left. Note ancient inlet opening midway along
Revel Island.

FIGURE 33. The Swash and Revel Island

the seaward beach of the island averages about N28.50E This places the beach of
Parramore Island essentially parallel to the mainland coast; a condition not seen on I
Metomkin and Cedar Islands. The central part of Revel Island lies about 1.2 miles
landward of the Parramore Island beach, and about 4.5 miles from the mainland coast.

Between these islands and the mainland, there is a wide area of bays and tidal marsh,
with slightly more marsh than bay area (Figure 34a). Knowlton (1971) has studied the
ratio of bay to marsh area in some detail. The four major bays are Bradford Bay, Revel
Island Bay, Swash Bay, and Upshur Bay. Various names have been applied to other smallet
bay areas. Boat. access to the marsh and islands can be made from the towns of Quinby
and Wachapreague on the mainland.

Figure 38a portrays the type of conditions found along the marsh side of most of the I
Virginia Barrier Islands, and illustrates what one encounters in trying to land on the
islands by boat. The tidal range along the islands is slightly more than a meter, and i
it is only near the high phase of the tide that most boats can be brought near to the
upland portions of the islands. In Figure 38a, Dave Tyler and Tony Pratt are shown
poling The Nature Conservancy's boat through the marsh area with the boat's engine
raised. The larger towirs along Interstate 13 on the mainland are Painter from which
Quinby can be reached via highway 182, and Keller from which Wachapreague can be reached
via highway 180.

II. PHYSIOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION

Physiographically there is little of interest to this study in the surface morphology !
of the marsh between these islands and the mainland. The available 10,000 feet I.R.
imagery did not include much of this marsh area but the U-2 coverage from 60,000 feet
included the entire marsh area, and that imagery showed no significant morphology
in the marsh except levees and flood deposits related to tidal channels. Other imagery9
(U.S.G.S. Topographic maps, 1949 and 1973 B & W aerial photographs) did not reveal any
distinctive features in this marsh and bay area. It should be noted here, that the
Inland Waterway wends its way southward past Wachapreague, through the bays and channel 3
of this area. Associated dredging has produced spoil dumps in both bays and marsh,
and has doubtlessly influenced tidal circulation in this large area.

The physiography of Parramore Island is more involved than that of the other islands. I
The island can be described as a broad, relatively stable barrier island. The breadth
of the island is somewhat atypical when compared to the other barrier islands in the !
Virginia Barrier Island Group. The breadth compares to that of some of the longer 9
barrier islands found along the Atlantic Coast. The northern two-thirds of the island
is composed almost entirely of old beach ridges and intervening swales (Figure 34b).
Much of the swale area is only slightly above sea level, and there are numerous areas
of marsh and open water. The larger swale areas are drained by streams leading to the
marsh on the landward side of the island. The relief of the beach ridges varies
from a few feet to more than 20 feet. Surprisingly, only two prominent ridges bear I
names: Italian Ridge and Little Beach. Other equally prominent ridges remain name-
less in the literature. The most prominent beach ridge (Figure 34b) curves across
the north end of the island for 3.8 miles before it ends east of Little Beach. Ele-
vations on the northern part of this ridge often exceed 20 feet, but the southern end I
is only about half as high.

In the middle third of the island, south of the main beach ridge area (see Figure 35), I
the physiography differs. Here a broad swale bordered on the east and west by prominent
beach ridges is the dominant feature. Down. the length of the swale there are numerous
low, nearly circular, mounds varying in height from a few inches to more than five I
feet, and ranging in diameter from less than 10 feet to as much as 500 feet. The more

�-190- -

a. Wachapreague Inlet. Parramore Island is at the
left, Cedar Island Sand Spit at the right, and
Dawson Shoals in foreground. Marsh bays, clock-
wise from upper left, are Revel Island Bay, Up-
shur Bay, Bradford Bay, and Swash Bay.

b. North end Parramore Island. Short, east facing
beach is at the bottom of the picture. Dark bands
are forested ridges, white bands are bare sand
areas along the ridges. Grey areas are swale.

FIGURE 34: Physical Features - Parramore Island
I~~~~~~ec sa h otmo h itr.Dr ad

1~~~~~~r foetdrdewie7ad r aesn

a. Central swale with Parramore Pimples visible along
its length. Little Beach is between the swale and
Swash Bay. Low berm ridges near Little Beach are
clearly visible, as is the shallow salt pond on
the swale.

b. Swale south of Little Beach area. Parramore Pimples
are seen in the foreground behind the beach ridge.
The Swash and Swash Bay aridges near the background. A
line of dark areas extends along the marsh side of
the swale. These are remnants of the ancient beach
ridge continuing southward from Little Beach.

FIGURE 35: Physical Features - Mid-Parramore Island
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,'.... ~!~~~

noticeable ones range from 100-300 feet in diameter, These features are referred to
as Parramore Island Mounds or as Parramore Pimples (see Figures 32 and 35), They are
curious features, Most have one or more concentric low ridges ringing a central
mound, others have a central depression' and still others lack concentric rings. Most
of the larger ones and some of the smaller ones are forested and others are brush
covered. There are many of these features, with lower elevations, that are simply
covered with grass as is the rest of the swale.

The origin of these mounds has been discussed by others (Melton, 1929; Rich, 1934;
Deitz, 1945; Redfield, 1958; and Cross, 1964), and a discussion of their origin will,
be included later in this report. In addition to these mounds, there are also low
ridges (Figure 35b) found on the swale along its western side, particularly near Little
Beach and the beach ridge south of it. These ridges are 1-3 feet higher than the swale,
and average 25-30 feet in width. Figure 36a shows the grassy swale between two of
these brush covered ridges; the brush is beach elder. Figures 36b and 37 show another
of these low ridges in the marsh near The Swash and south of Little Beach. Extensive
augering was done on this ridge and in the marsh around it. A. P. Pratt and T. E. Rice
are shown taking sugar samples in Figure 36b. On the I.R. imagery used for this study,
these low ridges appeared to be berm ridges built upon a sandy base, and were inter-
preted as such. Ground inspection of the area in September, 1975 confirmed this inter-
pretation.

The swale also contains two large salt ponds, and numerous smaller ponds. The depth
of the two large salt ponds averages less than a foot, and in many places is only 4-6
inches deep. During the field visit in September, 1975, a deer was observed crossing
one of these ponds on a diagonal path, and the animal's legs above the hocks were visible
at all times, confirming that the water depth is shallow. Another encounter with the
wildlife of Parramore Island is shown in Figure 38bo The picture shows the head of a
curious otter that was swimming in the tidal canal that connects these two salt ponds
to Swash Bay.

There are deeper channels along the margins of these ponds where water is exchanged
with the marsh, across the swale. The swale continues through the gaps in the western
beach ridge and merges with the marsh west of the beach ridge. Along the axis of the
western beach ridge, the swale is a few inches higher than the marsh. The larger ponds
have direct tidal connections to the marsh through a tidal channel at the south end of
Little Beach. At the north end of Little Beach there are a number of abandoned tidal
channels that formerly connected this pond and other smaller ponds to the marsh through
the gap in the beach ridge between Italian Ridge and Little Beach. Where these aban-
doned channels enter the pond, each is broken into distributary channels across a sandy
delta. These blind channels can be seen in the 1949 aerial photography (Photo ANO-
IE-170) and in the 1974 I.R. imagery. When the area was visited in September, 1975,
two of these channels near the north end of Little Beach were examined. Surprisingly,
the sandy deltas still appear to be active.

Further examination of the area in the gap led to the conclusion that these channels
are kept open by water coming through the gap on the flood stage of spring and storm
tides. This water is conducted through the vegetated area by these channels. The
same situation was found at the south end of the next beach ridge unit south of Little
Beach. Normal high tide fails to flood through the two gaps by 6-12 inches. The tidal
channel at the south end of Little Beach provides normal tidal exchange for these ponds.
This large channel has developed in its entirety since 1949. Both headward erosion of
one tidal channel, to reach the ponds, and stream piracy by another have had to be in-
volved in developing the present channel. Figure 32a shows an eroding dendritic drain-
age system west of Little Beach that is involved in the pirating of other marsh canals.

-193-

a. Grassy swale between two brush covered berm ridges
east of Little Beach.

b. Southernmost ancient beach ridge remnant in marsh
south of Little Beach, and north of The Swash.

FIGURE 36: Ancient Beach Ridges - Parramore Island

a. Dr. A. W. Niedoroda augering in marsh south of
|I~~~ ~ ~Little Beach.

b. Dr. A. W. Niedoroda and T. E. Rice augering low
| beach ridge south of Little Beach.
FIGURE 37: Field Work on Parramore Island

a. Waterman David Tyler and A. Pratt returning to
Parramore Island through the marsh at high tide
to pick up the field party.

b. Otter in marsh canal at south end of Little Beach.

FIGURE 38: Field Scenes

Beach. Auger site is on a low Parramore Pimple,
and another one can be seen behind the field party.

b. D r. Niedoroda displays grey sandy auger sample
taken in the mar s h near The Swash. Trees in the
background are growing on one of the ancient
beach ridge remnants.

FIGURE 39: Field Work on Parramore Island
I~~~~~~tkni h ashna h ws.Tesi h

40 ; t / / FIGURE 40

.' ! Beach Erosion

' is- o t �3 on Parramore Island

1. - $. -

a. Wave cut scarp behind the beach
south of the shipwreck. Auger
is eight feet long.

b. Appearance of southern end of the island where
the rate of beach retreat has been the highest.

The channel at the south end of Little Beach has built an extensive sandy delta east-
ward from the south end of Little Beach that has divided a former very large salt pond
into the two large ponds now found, It is clear that since sometime prior to 1949
the salt ponds have been accreting sand from the marsh side, and are being reduced in
area and probably in depth. The source of this sand is not clear. The transition
from the grassland of the swale to the sparse Spartina alterniflora cover of the high
portion of the marsh occurs west of the western beach ridge at distances varying from
100 to over 800 feet.

Augering in this area in September, 1975,revealed sand to depths of 8 feet beneath
both the high marsh and the grassland. At these augering sites (see Figure 37a) a thin,
3-6 inch layer of mud was found at approximately 40 inches below the surface. Below
the mud, the auger encountered firm sand. The upper 6-10 inches of each auger hole
produced a mixture of sand and mud and the rootmass of living vegetation. The investi-
gation of this area raised as many questions as it answered, and left unanswered the
question concerning the source of the sand that is entering the salt ponds. Investi-
gation of this area should be continued.

Along the southern third of the island the beach ridges disappear and are replaced by
a ridge of active sand dunes that is frequently cut by small overwash channels. An
apron of overwash forms an extensive sand flat behind the sand dunes. The grassy
swale of the middle third of the island narrows and curves toward the beach, disappearin8
under the active sand dunes about midway through this section of the island. Where over-
wash is spreading over the grassy swale, it builds around the mounds and ridges found
on the swale. The strip of marsh behind the swale also curves eastward, ending at the
overwash behind the beach and narrowing southward until it ends at the abandoned
channel of an ephemeral inlet (see Figure 38b). The southern sand spit of Parramore
Island continues south from this point with some new, partially vegetated sand dune
ridges on older parts of the sand spit. A small, narrow crescentic inlet island that
has been christened Crescent Island by The Nature Conservancy has been formed in The
Swash behind this southern sand spit. This island has a large shoal and marsh area
associated with it on the north. side. Another shoal and marsh island lies just north-
east of the first, and near the position of the ephemeral inlet. In the marsh along
The Swash, there is a clear pattern of a former tidal channel three times the width
of the modern channel. The northern margin of this old channel is in the marsh on
Parramore Island, and the southern margin is in the marsh on Revel Island.

This former channel will be discussed later in the section on geology. The 1949
aerial photographs do not show this old channel as clearly as the I.R. imagery does,
but they clearly show The Swash is filling in. It now appears to serve principally
as a flood tide channel. The photos (ANO-IE-172, and 174) show that The Swash narrows
and discharges into Little Sloop Channel in the marsh west of Revel Island instead of
directly into Swash Bay as it formerly did. The inlet end of The Swash is clogged
with flood tide deposits. The 1966 and 1968 bathymetry for this portion cf The Swash
gives depths of 2 feet and show no defined channels. The function of The Swash appears
to have been taken over by Drawing Channel which discharges to Wachapreague Inlet and
shows depths of 15 feet well back into Swash Bay. Green Channel which connects to
Drawing Channel shows depths to 21 feet near the central part of Swash Bay. Little
Sloop Channel, though narrow, shows depths to 21 feet and connects Swash Bay to Revel
Island Bay to Sandy Island Channel which is one of the two main channels from Quinby
Inlet.

Physiographically, Revel Island has two beach ridge units that converge near the north
end of the island. There is no modern beach on the island, and it has developed
fringing marsh on the beach side of the island and a fairly broad marsh area between
the beach ridges and again on the mainland side. The marsh extends farther west through

-199-

a narrow arm of marsh on the north side of Revel Island Bay, after which it broadens
again and continues westward to the mainland between Swash Bay and Upshur Bay. In
the marsh west of the beach ridges there are a number of old inlet islands, Just west
of the western beach ridge there are three of these inlet islands and there is another
near the north end of this ridge. All of these rise above the marsh by 2-3 feet.
The beach ridge units are not simple single ridges but are clusters of ridges grouped
as single units. Ridge lines have been drawn to try to indicate crests of separate
ridges. Between the ridge units there is a narrow grassy swale with scattered small
ponds. Tidal drainage reaches into this area from the north and the south. Most of
the smaller, branching canals are building levees and many terminate in small deltas.

Along the northern half of Parramore Island the southeast facing beach is retreating
into the beach ridge units producing an escarpment up to 10 feet high (Figure 38a).
Grasslands as well as brushy and tree-covered ridges are being eroded (Figure 39, a &
b). A shipwreck lies awash in the sand on this reach-of beach (Figure 40a). On the 3
Geologic Map of Parramore Island, the location of this wreck is shown with the standard
cartographic symbol for a wreck. It has been reported (D. Tyler, and G. Hennessey,
1975, personal communication) that the wreck has been recently driven ashore from an
earlier grounding off the beach. Tree stumps (Figure 40b) dot the beach and surf zone
in this reach of beach, and logs are abundanton the beach. Newman and Munsart (1968)
have previously noted these stumps and identified them as "live oak" (Quercus virginiana.
Neither the age nor the depth of burial of the stumps was determined in this study.
Several aspects of this occurrence suggest that these trees may date from an ancient
time when sea level stood at a lower elevation.

First, the stumps appear to be in place and few have their roots exposed, showing only
trunks protruding from the sand. Modern trees on the island only grow in well-
drained areas more than several feet above present sea level.. Second, the bedpost I
knob pattern of biologically fostered decomposition agrees with the present high tide
levels and matches that seen on watermen's posts driven in the marsh. This indicates
that the stumps have remained as they are now for an extended period of time. Third,
it is apparent that the trees were buried, and thus preserved, at some ancient time be-
cause they have only recently been exposed by the retreat of the beach. The most likely
mechanism of burial would have been sand dune growth and migration. This occurrence
should be more fully investigated because it could yield data on the extent of a re-
gression discussed elsewhere in this report.

Retreat of the southeast facing beach of Parramore Island has caused the beach to cut I
into established and vegetated beach ridges. Those ridges come out to the beach at
a small angle to the beach so that each is gradually truncated toward the south. The
ridges also decline in elevation toward the south so that at a point opposite the south
end of Little Beach, small overwash channels begin to breach the older sand dune ridge
located there. To the south, these overwash channels become more numerous until the
sand dune ridge has been overwhelmed at a location opposite the north end of Revel Is-
land. For the next mile to the south, there is a foredune ridge of new active sand
dunes building on overwash with scattered overwash channels leading through the sand
dunes. The rest of the way south along the beach to the sand spit shows accreting bars
welding to the beach with a narrow foredune ridge building on an older storm berm.
Behind the narrow foredune ridge there is a broad ridge of low (5-8 feet) active new
sand dunes that are partially vegetated. Numerous narrow overwash channels lead through
these sand dunes to an equally broad sand flat that has been built by overwash. The
southern sand spit shows a pattern of accreting berms and bars with new sand dunes be-
ginning to form on the higher berms, and beginning to vegetate on the older berms.

The beach at the north end of the island is portrayed in Figure 41, a & b. Along the
south shore of Wachapreague Inlet the beach has eroded back into the beach ridge units
a slight amount, but does not appear to have truncated the older beach ridges. At the

-200- I

lI i i

b. Beach encroachment into grassland with scattered
trees.

FIGURE 41: Beach Erosion on Parramore Island

a. i',reck awash in the beach on Parramore Island.
Until recently the wreck lay offshore, but was
driven ashore by storms.

b. Stumps of former live oak trees in the active beach
face on Parramore Island. The roots of the stumps
are nowhere exposed, only the trunks protrude.

I'YCURE 42: Beach Features on Parramore Island

a. Ebb tide delta at Wachapreague Inlet. Breakers
outline the shape of the shallow part of the delta.
Main inlet channel is seen where it lies across the
delta. Dawson Shoals is at left, Parramore Island
is at the right.

b. Coast Guard Station at the north end of Parramore
Island.

FIGURE 43: Features - North End of Parramore Island

seaward side of the inlet, the beach displays a wide ridge and runnel pattern with
areas of water trapped in the runnel at low tide,

The bordering inlets of Parramore Island are Wachapreague Inlet on the north and Quinby
Inlet on the south. Wachapreague Inlet has been discussed previously in the Cedar Is-
land section. Quinby Inlet has shown more changes than Wachapreague Inlet during the 3
historical period covered by this study. There is also geological evidence to support
the presence of a major inlet in this area over the longer pre-historical period covered
by this study, and this will be discussed in the section covering geology.

Quinby Inlet is presently bordered on the north by the somewhat ephemeral southern
sand spit of Parramore Island and on the south by the north end of Hog Island which !
has also demonstrated an ephemeral nature in its changing shapes. Three large tidal
channels which serve an extensive landward system of bays and marshes converge at
Quinby Inlet. One of these channels, The Swash, has been losing its significance I
during the historical period of observation, and changes have been reflected at the in-
let and in the other tidal channels.

III. SHORELINE CHAINGES I

Analysis of shoreline changes for Parrinore Island reveals that the shape of the
modern island differs greatly from that of the 1852 island. Changes at the north end
of the island have been minimal, and largely accretional on the east facing beach
located there. The modern shore of Wachapreague Inlet is about 0.15 mile south of
the position in 1852, although that portion of the shore has shifted both north and
south over a greater range. The southeast facing Parrmnore Island Beach has also I
shifted in and out at the north end of the island, with the net change indicating some
retreat. Howv:ever, the southern half of this island has undergone considerable change.

In 1852, the southern end of the island was broader than the present northern half I
of the island. In 1852, the island bulged seaward more than half a mile further than
in 1910-11, and was more than 0.8 mile seaward of its present position. Clearly, I
significant changes occurred during the time period, 1852-1911; Quinby Inlet migrated
south, The Swash began to close,and the southern sand spit of Parramore Island began
to grow. In the intervening years, to the present, further changes have occurred alongI
this southeast facing beach.

Examination of the shoreline changes in each section of beach on the island helps
to put these changes in perspective. Figures 42, 43, and 44 have been prepared to I
graphically display these shoreline changes. Measurements have been made from the
charts, topographic maps, and photo imagery.

A. Wachapreague Inlet I

The shoreline along the channel of Wachapreague Inlet at the north end of Parramore I
Island showed little net change in position from the earliest charts (1852-1871) to
the 1955 chart, although some fluctuations of its position did occur. Since 1955,
this section of beach has undergone a series of changes that have produced a counter-
clockwise rotation of the beach. The net retreat of the beach at the marsh end has |
been about 650 feet, while the seaward end of the beach has accreted about 100 feet.
Periods of retreat of the west end of this beach occurred between 1955 and 1957
(450 feet), 1961 and 1963 (385 feet), and 1958 to -964 (132 feet), while a period of I
accretion occurred between 1957 and 1961. At the east end of the beach, accretion tooki
place between 1955 and 1957 (580 feet) and again between 1957 and 1961 (133 feet)
while retreat occurred between 1961 and 1963 (385 feet), 1966 and 1968 (22 feet), and
1968 to 1974 (210 feet). The period from 1963 to 1966 showed little net change along

--204-

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FIGURE 44. t
PARRAMORE ISLAND - / : . i
SHORELINE POSITIONS '/ /
(;852- 1963) An .

/v " ...~
I//,'/
/

I /o l ,. ,~/

� *
�~~~~~~~~~
/}~~~~~~~~

I ..'!
I t ' I
' ~~~~� � i
i~~~

i 1
- ! �
/ :' / .i

~~~~,tt: J
: Irll IIt! '" I
/t i ;c/

4�tC1.~~~~ ! ; e
I I
,, -

r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J j
I.o
, /

!~/ ;
I~~~~~~~~~~~~ /

I~~~~~~~~~~~~
� ' / 0 2000 yards

~-~--~C~- �0 1 2 miles
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ �
/ t o

, - .'�1928

-205-

FIGURE 45.
PARRAMORE ISLAND
SHORELINE POSITIONS
(19`10 -1961)

0 2000 yard

0 2 m~~~~ile

1934I
.............. 1101 I
-206-~~~~~~

m - -- ------- -- -- --

2<
C
�� -

Xj
IX'
\V' '-.
\

7
/
t') -- - - -
0
-a

Sn fl
ASA fS9Cr
.-. I,,.

FiGURE 46. PARRAMORE ISLAND, SHORELINE POSITIONS

(1949-1974)

this end of the beach, These figures show.that during the period of rapid changes
along the Cedar Island sand spit (mid-1950's to mid-19601s), the beach facing Wacha-
preague Inlet rotated noticeably in a counter-clockwise direction, and that since 1961
or 1962, the beach has retreated southward an average of 550 feet'without appreciably
changing that rotation. This suggests that changes in the inlet channel related to
the rapid growth of the Cedar Island sand spit are still occurring.

B.. East Facing Beach

At the seaward side of Wachapreague Inlet there is an east facing beach that is less
than a mile in length. It gradually accreted at its northern end while remaining
remarkably fixed in position at the southern end. This beach is under the influence I
of inlet processes, and its accretion during the past century and a quarter would tend
to agree with Boothroyd's hypothesis (Boothroyd, 1972). Boothroyd has hypothesized
that accretion of a barrier island will occur on shorelines near an inlet where inlet
currents, reinforced by wave refraction, dominate over longshore currents. However,
analysis of the growth of this beach reveals some other interesting correlations with
activity on the Cedar Island sand spit, and thus with inlet processes. From 1852
to 1911, this east facing beach grew seaward by an average of about 900 feet (670
feet at north end, 1450 feet at south end) while the Cedar Island Sand Spit grew south
by 1550 feet. From 1911 to 1955, there was no appreciable growth on the east facing
beach, and during the same period, the Cedar Island Sand Spit retreated 4200 feet tc
Trout Channel and shifted west by over 1100 feet. Between 1955 and 1957, the east
facing beach grew seaward about 800 feet while the Cedar Island Sand Spit grew south
1500 feet, and widened eastward by 1500 feet. From 1957 to 1963 the north end of the
east facing beach had retreated about 640 feet, but the south had grown 220 feet. How-
ever, from 1957-1961, the entire beach had retreated, so growth of the southern end
occurred after 1961, and retreat of the north end continued through 1963. In this same
period, the Cedar Island Sand Spit continued to grow, Wachapreague Inlet Channel ap-
parently rotated counter-clockwise, and a large offshore bar grew seaward and north-
east of the east facing beach indicating a redirection of sediment transporting currents
offshore from the beach. This implies a change in the configuration of the ebb tide
delta, although there is no bathymetry available by which this could be confirmed.

From 1963-1968, minor adjustments occurred on the east facing beach with some net
growth in the mid-portion, no growth at the north end, and a retreat of over 600 feet [
at the south end. The offshore bar disappeared. During this period the Cedar Island
Sand Spit grew an additional 750 feet. From 1968 to 1974, the east facing beach has
again grown seaward an average of 550 feet, having added a large ridge and runnel to
its width. The Cedar Island Sand Spit appears to have continued to grow in width and
to recurve westward during this period. The correlation of shoreline changes on this
beach with events across Wachapreague Inlet on Cedar Island only serves to emphasize
that the inlet processes are intimately involved in these changes. This inter-
relationship of inlet channel, ebb tide delta, and shoreline changes near Wachapreague
Inlet should be studied further.

The intersection of the long, southeast facing, Parramore Island Beach and the short
east facing beach marks a location on the island where the beach has remained remark-
ably stable. This location also seems to demarcate the boundary between inlet in-
fluences on sediment transport, and mid-island wave generated longshore sediment transport.

C. Northern End of Parramore Island Beach

Shoreline changes along Parramore Island Beach differ along the length of the island.
Along the northern 2.6 miles of this long beach, accretion occurred from 1852 to
1955. The averaged annual advance of the northern half of this section of beach was

-208-

6,2 feet/year, while the southern half advanced at a rate Qo 5,9 feet/year.

Between 1955 and 1957, this northern' section of beach retreated irregularly. The
retreat was about 600 feet at the northern end, diminishing to 144 feet (about 0.75
mile to the south), advanced 55 feet about 0.4 mile further south, but one mile
further south retreat reached 40 feet. From 1957 to 1961, the north end of this
section of beach retreated another 400 feet, but retreat diminished to 277 feet about
0.75 mile to the south. The section that previously advanced 55 feet advanced 765
feet in this later period, and the section one mile further south advanced 60 feet.

Over the next two years the entire section of beach retreated, the retreat varying
from 312 feet at the north end to 222 feet at the south end. Averaged over the eight-
year period, these figures show that the beach southeast of North Pond (north end of
this section) retreated at a rate of 164 feet/year, while southeast of the mid-point
at Goose Lakes, the beach was accreting at a rate of 50 feet/year. However, the south
end of this beach section, southeast of Level Pond, retreated at an average rate of
25 feet/year. Thus, in this time interval, while the east facing beach was accreting
and the Cedar Island Sand Spit was growing, the very north end of Parramore Island
Beach suffered rapid erosion, while south of that, the northern section of beach
first advanced, then began to retreat. Extending these observations to 1968 and 1974
shows that beach retreat southeast of North Pond had slowed to 95 feet/year in 1968
and to 11 feet/year by 1974. Southeast of the mid-point of Goose Lakes the previous
accretion rate reversed to a retreat of 100 feet/year by 1968, and slowed to a retreat
rate of 12 feet/year by 1974. The south end of this beach section, southeast of
Level Pond, had accreted more than 900 feet by 196-8; but was retreating at a rate of
4.5 feet/year by 1974. This entire northern section of beach showed a series of ad-
justments between 1955 and 1968 that reflect changes occurring around Wachapreague Inlet
during that time. The return to a slower rate of retreat by 1974 indicates that those
rapid adjustments are probably over.

D. Middle and Southern Reaches of Parramore Island Beach

The middle reach of Parramore Island Beach accreted a maximum of 600 feet between
1852 and 1911, an average rate of 8.7 feet/year. During this time interval, the southern
reach of Parramore Island Beach retreated a maximum of about 1700 feet, and an average
of 1320 feet for an average annual retreat of 18.9 feet/year. By 1911, the prominent
bulge of the southern reach of the beach had been erased and a 950 foot wide sand spit
grew 1.41 miles to extend this beach southward into Quinby Inlet. This produced a
longer and straighter shoreline for the island. From 1911 to 1955, both the middle and
southern reaches of beach retreated, with retreat being greatest to the south. The
retreat, averaged over the section, was about 950 feet, which yields a retreat rate
of about 22 feet/year for the southern two-thirds of the island. The southern sand
spit lengthened by another 100 feet. In the interval from 1955 to 1957, retreat of
this long section of beach averaged 280 feet, or an annual rate of 140 feet/year. By
1961 the beach had built out an average of 130 feet, the advance being somewhat greater
to the south. This yields an average rate of advance of 32.5 feet/year and a very much
straighter beach.

Between 1961 and 1963, an ephemeral inlet broke through the southern sand spit at a
point 6.7 miles south of the north end of the island. The width of the inlet was
about 2100 feet in 1963. The severed end of the sand spit stood as an island 6200
feet long and about 600 feet wide. The beach along the southern half of Parramore
Island had retreated sharply, averaging 740 feet of retreat, but reaching more than
900 feet near the ephemeral inlet. Averaged for the two years, this yields 370-450
feet/year of retreat. The severed sand spit retreated about 550 feet to the west. Two
bars about 200 feet wide and 3250 feet and 458 feet long had built across and seaward

-209-

of the ephemeral inlet with the inlet draining through the gap between them, By 1966,
the whole southern portion of the beach had advanced on average of about 120 feet or
at a rate of about 40 feet/year. The ephemeral inlet had widened somewhat, and the
offshore bars had grown slightly, but maintained their position offshore. The sand
spit island also maintained its beach position as it advanced with the beach north of
the inlet.

In 1968, the ephemeral inlet was closed, the offshore bars were gone, and the southern
sand spit was 3800 feet long and averaged about 680 feet in width. But the beach
along the southern half of the island had retreated up to 475 feet. The average re-
treat was about 320 feet or 160 feet/year during this time period. During the inter-
val 1.968 to 1974, the middle reach of Parramore Island Beach retreated about 175 feet
for an average annual rate of 28.3 feet/year. The southern reach of this beach showed
much greater retreat, averaging almost 500 feet along the southern 2.4 miles of beach.
This reflects an annual rate of retreat of 91.7 feet/year. Clearly, the southern reach
of beach, and to a lesser degree the southern part of the middle reach of beach, are
still under the influence of some process of change that began at least as early as
the mid-1800's, and which has primarily affected the southern half of the island.
Other changes at and inshore of Quinby Inlet would seem to indicate that shoreline
changes are related to changes in tidal circulation, through and around Quinby Inlet,
and in the marsh behind Parramore and Revel Islands.

E. Quinby Inlet

Quinby (Little Machipongo) Inlet experienced considerable change during the historical
period covered by this report. In 1852, Little Machipongo Inlet was 1.64 miles wide.
The 1871 hydrography at this inlet shows three tidal channels merging at the inlet:
North Inlet, Sandy Island Channel, and The Swash. Depths reached 54 feet in the inlet
throat and the throat discharged northeast, tight against the shore of Parramore Island
and along the bulge in the southern reach of the islandts beach. North Inlet Channel
maintained depths to 47 feet for a distance of 4.5 miles back into Hog Island Bay.
Sandy Island Channel maintained depths to 36 feet for a similar distance back to Upshur
Bay. The Swash maintained depths up to 13 feet back to Swash Bay where it shallowed
at the bay, but still connected through Drawing Channel to Wachapreague Inlet.

The hydrography of 1911 shows that Little Machipongo Inlet had narrowed to about 3000 I
feet (.57 mile) and was discharging to the southeast; a nearly 900 rotation of the
channel axis in 40 years. The axis of the inlet throat had migrated 3000 feet (.57
mile) to the south. Channel depths in the throat remained at 54 feet, and the depths
of the three major tidal channels remained about the same. The 1955 hydrographic chart
shows that Little Machipongo Inlet had stabilized in its new position, deepened and
lengthened the inlet throat and reshaped the ebb tide delta. The three marsh channels I
remained about the same, although the inlet end of The Swash had shallowed to 2-3 feet.
Because no hydrographic survey data of Little Machipongo Inlet could be found for more
recent dates, further quantitative comparison cannot be made. The 1949 aerial photos
and the 1974 I.R. imagery indicate that abandonment of The Swash is still continuing.
From this study, it would appear that for more than the last 125 years, inlet and long-
shore processes have been removing sand from storage in the beach prism of the southern
half of Parramore Island and redistributing it to storage as flood tide deposits in
the bay and marsh area, and as ebb tide deposits in the ebb tide delta. The cause of
the changes remains unknown, but could be the subject of further investigation.

IV. GEOMORPHIC DESCRIPTION AND INTERPRETATION

The geomorphic units of Parramore Island and Revel Island are considered from oldest
to youngest, beginning with the beach ridge units on the marsh sides of the islands.

-210-

There are no obvious landforms in the marsh and bay area west of the islands. In
reference to the Geologic Map of Parramore Island, it can be seen that a beach ridge
unit begins just north and west of the south end of Italian Ridge and continues north
against the marsh to about 0.2 mile south of the Coast Guard Station. Near the south
end, and again near the north end, this ridge displays a pattern of old dunes cut by
frequent narrow overwash channels with an overwash apron on the marsh side. In the
marsh west of this ridge, at the south end, there is a pattern of natural levees
marking a former tidal canal about 0.1 mile wide that is cut off by the ridge, an'd
north of this, another smaller partially filled-in tidal canal terminates abruptly
at the ridge. This ridge is interpreted as an ancient thin barrier island- (similar
to the modern south end of Metomkin Island) that had been retreating over its marsh
area. The data of this study would intimate that this ancient barrier island continued
northward into Cedar island, and that its northern end occurred at an ancient cffset
inlet east of Cedar Island Bay.

Between the south end of the ridge unit just described and Little Beach, there is
found the wide opening of a former ephemeral inlet to Swash Bay and the neighboring
marshes. This inlet was 1.1 miles wide between Little Beach and the continuity of
the island to the north. The presence of a sand delta behind this inlet and the absence
of inlet island deposits indicates that this inlet was a short-lived breach in the
ancient barrier island. The inlet now contains a number of broad, low (2-3 feet),
northwest trending ridges that are interpreted as berms or sand spits (possibly as
inlet islands) built upon a sand delta that spread into Swash Bay through this inlet
opening. The western edge of this sand delta can be seen in the I.R. imagery, and
lies from 0.15 to 0.30 mile west of the beach ridge axis.

Little Beach and the beach ridge unit south of it are the most prominent remnants of
this ancient barrier island, but other beach ridge units that-align with it to the south
are remnants of the same barrier island that had been retreating westward into the
ancestral Swash Bay. These remnants can be seen trailing southward in the marsh toward
the north end of Revel Island where the western beach ridge unit represents the con-
tinuity of this former barrier island. Between the north end of the Revel Island
beach ridge unit and the south end of the Little Beach group of beach ridge units, an
inlet opening developed, and remained open, in the vicinity of the modern tidal channel,
The Swash.

In the Little Beach part of this ancient island, ephemeral inlets, occurring as breaches,
opened at the south ends of Little Beach and the next unit to the south. The pattern
of sand deltas spread into Swash Bay through these openings can be seen clearly on
the I.R. imagery. Modern tidal channels display intricate dendritic patterns along
the delta margins where headward erosion by these channels is cutting back into the
deltas. This delta pattern does not extend south to The Swash. The remnants of this
ancient barrier island that run north from Revel Island toward Little Beach show a
smaller sand delta near the north end of the western beach ridge of Revel Island. North
of this sand delta, the deposits appear to be inlet islands, and in the vicinity of
The Swash, both the inlet islands and the remnants of the barrier island are absent.
Therefore, it is believed that this inlet remained open, and has developed into The
Swash.

In the eastern beach ridge unit on Revel Island, the ridge line patterns (at the north
end of the southern half) show the north end of a second ancient barrier island that
extends away to the south. (See Figure 54 in section covering Hog Island.) This
ancient barrier island is truncated 0.6 mile south of its north end, and the extension
of this beach ridge unit to the south is younger. An inlet existed between the north
end of this ancient barrier island and the ancient barrier island represented by the
western beach ridge unit on Parramore Island. This ancient inlet connected southward
toward Hog Island Bay, and was probably the ancestral inlet for Sandy Island Channel.

-211-

At the north end of Parramoire Island, east of the overwashed ancient barrier island
previously described, there is a series of beach ridge units that are built against
the overwashed barrier island at shallow angles of 150 to 300. This series of beach
ridges extends eastward to include Italian Ridge and is interpreted to indicate a
period of prograding to the southeast. Therecurved southern end of Italian Ridge is
built around and over the older barrier island and indicates the continued presence
of a shallow inlet or broad overwash channel south of Italian Ridge during this initial
period of prograding.

A series of low beach ridges of'probable berm origin lie on the east side of Little
Beach and the beach ridge units south of it. At the north end of Little Beach there is
a smaller beach ridge unit that is probably part of the ancient barrier island. There
is a narrow ephemeral inlet opening between it and Little Beach. The low ridges
closest to Little Beach and the northern ridge unit recurve into this narrow inlet
opening, but the ridges farthest to the east do not, indicating the closing of the
tiny inlet. At the inlet between Little Beach and the next ridge to the south, the
low ridges around both beach ridges recurve into the inlet opening, indicating that
this inlet remained open. To the south where small ridge segments extend toward Revel
Island there are low ridges to the east and parallel to the line of ridge segments.
At their south end, these ridges recurve toward the bay as they terminate. On Revel
Island at the north end of the eastern beach ridge unit, the ridge line pattern shows
a separate beach ridge, 0.6 mile long, lying adjacent to the western beach ridge. ThisI
beach ridge has been breached in the middle and a large overwash deposit spreads west
against the western ridge. It has also been overwashed where the southern end curves
into the old inlet to the south, and this overwash, too, is spread toward the western
ridge. The beach ridges, out to Italian Ridge, the low ridges to the south along the
Little Beach sections, and the separate beach ridge at the north end of the eastern I
beach ridge unit on Revel Island are all taken to be synchronous prograding events.

The eastern beach ridge unit begins at the north end of Parramore Island and extends
down the eastern shore of the island until it is truncated by the modern beach east
of the south end of the Little Beach Unit. This is a complex ridge unit. No attempt
was made to delineate all of the ridge lines or to interpret the complex history of
this unit. The ridge unit is the eastern geomorphic expression of a larger unit
that includes the central swale and extends south eastward from Italian Ridge and the
Little Beach berm ridges to the modern beach. The southern limit of this larger unit
is found east of Revel Island where modern beach and overwash deposits truncate and -
cover the unit. The western portion of this larger unit is a broad sand flat on which
old, now drowned, tidal and oNrwash channels, and a confusing array of Parramore
Pimples can be found. Some attempt at recovering old ridge lines through these featurel
was made, but the complete task is left for another study. This whole unit is inter-
preted as representing rapid progradation to the southeast during which time the barrie3
island was repeatedly overwashed through the gaps in the western ridge line and into thU
bay area. As the active beach migrated eastward, overwashing repeatedly breached
newly formed dune lines, leaving dune remnants to be added to by wind blown sand.
This overwashing built the overwash sand flat westward to the gaps in the western I
beach ridge and perhaps into the gaps. A modern area that exhibits these overwashed
characteristics can be seen today on Assateague Island, north of Scotts Lodge and
south of Sugar Point, which is about midway along the length of that island. In time
the growth of the eastern beach ridges isolated this washover area from the beach.
Southward, on Revel Island, the inlet between the two ancient barrier islands narrowed
as beach deposits grew southward until the channel was reduced to about 500 feet in
width.

Near the south end of Parramore Island, about 0.5 mile north of the south end of the
marsh, there is a narrow beach ridge unit that curves westward, then northwest through

-212-

the marsh until it lines up with another' ridge a half mile north and set in the marsh
on the north side of The Swash. The more southerly curved ridge is interpreted as
a sand spit that built westward from the south end of the island at a more ancient
|l time. It recurves into a former inlet to Swash Bay. Parramore Island was offset to
the east of the next island to the south at this time. The more northerly ridge is
associated with a group of inlet islands that built in the inlet channel where a
tidal channel branched through the old inlet on Revel Island. The younger, southern
part of the eastern beach ridge unit on Revel Island was added during the period.
It formed as a curving beach that turned into the inlet channel on the north and recurved
westward in open water at the south end. The recurvature at the south end indicates
that the island south of Parramore Island had been breached during this time. (See
section on Hog Island.)

In the southern half mile of marsh on Parramore Island there are several small, narrow,
beach ridge units in the marsh. These have been overwashed in the past (and are being
overwashed again by the modern beach). These are-interpreted as former sand spits
marking the southward extension of the island. The channel from an old ephemeral inlet
through these spits still stands open in the marsh, and was maintained by marsh drain.-
age until recent modern overwash began to fill it.

I V. GEOLOGIC HISTORY

The geologic history that can be drawn from the older geomorphic features indicates that
at some ancient time, a barrier island system was retreating toward the mainland. The
area between the islands and the mainland appears to have been nearly all lagoon. In
the vicinity of the modern Swash Bay, the northern of two ancient barrier islands began
to breach into the ancestral lagoon. North and south of the breached section the
islands remained intact. The breaching left isolated beach sections separated by
inlets, most of which were shallow. One of the inlets became established and has sur-
vived to the present as The Swash. Some of the beach sections had well developed
beach ridges on them. Following that ancient time, conditions governing the barrier
island processes changed, and for a period of time the northern end of the section
accreted to the southeast while along the southern part of the section sand deltas
continued to grow westward through the inlets while low berm ridges accreted around
the remnant island sections. Near the south end, at what is now Revel Island, a beach
ridge grew to the east of the old island remnant. During this time period, with a new
inlet to the ancestral lagoon becoming established, the older inlet between the two
southernmost ancient barrier islands began to narrow.

Following this period of slow accretion, the rate of accretion increased and Parramore
Island grew rapidly southeastward, extending itself both to the north and to the south.
Extension of the island at the south end resulted in the migration of the inlet to the
south, and the lengthening of the tidal channel leading to Swash Bay. The tidal chan-
nel that cut between the ridges on Revel Island was abandoned, and tidal drainage
became established through the breach to the south of Revel Island. How far Parramore
Island grew to the southeast is unknown, but the southern end and the inlet tidal
channels located there apparently stabilized near where the modern marsh behind the
islands ends. The southeasterly growth and migration of the island was eventually
halted by a return to a condition of rising sea level, and the beginning of the modern
period of slow retreat of the beach,

-213-

I
HG ISLAND AND ROGUE ISLAND

!
DESCRIPTIVE GEOGRAPHY

Hog Island is the sixth island from the north in the Virginia Barrier Island Group. I
It lies south of Parramore Island, and north of Cobb Island. It is bounded at the
north by Little 'Machipongo(Quinby) Inlet, and on the south by Great Machipongo Inlet.
The north end of the island lies 8.7 miles off the mainland coast and the south end
about an equal distance. The island is seven miles long, The Town of Nassawadox,
on Interstate Highway 13, lies on the mainland west of the north end of the island.
Exmore, a larger community on the Interstate, is north of Nassawadox. These are the
only communities of any size along the mainland. Access to the island by boat may
be made from Wachapreaguc, Quinby, Willis Wharf on the Machipongo River, and Red Bank
Boat Landing east of Marionville.

Hog Island is apparently the only island in the Virginia Barrier Island Group, other
than Cobb Island, that was extensively colonized by people, although there were develop-I
ment schemes for other islands. It has been reported by various people, including
Hennessey (1976, personal communication), that prior to the 1933 storm, a village of
about 400 people existed on Hog Island, and that both a cemetery and a guest hotel
for tourists were features of this community. The 1933 storm appears to have finally
threatened the community, damaged one home, and begun the exodus of the population to
the mainland. The town was officially closed when the Post Office was decommissioned
in 1943. (Hennessey, op. cit.) Further retreat of Hog Island has eliminated all
trace of this community, which was known as Broadwater. The 1942 (U.S.G.S. Topo.
Series) map shows 13 buildings, a cemetery, a light, and a pattern of roadways in an
area east of the present Coast Guard Lookout Tower and that area has since been eroded
away. Many of the buildings of the Broadwater community were moved to the mainland
before beach erosion destroyed them (Hennessey, op. cit.) Local (at Wachapreague)
watermen report encountering headstones from the former cemetery in the shallow waters
offshore of the modern Hog Island. Figure 47 portrays the evidence of continued human
activity on Hog Island.

Most of the area between Hog Island and the mainland is occupied by Hog Island Bay.
Although Hog Island Bay is laced with deep tidal channels, most of the bay area is
within the range of the tide; tidal flat at low tide, and about four feet of water
at high tide. Hog Island Bay is ringed with marsh areas at the north, inland of Quinby
Inlet and Revel Island. The most notable marsh areas are Chimney Pole Marsh, directly
inshore of Quinby Inlet, Sandy Island Marsh to the northwest of Quinby Inlet, and a
large marsh area between Upshur Bay and Hog Island Bay that extends back to the mainland
Of these, Chimney Pole Marsh and Sandy Island Marsh are probably floodtide deposits
inside Quinby Inlet. Both areas exhibit a sandy character with elevations in excess
of two feet above mean high tide. Chimney Pole Marsh has an active beach, with new
dunes facing into Quinby Inlet.

At the mainland, westof the southern portion of Hog Island, a triangle'of marsh has
built eastward into Hog Island Bay; Short Prong Marsh forms the eastward point of this
triangle. There are small marsh islands around the eastern and southern margins of
Hog Island Bay. Deep tidal channels called The Deeps and Gull Marsh Channel reach out
from Hog Island Bay into Ramshorn Bay, Outlet Bay, Spidercrab Bay, and even south to
Cobb Bay.

PHYSIOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION

There is some noteworthy physiography in the area west of Hog Island. On the mainland, I

-214- I

a. Diked dredged spoil disposal site in the marsh
near the north end of Hog Island.

b. Machipongo Club facilities in the marsh near the
north end of Hog Island.

FIGURE 47: Human Activities on Hog Island

a well-defined terrace riser (the Mappsburg Scarp) can be seen striking N260E about I
0.5-2.0 miles inland of the mainland coast. The mainland coast in this area is defined
by a series of very ancient beach ridges trending N38.50E that have tidal marshes be-
tween them and the true mainland. The true mainland coastline bows westward in this
section, and is highly indented with drowned valleys that cut back into the inland
terrace. The ancient beach ridges have been driven back into this bowed coastline.
The most prominent of those ancient beach ridges, which may be considered to form the
modern mainland coast, are Upshur Neck, The Harmmocks and Brock House Neck. South-
east of the trend of the mainland coastline, there is a series (there may be as many
as seven) of very old, semi-drowned beach ridges. Obscure, topographically high areas
in the marsh behind Parramore Island may relate to these very ancient semi-drowned
beach ridges. There are no significant ancient features in the area between these
ridges and Hog Island, except the deposits of Gull Marsh. The sandy deposits of Gull
Marsh rise 2-4 feet above high tide levels and probably record yet another very old
beach ridge, or barrier island. The marsh islands of Gull Marsh string out along a
curved north-south line 4.9 miles long that strongly suggests the form of a drowned
beach ridge or barrier island. Other configurations of peripheral marsh and marsh is-
lands in Hog Island Bay would suggest even other ancient drowned barrier islands or
beach ridges. The sharp bend in the very deep Gull Marsh Channel at the north end of
Gull Marsh suggests the maintenance of a former inlet channel that may have been en-
trenched in older coastal plain strata. Byrne (1974) has reported that the Wachapreagul
Inlet channel is entrenched in older consolidated sediments, and the inshore position
and depth (40 feet) of Gull Marsh Channel at this bend would not be inconsistent with l
such a hypothesis.

Physiographically, Hog Tsland may be described as a long, thin barrier island with a
narrow marsh area on the inland side of the northern two-thirds of the island. At
present, the island is seven miles long. At its northern end, the upland land mass
of the island reaches a maximum of 0.67 mile wide, but averages 0.5 mile in width.
Beach ridge units extend a little more than half way along the island from the northern
end. The southern half of the island is narrower (1000-1900 feet), and consists of a
broad barrier beach with scattered sand dunes and marsh areas.

Like Parramore, Hog Island shields a small barrier island behind its southern tip.
Rogue Island occupies this protected site. Rogue Island displays several beach ridges,
five to eight feet of relief above the marsh, and other beach areas several feet above
high tide. From at least 1852 to 1933, Rogue Island lay well behind the southern end
of Hog Island. From then until the mid-1950's, Rogue Island was at least partially
exposed to wave attack at the southeast end, but not along the northeast shore. The
interior beach ridges on this island therefore predate the historical portion of this
study, and are represented on the 1852 coastal charts.

The southern third of Hog Island lacks a continuous beach ridge. Most areas (see
Figures 48b and 49), show recent overwash and along the southern sand spit, there are
areas of new sand dunes and patterns of accreting berms. There are two stable sections
of this part of the island; a vegetated sand dune area with 5-10 feet of relief that *
is located east of Rogue Island, and another area of 5-10 feet relief at the Broadwaterl
Lookout Tower. Both areas are about 2500 feet long from north to south and up to about
1000 feet wide from beach to marsh. I

The northern two-thirds of Hog Island has been accreting in recent years. There is
an older semi-continuous beach ridge behind the beach along this section of the is-
land. The southern portion of this beach ridge has been modified by recent overwashingI
and new sand dune formation. I

The middle third of the island has built southeastwardly by about 800 feet in recent
time. This new portion of the island may be described as a broad back beach sand flat
that is intermittently flooded, but on which new sand dunes are accreting along the old

-216- I

a. Beach ridges, Parramore Pimples, modern ridge and runnel
at the north end of Hog Island.

b. Breached dune line and overwash area at Upper Landing
| Creek near the middle of Hog Island.

FIGURE 48: Views of Hog Island
~~~~~~~~~IGR48ViwofHgIln

Large overwash channel that is located in the mid-
section of Hog Island, north of Broadwater Lookout
Tower. The site appears to be a reactivation of an
ancient overwash channel through the ancient beach
ridge that ends just south of the lookout tower.

FIGURE 49: Hog Island - Overwash Channel

berm lines, At the seaward margin of this broad back beach area, sand dunes are forming
along a storm berm, The modern berm is close against the storm berm, The active
beach is broad, and there are numerous bars welding on to the beach. The broad back
beach sand flat area may develop into a grassy swale, similar to the one on Parramore
Island. This will depend upon the rate and manner by which tide, waves, and wind move
sand from the beach into the back beach area. Overwash and wind driven sand have (by
1974) already raised much of the southern half of this back beach area above the normal
tidal range.

The northern third of the island also shows an accreting beach. A large ridge (Figure
48a) has welded to the beach and created a wide (200-300 feet) runnel behind it. New
sand dunes are forming on the ridge, and a pattern of berms lies seaward of the sand
dune area. The runnel is divided into three segments; the southern segment drains
through a temporary inlet through the ridge, and the northern two are connected by a
narrow channel and drain northward behind the recurving sand spit at the north end of
the island.

At the north end of the island, and on the bay side, sand spits have grown around the
end of the island and into the tidal channel behind the island. The runnel is presently
filling in with sand carried in on the flood tide, and with sand carried into it from
the seaward ridge by waves and wind. In time, it should become a broad back beach sand
flat with the unfilled areas remaining as shallow ponds. About one-quartcr mile to the
west of this modern runnel there is an older runnel with a ridge along the east side.
This runnel was formed in the decade between 1926 and 1937. The shallow ponds of this
older runnel may be seen in Figure 48a. This photograph also shows the older beach
ridge unit behind these ponds, and shows the extent to which the runnel has filled and
become colonized by vegetation.

SHORELINE CHANGES

Examination of the historical shoreline maps (Figures 50 and 51) prepared for the study
of Hog Island reveal that the shoreline of this island has experienced far greater
changes than the shorelines of the islands previously described. The maps are based
on hydrographic information beginning with the 1871 survey. Additional information
concerning shoreline positions was obtained from Byrne's (1972) Historical Shoreline
Positions maps. A visual comparison of Figure 50 with Figure 51 shows that in 1871
Hog Island was a broad island at the southern end and tapered to a more slender island
broken by ephemeral inlet at the northern end. Today, Hog Island has reversed its
shape, and in 1975 is broad at the north end and tapers to a long slender island at
the southern end. In working these changes, the island shoreline has shifted greatly,
and very little of the pre-1871 island remains today.

Prior to 1871 the northern two-thirds of the island's shoreline had been retreating
toward the west. Between 1852 and 1871, this part of the shoreline retreated up to
900 feet. The average rate of retreat varied from 35-45 feet/year, but was closer to
35 feet/year for most of this length of northern shoreline. In this 19-year period,
the north end of the island retreated southward about 21.00 feet. Also, during this time
interval, the southern third of the island was accreting eastward with a growth of up
to 1800 feet along more than a mile in the mid-part of that end of the island. Over
the 2.5 miles of shoreline which comprises the southern third of the island, this pro-
gradation averaged 1260 feet, This yields an averaged annual accretion rate of 66 feet/
year for the southern third of the island. The village of Broadwater was located mid-
way along this accreting section of the island.

Subsequent to 1871, the north end of the island accreted, reaching a maximum advance
of more than 3300 feet by 1974, and an average advance of 3000 feet along the northern

-219-

O 2000 yards ' I
PTrl 1 r I 1 s\ t
STY --uII i i I I - I j
0 1 2 miles .". '

; \I

1963 , X
-- 1955 -
1......... 1928 ,' I
1852-71 Ji) i .

i X
/ I..'

FIGURE 50.

SHORELINE CHANGES,

ON HOG ISLAND;
1852-1963 X/1

I~~~~~
I, i

(._,
i'
I

\ I~ =
I

I /

I U
1 /
\. Ir 1 ! ~ /

/ .* I
/~~

I *YC- I.
\~~~ -' .

.�:.i~/

:" I

-220-

O 2000 yards

0 1 2 miles /

*H/2 / } j FIGURE 51.
/SHORELII\NE CHANGES
ON HOG ISLAND;
1911 -1961

/ ,' 1964
e - - 1 934
l .1.........9...........

't.

-221-

1.9 miles of the island. As the historical shoreline maps show, this accretion has
been accompanied by abrupt and striking changes in the seaward shape of this north end
of the island. Periods of rapid accretion at one location were followed by periods
of partial erosion and reshaping of the shoreline. Consequently, only net accretion
figures have been used for this end of the island, and they yield an averaged accretion
rate of 33 feet/year for the 90 years from 1871 to 1961.

Examination of Figures 50 and 51 shows clearly the patterns of retreat of the south
end of the island from 1871 to 1961. This retreat has continuously affected the souther
4 miles of the island, and initially affected the southern 5.2 miles of-the island.
In more recent years the northern mile or so of this southern part of the island stoppet
retreating, and most recently has been accreting slightly. This section of shoreline
begins east of Marsh Point (1968 U.S.G.S. Topographic Hap) and extends 1.0 to 1.25
miles northward along the island. Within this reach of shoreline, the historical shore-!
line changes have been the least of any location on the island. The shoreline at this
location also has remained within a north-south zone about 2200 feet wide throughout
the 90-year period.

Between 1852 and 1911, the shoreline lay nearly north to south through this zone and
retreated about 1200 feet to the west. After 1911, the shoreline began to turn to a
more north-east-southwest alignment, remaining within the zone while accreting at the
north and retreating on the south. By 1961 the shoreline lay diagonally across this
zone from the northeast corner to the southwest corner, and it has accreted slowly to !
the southeast since then.

The retreat of the southern four miles of the island has been most pronounced at the
southern end, where the 1963 beach front lay 1.57 miles west of the 1871 beach front.
This is a position 0.2 mile west of the western end of the 1871 sand spit at the south
end of the island, about 0.25 mile west of the 1871 Life Saving Station. Figures 50
and 51 show that in effect, the southern end of the island has rotated westward about
a center of rotation located within the zone described in the preceding paragraph.
This rotation has totaled about 25.5�ain that 92-year period. Study of Figures 50
and 51 reveals that this rotation occurred in four different time periods, while in
two other time periods, no appreciable rotation occurred.

Between 1871 and 1911, the southern end of the island rotated 7.50 to the west. This
produced a maximum shoreline retreat of about 0.45 mile near the south end of the is-
land. Shoreline retreat steadily diminished to zero about 4 miles north of the south
end of the island. This period of rotation was followed by a period of 17 years (19.11-
1928) when the beach followed a pattern of parallel retreat with beach loss varying
from 300 feet to over 1000 feet at various locations along the shoreline. Average
retreat was about 800 feet which yields an annual rate of about 50.0 feet/year. Two
periods of rotation followed; the first from 1928 to 1934 produced a little over 6� of
rotation, and the second from 1934 to 1955 produced a little over 50 of rotation. Total
rotation was about 11.50. The first of these periods of rotation caused a retreat of
0.45 mile at the southern end of the island and zero retreat about 4.6 miles to the nor
'The second caused about 0.13 mile of retreat at the eastern limit of the beach near the
south end of the island and no retreat 3 miles to the north. Obviously, this second
rotation occurred about a different center than the first, and thus affected the south *
end of the island less in terms of shoreline retreat.

During this latter period, a broad sand spit grew about 0.75 mile to the south to
re-establish a shield between the open sea and Rogue Island. This protection had
been lost for a time between the mid-1930's and the mid-1950's. A second period of
parallel beach retreat followed from 1955 to 1961. Retreat varied from 0.1 to 0.2

I
-222-

~' yx FIGURE 52.
{ SHORELINE CHANGES
, 01ON HOG ISLAND;
II
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~j t 1949-1974

-223-

mile, averaging nearly 0,2 mile, This retreat, averaged for the period, equalled aboutI
175 feet/year, The fourth and final rotation occurred between 1961 and 1963, and
produced another 6,5� of rotation of the southern end of the island, Maximum retreat
of 0.28 mile occurred about 12 miles north of the south end of the island, and the
center of rotation lay about 3 miles north (4 miles from the south end of the island).
Along the southern 1.2 miles of the island, the sand spit had recurved to the west and
diminished in width between 1955 and 1961. From 1961 to 1963, it grew southward,
widened, and straightened to make a southern extension of the island about 1100 feet
in width.

Since 1963, the shoreline changes have shown both accretion and retreat along the lengtl!
of the'island, but no clear sense of retreat. Figure 52 shows shoreline position for
1949, 1968, and 1974. Comparison of the 1949 shoreline to the 1968 shoreline shows
the effects of irregular erosion and accretion in changing the shape of the northern
half of the island, and shows in part the western rotation of the southern half of the
island. Changes in the length, width, and position of the southern sand spit are
also easily seen in Figure 52.

In 1963, most of the northern 2.5 miles of beach at the north end of Hog Island was I
experiencing a period of net retreat, as the shape of the beach was changing. This
period of change continued through 1967, and is reflected in the position of the 1968 I
shoreline. Between 1963 and 1967, retreat averaged 350 feet. However, those losses
have been more than made up by accretion since 1968, which has varied between 525 and
550 feet along this part of the island.

To the south, the most recent shoreline changes also seem to be a response to changes
in the shape of the beach, rather than real movements of the island. This southern
section of the island is about 5.5-6.0 miles long (along the beach) from Great
Machiporgo Inlet north to the area described in the preceding paragraph. The northern
two miles of this reach of the shoreline has accreted since 1963. About two miles
north of the Broadwater Lookout Tower, accretion has been greatest, totaling about 1375 I
feet. North of that, accretion'diminishes to about 540 feet which about equals ac -
cretion along the northern 2.5-3.0 miles of the island. At the Lookout Tower itself,
accretion and retreat have balanced so that the 1974 shoreline occupies essentially
the same position as the 1963 shoreline, although in 1968 the shoreline may have lain
about 150 feet to the east. About a mile south of the Lookout Tower, the beach ad-
vanced seaward as the sand spit grew south and became straighter. Since 1967, there
has been no appreciable change in this portion of the beach. However, the sand spit
I
has been growing at an increasing rate. Between 1963 and 1967, the sand spit grew
southward by more than 800 feet, and the beach advanced seaward about 520 feet. From
1967 to 1974, the sand spit grew 1320 feet more to the south but the beach did not
accrete seaward.

In summary, it would appear that over the past 12 years, Hog Island has grown in both
length and breadth. The shoreline has advanced along the northern half of the island
while holding its position along the southern half of the island. The sand spit has
lengthened by at least 2100 feet. This moderate growth and relative stability contrasts
sharply with the rapid changes that occurred in the preceding 111 years. The inter- I
pretation of the events of the past 12 years will be discussed further in a later para-
graph.

IV. INLET CHANGES

A. Little Machipongo Inlet

-224-

The changes to Little Machipongo Inlet (Quinby Inlet) have been previously described
in the section on Parramore Island, However, in respect to this section concerning
Hog Island, some additional observations should be made, In 1871, when the main inlet
channel was discharging northeasterly against Parramore Island, the central portion
(apex) of the ebb tide delta lay north-of the inlet opening and seaward of Parramore
Island. The south edge of the ebb tide delta curved inshore to meet Hog Island about a
mile south of the north end. Prior to 1871, the north end of Hog Island had been re-
treating and where the ebb tide delta met the island, the island had been overwashed
and a breach formed through the beach ridge of the island.

An ephemeral inlet developed through this breach and briefly connected marsh canals
to the ocean. The 1871 charts show an inlet with only minor marsh canals leading to
it. Both the I.R. imagery and the black and white photography used in this study
indicate that a major inlet never fully developed, Instead, this opening appears to
have oscillated between periods of connecting the marsh canals with the ocean and periods
when it was blocked by beach and overwash deposits. After a few years, it became
permanently blocked.

By 1911, the main channel of Little Machipongo Inlet had shifted direction and was
discharging in a southeasterly direction. The central portion of the ebb tide delta
lay southeast of the inlet opening, and 1.8 miles south of the north end of Hog Island.
A large portion of the former ebb tide delta had been abandoned and lay seaward of the
beach on Parramore Island about 2.6 miles north of the south end of the island. The
north end of Hog Island had begun to accrete rapidly because it was protected from
storm waves by the relocated ebb tide delta, and it had been brought under the influence
of inlet currents.

By 1926, two of the major tidal channels leading to Little Machipongo Inlet had deepened;
North Inlet to 57 feet, and Sandy Island Channel to 41 feet. The Swash had shoaled
at 2 feet. The sand spit at the south end of Parramore Island had grown south, Hog
Island had accreted further seaward at the north end, and the inlet throat had shifted
seaward in the inlet channel.

When the hydrography was resurveyed in 1934, the two major tidal channels had diminished
slightly in depth, as had the throat of the inlet, but the position and direction of the
inlet channel remained essentially unchanged. The abandoned portion of the ebb tide
delta that had been off the beach of Parramore Island was gone. But, the southern sand
spit on Parramore Island was longer, and the embayed area behind it was partially
filled in. The active ebb tide delta had grown measurably, and had extended south until
the southern margin curved in to meet Hog Island 2.2 miles south of the north end of
the island. That same 2.2 miles of Hog Island had accreted significantly in the southern
half so that this part of the island had a long smooth east-facing beach. These were
major changes for both the north end of Hog Island and for the ebb tide delta. Since
that time, the ebb tide delta has continued to grow slowly southward, and the north end
of Hog Island has been steadily accreting.

B. Great Machipongo Inlet

At the south end of Hog Island, Great Machipongo Inlet has also undergone some changes
since 1852. Until 1871 or later, the main inlet channel lay close against the south
end of the very much broader Hog Island. Water depths of 61 feet were found within 0.1
mile of the shore at the tip of the island. The inlet throat reached 67 feet. The
main inlet channel was oriented roughly east-northeast and three major channels branched
from it.

One of these, with minimum channel depths of 12-15 feet, branched north and hugged the

-225-

shore of Hog Island for more than a mile before it turned abruptly east away from the
beach, The other two lesser channels branched southeast, the deeper one (21 feet)
lay along the north end of Cobb Island. The northern side of the ebb tide delta lay
east of Hog Island for more than a mile north of the main inlet channel. The southern
half of the ebb tide delta (including the'two branch channels) extended across in front
of the inlet opening between the islands and down Cobb Island for a mile before curvingI
in gradually to meet the island.

By 1911, a large ebb delta island, called Pig Island, had grown in the inlet northeast
of the north end of Cobb Island. The main inlet channel was discharging east-southeast
on the north side of Pig Island. A shallow branch channel called North Channel dis-
charged northeasterly on the seaward side of Hog Island. This channel, in part, was
holding the position of the former main channel. Another branch channel, South Channel
discharged south along the north end of Cobb Island. The inlet throat had shifted
westward by about 0o1 mile and diminished in depth to 52 feet. Tidal channel depths
inside of the inlet had shallowed greatly. The ebb tide delta had shifted south until I
its apex lay east of the inlet opening. It had also grown seaward and southward until
the southern margin met Cobb Island east of Little Easter Marsh.

By 1929, Pig Island had moved inshore toward Cobb Island and had choked off South ChannEl.
The main inlet throat and major tidal channels had deepened and re-established depths
of 62 to 67 feet without shifting position. Seaward of the inlet opening, the main in-f
let channel had lengthened through the delta and turned southward to discharge to the
southeast. North Channel had deepened to 18 feet, but maintained its position along
the south end of Hog Island. The ebb tide delta had continued to grow to the south
and east until the apex lay southeast of the inlet opening.

In 1934, Pig Island had welded on to the north end of Cobb Island. The main inlet
channel, laying east-west through the inlet opening, curved southward at the seaward !
end to discharge to the south-southeast. The inlet throat had shifted westward by
about 0.4 mile, and increased in depth to 81 feet. North Channel had maintained its
position and was now relatively farther offshore because of retreat of Hog Island. Th!
depth of North Channel had increased to 14-26 feet, and it had increased in width. The
ebb tide delta had shifted further to the south until its apex lay south of the north
end of Cobb Island, and the southern margin curved in toward Cobb Island more than 3
miles south of the inlet. Since then, the ebb tide delta has changed very little. l
North Channel has held its position, but has assumed greater importance as it has widen4
and become more uniform in depth. Inlet throat depths have diminished to 64-66 feet.
By 1966, the main channel through the inlet was forked at the seaward side of the in-
let, with North Channel being the lesser of the two channels.

.V. INTERPRETATION: INLET AND SHORELINE CHANGES

It is clear that significant and major changes have occurred at both inlets that in-
fluence Hog Island. When these changes are considered in relation to the shoreline m
changes on Hog Island, one obtains a clearer picture of what has happened. Figure 53
has been prepared to portray the situation more clearly. In Figure 53, the 1871 and
1963 positions of the ebb tide delta at each inlet are shown. Main channel positions
are also shown for 1871, 1911, and 1963. The 1942 channel position is also shown for
Great Machipongo Inlet. The large dot at the inlet end of each channel arrow marks
the position of the deep inlet throat for that date. The 1871 and 1940's shoreline
position is shown for the south end of Parramore Island, and the north end of Cobb
Island to aid in visualizing the inlet positions. For Hog Island, straight lines have
been employed to represent the island at various times. These lines were selected to
best represent the axis of the island at the date shown. Shorelines have been sketchedI
at the ends of each line to show the trend of the ends of the island. Arrowheads on
each island axis indicate the direction in which the axis had been moving prior to

!
-226-

the date shown, The dated circles at certain axes intersections represent pivot
points about which the island appeared to be rotating during the indicated interval.

Figure 53 shows that from 1852 to 1871, Hog Island was rotating its position counter-.
clockwise about a point south of the middle of the island. This resulted in the retreat
of the northern part of the island, with the effects of retreat being most pronounced at t
north end of the island. In the same time, the southern third of the island was pro-
grading seaward. Consideration of the positions of the ebb tide deltas shows that the
northern two-thirds of Hog Island was vulnerable to attack by storm waves during this
time, while the southern third was less vulnerable. Inlet currents and longshore
drift patterns favored the buildup of the south ends of both Hog Island and Parramore
Island, but were working to take sand out of storage in the beach prism along the
northern shore of Hog Island.

Something happened between 1871 and 1911 to cause both inlets to rotate their main
channels clockwise until -they were discharging in a southeasterly direction. Insuf-
ficient data are available to narrow the time interval for this shift in channel
position. Because both inlets are large inlets, and because both changed significantly
in the same large time interval, it would seem that one could look for a major storm
or series of storms within that time period as the cause of the change. There were
at least ten tropical storms of consequence (Truitt, 1968) to strike the coast during
this time interval, and perhaps more. An October hurricane in 1894 was reported to
be the worst storm in a generation. The storm drove island residents to higher ground
for survival, and destroyed oyster houses and boats all along the islands of the
Delmarva Peninsula. However, another storm in 1904 caused considerable bottom dis-
turbance in the bays and severe economic losses due to burial of oyster beds. The
time of the change to the inlets could probably be recovered by a search of local
literature and maritime records. Because of the nature of the changes that had
occurred by 1911, an early date in this time period would be expected, The fact that
a part of the 1871 ebb tide delta of Little 'Iachipongo Irlet was abandoned when that
inlet channel shifted would suggest a sudden abandonment of the former channel, which
would favor a severe storm as the cause.

The rapid change of direction of both inlet channels produced rapid shoreline changes
on Hog Island. The shift of Little Machipongo Inlet brought the north end of Hog Is-
land under the influence of inlet processes and the offshore protection of a new and
growing ebb tide delta. Accretion was rapid and the change in island dimensions,
startling. The source of the sand for accretion is uncertain, but may, in part, have
been derived from the reworking of the former ebb tide delta by inlet currents of the
new channel position. A great deal of change took place at the south end of Parramore
Island, and large volumes of sand were removed from storage in the former beach and
beach ridges. However, a significant portion of this sand was undoubtedly put back
into storage as the south end of Parramore Island grew south, and the Swash filled in.
There is no indication that the sand was derived from the south end of Hog Island.

At Great Machipongo Inlet, the 1871 ebb tide delta had been situated so that its
apex was east of the south end of Hog Island. But the delta was asymmetrical, and the
southern lobe extended south of the north end of Cobb Island. When the inlet channel
changed position, the apex of the ebb tide delta shifted south until by 1911, it lay
east of the inlet opening. In 1911 the north lobe of the 1871 delta was greatly re-
duced in volume, and the south end of Hog Island had experienced severe erosion. Large
volumes of sand had been removed from these two former storage areas and transported
elsewhere.

The inlet channel and the tidal channels leading to it were much shallower in 1911,

-227-

19491

PA ?APA MORE - I \ I
ISLAND
18/1 /

Little Mcchlpongo /nI etfKlY'at
1871-i
18521963<1

~19 24 2
1962 "A:.:.::

1963:..>) I

1871-1911
FIGURE 53. ROTATION OF
1 911 -1 94~2 HOG ISLAND AND
ADJACENT INLETS
1942-1962

1852-1871

/1942

1962
Great Machipongo I/ Iiet f,9423
291

1871

I:~~ .:'. * *
C0,SS ISLAAND *6.'I

-228-

indicating that flood tide currents were bringing large amounts of sand into, and
through, the inlet. However, a large portion of the sand was carried across the inlet
channel by currents and added to the south lobe of the ebb tide delta as seen by the
growth of Pig Island and the south lobe Of the delta.

The coincidence of both inlet channels turning clockwise in the same time interval
and the changes in inlet processes that this brought about caused Hog Island to change
shape. The accretion of the north end of the island and erosion at the south end pro-
duced the effect (see Figure 53) of rotating the island's axis in a clockwise direction
about a pivot point located approximately one-third of the way south from the north
end of the island. For convenience, the term rotation is being used to describe the
effects of erosion and deposition in changing the shape and position of the island. It
is not meant to imply actual physical rotation of the island. The initial clockwise
rotation of Hog Island was followed by a 17-year period during which no apparent
rotation occurred and the beach along the southern two-thirds of the island suffered only
parallel beach retreat. When rotation began again, the pivot point had shifted south�
During the period of parallel beach retreat, the southern lobe of the Little Machipongo
Inlet ebb tide delta also had grown south. The pivot point and the south lobe of the
ebb tide delta continued to move south through 1963. As the pivot point approached
the middle of the island, the effect of rotation on the south end of the island was
reduced, and correspondingly was increased at the north end. Accretion took place
further to the south along the northern half of the island as the ebb tide delta grew
southward, and this increased the breadth of the island and the apparent rotation. At
the south end retreat continued but the island began extending southward by building
a sand spit.

Since the early 1960's, there has been a different character to the changes in Hog
Island. The southern sand spit had previously shown a repeating pattern of southerly
growth of a narrow sand spit, followed by retreat and recurving to the west. After
the early 1950's, it grew southward again, but as a broad (1100 feet wide) extension
of the island which did not begin to recurve west until the tip was south of Rogue
Island. This growth represents a large quantity of sand being put into storage in the
beach prism. In the 90 years following 1871, this had not occurred along the southern
half of the island.

Another difference is the growth of sand dune ridges on the newly formed sand spit
which also indicates more sand being put into storage. The shoreline at the south end
of the island along the sand spit has been advancing seaward as has the shoreline
along the northern two-thirds of the island. Only a short section of shoreline south
of the Broadwater Lookout Tower (and south of the Little Machipongo ebb tide delta) has
shown any retreat. For the first time in more than a century, the island had shown
no significant retreat for more than a decade. This would suggest that something has
changed in the system that controls the position and configuration of Hog Island. Be-
cause it is quite clear that the inlet processes dominate the system influencing the
island, it is there that the source of the change should be found.

The north end of Hog Island has continued to accrete during this most recent interval,
as it had been since before 1911. Therefore, there is no indication of a change in
inlet processes at Little Machipongo Inlet. The southern limit of accretion for the
northern portion of the island seems to occur just north of the Broadwater Lookout
Tower. At Great Machipongo Inlet there has been a change. North Channel has increased
in depth and width, and therefore, importance to the inlet processes. Without further
study, it is conjecture to attribute recent stabilization of the south end of the is-
land to changes in North Channel. However, it is constructive to point out that when
North Channel was the main inlet channel in 1871, the south end of Hog Island was ac-
creting. If the increasing importance of North Channel is the cause, then one could
expect that the south end of Hog Island will grow seaward.
-229-

VI. GEOMORPHIC DESCRIPTION AND INTERPRETATION

The oldest geomorphic units found in the area covered by this section on Hog Island
are the very ancient beach ridges located at the mainland,west of Hog Island. These
ridges have been described previously in the section on physiography. They have been
studied by Mixon and others (Mixon, et al., 1974) and found to be of late Sangamon
to early Wisconsin age. If correct, this would mean that they had formed during the
early stages of the drop in sea level associated with the Wisconsin stage of glaciation.
The beach ridges of this group begin at the Mappsburg Scarp and extend southeastward
into the bay area behind the modern barrier islands. They obviously record the progresi
of sea level retreat as the coastline advanced onto the former continental shelf. Gull
Marsh and other marsh islands previously described may be part of this very ancient
sequence of beach ridges.

The next oldest geomorphic units are found in the beach ridge units of Hog Island and
Rogue Island. These features relate to the post-Wisconsin rise of sea level and are
therefore very much younger than the beach ridges cited in the preceding paragraph.
They are shown on the Geologic Map of Hog Island. Generally, on both islands, the older
units are found closer to the bay and marsh areas, in locations to which they had re-
treated prior to more recent events which have shaped the remainder of the islands�.

On Rogue Island, there is a beach ridge unit that begins at the northern end of the
island and follows along the northeast shore before it curves sharply to the west near
the eastern end of the island. Midway along the northeast shore of the island there
is a low section where the beach ridge almost dies out. This low area marks the location
of a former opening. Wiether this opening was a breach or an inlet, or whether Rogue
Island formerly had been two islands, is unclear but the present ridge shows recurving
secondary ridges on both sides of the opening which formed before the opening closed.
Near the eastern end of the island the old beach ridge abruptly turns westward to form
a western arm of the beach ridge unit.

There are two distinct, and separate, beach ridges in the western arm, indicating two
stages to its formation. The beach ridge closer to the mainland is the older of the
two, and is the same ridge as the single ridge along the northeast shore. This
older ridge was later attacked by waves from the east-southeast. The bend where the
ridge curves westward was cut through, and several new ridges were built across the
inside of the bend, while a short sand spit grew to the southeast. At a later time
the second of the beach ridges was added parallel to the western arm of the older ridge.
This younger ridge declines in elevation and recurves sharply at its eastern end, but
it then can be traced as a low berm ridge around the bend and along the northeast
shore of the island. These ridges are portrayed on the 1852 and 1871 charts, at a
time when Rogue Island was far from the open sea and from Great Machipongo Inlet. The *
1852 shoreline of Rogue Island closely conformed with the southeastern edge of the younir
beach ridge. This older portion of Rogue Island is therefore interpreted as a rem-
nant of an ancient barrier island, or an ancient inlet island, that became isolated from
the sea when Hog Island grew seaward of it.

There is a line of very old beach ridge units along the edge of the marsh north of
the midpoint of Hog Island. The beach ridge units are separated by gaps of various
widths, but the line of units can be traced to near the north end of the island.
Another very old beach ridge unit is located further south at Broadwater Lookout Tower.
The westernmost ridges in these units are believed to be the oldest features on Hog
Island. They represent an ancient barrier island that had been retreating landward.
(See Figure 54) The beach ridge of the southern part of that island had been cut by
overwash channels at a number of locations, and sand had spread westward into the
ancient lagoon. There may have been a narrow strip of marsh landward of parts of the

-230-

island, and one or more of the overwash channels may have been shallow breaches. North-
ward the beach ridge of the ancient barrier island was continuous along Hog Island
until after 1852,

Figure 54 is a sketched reconstruction of the ancient barrier island on Hog Island,
and of the one previously described on Parramore Island. The reconstruction is based
on the geomorphology of Cedar Island, Parramore and Revel Islands, and Hog and Rogue
Islands. The beach ridges of the ancient barrier islands are shovel as shaded areas
overlain on tracings of the 1871 island shorelines. The full extent of the ancient
islands is not shown. The 1871 shoreline was employed to.give some indication of the
amount of progradation that occurred after the ancient barrier islands had stopped
retreating.

About a mile south of the north end of Hog Island (see geologic map), the ancient
beach ridge unit is broken by inlet opening symbols. This inlet' is the ephemeral inlet
that is shown on the 1]871 chart. Prior to that time, this part of the ancient barrier
island had been intact, and had continued northward more than a mile beyond the inlet.
At present, the ancient beach ridge north of the inlet curves slightly toward the hay
and Revel Island before it then curves sharply into the bay. The sharper curve is
due to historical reworking of the ancient ridges as the north end of Hog Island retreatE
southward after 1871. The offset pair of ridge lines at the western edge of the north-
ernmost beach ridge unit (on the geologic map) represents the ancient beach ridges.

There is a slight curvature of the present remnant of the ancient barrier island toward
Revel Island. The older charts, which show the portions of Hog Island that have been
lost to erosion, extend this curving ancient beach ridge closer to Revel Island.
The Quinby Quadrangle (U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Topographic Series) shotws an alignment of
the eastern beach ridge on Revel Island with the ancient portion of the beach ridge
at the north end of Hog Island. This apparent alignment of the two ancient barrier
island segments is further reinforced by the 1972 I.R. Imagery which includes all of
these areas in a single frame so that alignments and indicative cclor patterns are
more conclusive. The geomorphology and geologic history of Parramore Island and Revel
Island provides further evidence to suggest that this ancient "fIog Island" barrier
island originally extended northward to an ancient inlet on Revel Island.

South of the 1871 ephemeral inlet, the ancient barrier island had been battered by
the sea. It was broken through in numerous places so that the ancient beach ridge
is represented by a line of beach ridge remnants. Historical retreat of Hog Island
has carried modern sand dune ridges over the southern end of the line of ancient beach
ridge remnants. The southernmost of those ancient beach ridge segments near the mid-
point of Hog Island is the longest. It has a double ridge that runs along the edge
of the marsh. Where this segment is truncated at its northern end, two younger beach
ridge units curve into the opening. North of the opening there is a small beach ridge
unit that is believed to be another segment of the ancient barrier island. There are
several more beach ridge remnants northward in this line, which makes this part of the
ancient barrier island resemble the Little Beach Section of Parramore Island. It is
interpreted in the same manner; that is, as an ancient barrier island that was be--
ginning to breach and overwash into a lagoon area behind the island.

The remaining part of this ancient barrier island is found farther south at the
location of the Broadwater Lookout Tower. Here a high ancient beach ridge unit is
found, Recent overwash has truncated the northern end of it (see Figure 49), but has
not yet encroached upon the southern part of it. The I.R. imagery reveals that this
is the southern end of the ancient barrier island. The beach ridges in the unit recurve
from the north toward the bay and Rogue Island. The 1949 black and white aerial photo-
graphy shows five other beach ridges on the seaward side of this remnant which since

-231-

CEDAR ISLAND
ancient
inlet

FIGURE 54.
ANCIENT BARRIER ISLAND -
POSITIONS
(shown againlst the 187/ is/and
shoreline ) mPA RRA MORE
ISLAND

little beach

REVEL ISLAND I'

ancient inlet

ancient breach /

187f breach
, HOG
a ISLAND
Broadwafer Lookout Tower

ancient inl et

ROGUE /SLAND I

-232-

have been destroyed by erosion, Each of those ridges recurved from the north toward
the bay and Rogue Island, and northward they merged with, or paralleled, the oldest
beach ridges of the ancient barrier island, Overwash since 1949 has destroyed the
northern portion of all of those ridges, The 1871 chart shows this ancient beach
ridge unit, and it also shows that it continued north and curved to merge with the
other segments of this ancient barrier island. Retreat of Hog Island since 1871 has
destroyed this connecting section of ancient beach ridge. Harrison, et al. (1965)
have cited an outcropping of marsh peat above a shell bed in the ancient barrier island
remnant that has survived at Braodwater Lookout Tower. Their data indicate that the
outcropping is 1-2 feet above modern high tide level. Radiocarbon dating of the shell
bed yielded an age of 1905 � 75 years before the present. Their dating thus gives some
indication of the antiquity of the ancient barrier islands shown in Figure -54.

The geomorphic evidence of this study indicates that at an ancient time a narrow
barrier island extended northward from the vicinity of the Broadwater Lookout Tower
to the middle of Revel Island. This ancient island had been retreating against a la-
goon along most of its length. Rogue Island lay somewhat to the southwest in a position
where it may have lain within the southern inlet. The crescent shape of the arcient
ridges on the island would suggest that it probably originated as a flood tide island
just inside of the ancient southern inlet.

The next youngest geomorphic units are also beach ridges. They are found on the
northern half of Hog Island, and they lie just east of the ancient barrier island
previously described. In the beach ridge unit at the northern tip of the island,
there is a second ridge line along the eastern edge of the unit and between that and
the western ridge line there are several discontinuous ridges. The discontinuous
ridges are believed to correlate with the recurving berms and other small ridges two
miles south, in the section that resembles the Little Beach area on Parramore Island.
These features are taken to indicate a stage of progradation during which all but the
1871 breach in the ancient barrier island were healed. An ancient strandline can be
recognized along the eastern edge of this unit, and it can be seen to curve into the
1871 breach. To the north the discontinuous ridges represent the accretion of sand
dune ridges.

The eastern ridge line in the beach ridge unit at the north end of the island cor-
relates with the middle ridge line south of the 1871 breach. This was a continuous
ridge that extended south past the next large breach in the ancient barrier island.
(The ridge line shown on the map turns slightly east at this point and follows a
younger part of the ridge unit.) The continuity of the original ridge is indicated
by a string of Parramore Pimples across the area shown as a sand flat. These features
in turn line up to the south with a corresponding ridge east of, and parallel to, the
old strand line on the east side of the breached area in the ancient barrier island.
The portion of this ridge represented by Parramore Pimples indicates that the ac-
creting barrier island was repeatedly overwashed through the northern breach in the
ancient beach ridge. This process eventually filled the breach sufficiently to reduce
overwashing and, slightly to the east, the ridge extended south until it met its counter-
part to the south and closed the breach to overwashing. -lhat is interpreted as the
southern edge of this overwash area and the continuity with the beach to the south at
that time is shown with a strand line symbol. This ridge is taken to indicate the
onset of a period of progradation of the island. Two other ridge lines are shown
east of the ridge just described, and they indicate continued progradation of the
island. This ridge unit terminates against an old strand line or against the modern
dune ridge at its southern end. At the north, it has been cut through by the 1871
ephemeral inlet, and at the north end of the island it has been truncated and reworked
by historical erosion. These units are all that remain of the ancient deposits of
Hog Island,

-233-

The easternmost strand line shown on the map? in the area east of the breached portion
of the ancient barrier island, is a shoreline of historical times, It is believed
to be a segment of the shoreline from the period just subsequent to 1911 when modern
progradation of this part of the island began. At the north end of this strandline,
the geologic contact between the back beach flat and the beach ridge unit west of it
is the approximate position of the shoreline at the limit of retreat in the late 18001s1
when the 1871 ephemeral inlet was active. North of the ephemeral inlet this same
shoreline is indicated by the contact on the east side of the ancient beach ridge
unit. South of what is recognized as the "1911" shoreline, the contact between the
modern sand dune ridge and the ancient beach ridge deposits, for about a mile to the
south, is parallel to, but west of the shoreline position of the 1940's. The actual
shoreline position is now beneath the western part of this sand dune ridge. The area
of back beach flats east of this modern beach ridge began to form as a broad pro-
grading beach in the late 1930's and 1940's. A substantial portion of these back
beach flats can be seen in the 1949 aerial photos. The area of back beach flats and
the sand flat area that continues north along the ancient beach ridge unit, (see
Figure 48a) were added during the period between 1928 and 1937, and the beach ridge
unit east of it began to form thereafter as sand dunes grew on the berm or ridge at
the eastern edge. This new beach ridge unit has two ridge lines running its length.
The western ridge line is the older and was still forming as distinct sand dunes in
1949, while the eastern one was beginning to form as a more continuous sand dune ridge.
The old berm ridges east of this unit were also beginning to form in 1949. Also,
the area shown on the map as back beach flats and sand flat was a runnel in 1949, and
was subject to flooding on the peak of the tide. By 1975, part of that area had
built up sufficiently to become a grassland above the level of the tide (area of
back beach flats), but the area shown as sand flat had not, and is still within the
tidal range (Figure 48a). These features continued to grow by accretion through the
1950's and 1960's, but by 1967 another ridge had moved ashore to form the eastern-
most ridge and runnel. These are shown on the geologic map as the easternmost sand
flat with two large ponds on it, and the ridge of new sand dunes to the east of that.
As can be seen in Figure 48a, this area has not yet become vegetated, and accretion
of the sand dunes and sand flat is continuing to the present.

Along the mid-portion of the island, the back beach flats, previously mentioned, had
become isolated from the sea by 1973 as a series of berms built along the seaward
edge of them. New sand dunes presently are growing on these berms, but this area is i
subject still to rapid change by storm waves and flooding by storm high tides.
Comparison of the April, 1973 aerial photography to the June, 1974 I.R. imagery shows
that the 1974 berm and dune ridge is reduced from what it was in 1973, but does not'
indicate any shoreline retreat.

The overwash area shown on the geological map north of the Broadwater Lookout Tower
and in Figure 49 is an old overwash area. It is not known how far back in time it
was formed. The overwash area can be identified on the 1949 aerial photographs,
but it was not active at that time. In fact, there were cottages or other buildings
within the overwash area. The beach ridge of the ancient barrier island was broken I
through at the south edge of the overwash area, and remnants of the ridge trace its
position across the overwash area on those photographs. The breach in the ridge,
and the original overwash may be very ancient, and date from the earlier period of
retreat of that ancient barrier island. Recent overwash through this area must have
begun in the late 1950's or early 1960's when the beach eroded rapidly at this lo-
cation. Roads and buildings shown on the 1955 chart are not shown on the 1963
chart, nor on the 1968 U.S.G.S. Tophoraphic Map. The 1973 aerial photos show an
active overwash area with sand encroaching on the marsh behind the beach. Figure 49
shows that the overwash area was still active when it was visited in 1975.

-234-

South of the Broadwater Lookout Tower, the increase in width and length of the island
began in the mid-l1950s, and had reached its present general configuration by the
early 19701s, The 1973 aerial photos show the area of stabilized (vegetated) sand
dunes and the same configuration of geologic units that were mapped from the June,
1974 I.R. imagery. However, most of the area is still subject to overwash, and has
not been stabilized by vegetation.

VII. GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION AND INTERPRETATION

The geologic history that can be drawna from this examination of the geologic units
on Hog and Rogue Islands would indicate that at some ancient post-Wisconsin tine, a
thin barrier island had been retreating westward from a former position farther to
the east. This ancient island (Figure 54) was retreating against a lagoon (the an-
cestral Hog Island Bay) along most of its length, and apparently had only a discon-
tinuous narrow strip of marsh behind it. A beach ridge ran the length of the island.
At the south end, Rogue Island stood in an inlet, as an inlet island. Northward, this
ancient island extended up to Revel Island. South of the mid-point, the island had
been breached and near the southern end, it had been overwashed and the beach ridge
partially destroyed.

Following the time when the island had reached this state, the island began to pro-
grade slowly. A second beach ridge began to form east of the first, the numerous
breaches in the mid-section healed, and low berm ridges developed around the former
beach ridge segments. At the south end, a series of recurving beach ridges were added
to advance the shoreline seaward. During this time, the ancient island was breached
0.6 mile southof the north end (near the south end of Revel Island), and the breach
developed into an inlet opening that has shifted position, but remained open to the
present. Shifting of the inlet, the development of North Inlet Channel, and the re-
shaping of the north end of Hog Island by inlet processes, had eroded away about a
mile of this ancient island prior to 1852.

Following the opening of the new inlet, the island began to prograde rapidly to the
east. How far progradation may have advanced the island is unknown, as is the shape
that the island may have developed. At the beginning of the historical period of
this study, the beach east of the south end of the ancient island was 1.3 miles east
of where it was when prograding began, and the island had grown south by more than a
mile. At the beginning of the historical period, the island was prograding at the
south end and retreating along the northern portion. However, these changes were
dominated by inlet processes, and as has been shown elsewhere under shoreline changes,
these processes can occur even though general retreat of the island is taking place.
Evidence from other islands would indicate that the present period of barrier island
retreat began well before 1852, and that progradation had probably advanced Hog Island
more than the 1.3 miles indicated before retreat began again,

-235-

COBB ISLAND AND LITTLE COBB ISLAND

DESCRIPTIVE GEOGRAPHY

Cobb Island is the seventh island from the north end of the Virginia Barrier Island
Group. Little Cobb Island is an inlet island situated in the bay at the south end
of Cobb Island. Cobb Island is separated from Hog Island on the north by Great Machi-
pongo Inlet and from Wreck Island on the south by Sand Shoal Inlet.

Nearby communities on the mainland are more numerous than for other islands along the
Eastern Shore of Virginia, but most are very small. Oyster is west of the south end
of the island, and Simkins and Eastville Station lie west of the middle of the island.
Eastville and Cheriton on Interstate Highway 13 are larger towns with more facilities.
Many older records for this area are stored in the Courthouse at Eastville. Access
to Cobb Island by boat is best made from Oyster via Sand Shoal Channel. There is
a public boat launching ramp and parking area at Oyster which is most directly reached
from Cheriton on Route 13.

Cobb Island is smaller than the islands to the north of it. It also differs in that
it has no large marsh area associated with it and appears as a long narrow barrier
island. Its length is 5.1 miles from inlet to inlet, but is somewhat greater along
the beach front. Along the northern half of the island, where a narrow marsh is
present, the island averages about 0.6 mile in width with approximately half of the
width representing marsh. There is no significant marsh area associated with the
southern portion of the island except at the southern end where a triangular marsh
area lies behind the last mile of beach (Figure 55a). Yost of this portion of the is-
land varies between 0.1 and 0.25 mile in width. Where the marsh is present at the
south end, the island widens to a maximum of 0.5 mile, Little Cobb Island is 0.8
mile long and varies in width from 0.05 to 0.10 mile, averaging about 0.07 mile.

The north end of Cobb Island is 9.2 miles east of the mainland, while the south end
of the island is only 7.75 miles from the mainland. The ocean front of the Virginia
Barrier Island Group is indented toward the mainland at Sand Shoal Inlet, and both
Cobb Island, north of the inlet, and Wreck Island, south of the inlet, lie along op-
posite sides of that indention. The bearing of the axis of Cobb Island is N3fE.
Wreck Island, south of the inlet, has a curved axis, but the trend of the main part
of the island away from the inlet bears about N130E. (The axes of Hog Island and
Parramore Island lie at N27oE.) The mainland west of the south end of Cobb Island
trends about N14�E, and maintains that trend to the south. However, the mainland west
of most of Cobb Island bears N300E, and maintains that trend northward out of the
area described in this section. The abrupt change in the bearing of the mainland
coast occurs south of Indian Town Neck. No immediate explanation for this change
in the trend of the islands or the mainland is obvious. However, this and other
shoreline orientations will be discussed later in this report.

Between Cobb Island and the mainland there is a wide expanse of bay, with scattered
marsh islands, The bay area is divided into partially separated bays by the marsh
islands. Hog Island Bay extends behind the north end of Cobb Island, and Cobb Bay
extends behind the south end of the island. Two marsh islands, Big Easter Marsh and
Little Easter Marsh, separate the two bays. West of Hog Island Bay the islands of
Gull Marsh separate it from Outlet Bay, and further west, Elkins Marsh separates
Outlet Bay from Ramshorn Bay. West of Cobb Bay lies the south end of Elkins Marsh
which is isolated from the mainland by Ramshorn Channel and a small marsh and bay
known as Brockenberry Bay. Crow Bay and Shallow Bay are embayments in the margins
of Elkins Marsh, and Spider Crab Bay is the name given to the area between Gull Marsh

-236-

a. Triangular old marsh area behind the south end of
Cobb Island. North end of Little Cobb Island is
at lef t corner.

Cobb FIGURE 55: South End of Little Cobb Island is

and Elkins Marsh where Outlet Bay and Cobb Bay meet, Elkins Marsh is the only large
marsh area,

The bays west of Cobb Island are very shallow, and are shown as tidal flats on the most
recent U.S.G.S. Topographic Maps and U.S.C. & G.S. Hydrographic Charts. They do not
drain to mud flats on the low tide, but water depths at that time are insufficient
for navigation by most modern power boats. Tidal range at Sand Shoal Inlet is 4.1
feet, being somewhat greater on the spring tides. Two tidal channels reach south into
Hog Island Bay from Great Machipongo Inlet to drain the bay behind the north end of I
Cobb Island. Sand Shoal Channel runs west from Sand Shoal Inlet to within a mile o
Oyster, with depths of over 40 feet all the way and depths of 61 feet and 59 feet at
the western end where it branches to form the Ramshorn Channel which runs north along *
the mainland, and Mockhorn Channel which runs south between Mockhorn Island and the mairl
land. Sand Shoal Channel permits ocean-going fishing vessels to reach harbor at
Oyster through only a short length of dredged channel at Oyster Harbor. Between the
inlet and the western end of Sand Shoal Channel, Mittigy Channel branches north to
Gull Marsh, and Echichy Channel branches north to connect to Crow Bay, Shallow Bay,
Outlet Bay, and Spider Crab Bay. This deep channel connects through Outlet Bay to
the deep Gull Marsh Channel in Hog Island Bay. There are numerous other minor channelsi
branching north and south from Sand Shoal Channel.

II. PHYSIOGRNPHIC DESCRIPTION

In the area covered by this section on Cobb Island and its associated bays and marsh
areas, there is a reasonable diversity of physiographic forms. At the mainland, the
Mcppsburg Scarp rises 25-30 feet from the narrow fringe of marsh along the coast.
The dendritic valley systems of numerous creeks are trenched into the scarp, and the
creeks reach back 1--1.5 miles toward the watershed divide along Route 13, The larger
of these creeks are Indiantovr Creek, Taylor Creek, and Cobbs Mill Creek. This is a
greater number of mainland streams draining into the bays than occurred further north.
However, no data is available on discharge from mainland streams, and therefore the
significance of this larger number of streams is not known.

In the fringe of marsh along the mainland there are numerous short linear sand ridges
which lie in two rows parallel to the Mappsburg Scarp. The ridges are up to 1000 feet
in length, 250 feet in width, and many exceed 5 feet in elevation. To the north,
this double row of sand ridges lines up Trtth Holt Neck, but to the south thev die out
north of Breckenberry Bay. These are the crests of drowned beach ridges whose south
end was driven ashore against the Mappsburg Scarp at Indiantown Neck, but whose north
end at Holt Neck was not. Indiantown Creek has, in the past, eroded its valley across
the ridges of this marsh area.

To the east of the mainland, in the bay area, the marsh islands string out in lines. I
These lines roughly parallel the Mappsburg Scarp on the west side of the bay area, but
more nearly parallel the modern barrier islands in the eastern part of the bay area. I
The pattern of this arrangement suggests that the marsh islands are built on and around
drowned beach ridges. West of Cobb Island, both Little Easter Marsh and Big Easter
Marsh have sand ridges on them that rise several feet above the general level of
the marsh. The pattern of the ridges resembles that found on inlet islands, rather
than that of barrier islands, or drowned beach ridges.

The north end of Cobb Island, near the inlet, has been accreting in recent years (see I
Figure 56a). As a consequence, it shows two sand spits, an older one extending off
the end of the island and recurving west beyond the inlet, and a younger one recurving
into the inlet from the end of a long ridge that has welded onto the beach about a I
mile south of the north end of the, sland. The pattern of berms and low sand dune

-238- I

a. Beach ridges and accreting bars at the north end of Cobb
| Island. Note the breach in the beach ridge nearest to
the marsh, at bottom center.

j b. Overwash fan occurring midway along Cobb Island.

| FIGURE 56: Northern Portion of Cobb Island

ridges on the older sand spit show that it had been accreting seaward before the long
bar welded onto the island, The long bar curves seaward from the trend of the beach
along Cobb Island before it curves back toward the inlet, and this produces a prominent
bulge at the north end of Cobb Island. A low sand dune ridge has formed along most
of the length of the bar. Just offshore from the recurved ends of these two sand
I
spits an inlet island lies seaward of the sand spits and curves protectively around
the end of the island. In this position it shields the end of the island from wave
attack from the northeast and east. This inlet island is part of the ebb tide delta
deposits of Great Machipongo Inlet.

Further south along the northern half of Cobb Island, there is an area of beach ridges
between the marsh and the seaward sand dune ridges. Along the beach side of the is-
land there is a series of sand dune ridges that meet the beach ridge at angles of
about 209. They lie behind the present foredune ridge and they are all separated
from each other by low back beach flats. These landforms are a set of ridges and
runnels that formed when the beach was accreting rapidly. The present active beach
is broad and has numerous bars welding on to the beach.

Near the middle of the island, east of Little Easter Marsh, the beach ridge area
narrows rapidly and terminates in the modern sand dune ridge. The marsh area behind
the island also terminates just south of Little Easter Marsh. At this same location,
the sand dune ridge has been overwashed for a distance of nearly 0.2 mile and an over-
wash fan has spread into the marsh. Figure 56b shows the features near this overwash
area.

The southern half of Cobb Island is best described as a long narrow sand spit with I
a large pennant shaped marsh area at the south end, and smaller patches of marsh behind
it at other points. From the large overwash fan at the midpoint of the island to
the south end of the sand spit, the island recently has been subjected to overwash.
At three locations the sand dune ridge has been overwhelmed by overwash and partially
destroyed, and at all other locations small overwash channels reach back into the dunesI
Two large vegetation stabilized sand dune areas and two smaller ones remain behind
the beach along the southern half of the island. The largest of these runs south from
the midpoint of the island for a distance of almost 0.8 mile and the other large area
runs along the beach for 0.4 mile at the north edge of the marsh near the south end
of the island. The narrow, 0.2 mile long part of the island between this vegetated
dune area, and the next small one to the north, marks the site of an ephemeral inlet
that formed in the mid-1940's. The narrow strand of beach and new sand dunes that I
closed the inlet is still susceptible to overwash.

The active beach all along the southern half of the island is about 200 feet wide,
and bars are moving ashore and welding to the beach. At both ends of this southern
reach of shoreline, ridge and runnel patterns can be seen in the berms. But, in the
mid-portion these are lacking. At the southern end of the island (see Figure 55b)
the sand spit recurves sharply. Recent overwash has spread sand back into the marsh !
behind the sand spit, filling former marsh canals. Overwash along the southern half
mile of the sand spit has spread an apron of sand (Figure 57a) into the marsh and this
also has encroached on marsh canals.

Little Cobb Island is best described as a linear strip of beach, 0.8 mile long, with
small areas of marsh behind it. The beach has a double line of low, active, sand
dunes along its entire length. The beach is retreating over the marsh area and small
fans of sand spread into the marsh. At its east end, the island is separated from
Cobb Island by a deep and well-defined tidal channel. The recently abandoned Coast
Guard Station (Figure 57b) lies directly across the tidal channel from the east end
of Little Cobb Island. Seaward of Little Cobb Island, a system of bars nearly paralleli

-240- I

a. Abandoned Life Saving Station at south end of Cobb
Island. The large light area is a sand apron that
is forming behind the southern sand spit.

b. Abandoned Coast Guard Station at south end of Cobb
Island.

FIGURE 57: Abandoned Coast Guard Facilities

the island, and at the east end have begun to weld to the island,

III. SHORELINE CHANGES

When compared to the islands of the Virginia Barrier Island Group described previously,
the position of Cobb Island has remained remarkably stable. Little Cobb Island, how-I
ever, is a new island that made its appearance in the decade between 1936 and 1946.
Cobb Island has retreated and advanced during the past 125 years, and perhaps longer.
Shoreline changes from 1871 to 1963 are shown in Figures 58 and 59. At the beginning
(1852) of the historical period covered by this report, the island resembled the a
present portion of Metomkin Island east of Metomkin Bay. It was breached by three
inlets and broken into four segments.

The position of Cobb Island today is west of the former locations, yet everywhere
along the length retreat has been less than 2200 feet. At most locations retreat
has been closer to 900-1000 feet. These figures would give an average retreat of
8.25-9.1 feet/year and a maximum retreat of 20.2 feet/year for the period 1852 to
1962. Though retreat occurred, the rate is much less for this time period than on
the other islands previously described. The greatest changes in the island have oc-
curred at the north end where Great Machipongo Inlet was undergoing significant changes
during this time. The northern end of the island quickly advanced and retreated,
bars built up and welded to the island, inlet islands formed and were driven ashore,
and the ebb tide delta outside the inlet grew south, seaward of the north end of Cobb
Island. Surprisingly, the shoreline of the inlet island that lay wrapped around the
north end of the island in 1974 is at about the same positon as the shoreline of the
south side of the inlet in 1853, 1871, 1913, 1936, 1942, 1946, 1955, and 1960. In
other years, 1888, 1891, 1930, 1962, 1963, it was farther south, sometimes by as
much as 4200 feet. These rapid changes are not due to shifting of the inlet channel,
but rather are associated with sediment drift in the south lobe of the ebb tide
delta. Therefore, they occur rapidly in response to induced changes in the inlet pro-
cesses, often as responses to storm effects. It is reasonable to expect that such
changes will continue to occur in the future.

At the south end of the island the retreat of the island's beach has been larger. Great-
est retreat has occurred along the southern third of the island. The modern beach
was about 1800 feet to 1900 feet west of the 1853 position by 1962. This yields an
average retreat of 16.5-17.4 feet/year during that period. The southern tip of the
island retreated rapidly northward about 2600 feet before 1911, but since then its
position and the configuration of the inlet opening made with Bone Island/Wreck Is- _
land have remained quite stable. In more recent years, with the appearance of Little -
Cobb Island, the tidal circulation around the southern tip of Cobb Island has changed
slightly, and the shape of the tip has changed, recurving more strongly toward the
bay. *

A more detailed examination of shoreline changes shows that in 1853 (Byrne, 1972),
the island was badly breached, and consisted of four islands. The largest of these
islands (Cobb Island) was at the south end of the group, and the entire upland
position of that island lay east of the southern half of the present island. The
marsh behind the present island continued eastward to the former island. The north
end of this island was extended as a sand spit into open water beyond the northern
edge of the marsh area. By 1962, retreat of Cobb Island had pushed the shoreline
back a maximum of 2100 feet, but an average of 1800-1900 feet. No part of the upland !
of the original island remained, and a large area of marsh had been lost.

The next largest island lay at the north end of the group. The date of this study
suggests that this island was probably the island known as Pruit's Island in the mid-

-242-

FIGURE 58.
SHORELINE CHANGES
1ON COBB ISLAND; �-'_'_ ::.....
1870-1963 r

///

i----- O 1 2- miles

1963

1934
-870-71

-243-
2...~.....?* ,,..
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7" ,'.. ..

FIGURE 59.
SHORELINE CHANGES
ON COBB ISLAND;
191i 1- 1960

* I _
"-~.cG, ,,t - X

/~~:9. .. 4

/~f -,* / 20 yards

'- .f -, I,, I, / I

1960
-1946
I%.... -, -1929
1911

-244-

18507s (Graham, TCRS., 1976), The north end of the island had two sharp bends in
it. The easternmost of these bends turned the island almost 90� toward the north and
the inlet opening. The second bend turned the island into the inlet opening, At
the 90� bend, and for more than 1800 feet to the south, the island was only a thin
ribbon of sand, North of the bend the island was a broad sand spit, up to 750-800
feet in width, which recurved into the bay at the inlet opening. Near its south end
the island again attained widths of up to 750 feet. There was an older marsh island
behind the southern half of the south arm of this island, and the island was firmly
anchored to that marsh island. By 1911 all of this island, except the western half
of the southern sand spit, had been lost to erosion. The remaining two islands were
very small. The largest was less than 2000 feet long, was oriented northeast-south-
west, and lay about 900 feet south of the southern sand spit of the northern island.
By 1911, all but the western tips of the north and south ends of this island had been
eroded away. The smallest island lay several hundred feet off the southern end of
the other small island, was oriented northwest-southeast, and was 1200 feet long with
an average width of about 100 feet. The southeastern half of this island was destroyed
by 1911. There had been another older marsh island where these two small islards were
located, and they were apparently built as beaches on the southeast and southwest
faces of the marsh island. The two older marsh islands had lain east of Little Easter
Marsh and Cobb Island had retreated into them.

In 1852 when Cobb Island was a string of thin islands, the channel of Great Machi-
pongo Inlet was discharging east-northeastacross the southern end of Hog Island and
Hog Island was accreting seaward rapidly. The active portion of the inlet's ebb
tide delta lay north of the inlet opening, and the southern lobe that lay seaward
of the north end of Cobb Island was less active. Inlet circulation at this tie was
operating to deprive Cobb Island of a supply of sediment, and the island was instead

the inlet channel between Cobb and Hog Islands shifted position and the ebb tide delta
began to move south.

Despite retreat, by 1871 a continuous beach had become established from Sand Shoal
Inlet to Great Machipongo Inlet and Cobb Island was one island. Except at the very
southern end of the island, the barrier island was very narrow, varying from 300
feet to 400 feet in width. At the north end of the island the beach had remained in
place along the inlet, but just southward the beach along the sand spit had retreated.
Maximum retreat of 1500 feet had occurred where the "90 " degree bend had been in the
former island, but retreat occurred all along the sand spit, reaching 700-900 feet at
the southern end where the sand spit joined the marsh-backed part of the island.
Further south where the two small islands had been the beach had advanced seaward
by 750 feet to 900 feet. The southern half of the island had retreated uniformly
by 350 to 400 feet, but the south end of the island lengthened by several hundred
feet. The accretion of the section of beach north of the midpoint of the island had
straightened the beach somewhat, and was undoubtedly the result of normal beach front
long-shore sediment transport. Conditions at Great Machipongo Inlet were still un-
changed, and Cobb Island was still deprived of a good sediment supply.

In 1911 Cobb Island was still a continuous island but it had retreated significantly.
From about the midpoint of the island northward, the shoreline lay west of the 1962
shoreline by as much as 900 feet, having retreated between 700 and 1300 feet from
the 1871 shoreline position. Along the southern half of the island retreat averaged
about 1400 feet, and the shoreline lay west of the position of the entire upland
barrier island in 1871. The barrier island was still very narrow, as narrow as 150
feet in some places, and never more than about 350-400 feet wide. About 1.5 miles
south of the north end of the island a major overwash channel began and continued
for the next 0.4 mile to the south. Overwash deposits were spread over one of the

-245-

I
older marsh islands. About two miles north of the south end of the island, near the
southern edge of the older marsh island, there were numerous places where the barrier
island was overwashed, Some of these features are visible at the north end of the is- I
land in the 1974 I.R. imagery as well as on black and white aerial photography of the
island, In Figure 56a, the old 0,4 mile overwash area can be seen in the beach ridge
near the center of the picture�

At the north end of the island, the end of the sand spit had retreated 1400 feet to
the south, and the sand spit had shifted west by 1500 feet. The sand spit did not
recurve at the inlet, but was just a linear continuation of the barrier island. A
large inlet island, Pig Island, had grown on the ebb tide delta to the east of the north
end of Cobb Island, but an inlet channel called South Channel lay between it and Cobb
Island. Minimum depths in this channel ran 7-9 feet. The south end of Cobb Island
had also retreated about 1400 feet. By 1911 the inlet channel in Great Machipongo
Inlet had turned in a southward direction and the inlet processes were changing in
response. This change was discussed in the section on Hog Island and will not be
repeated here.

By 1942 the northern part of the island had accreted significantly. Along the middle I
third of the island the beach advanced an average of 1200 feet. The northern third
of the island had advanced by 1800 feet to 2100 feet, and by 2700 feet at the north
end of the island where the sand spit had advanced to the east along the inlet. Pig
Island was apparently added to the north end of Cobb Island between the surveys of
1926 and 1934, and the north end of Cobb Island took on a broad appearance which it
maintained for more than a decade. The time interval between 1934 and 1946 saw little
change in the shoreline of Cobb Island, with one exception; an ephemeral inlet openedI
at the north edge of the marsh near the south end of the island. This left the south
end of Cobb Island as a separate triangular island, 3100 feet long on the seaward
side, with the altitude of the triangle across the marsh measuring 2000 feet. Little I
Cobb Island was born during this decade, and grew to a length of about 1800 feet and a
maximum width of 450 feet.

By 1949 the broad north end of the island had eroded, losing more than 50% of the area
that had accreted from Pig Island. The 1949 shoreline is shown with more recent
shorelines in Figure 60. Beach retreat along the northern quarter of the island
had averaged 1800 feet and reached a maximum of 2000 feet. But, the next 2 miles of
beach to the south remained constant. The ephemeral inlet near the south end of
the island had closed, and the south end of the island had begun to retreat again. A
small inlet island had developed 500-600 feet offshore of the north end of the island.J
On the map and photographs, the north end of the island in 1949 looked like an inverte
boot, with the older, 1912 spit, protected from the sea and sticking up behind it. The
north end of the island retreated more slowly during the 1950's, and the island re-
tained this shape until sometime after March, 1960. After the March, 1962 storm,
the boot-shaped spit was gone, and the straight spit of 1912 had been driven about
750 feet west of its former position, and shortened by nearly 1500 feet. The north
end of the island was about 2400 feet south of the inlet channel, and almost 4000
feet southwest of its position in 1942. Between 1942 and 1963, beach erosion along
the island varied from less than 300 feet to over 1300 feet. Erosion averaged about
600 feet along the northern two-thirds of the island, was greatest along the middle
third of the island, and was least along the southern third of the island where re-
treat averaged only 300 feet. Averaged annual erosion rates on the beach thus varied
from 14.2 feet/year to 62 feet/year along the northern two-thirds of the island.
During this time interval, Little Cobb Island grew to a length of 4000 feet, a width
of over 800 feet, and migrated north by more than 800 feet. Except for the major
changes at the north end of the island, most of the changes to Cobb Island took place
prior to 1955. In the interval from 1955 to 1963, the southern three-quarters of the 3

-246- 3

_ _ _ _ _ _ 1974

&-m m7cp f-~ 'r.Ve't
NA4s A i~sncsF/ g.,/Cl
.r419 74 P

AVERAGE SC&,~LE

FIGURE 60. RECENT SH O-RELINE POSITIONS ON COBB ISLA/-ND

island remained quite the same,

After 1963 a new sand spit grew north from the beach at the north end of the island. ,
and by 1966 had attained a length of 4200 feet before it recurved along the inlet for
more than 4600 feet. The inverted boot of the 1950's had been restored by 1966,$
complete with the 1963 sand spit behind the boot. But by 1968, the 1963 sand spit was
gone, and the whole northern sand spit had changed. The new 1968 sand spit was about
a mile long and recurved into the inlet. It averaged more than 1400 feet wide, and
was more than 2000 feet wide at some places. In 1968, two new inlet islands had
grown on the ebb tide delta offshore from the north end of the island. The northern-
most of these islands was 800 feet offshore of the easternmost point of the north end
of Cobb Island. It was more than 2500 feet long and over 500 feet wide. The southern-
most new island was 2200 feet long, over 900 feet wide, and about 4700 feet offshore
of Cobb Island about 1.15 miles south of the north end. By 1974, these islands had
merged into a longer island that wrapped around the whole north end of Cobb Island and
protected it from wave attack. Between 1963 and 1967, the southeast facing beach along
the seaward side of Cobb Island accreted. Accretion at the north end of the island
reached nearly 1300 feet but was less than 50 feet along the southern three-quarters of
the island. From 1967 to 1975 all but the very north end of the island maintained
its position. Except for the very north end of the island, the island had changed
very little in the past decade.

At the south end of Cobb Island, Little Cobb Island had shrunk to 1300 feet in length
with a width of 270 feet between 1963 and 1966. But, by 1967, it had grown again to
more than 4600 feet and a width in excess of 900 feet. In 1974, Little Cobb Island I
remained the same, but a new inlet island about 0.3 mile long had grown seaward of it,
near the west end, against the inlet.

In summary, it may be said that the modern Cobb Island is a creation of the past 100 I
years; or more correctly a recreation of a former island, for the small islands from
which it began in 1852 were undoubtedly the remnants of a former island. The charts
used for this study only go back to the surveys of 1847 to 1853. Other records would
be needed to make that determination. The position of Cobb Island in 1974 is not much
different than the positions of the 1852 islands. At the north end, the 1974 sand
spit and bar actually lie slightly seaward of the 1852 position of the sand spits.
Farther south, to the midpoint of the island, where it is backed by marsh, the 1974
shoreline does lie seaward of the 1853 islands, and nearly as far seaward as the maximum
advance in 1949. It is only south of the midpoint of the island that there has been
retreat since 1853, but here the retreat was steady until 1967 when it had reached a
maximum of more than 2600 feet at the south end of the island and nearly as much for
the 1o8 miles of beach to the north. North of that retreat decreased steadily to
zero near the midpoint of the island. Since 1967, there have been no significant
changes in the shoreline south of the midpoint of the island, and the mapping of this
study (Figure 60) shows the two shoreline positions to be essentially coincident. It
is worth noting here, that the south lobe of the ebb tide delta at Great Machipongo
Inlet curved in to merge with Cobb Island just north of the midpoint of the island in
1966. Figure 60 shows that the 1974 shoreline is indented at the midpoint of the
island, immediately south of where the ebb tide delta stops. It is obvious that the I
growth of the north half of the island has been under the influence of inlet processes
at that end of the island.

IV. INLET CHANGES I

It is difficult to evaluate or discuss changes at Sand Shoal Inlet because the most
recent hydrographic survey as determined by this study was done in 1921. Hydrographic 3

-248-

Charts through October, 1964, and the U,S,G.S, Topographic Map Series of 1968 simply
reprint the same bathymetry from the 1921 survey, The hydrographic charts contain
the note,

"SAND SHOAL INLET

The Channel is subject to continued change.
Entrance buoys are not charted because they
are shifted frequently in position."

Therefore, it is difficult to document or even know, what changes have occurred.
Hydrographic surveys were done in 1853, 1870, 1911, and 1921. These surveys showed a
deep, straight main inlet channel discharging to the southeast through the ebb tide
delta. Channel depths decreased seaward from 70-72 feet at the inlet throat to 18
feet 2.75 miles out to sea. The 1973 black and white aerial photographs indicate that
this channel still occupies the same position, but give no information on changes in
width, depth, or length. The earlier surveys showed two branch channels. Northeast
Channel curved around the South end of Cobb Island and along the beach for a mile or
so before turnling seaward. South Channel branched south along the shoreline of the
north end of Wreck Island. The early surveys show that Northeast Channel increased
in width and depth up to 1911 when it was more than 2300 feet wide with minimum depths
of 16-20 feet. By the 1921 survey, the width had diminished to about 1300 feet but
the depth remained unchanged. These surveys also show that until after 1911, the north
lobe of the ebb tide delta was being reduced in size, until 1911 it lay along a line
southeastward of the present Coast Guard Station, and parallel to the main inlet
channel. By 1921 three small fan-shaped lobes had been added to the north face of
the ebb tide delta; one just seaward of Northeast Channel had pushed that channel
close to the beach for a greater distance to the north. The 1949 and 1973 black and
white aerial photography confirms that Northeast Channel is still functioning. It
has apparently held its position very well because in the 1973 photograph, the position
agrees well with the position in 1921 and with shoreline changes that have occurred
since.

The most reasonable explanation for the retreat of the southern half of Cobb Island
would be found in inlet trapping of sand in the longshore drift system. Northeast
Channel is ideally situated to draw large volumes of sand from the longshore drift
system through the inlet on the flood tide. The appearance and growth of Little Cobb
Island suggests that this is indeed happening, and that the sand lost from Cobb Island
can probably be found in this flood tide deposit, and on the floor of the bay.

V. GEOMORPHIC DESCRIPTION AND INTERPRETATION

A consideration of the geomorphic units in the area described in this section on Cobb
Island indicates that the oldest units are at the mainland edge of the area. The beach
ridge, described in the section on physiography, that was driven against the Mappsburg
Scarp north of Oyster, would be the oldest geomorphic unit. Nixon, et al. (1974)
suggests "latest Sangamon or early to middle Wisconsin?" age for these deposits.
Eastward into the bay area, Elkins Marsh and Gull Marsh are interpreted as having origins
as beach ridges or barrier islands. Gull Marsh would be considerably younger in origin
than beach remnants in Elkins Marsh,

Further east in the bay area, Big Easter Marsh and Little Easter Marsh are interpreted
as inlet islands or flood tide delta islands, These marsh islands predate the histori-
cal period of this study and are therefore considered to be ancient, but they relate
to the present barrier island system and are therefore post-Wisconsin in age.

-249-

o~~~~~~~~
Little Easter Marsh is shown on ~e geologic map of Cobb Island, Two other inlet islandi
stood east of Little Eastern Marsh before Cobb Island overran most of them. Small
remnant areas from these islands can be found in the marsh near the old inlet in the
northern third of the island. Cheryl McCaffrey, in her work on the vegetation of the
islands, recognized these old inlet island remnants because of a more compac-t substrateI
and a different vegetation pattern (1975, personal communication). Parts of these two
older inlet islands were recognizable on the 1871 hydrographic charts. There may have
been other islands in this group further to the east. Of interest is the fact that
the islands had lain along an east-west line with fairly close spacing. A similar
string of older inlet islands on an east-west line can be found west of Trout Channel
near the south end of Cedar Island. The ridge patterns in Big Easter Marsh and
Little Easter Marsh indicate they were built at some ancient time by flood tide currenti
from the northeast. The north ends of both marsh islands are still being added to by
flood tide currents moving through Rowes Hole Channel.

On Cobb Island itself, there are no ancient geomorphic units except the remnants of I
the rwrsh islands already mentioned. All of the other geomorphic units date from 1853
to the present.

The old inlet symbol near the north end of the island marks the location where the 1911
shoreline had cut back into the barrier island deposits and broken through to the marsh
It is not believed that an ephemeral inlet formed here, but rather that the area
served as a broad overwash channel. There is no trace of any inlet channel in the marshI
behind this. The inlet opening symbol was used to more clearly designate the area.
The position of the beach ridge unit west of the northern old inlet line represents I
the beach ridge that had become established after 1853 and prior to the erosion before
1911. At the southern end of this overwash area, there is probably contained the
recurved sand spit at the south end of the northernmost island of 1853. The portion ofI
the beach ridge unit west of the southern old inlet line represents what is left of
the beach ridges that had built up as the island advanced after 1853. The pre-1911
period of erosion had removed a large volume of barrier island deposits south of the
1911 overwash area.

The old strandline drawn through the middle of the beach ridge unit is the 1962
shoreline of Cobb Island. The beach ridges and sand flat west of the strandline are
the remains of the island's accretion subsequent to 1911. Everything east of the old
strandline has accreted since 1962. The beach ridge unit contains several ridges that
lie at slight angles to the older ridges, and intersect and merge to the south. These I
are truncated still further to the south where a number of short strandline ridges
angle sharply against the beach ridge unit. The erosion that truncates the beach ridges
predates 1968, and the gently curving position of the eastern contact of the beach ridgl
unit corresponds to the indentation of the 1968 shoreline at this point. The strandlin
ridges and back beach flat were added very soon after 1968 because on the April, 1973
aerial photos, they and the back beach flat are present, and the ridges have vegetation
growing on them.

VI. GEOLOGIC HISTORY AND INTERPRETATION

Not much geologic history can be drawn from the features described for this island. Thi
very ancient geomorphic features west of the island relate to the retreat of sea level
during the Wisconsin stage of glaciation, and there are no significant prehistoric
features to interpret on Cobb Island. The recent geologic history of Cobb Island is
best understood from the descriptions of shoreline changes and geomorphic units already
given. Briefly, the recent geologic history shows that the south end of Cobb Island
has remained a thin barrier island with a narrow beach ridge, and has retreated steadili5
since before 1853. As retreat progressed, all earlier geologic evidence was destroyed

-250-

by erosion, The northern portion of the island accreted from three small, thin barrier
islands in 1853, The period of accretion advanced the shoreline seaward and lengthened
the island at the north end, This phase of accretion was terminated by a period of
rapid erosion prior to 1911 that drove the shoreline of the island back over nearly all
of the post-1853 accretion to the most westerly position occupied by the shoreline.
A second period of accretion began after 1911 and lasted until sometime in the late 1940'
when the shoreline began to retreat again. This second period of erosion was .nitially
rapid, slowed through the 1950's, and ended with very rapid retreat between 1961 and
1962. More than half of what had been gained by accretion was lost during this peri.od
of retreat. Accretion since 1962 has rapidly replaced much of what had becn lost during
the preceding period of retreat. The accretion of the northern portion of the island
is continuing at the present time.

WRECK ISLAND

II. DESCRIPTIVE'GEOGRAPHY

Wreck Island is the eighth island from the north end of the Virginia Barrier
Island Group. It is the sixth island covered by this study. It is located
between Cobb Island and Ship Shoal Island in the barrier chain. It is bounded
on the north by Sand Shoal Inlet, and on the south by New Inlet. The north end
of the island is due east of the village of Oyster and the large town of Cheriton
which is on U.S. Route 13. Access to the island by boat is from the village of
Oyster by way of Sand Shoal Channel which leads to the north end of the island.
Landing on the marsh side of the island by boat should be attempted only near
high tide, because at lower phases of the tide there is insufficient water for
small power boats to operate without grounding.

Wreck Island is 2.75 miles long from inlet to inlet. Because the island is curved
like a bow, its seaward facing beach is 3.0 miles long. The barrier island upland
averages about 1100 ft. in width throughout its length. There is marsh behind the
southern three-quarters of the island that averages about 2000 feet in width, but
the bay side of the marsh is quite irregular and width of marsh drops to as little
as 800 feet at indentations. There is a narrow fringe of marsh behind the southern
half of the sand spit that makes up the northern quarter of the island's length.

At the northern inlet, Wreck Island lies 6.7 miles from the mainland. At the
southern inlet the island is 7�25 miles from the mainland. The axis of the island,
fron inlet to inlet lies within a degree of being a true north-south line. However,
because the northern third of the island curves westward toward the inlet, a better
axis to use for orientation of the island is the axis of the southern two-thirds of
the island. That axis is oriented about N130E. The mainland coast west of Wreck
Island is located at the base of the Mappsburg Scarp, and its orientation is about
N140E. As previously mentioned in the section on Cobb Island, the seaward face of
the Virginia Barrier Island Group is indented at Sand Shoal Inlet. Wreck Island
forms the southern edge of that indentation. Besides having its axis turned
counter-clockwise in respect to other islands, it occupies a position nearly 1.5
miles inshore of the trend of the seaward face of the barrier island chain esta-
blished by the other islands.

The area between Wreck Island and the mainland is estimated to be about 40 percent
marsh and 60 percent bay and channel areas. Most of the marsh area is contained in
the marsh at the north end of Mockhorn Island which also extends south for miles
behind Ship Shoal Island, Myrtle Island, and Smith Island. A second large marsh
area is New Marsh which lies against the north end of Mockhorn Island on the east
side. Another, smialler, marsh area of note is Man and Boy Marsh which lies between
Wreck Island and New Marsh. There are other small marsh areas along the mainland
and in the bays.

There are three large bays west of Wreck Island. Cobb Bay extends south between
Wreck Island and New Marsh until it merges with South Bay about a mile south of
Man and Boy Marsh. The third bay is Mockhorn Bay which lies between the north end
of Mockhorn Island and the mainland. There are only two major channels in the area
being described. Sand Shoal Channel, which runs west along the north edge of the
area from Sand Shoal Inlet to a point a mile east of Oyster, is the largest. Mock-
horn Channel, which turns south from Sand Shoal Channel a mile east of Oyster, is
the second major channel. It parallels the mainland as it runs south through
Mockhorn Bay to Magothy Bay. Both of these channels are wide and deep, with minor

-252-

channels branching from them. There is no major channel associated with New Inlet,
only a network of small channels branching into South Bay. One of these, Black
Rock Channel, turns south behind Ship Shoal and Godwin Islands to connect into
Main Ship Shoal Channel.

EI. PHYSIOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION

At the mainland side of the area described, the mainland coast begins at the riser
of the Pleistocene terrace (the Mappsburg Scarp). At the base of this scarp, be-
tween the mainland and a small, irregularly shaped, fringing marsh, there is a
narrow strip of sand deposits varying from 100 to 400 feet in width. Near Oyster
these deposits lie between mean sea level and an elevation of less than 5 feet, but
near the south end of Mockhorn Bay they reach an elevation of 10 feet. These deposits
are believed to be an old beach. About a half mile east of the mainland there are a
number of small, narrow marsh islands. These islands are about 100 feet wide, up to
1100 feet long, and are oriented roughly parallel to the mainland coast. Together
they form a line 2.3 miles long that begins at the south end of Brockenberry Bay near
Oyster, and ends at the straight front of a marsh area near the south end of Mockhorn
Bay. This line of marsh islands appears to be a southward continuation of the linear
strip of marsh that forms the east edge of Brockenberry Bay. This same trend, miles
to the south, forms the edge of Magothy Bay east of Townsend, and still farther south
can be followed as sand ridges through the marsh. It is clear that this trend is a
former shoreline, and that the string of marsh islands are formed on the drowned
beach ridge.

Further east a number of nearly parallel sand ridges are contained within the marsh
of Mockhorn Island. West of Ship Shoal Island these ridges rise several feet above
the marsh and are forested. In the area west of Wreck Island these ridges do not
rise noticeably above the marsh, and their presence cannot be determined surely
from topographic maps. However, the occurrence of linear drainage divides in the
marsh and a parallel arrangement of the larger marsh canals at the north end of
Mockhorn Island strongly suggests that the initial developmant of the marsh drainage
was controlled by drowned beach ridges. Examination of black and white aerial photo-
graphs reveals that the ridges are there, indeed, and that they end abruptly, at the
line of the south edge of the small bay in the north end of Mockhorn Island. Similar
ridges are found in New Marsh. These ridges are all drowned beach ridges, and the
sequence of them eastward from the mainland records a very ancient regression of
sea level. The age and significance of these ridges will be discussed further in
the section of Smith Island.

In Man and Boy Marsh, and on a smaller marsh island further east, the topographJc
maps show no physiography except a spot elevation marking high ground in the marsh.
The black and white aerial photographs show that the high ground is part of a low
ridge pattern of the type found on inlet islands, built as flood tide deposits.
This characteristic and the orientation of the ridge patterns establishes these
two marsh areas as part of the modern, retreating, barrier island system.

On Wreck Island there are two physiographic provinces, the marsh area, and the
upland barrier beach deposits. The marsh area contains a number of low ridges,
some of which are sand spits related to former island positions, and others which
are apparently former inlet islands. Auger boring of these features in the marsh
showed that they are made up of compact fine sand to a depth of eight feet. The
marsh also contains a number of abandoned and partially filled tidal canals that
are truncated by the barrier island. These canals are several orders of magnitude
wider than the modern canals, or the size of the marsh area would warrant. Their
pattern shows that they formerly drained southeastward. Present drainage in the

-253-

marsh is to the west. Portions of the marsh clearly associated with one of these
old canals, near the south end of the marsh, were sampled by augering at eight
locations. It was found to have a root mass in sand and mud down to 8 inches orI
more, and below that it was composed of mud, with no appreciable sand present.
Elsewhere, augering in the marsh near the middle of the island (in marsh associated
with the abandoned canals) revealed that that marsh also was established an mud.
Along the barrier island, inshiore of the beach, there is a complex system of very
low beach ridges. Figures 61 and 62b show the nature of these low relief features.
Figure 61a shows some campers tents that are pitched between two low beach ridges
that parallel the shoreline. In Figure 61b, a higher (6-8 feet) wooded beach ridge
can be seen. This ridge is part of the historical island known as Bone Island which
formed the nucleus of the north end of the present Wreck Island. Figure 62b shows I
the area just to the north of F4.gure 61b, where the northern sand spit is joined
to the main island. In this interior beach ridge unit, there are several ephemeral
inlet openings and at least three former sites of broad overwash channels with over- I
wash fans spread out into the marsh. This physiographic unit forms a broad grassland
in which the crests of ridges rise several feet above the average level of the area.
Relief is generally about 3-4 feet above high tide level except along the ridges
where elevations reach up to 8 feet. Near the bend of the island a small area ofI
wax myrtle trees has become established on a ridge along the edge of the marsh.

Elsewhere on the ridge unit there is grass cover. At the back of the beach the fore-
dune ridge rises 3 to 6 feet above high tide level., and is grassed. The active beach
along the length of the island is broad and gently sloping. Figure 62a shows the
foredune ridge and beach in the foreground of the picture. In many places low bars I
are welding to the beach, and at both ends of the island sand spits are building..
The sand spit at the south end of the island is growing south of another recently
formed sand spit, and the miost recent sand spit shows a berm pattern, indicating
rapid growth.
IT.SHORELINE CHANGES

At the beginning of the historical period for which this study of shoreline changes
has been done, two islands occupied the position in the barrier chain now occupied
by Wreck Island. Bone Island occupied the position near Sand Shoal Inlet and Wreck I
Island was south of it in a position farther to the east and reaching further to
the south. Bone Island Inlet separated the two islands. Because both islands had
names, it is likely that they had held such a configuration for some time. At Ship
Shoal Inlet the opening was only half as wide as at present, and the inlet opening I
faced southeast. Today the inlet opening faces south, and this has been mostly
brought about by the northwesterly shift of the north end of the Wreck Island sand
spit. A northeasterly shortening of the south end of Cobb Island has contributed to I
the widening of the opening and accounted for a small northward shift in the position
of the opening. The changes have only been in the inlet opening, the inlet throat
and deep channel have remained essentially unchanged. The opening at New Inlet has I
changed radically. It has shifted west and increased more than four times in width,
and the facing of the inlet opening has rotated from facing southeast to facing east
northeast.~

The southern end of the seaward beach of Wreck Island was more than a mile southeast
,of the present position in 1853 when the first hydrographic survey was conducted.
Near the middle of the island, about half a mile south of the bend in the shoreline, I
the westward retreat has been on the order of 3600 feet. However, there has been no
retreat at the bend in the island. The shoreline at the bend has not varied its
position by more than 300 feet, and since the late 1930's has occupied a position
.seaward of the 1853 shoreline. North of the bend in the outer beach, the shoreline

-254-

a. Grassland south of mid-point of Wreck Island. Dark
areas are low sand dunes. Trails lead from camper's
tents to a marsh canal used for access.

b. Grassland near the north end of Wreck Island. Wooded
beach ridge is a remnant of Bone Island.

FIGURE 61: Grasslands on Wreck Island
t000ftift tt0000 0000i.0000000d 0tf f;S0000Xg .0d.g 0000~5 'K00

a. View along Wreck Island where the beach bends
toward the inlet. This section of the island has
been relatively stable for many years. The view
is also across Sand Shoal Inlet toward Little
Cobb Island.

b. View across the grassland of the sand spit at the
north end of Wreck Island. Wooded beach ridge is
the northern end of the remnant of Bone Island.

FIGURE 62: Northern Portion of Wreck Island

along the inlet channel has not retreated significantly since 1853, and the sand
spit has actually grown in length along the channel. There have been changes in
shoreline position as this northern beach has shifted west, then rebuilt to the
east, and the net change shows a westward retreat of the tip of the sand spit that
increased to about 2500 feet by 1974. But this is deceptive, due in large part to
the lengthening of the sand spit, combined with a gradual counterclockwise rotation
of the sand spit. Midway between the tip of the modern sand spit and the bend in
the beach, where rotation alone has shifted the beach, the 1974 beach is only 525
feet west of the 1853 beach on Bone Island. Taking rotation into consideration,
the shoreline of the modern sand spit is only 750 feet westward of the beach at.
the north end of Bone Island in 1853. Figures 63 and 64 show relative shoreline
positions between 1871 and 1963. Figure 65 shows relative shoreline positions from
1949 to 1974.

In 1853 (Byrne, 1972) Sand Shoal Inlet was only 2300 feet wide and faced to the
southeast. The slender northern sand spit of Bone Island formed the south shore
of the inlet, and Bone Island stretched 1.25 miles to the south. At the south
end, Bone Island curved sharply into Bone Island Inlet (a 600 feet wide inlet
that separated it from the north end of Wreck Island). The nearly straight
beach of Bone Island, along the seaward channel from the inlet, was more than
1.1 miles long.

Wreck Island jutted out from Bone Island Inlet more than 2800 feet farther east
than the beach on Bone Island, before it curved abruptly to its north-south sea-
ward beach. The seaward facing beach was more than 1.9 miles long, and the length
of the island from inlet to inlet was 2.25 miles. New Inlet at the south end of
the island faced to the southeast, and was 1200 feet wide.

1853-1871. Changes had occurred to both islands by 1871. The seaward facing beach
on "old" Wreck Island had retreated rather uniformly westward a distance of 650 feet
and New inlet had widened to 2300 feet. New Inlet faced northeast as a consequence
of the retreat at the south end of "old" Wreck Island. At the north end of "old"
Wreck Island, Bone Island had nArrowed by 120 feet to a new width of 480 feet, The
length of "old" Wreck Island from inlet to inlet had changed little, shortening by
about 450 feet. The 1.871 shape of the island is shown on Figure 63.

To the north, Bone Island had increased in length by more than 300 feet through
growth of the northern sand spit. The beach along the inlet channel was now 1.25
miles long. Beach retreat on Bone Island had the effect of rotating the island
counterclockwise. Retreat was zero at the south end of the island, 540 feet near
the middle of the island, and 925 feet near the north end. Retreat was accomplished
by migration of the island, because the width of the sand spit remained about the
same. The beach was no longer straight, but was hollowed gently in the middle of
the island. With the westward migration of the island, and some retreat of Cobb
Island, Sand Shoal Inlet had turned to face south southeast and widened by 650 feet
to a width just less than 3000 feet.

1871-1911. The hydrographic survey of 1911 showed that Bone Island had been joined
to Wreck Island to make a single island 3.2 miles long, inlet to inlet. This repre-
sented a net loss in length of 0.4 mile and most of this loss had occurred at the
south end of the island, where the island had been shortened by 0.25 mile. The
remaining decrease in length was due to bending of the island. New Inlet had in-
creased in width to 3800 feet and turned easterly to face east northeast. Sand
Shoal inlet at the north end was still facing south southeast, but had increased
in width to 4000 feet as a consequence of the shortening of Cobb island, and the
continued rotation of the north end of Wreck Island.

-257-

FIGURE 63:
SHORELINE CHANGES
ON WRECK ISLAND;
1871- 1963 /

WRECK X :i

BONIE ISLAND - --"

t I!
SI-HIP S HO0 A L ...-j"~"-.,p_:.ml,

u ....t
.),.. - ,......

MYRITLE
2 8 . U
,�I f / 8 O -2000 yards

' --'='', 0 1 2 miles

19633
1955
.........-...... 1934
1871
-258-

The beach along the newly lengthened Wreck Island was irregular. There were
bulges where the older island's seaward beaches had been, and an indentation scuth
of where Bone Island Inlet had been located. Beach retreat of the "old" Wreck
Island portion of the island had been about 1830 feet along the northern half,
but increased to 2700 feet near the southern end. The southern end of the island
had curved toward the southwest. This can be seen in Figure 64.

Where Bone Island Inlet had filled in, the beach on the new island had advanced
630 feet to partially remove the former strong indentation at this location. The
indentation had actually shifted about a half mile to the south of the former inlet
due to erosion of the bulging north end of the "old" Wreck Island. The beach for
2000 feet north of the position of Bone Island Inlet remained in the same position.
but north of that it advanced, reaching a maximum of 600 feet at a location 3100
feet north of the old inlet. North of there, beach advance diminished to the
north end where the tip of the sand spit remained essentially unchanged.

1911-1942. The 1942 topographic maps reveal that the processes of change on Wreck
Island had been continuing, and this was borned out by the hydrographic charts of
the intervening years as Figures 63 and 64 indicate. The 1942 topographic maps
show that the island changed little in length from inlet to inlet (the change
being on the order of 150 feet increase in length). The irregularities of the
beach had become more pronounced, but smoother. A prominent bulge was located
midway along what had been Bone Island, and a second was located midway on what
had been Wreck Island. Both ends of the island were bent westward from the trend
of the island, and a broad gentle indentation lay between the bumps. At the north
edge of the northern bulge, an ephemeral inlet had broken through the sand spit,
and the sand spit had been reduced to little more than a broad sand bar running
north northwest along the inlet opening.

In spite of a bulging beach, the southern end of the island had retreated westwwrd
by an average of 1200 feet and was still curved to the southwest, Northward to the
old inlet, retreat averaged 900 feet, but rapidly declined to zero north of the
old inlet where accretion began. The northern bulge in the beach was more than 0.5
miles long and within it the beach had advanced an average of 200-300 feet. However,
at the north end of the bulge, where the ephemeral inlet was located, the advance
of 200 feet rapidly reversed to a loss of 900 feet. Along the narrow sand spit
north of the inlet, retreat rapidly increased from 900 to 1800 feet.

By 1942 a sand spit had grown at 900 to the beach at the south end of Wreck Island
to create a narrow dangling appendage to the island. The facing of New Inlet,
because of the appendage, was northeast, and the inlet was 3150 feet wide. If one
discounts the sand spit appendage, as the sea obviously did in ensuing years, the
inlet had increased in width to 4300 feet. Sand Shoal Inlet at the north end cf
Wreck Island had also increased in width, from 4000 feet to 6000 feet. Most of this
increase in width was due to the reduction in width of the sand spit at the north
end of Wreck Island, and to the 900-1800 feet migration of the sand spit to the west.
Cobb Island lost a little of its length to help widen the inlet.

1942-1949. The 1949 aerial photos of Wreck Island show that the processes of change
were continuing still. The northern sand spit had become reestablished and the 1942
ephemeral inlet had been closed. The rebuilt sand spit had grown until its northern
end lay opposite the west end of Little Cobb Island. Little Cobb Island (a newly
formed island) had grown westward during this time period. The extension of these
two sand prominences framed the inlet opening to Cobb Bay, and the south end of
Cobb Island fronted against Northeast Channel at the inlet, and not against the
main channel. The width of the inlet from Cobb Island to the sand spit on Wreck

-259-

FIGURE 64.
SHORELINE CHANGES '
ON WRECK ISLAND; ,' r,
1911 -19G0' i

WRECK /;

*..- I

i ' ' /' I

SHIP SHOAL i d 7 -.

<V) X,./ '/

f t ~ v 0 2000 yard]

MY""'RTLE � 1 2 miles

/of*� vale< aV---~_~,---.>~.. 1960
*-J~!L~~7 /t '1929
.......192911

-260-

Island had decreased from 6000 feet to 4860 feet. The main channel inlet opening
between Little Cobb Island and the tip of Wreck Island was only 2165 feet. New
Inlet at the south end of Wreck Island had increased in width from 4320 feet to
4850 feet and turned to face nearly to the east. From sand spit to sand spit,
the island was now 3.6 miles long, but discounting the dangling southern sand
spit, which had rotated westward, the length was only 3.0 miles. Growth of the
northern sand spit was mostly responsible for a 0.4 mile increase in the length
of the island. The beach along Sand Shoal Inlet's seaward channel was continuous
in a gentle curve. The earlier bulges in the beach were still apparent, but the
hollow between them had partially filled in to make a smoother shoreline. The
island's beach was beginning to assume a bend between that portion controlled by
the inlet channels and that portion under the influence of waves and ebb tide delta
processes. The length of the beach had increased to 3.7 miles.

The rebuilt northern sand spit had grown on the inlet side to reach a width of more
than 875 feet. South of the sand spit, where the 1942 inlet had closed, the beach
had advanced to line up with that further south on the island. South of the ephe-
meral inlet (.35 mile), the bulge had retreated more than 300 feet to reduce the
prominence. At the beach "hollow" produced by erosion south of the location of the
former Bone Island Inlet, the beach had advanced 570 feet to produce a straighter
beach. However, the "hollow" continued to exist, having moved further south,
where retreat of the beach reached 130 feet. Where the. southern bulge had been on
"old" Wreck Island, beach retreat reached 360 feet and the bulge was reduced. To
the south, near the tip of the island, retreat declined to 200 feet. Averaged along
this portion of the island, retreat was about 200 feet.

1949-1968. In the interval between 1949 and 1968, the sand spit at the north end
of Wreck Island experienced great changes. Prior to 1955, an inlet had opened
near the base of the sand spit at the north edge of the marsh behind the island,
and this inlet remained open until sometime after March 1960. During this time
there was no sand spit. An area of shoals and sand bars occupied the location of
the sand spit. However, the sand spit reformed, and the ephemeral inlet closed
during 1962, and by 1968 the sand spit occupied a position east of its location
in 1949. The length of the sand spit in 1968 was also greater than the length in
1949, by 0.35 mile. in 1968 the sand spit averaged 980 feet in width, but reached
a width of 1450 feet near the north end. Sand Shoal Inlet was again framed between
the north end of the sand spit and the west end of Little Cobb Island. The inlet
width was 2000 feet. The south tip of Cobb Island had retreated, and the opening
between there and the north end of Wreck Island had increased from 4860 feet to
5140 feet.

By 1968, erosion of the south end of Wreck Island, had removed 1230 feet of the
island. Comparable growth of Ship Shoal Island had allowed the opening of New
Inlet to shift about 1200 feet in a northwesterly direction without altering either
the facing or the width of the inlet since 1949. The loss of length at the south
end of Wreck Island was more than made up by gains at the north end of the island,
so that the 1968 island was 3.1 miles long from inlet to inlet. However, smoothing
of the island's beach front reduced beach length by 0.5 mile to 3.2 miles. The
island's beach curved smoothly from the south end into the inlet opening, and then
recurved slightly beyond the opening to form a shallow depression in the beach line
near the north end of the island.

Beach retreat was limited to the southern third of the island. In addition to the
accretion of the sand spit at the north end of the island, the beach along the mid-
portion of the island, facing the sea, grew seaward by up to 112 feet for a distance
of 0.75 mile. Most of the beach between this area of accretion and the sand spit
remained unchanged. This is the section of beach where the island bends toward the

-261-

s \N ~FIGURE 65.
~'~-" ~" SHORELINE CHANGES
(7\\i ON WRECK ISLANDX
,� t '9491974-
t
) .
N> ,I

' -0 Z 0 i | '

WI - /
r~~i ON W\IR EC K ISLAN\D,
K�I: 1949-1974

262-
1 ;r~~~~~~~~~

O~~~~~~ //
I ~
j/II~~~~~~

f~~~~~o~2
ii

i~ 4 I

�I~~~~~~~~

-262-5

the inlet. Where retreat did occur along the southern ha".( of the island, it
increased quickly from nothing to more than 600 feet, and then more gradually
to 955 feet at the south end of the island. Average retreat was about 675 feet.
1968-1974. Between 1968 and 1974 retreat of the seaward beach continued, and
I ~affected all of the beach from the bend at the inlet to the southern end of the
island. Retreat reached a maximum of 660 feet at the south-end of the island,
and was between 500 and 600 feet along most of the southern half of the island.
It fell off to nothing at the bend in the island. Averaged retreat was about
550 feet. The south end of the island increased in length by 800 feet to bring
the length of the island up to *3.25 miles between the inlets, and about 3.5 miles
along the beach. North of the bend in the island there was little change in the
position of the beach, except for some beach adjustments near the inlet opening.
I V. SUMMARY

The most striking observation that can be made from this shoreline analysis is
that the two halves of Wreck Island have behaved in very different fashions
during the 121 year observation period. The northern portion of the island has
moved around a lot but has not really gone anywhere. The sand spit which forms
the northern quarter of the island has done most of the moving, even disappearing
* ~at tim~es, but in 1974 the beach on the sand spit lay only 750 feet west of the beach*
* ~near the tip of Bone Island in 1853. If this is expressed as an annual rate of change
we find that the spit has shifted west at a rate of 6.2 ft./yr. near its tip, but at
the base against the marsh, the 1974 shoreline is less than 200 feet west of the
I ~1853 shoreline of Bone Island, and retreat here has been at a rate of 1.6 ft./yr.
Changes have been minimal for a mile south of the base of the sand spit, to where
Bone Island Inlet has been, and accretion has exceeded retreat so that the 1974
beach stands slightly east of the 1853 beach. This whole portion of the island is
under the influence of inlet processes, and quite clearly the stability of the
channel of Sand Shoal Inlet during this time period is reflected in the stability
* ~of this part of the island.

In sharp contrast, the southern half of the island has retreated at a rapid rate,
and diminished in length as well. At the south end of the island the sea has
steadily cut away 3900 feet of barrier island, and all of the marsh behind it.
The 1974 beach curves around the cut-off marsh in a many fingered sand spit. The
average annual loss of length has been 32.2 ft./yr ' Along the island south of the
former Bone Island Inlet, retreat has been rapid, and steady to the present. The
I ~northern two-thirds of this half of the island has retreated an average of 4800 feet
east of the present end of the island, and even more to the south where the island
is now gone. The average annual retreat at the present south end of the island has
I ~been 51.7 ft./yr. Wreck Island had a broad continuous marsh behind it in 1853. The
mars~h behind the southern half of Wreck Island is all that remains of that larger
marsh area, and some of the present marsh is new.

V. DISCUSSION OF SHORELINE CHANGES

During this study occasional references have been encountered that have cited re-
I ~portedly high rates of erosion during the stormy latter part of the 1800's. For
islands previously described it has been seen that though erosion rates have varied
through time, and with major storms, sites of rapid erosion could quite readily be
I ~traced to processes that were occurring in response to some change in the system,
and were not literally assignable to a greater frequency of storm activity during
some time period. Wreck Island is a case in point. It has experienced severe
I ~erosion throughout the time period. Table I compares retreat and rates of retreat

-263-

of the southern portion of Wreck Island for different time intervals. Clearly,
the last quarter century has seen the highest erosion rate on Wreck Island, yet
that period is not noted for its storminess. On other islands, both north and
south of Wreck Island, the last quarter century has seen a general decline in the
rates of beach erosion.

The explanation for the great and long lasting erosion of the southern end of Wreck
Island is unknown, and could be the subject of further investigation. Unlike other
reaches of this coastline, there have been no recent hydrographic surveys in this
area. The hydrographic survey of 1921 was the latest survey found for use in this
investigation. Without adequate bathy-ietric data, to know what has been happening
offshore, or additional information from other sources, it would be difficult to
substantiate any explanation.

TABLE I

Rates of Retreat for the Southern Part of Wreck Island
in Various Time Intervals

Time Number Retreat Rate
Interval Years (ft.) (ft./yr.) Events

1853-1871 18 650 36.1 Great Hurricane of 1865

1871-1911 40 1830 45.8 The "stormy" late 1800's

1911-1942 31 900 29.0 Great storm of 1933

1942-1949 7 200 28.6 The Great Atlantic Hurricane

1949-1974 25 1226 49.0 The 1962 Ash Wednesday Storm

However, some observation can be made, and a hypothesis drawn from them. The
name New InleL implies that this inlet has opened within the historical period of
-modern man's occupation of the islands. The date of that opening would be useful
information. The idea that it is new, implies that Wreck and Ship Shoal Islands
were formerly a single island. New Inlet has widened to more than 4800 feet and
migrated a similar distance since 1853, as both Wreck and Ship Shoal Islands have
retreated rapidly. Since 1853 New Inlet has not been a deep inlet (18 feet is the
maximum channel depth shown on the hydrographic charts). The inlet channel has
shifted over distances as great as the inlet opening. The 1949 aerial photos show
the thalweg (the deepest threat of a channel) of the channel lying against the north
end of Ship Shoal Island. The 1973 aerial photos show the thalweg lying against the
south end of Wreck Island. That is a shift of more than a mile in 24 years. Com-
parison of those photos shows a large number of changes in channels and deposits
within the bay and inlet area. There is a marked increase in flood tide deposits
well back into the bay indicating that large volumes of sand are being trapped at
this inlet, and thus removed from the longshore drift system. A system of bars
has built off the north end of Ship Shoal Island, allowing flood tide deposition
to occur in the inlet opening north of Ship Shoal Marsh. The pattern of the flood
tide deposits in the 1973 photos indicates flood tide flow toward the south end of
the bay, and the channel system that has developed agrees with that.

-264-

It can therefore be advanced as a hypothesis that New Inlet formed during retreat
of a formerly longer barrier island, probably by tapping a large marsh canal or
breaching into a former narrow bay. The new inlet disrupted tidal circulation in
the marsh and to the bay behind it; particularly for the flood tide cycle when the
shorter distance to the bay would allow the middle and late portion of the flood
phase to flood the bay through this inlet faster than it could be flooded through
Sand Shoal Inlet and Ship Shoal Inlet. This situation, combined with the continued
shallow nature of the inlet, would enhance inlet trapping of sand on the flood tide,
I ~and discourage sand removal on the ebb tide. This situation, combined with the conti-
nu~ing. erosion of the south end of Wreck Island, and the northern half of Ship Shoal
Island. If this hypothesis is correct, the inlet should eventually choke itself with
flood tide deposits, and close. But, the unknown element lies offshore in the confi-
guration of the sea bottom. In 1921 the ebb tide delta of Sand Shoal. Inlet lay sea-
ward of Wreck Island and the northern portion of Ship Shoal Island. A small regular
semi-circular ebb tide delta lay off New Inlet, with a depth of less than 10 feet of
I ~water above it. This delta was superimposed on the flank of the south lobe of the
ebb tide delta from Sand Shoal Inlet. In the absence of knowledge of the changes -in
these two ebb tide deltas over the last 54 years, it is impossible to determine with
I ~any degree of certainty what the future holds for Wreck Island and New Inlet.
VI. GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION AN'D INTERPRETATION

Discussion of the geology of the area west of Wreck Island will be deferred at this
time., but will be included in the section of Smith Island. The descriptions and
discussion of the geomorphology and geology given below are done in reference to
the Geological Map of Wreck Island provided with this report.
The older geomorphic units of Wreck Island are found in the marsh west of the upland.
At the very north end of the marsh, just south of the base of the sand spit there is
alarge vestigial tidal channel that is truncated by the barrier island sand deposits,
'but can be traced to the bay at the other end. This channel does not relate to any
inlet or tidal canal shown on the maps and charts used for this study. About 1000
I ~feet south of this channel there are two other vestigial tidal channels that merge
about 500 feet west of the upland to form a larger channel that is truncated at the
upland deposits. Inside the fork where this larger channel splits there is an ancient
I ~inlet island, and where the northern branch of the chani-el split again, farther to the
west, another ancient inlet island is found within that fork. Between this ancient
channel system and the large ancient channel previously described, there is a large
I ~ancient inlet island with numerous ponds that extends west to form the north end of
the marsh. At the south edge of the southern of these two ancient channels there is
a beach ridge extending westward into the marsh, and a vegetated sand flat extends
southward from that between the marsh and the upland beach ridge unit. The sand flat
and beach ridge are the north end of an ancient barrier island that extended off ina
southeasterly direction, and the ancient channels are tidal channels inside of an
ancient inlet.

About 0.4 mile north of the south end of Wreck Island there are a number of areas
marked with the beach ridge symbol. These areas are shown, near the western edge of
the marsh area, but within the marsh. At the north end of these units there is a
large vestigial tida canal about 500 feet wide. This canal is truncated by barrier
.island sand deposits at the'southeast end but runs to the bay at the northwest end.
The margins of the canal are easily recognized on the IR imagery, and they are visible,
I ~but not obvious, on the black and white aerial photos. There is no evidence of this
channel on the maps and charts used for this study, and it is interpreted as an
ancient feature of the marsh. Its size and orientation would indicate that it formerly
I ~drained a large marsh area to the southeast. The beach ridge units south of this
.ancient tidal canal are interpreted as being correlative in time, and therefore, also

-265-

ancient. The origin of the ridges, and what has been interpreted as a sand flat
surrounding them, is unclear. The relationship of the ridges to the sand flat
suggests that their origin might have been as a storm berm or low dunes behind a
beach formed on the marsh by storm waves in the bay. The deep tidal channel
offshore in the bay would have permitted larger waves to develop. Such a beach and
dune ridge can be seen on ChLmney Pole Marsh, and other modern marsh areas, where
storm waves develop in the deep channel waters inside inlets. Similar, but smaller,
features were photographed from the air in July and September 1975 along the margins I
of bays with deep channels near the northwest edge of the marsh. This does not rule
out the possibility that the ridges may be of ancient barrier beach origin, but the
explanation offered fits the existing evidence better. Much of the marsh area is
interpreted as ancient, with younger areas readily discernable among the older features.

The remaining portions of Wreck Island are historical in origin. The remains of the 3
southern half of Bone Island are the oldest of the modern features. The southern sand
spit of Bone Island extends into the marsh in a southwesterly direction at the mid-
point of Wreck Island.

The 1871. shoreline along the eastern and southern sides of Bone Island can be recog-
nized in the beach ridges and is shown on the geologic map. This shoreline is trun-
cated northward at the modern beach. Westward of where this shoreline is truncated,
the 1871 shoreline of the western side of Bone Island can be recognized, and it too
is shown on the map.

These two segments of the 1871 shoreline outline the base of the northern sand spit l
of Bone Island. Midway along the portion of the beach ridge unit that represents
Bone Island will be found two short beach ridge lines that angle west from the trend
of the Bone Island ridges. These ridges and the portion of the beach ridge unit
associated with them are the recurved north end of the ancient barrier island that
is truncated by the Bone Island deposits.

East of the 1871 shoreline a portion of the 1911 shoreline car, be seen. The portion
of the beach ridge unit between these shorelines accreted in that time interval. The
north end of the Bone Island deposits are cut off by a 1942 shoreline, and at the
south end of these deposits another segment of the 1942 shoreline scallops into de-
posits that were built onto Bone Island Inlet at the north side. Beginning with the
narrow beach ridge and the active sand dune area behind the southern portion of this
1942 shoreline, and running south, the deposits of the barrier island all date from
the time of that shoreline, or a later time. All of the active sand dune area shown
has been overwashed and rebuilt one or more times.

At the middle of the island, in the hollow cut by the 1942 shoreline, there is a seg- I
ment of the 1962 shoreline. On the island, at the south end of this 1962 shoreline
there is a strange berm-like feature, three to four feet high and as wide as a
roadway, that is composed mostly of oyster shells (McCaffrey, 1975, personal communi-
cation). This feature is about 900 feet long, and on the IR imagery it can be seen
to splay out in spit-like extensions at the north end. Because the feature was not
examined when the island was visited in September 1975, it is not possible to comment !
on its origin, but its presence and association with the 1962 shoreline should be in-
cluded here.

At the north end of Wreck Island the present sand spit has grown since 1962 when an
ephemeral inlet at its base was closed. The ephemeral inlet had opened in the early
1950's and first appeared on the 1955 hydrographic chart. Its position is indicated
on the geologic map.

-266-

VII. GEOLOGIC HISTORY AND INTERPRETATION

Not much geologic history can be drawn from the scanty ancient geomorphology that
remains on Wreck Island. There is evidence for an ancient inlet north of an ancient
barrier island in the marsh at the north end of Wreck Island. In the marsh at the
south end of the island there is evidence of an ancient marsh and canal system that
extended far to the south and east. Together, these two sets of ancient features
are related to a barrier island that ran southeastward from the position of the
rennant near the north end of the marsh behind Wreck Island. It is most probably
that this ancient barrier correspond in age with similar ones found on other islands,
and represents the position of the barrier chain before a period of progradation.
Certainly, the 1853 charts show that there was more than a mile of marsh seaward
of the ancient tidal canal at the south end of Wreck Island, and that ancient tidal
canal was not shown on those charts. The modern erosion of that marsh has destroyed
any further evidence of the earlier history of Wreck Island.

-267-

SHIP SHOAL ISLAND AND GODWIN ISLAND

I. DESCRIPTIVE GEOGRAPHY

~hip Shoal Island is the ninth island from the north end of the Virginia Barrier
Island Group, and the seventh island from the north in the area covered by this
study. Godwin Island is the name given to the western portion of the marsh on the
landward side of Ship Shoal Island. The tidal canal which clearly divided God-
win Island from Ship Shoal Island until the 1940's has since filled in, leaving
no clear physical boundary between the two islands. Ship Shoal Island is sepa-
rated from Wreck Island on the north by New Inlet, and from Myrtle Island to
the south by Ship Shoal Inlet. Ship Shoal and Godwin Islands are located due
east of the town of Cape Center on U.S. Interstate 13 on the mainland.

Access to the island is by boat, and except near high tide, should be made only
by way of Main Ship Shoal Channel and Black Rock Channel because of the shallow
depths in South Bay. Mockhorn Island, which lies west of Ship Shoal Island,
blocks any direct route to the island by boat, and Main Ship Shoal Channel is
the only deep channel that leads to the island. Main Ship Shoal Channel con-
nects into Smith Island Bay, 2.5 miles from the mainland coast. At the mainland
coast there are a number of landings and boat launch areas that can be reached
from Virginia Route 600. East of the town of Townsend thereare three private
landings; Steelman's Landing, Bull's Landing, and Cushman's Landing. There are
also two public landings on the Intracoastal Waterway southeast of Cape Charles
Air Force Station; Dixon's Dock and another located on Raccoon Creek. Persons
unfamiliar with this passage and the waters of Magothy Bay and Smith Island Bay
would be well advised to hire the services of a local waterman to serve as guide.

Ship Shoal Island is the smallest island included in this study. It is 1.72
miles long, inlet to inlet, but along the curved beach the length is 1.85 miles.
The width of the upland barrier island varies from a minimum of 500 ft. just south
of the north end of the island to about 1500 ft. at the north end, and more than
2500 ft. at the south end. Including Godwin Island, the marsh area extends about
2.8 miles to the west southwest of the island with a north-south width that averag-
es 1.15 miles. A small bay on the north side of the marsh breaks the regularity
of the width of the marsh and serves to give an approximate division between Ship
Shoal and Godwin Islands.

At the north inlet, Ship Shoal Island is 7.8 miles off the mainland coast, and
at the south end the distance is 7.36 miles. At its farthest point from the main-
land, the seaward beach is 8 miles out. The orientation of the island follows more
closely that of the other islands to the south, and to the north of Cobb Island.
However, the northern third of the island curves toward Sand Shoal Inlet and forms
part of the indentation that Wreck and Cobb Islands make in the seaward face of
the barrier chain. The trend of the southern shoreline of the island is more para-
llel to the main trend of the barrier chain..

In the area to the west of the island, between the island and the mainland, the
mass of Mockhorn Island divides the bay area and isolates Ship Shoal Island from
the mainland. South Bay occupies the area between Ship Shoal and Godwin Islands,
and Mockhorn Island. No channels cross this shallow bay, which limits boat access
to the island. Black Rock Channel connects from Main Ship Shoal Channel to New
Inlet around the west edge of Godwin Island and the north side of Ship Shoal Is-
land. This channel permits access to oyster houses on Godwin Island, to the marsh
areas, and to the south end of Wreck Island. Near the north end of Ship Shoal
Island there are also a number of small marsh islands established on flood tide
deltas inside of New Inlet.

-268-

Along the western edge of South Bay, Mockhorn Island runs from north to south.
Mockhorn Island varies from a mile, to more than two miles, in width in this
area and consists almost entirely of marsh. There is a low, sandy, partially
forested ridge following the axis of the island near the middle, and other low
sandy ridges within the marsh. A point of interest to this section on Mockhorn
Island is a man-made ditch, Stringer's Ditch, which has been dug through the
main sandy ridge of the island to connect large tidal canals on either side of
the ridge. This has obviously been done to provide small boat passage, across
Mockhorn Island between Magothy Bay and South Bay. it has also connected two
previously isolated tidal basins. The construction of the ditch is known to
have occurred between 1942 and the beginning of 1949, but the exact date is not
known.

The north end of Magothy Bay lies between Mockhorn Island and the mainland. The
bay averages about 1.8 miles wide and is deeper than South Bay. Small tidal
flats are shown around the margin of Magothy Bay. At the very north end of the
bay, marsh areas from the mainland and from Mockhorn Island reach out to close
the bay except for Mockhorn Channel which connects through to Mockhorn Bay to
the north. The Inland Waterway passes through this channel into Magothy Bay.
The mainland coast lies behind the narrow marsh on the west side of this bay.

II. PHYSIOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION

In the western half of the area described with Ship Shoal and Godwin Islands,
the physiographic units are the southward extensions of the units previously
described with Wreck Island. Those descriptions are referred to in the following
text where they are applicable, and significant changes are noted.

The mainland coast in this area still coincides with the Mappsburg Scarp and the
beach at its base. However, the steepness of the Mappsburg Scarp diminishes
rapidly along this 2.5 mile length of coastline, and west of Ship Shoal Inlet it
begins to lose its identity as an escarpment. The former shoreline found a half
mile off shore at Oyster, lies a quarter mile off the mainland shore west of
Ship Shoal Inlet. The only evidence of it on the topographic map is indirect;
in the form of influence on the pattern of thelarger tidal canals in the marsh
between the mainland and Magothy Bay. However, on the black and white aerial
photograph the linear pattern of this old shoreline can be readily followed
through the marsh area. The ridges that run along the length of Mockhorn Island
are most strongly developed in this section. The main ridge lies about a half
mile east of Magothy Bay, and is clearly shown on the U.S.G.S. Topographic Map.
This ridge is up to a quarter of a mile wide and forested on the higher elevations.
The topographic map shows lesser ridges lying both east and west of the main
ridge. East of the main ridge, these lesser ridges continue to the shoreline of
South Bay, into the marsh that extends east around the southwest corner of the
bay and on out to White Perch Channel.

Godwin Island displays no noticeable physiography. It is a marsh island. Along
the northern shore there is some higher ground in the marsh, where elevations reach
24 to 30 inches above mean sea level. Large areas of Godwin Island are occupied
by shallow ponded areas of mudflats, and most of the marsh contains smaller areas
of pond or mudflat (characteristic of low, young, or drowned, marsh areas). Ship
Shoal Island has two physiographic provinces, a marsh area that is continuous with
Godwin Island, and the upland barrier island deposits. In the marsh area near the

-269-

north end of the island, there are four roughly circular ponded areas or de-
pressions. These are interpreted as unfilled portions of former large tidal
channels. Near the north end of the marsh, and near the middle of the. island
there are two broad, low, crescent shaped ridges with ponds in them. Near the
west edge of the marsh, at the northeast end of the small bay, there is another
short low ridge unit oriented nearly east-west. These ridge units are all in-
terpreted as old inlet deposits. Near the middle of the island a remnant of an
old beach ridge stands in the marsh. South and southwest of this, other remnants
of -that beach ridge occur.

The upland barrier island deposits are nearly all found at the south end of the
island. Here a large northeast trending beach ridge unit begins at the edge of
the marsh and extends northeast to the shoreline. At the south end of the island
a small dune field is established on a sequence of recently formed berms. The
ridges in the beach ridge unit are all truncated where they meet the seaward
facing beach, and they do not extend north of the midpoint of the island. Along
the northern half of the island, the beach is being actively washed back and the
upland barrier deposits consist of overwash fans, new dunes, and a recent berm
(see Figure 66a). Two east-west marsh canals have been overrun by the retreat-
ing beach, and these canals are visible seaward of the beach where they run through
extensive peat outcroppings. This is shown in Figure 66b. Ephemeral inlets open
and close at the ends of these canals (one appears at the northernmost canal, Fig-
ure 66a). At the north end of the island, along New Inlet, the marsh has been
overwashed and buried beneath a large overwash fan. Also, a former sand spit
has been driven in over the north edge of the marsh to form a low beach ridge
with a recurving sand spit at the west end of it. A new sand spit, which recurves
west into the inlet, has formed at the north end of the island. Along the northern
half of the island the active beach is narrow, and there are outcroppings of peat
extending 125 to 200 ft. into the surf zone. Near the midpoint of the island the
peat outcroppings end, and the active beach is a little wider. Only near the south
end of the island the beach ridges also run back along the north shore of Ship
Shoal Inlet for more than a mile, and accretion along the beach at the south end
of the island carries well back into the inlet.

II. SHORELINE CHANGES

The effect of shoreline changes on Ship Shoal Island has been unlike that on any
of the islands previously described in this study. The shape of the island has
changed frequently and rapidly, whereas other islands have changed shape more
gradually and more systematically.

The short length of this island contributes considerably to this pattern of rapid
changes in the shape of the island. A change that affects only one portion of the
island is immediately reflected as a change in the shape of the island. On longer
islands, similar changes would have less effect on the overall shape. Another con-
sequence of the short length of the island is the near absence of an ocean-front
beach that is free of the effect of inlet processes. Almost the entire length of
Ship Shoal Island is under the influence of the inlets at each end. Due to the
absence of a reach of ocean beach, the role of a wave driven longshore transport
system in shaping the island is reduced, which accentuates the role that is played
by i.nlet processes.

However, something other than the short length of the island is also involved in
the changes in shape of the island. If only retreat of the island and inlet pro-
cesses were operating, then there should be some systematic character to the shape
changes. There is no immediately apparent system for these changes as Figures 67

-270-

a, North end of Ship Shoal Island where beach retreat
has been very rapid in recent years. Note peat out-
crops in beach and truncated marsh canals. Flood
tide deposits at New Inlet form line of small islands.

b. Close-up view of truncated marsh canal shown near
center of photo (a). Retreat of the island at
this location has exceeded 190 ft./yr. since 1963.

FIGURE 66: Northern Half of Ship Shoal Island
I~~~~~~~~~~''~"

I~~~~~~~~~~~.. -,.: ~:i~..
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~!

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ '''"'''

FIGURE 67.
SHORELINE CHANGES
ON SHIP SHOAL ISLAND;
1871-1963

WRECK kt

,t ** / . i
ri/p... * ,...

.J t /,j IL, - I . . I
SHIP SHOAL .

A-a', o 1 2 miles

-- '1955
.............. 1934
1871

o272-
-2'72-

and 68 illustrate. The pattern of shoreline positions is confusing and difficult
to follow or interpret. Byrne's (1972) Historical Shoreline Positions Map shows
seven shoreline positions on a single overlay that is even more difficult to fol-
low. None of these presentations reveals any pattern for the movement of the
shoreline. Only the shoreline changes of the last quarter century (figure 69)
show any systematic shift, and that illustration is deceptive because the shore-
line advanced and retreated again between 1949 and 1968. The additional factors
involved in the shoreline changes are not revealed, or suggested by the standard
presentation of data.

A. Tabular Presentation of Data

In the process of trying to understand the shoreline changes and to interpret
them in terms of what was happening to the island, the data was organized in
a different manner. Table II shows this data presented in a tabular form, or
matrix arrangement. The table is arranged so that data for each observation
period appears in a single column under the terminal date of the observation
period. The columns are arranged with the oldest on the left hand column.
Arrows and lines are used in the table to graphically present direction of
movement of the shoreline, and the position or shape of features. The numbers
shown in the table tell the magnitude of the change in feet. The changes given
for any period are net changes during the period, and do not reflect reversals
or variations that occurred during the period. Presented in this manner it is
possible to scan any row in the table to determine what has happened at one lo-
cation during the historical period of this study. Similarly, for any date,
the changes down the length of the island appear in a single column that can be
scanned easily.

A quick scan across any row in Table II reveals part of the difficulty with
analyzing the changes. Retreat and advance have alternated along every section
of the beach, but some sections have experienced two alternations, others three,
or four. The north end of the island has lengthened, shortened, and sometimes
shifted west. The facing and width of Ship Shoal Inlet have changed, but with
no clear relationship to movements of the south end of Ship Shoal Island or the
north end of Myrtle Island. Comparisons of one column to another indicates that
in some time intervals one part of the island retreated, while another advanced.
During other periods of time, the whole beach advanced or retreated as a unit,
but not uniformly. Although Table II makes it easier to visualize the shoreline
changes it, too, does not immediately reveal a pattern or explanation for the
changes.

B. Bathymetric Data

It is only when Table I is used in conjunction with the offshore bathymetry that
a pattern begins to emerge. Unfortunately, that bathymetry is not very complete.
Hydrographic surveys (U.S.C. & G.S.) of the area were suspended after the 1921
survey. Earlier surveys were not always complete. The survey of 1852 defined
the bathymertry of Ship Shoal Inlet and New Inlet. The 1870 survey redefined
Ship Shoal Inlet, but only approached New Inlet. The 1911 survey did not in-
clude New Inlet, but did resurvey Ship Shoal Inlet. Lastly, the 1921 survey
redefined the outer edge of the ebb tide delta at New Inlet, but it ignored the
inlet channels. Altogether these surveys do provide enough data to verify that
the shoreline changes on Ship Shoal Island are dominated by inlet processes. These
surveys, together with the shoreline changes shown on the hydrographic charts, also
provide strong evidence that the north end of Myrtle Island is part of the ebb
tide delta at Ship Shoal Inlet.

-273-

FIGURE 68.
SHORELINE CHANGES
ON SHIP SHOAL ISLAND ,,
1911- 1960 \

WRECK

/ .- i

SHIP SHOAL ,/]7. _

g A /<Yt,' /

� X~j~'-) ~"'- I , I , umj

MYRTLE ;-...._ � 1 ,.,mies

1960
1946
.......... 1929

-274-

2~~Al �F s'', Ill

FIGURE 69.
"' SHORELINE CHANGES
I% r ON SHIP SHOAL ISLAND;
<8 id 1949 - 974

fi,~~f
' $
7 /

It
r, r'~I
ItI

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. v

/
O r I~~~~~~

I -

-27 5-

ITEM OR POSITION 1871 1911 1929 1955 1963 1968 1974 975
ON ISLAND 21 TABLE3I

NORTH END 1500t 890 11450 X K901133 |340
IT I _ iP-s i3 s SHIP SHOAL ISLAND

SHAPE OF I _
NORTH END OF /\ Summary of shore',ne
changes; 4852-1975.
8 1740
NORTH END 0 980 North is at lop of page.
OCEAN BEACH 0 3 0 Arrows indicate direction
_.53 1680 I of movement. Lines show

1020 450 980 710 444 800 I compass orientation.
(/4 SOUTH - - .. . . .- - - -
Numbers are in feet.
0 1100 1780 533 444 810 1160 350
1/2 SOUTH - - .

3/4 SOUTH 870 2133 1333 533 0 340

SOUTH END 915 25 1644 1200 0 560 330
OCEAN BEACH "- -- - - > - "-

SOUTH INLET / / / /
FACING a WIDTH 2130 3060 1150 2578 2130 450 4214

NORTH END <
MYRTLE ISL. I 150

PFCCESS BEGIN O.S..BA C.W. .C.W. C.C.W. C.C.W.
SU AR Y |ACCRETiON REREAT SOUTH 1/2 T.\RGT. ROT. ROT.

-276-

1853-1871. The 1871 chart shows that the southern lobe of the ebb tide delta at
Sand Shoal Inlet extended south past Wreck Island and curved landward to meet the
beach of Ship Shoal Island about 1.0 mile south of the north end of the island. The
chart also shows that New Inlet had a small, rectangular shaped ebb tide delta that
was superimposed on the margin of the larger south lobe of the ebb tide delta at
Sand Shoal Inlet. This smaller ebb tide delta only reached 0.6 mile seaward, but
lay across New Inlet and the ends of the adjacent islands for 1.9 miles. The south
end of this small ebb tide delta extended 0.5 mile south of the north end of Ship
Shoal Island before it curved in toward the beach. At the south end of Ship Shoal
Island, the ebb tide delta of Ship Shoal Inlet lay, fan-shaped, in front of the in-
let. It had a radius of about two miles. At its northern limit, this ebb tide delta
coalesced with the south lobe of Sand Shoal Inlet ebb tide delta. The two ebb tide
deltas met about a mile south of the north end of Ship Shoal Island, and 0.5 mile
off shore. Thus, in 1871, the entire shoreline of Ship Shoal Island had ebb tide
delta deposits seaward of it, and was under the influence of those deposits and the
processes that were building them.

The 1871 chart also shows a sand bar welded to the north end of Ship Shoal Island
(Table II), and another short sand bar offshore just south of it. An offshore sand
ridge (bar) began south of the short sand bar and paralleled the shore of Ship
Shoal Island for its entire length, extending through the inlet opening to parallel
the north shore of Ship Shoal Channel for 0.75 mile back into the marsh area. The
sand bars and the long offshore sand ridge indicate that at the time of the 1871
survey, Ship Shoal Island was experiencing a period of accretion. Confirmation of
this, and its extent, can be seen readily in the 1911 column of Table II. This
period of accretion appears to have been initiated when the island's entire shoreline
came under the influence of ebb tide delta processes. However, this gives no indica-
tion of what caused this to happen, nor does it explain the shoreline changes that
occurred between 1853 and 1871.

To find an explanation for the shoreline changes prior to 1871, it is necessary to
re-examine the charts for other evidence of changes in the area, Ship Shoal Channel
follows a course of N700E for 3.25 miles through the marsh before it reaches the in-
let area. Depths vary from 30-47 feet along the channel. The channel maintains a
fairly uniform width of over 1600 feet through the marsh. The 1871 chart (see Figure
67) shows the north end of Myrtle Island to be cut off from the rest of Myrtle Island
by a broad curving channel a little over 1600 feet in width. The chart also shows
that this channel was being closed by the northward growth of a sand spit at the
seaward end. The 1888 shoreline (Bryne, 1972) shows that the ephemeral inlet was
open still, but the 191.1 chart indicates that it had closed prior to the 1911 survey.
The shape, width, and position of this channel on the 1871. chart clearly indicates
that, for a time prior to the 1871 survey, most of the tidal circulation at Ship
Shoal Inlet must have passed through this channel.

In 1871 Ship Shoal Channel was oriented N730E where it passed through the inlet
opening, and it lay 0.25 to 0.5 mile off the shore ef the southern third of Ship
Shoal Island. This effectively made that whole end of Ship Shoal Island the shore
of the inlet. Seaward, the channel turned to follow a course of N1300E and discharged
to the southeast. This course had the channel lying 0.25 mile north of the northern
tip of Myrtle Island, where it turned sharply to discharge to the southeast. That
channel position placed the detached north end of Myrtle Island ip a location where
it was effectively a part of the south lobe of the ebb tide delta. The partially
abandoned channel across the north end of Myrtle Island, when it was in use, would
have allowed Ship Shoal Channel to discharge to the sea 1.1 miles farther south,
The orientation of this channel (N15550E) is such that it would have kept inlet
currents away from Ship Shoal Island and put Myrtle Island under their influence
instead. Thus, while this channel was functioning, the southern two-thirds of Ship

-277-

Shoal Island would have been more under the influence of waves and a wave driven
longshore transport system than under the influence of inlet currents. Table II
shows that the southern half of Ship Shoal Island eroded severely in the 18 years
between 1853 and 1871, but the northern half, which had remained under the influence
of inlet processes, had built seaward by more than 1000 feet. (The retreat of the
north end of the island was due to the loss of a sand spit at New Inlet.) The seaward
beach at the very northern end of Myrtle Island retreated by a similar amount during
the same span of time.

The temporary inlet across the north end of Myrtle Island developed after 1853. The
1853 shoreline (Byrne, 1972) shows an ephemeral inlet near the south end of the is-
land that connected to Ship Shoal Channel, but that is not the inlet or channel
shown on the 1871 chart. It is not known when the larger channel developed, but by
1871, it was already beginning to close, and Ship Shoal Channel was again lying off
the shore of Ship Shoal Island. It would therefore seem that the erosion of the
southern half of Ship Shoal Island had occurred rapidly during the shore lifetime
of the wide ephemeral inlet across the north end of Myrtle Island.

1871-1911. Hydrographic surveys were carried out in 1911 for Sand Shoal Inlet and
Ship Shoal Inlet. The bathmetry for Little Inlet that appears on the 1911 chart was
determined during the hydrographic survey of 1888. New Inlet was not resurveyed.
The 1911 chart shows that the shoreline of Ship Shoal Island had advanced seaward
during the forty years following the 1871 survey, and Table II summarizes the shore-
line changes. Accretion was greatest near the south end of the island, where the
island had been brought back under the influence of Ship Shoal inlet. Accretion
diminished toward the north end of the island where the influence of Ship Shoal
Inlet declined and the influence of New Inlet and Sand Shoal Inlet was greater.

The Bathymetry offshore of Ship Shoal Island shows that the south lobe of the ebb
tide delta from Sand Shoal Inlet merged at the 2 fathom depth, with the north lobe
of the ebb tide delta from Ship Shoal Inlet, midway along Ship Shoal Island. In
shallower water, the ebb tide delta at New Inlet still influenced the northern
0.75 mile of the island, but because it was not resurveyed, its role over that of
the Sand Shoal Inlet ebb tide delta is unknown. At Ship Shoal Inlet some signifi-
cant changes had occurred. The north lobe of the ebb tide delta had been reduced
in size at depths shallower than 12 feet, and the north edge of the shallow portion
of the ebb tide delta ran southeast from the south end of Ship Shoal Island. The
apex of the ebb tide delta (at 2 fathoms) had lain off the midpoint of Ship Shoal
Island in 1871. By 1911 it lay off the midpoint of Myrtle Island, and the south
lobe of the delta curved in to meet Myrtle Island near its south end. Along the
apex, the delta had grown seaward by about 300 yards. The bend in Ship Shoal
Channel, where it turned seaward from the course it followed through the marsh,
had migrated southwest by 3900 feet. The turn had formerly occurred out on the
ebb tide delta, seaward of Ship Shoal Island. In 1911 the channel turned at the
inlet, at the south end of Ship Shoal Island. The channel across the ebb tide
delta had become more defined and discharged southeast instead of nearly south.
The north end of Myrtle Island had retreated 1100 feet to the west. The changes
in the offshore bathymetry indicate a change in the manner by which the inlet pro-
cesses affected Ship Shoal Island. The removal of most of the north lobe of the
ebb tide delta at Ship Shoal Inlet indicates the onset of erosion, or scour, by
currents along the lobe of the delta. This eventually would be accompanied by
retreat of the beach along Ship Shoal island, and by deposition on the south lobe
of the ebb tide delta; with accompanying growth of Myrtle Island. The changes had
probably already begun by 1911, but their effects weren't apparent until the 1921
hydrographic survey revealed them. Table II (1929) shows those changes.

-278-

1911-1921. The hydrographic survey of 1921 was the last survey conducted (by the
U.S.C. & G.S.) in this area. Only the outer portion of Little Inlet arid Ship Shoal
Inlet was resurveyed, but the entire ebb tide delta at New Inlet was resurveyed.
The ebb tide delta at New Inlet had grown somewhat from what was indicated by
earlier bathymetry, but it was still small. Most of the growth was in an easterly
direction, which made the ebb tide delta more radial and less rectangular in shape.
The south lobe extended more than a mile south of the north end of Ship Shoal Island.
At Ship Shoal Inlet the bathymetry indicates that the ebb tide delta had maintained
its position at the apex, but that the channel across it had turned toward the south,
and the outer part of the delta was growing southward. The south lobe had also grown
until it merged with the ebb tide delta at Little Inlet at the south end of Myrtle
Island. The north lobe of the Ship Shoal Inlet ebb tide delta, inshore, had grown
in front of Ship Shoal Island to merge with the New Inlet ebb tide delta at the
midpoint of the island. The lack of bathymetric data for most of the area around
Ship Shoal Inlet makes it difficult to interpret other inshore changes in the ebb
tide delta. The slight inshore growth of the north lobe of the ebb tide delta
suggests that scour by inlet currents had been reduced along the southern half of
Ship Shoal Island. A continued change in that direction could account for the
lessened erosion in the subsequent time period. Similarly, the accretion of the
northern half of the island subsequent to 1929 could be interpreted as indicating
continued growth of the ebb tide delta at New Inlet. However, without additional
bathymetry there is no way that subsequent shoreline changes can be related to
inlet processes and changes in them. The existing bathymetry has been adequate
to demonstrate that shoreline changes on Ship Shoal Island are controlled by inlet
processes.

IV. SUMMARY

A. Ship Shoal

Shoreline changes to Ship Shoal Island have been erratic, frequently rapid, and
therefore difficult to evaluate. Net changes during the historical period can
be calculated, however, and they indicate that the island has retreated an average
of 2200 feet over the past 122 years. That figure yields an averaged annual
retreat of 18.1 ft./yr. The effect of the inlets can be seen when the figures
at each of the observation points are examined. Most of the westward retreat
of the north end of the island has occurred since the early 1960's. By 1975
that retreat had reached about 2600 feet. Averaged for the last 13 years (since
1962) the retreat of the north end of the island has been at a rate of 200 ft./yr.
However, the retreat from 1974 to 1975 exceeded 350 feet. All of the southward
retreat of the north end of the island took place prior to 1963. That retreat
amounted to 1240 feet, and averaged 11.25 ft./yr. for the 110 year period. There
has been no southward retreat of the north end of the island since 1963.

Away from New Inlet, one-quarter of the way down the island, the shoreline is
still under the influence of the inlet. Retreat here was only 886 feet during
the historical period, although fluctuations of over 1000 feet have occurred
during that time span. Averaged for the 122 year period, this part of the island
retreated at a rate of 7.25 ft./yr. At the midpoint of the island retreat occurred
at a rate of 16.6 ft./yr., and three-quarters of the way south retreat was 15.9
ft./yr. The south end, like the north end, showed a greater retreat; more than
3700 feet at an averaged rate of 30.3 ft./yr.

It should be noted that erosion has been occurring rapidly since the mid-1960's.
Retreat at the midpoint of the island has been at the rate of 193.3 ft./yr.
since 1963 and at lesser, but still rapid, rates elsewhere on the island, except
near the north end. This retreat has been affecting the entire length of the

-279-

island and is similar in nature to the retreat that occurred between 1911 and-
1929. The 1973 aerial photographs show the reason for this. In 1973, the channel f
at New Inlet lay against the south end of Wreck Island nearly'a mile away from -
the north end of Ship Shoal Island, and at Ship Shoal Inlet the main channel
turned south along the beach of Myrtle Island. With the inlet channels turned
away from Ship Shoal Island, the island is subject to scouring inlet currentsI
during the flood tide cycle, and, as before, the beach is eroding rapidly.
-There is no way of predicting how long this condition will persist, but retreat
of the island will continue until conditions change at the inlets.I

B. Godwin Island

Before concluding this section on shoreline changes, a statement should be
included regarding the marsh area of Godwin Island and the marsh at the southwest
end of Ship Shoal Island. This marsh area is unlike that associated with nearby3
islands, because of the changes that have been occurring within the marsh. OnU
the IR imagery much of the marsh appears to be drowned. Tidal canals have
shifted position or disappeared entirely. The canal which separated Ship Shoal
and Godwin Islands has disappeared, without a trace, as have other canals shown I
on the early charts. The large tidal canal which enters that marsh from the
north end of Godwin Island is building natural levees and deltas into the marsh.
A strip of marsh parallel to the north shore of Godwin Island has been broadly
overwashed with sediment from the north, and a low ridge has built up above high
tide level all along that shore. Within that strip of marsh former tidal canals
have been blocked off, and partially filled. The sediment being deposited in the
marsh is sand being swept in through New Inlet. These features make this partU
of the marsh very different from the portion of the marsh west of Ship Shoal Is-
land, or the marsh on other nearby islands.i

C. Geomorphic Description and Interpretation

This discussion of the geology of the area west of Ship Shoal and Godwin Islands
will be deferred at this time, and included in the section on Smith Island. This-
was also done with the area west of Wreck Island. The descriptions of the geo-
morphic units and geologic history given below are made in reference to the Geo-
logic Map of Ship Shoal Island included with this report.
The oldest geomorphic features are located in the marsh west of the seaward
facing beach of Ship Shoal Island. Two crescent shaped areas are mapped asI
former inlet deposits or inlet islands. The southernmost of these is located
west of the midpoint of the island and has two small beach ridge areas on it near
the western edge. These beach ridge units align with two other beach ridge units
about 0.2 mile south, and with other units further south which were too small to
map. This line of beach ridge units is roughly parallel to the modern shoreline,
but they are the oldest geomorphic units on the island. The area mapped as inlet
deposits at the north end of the line of beach ridge units probably marks the north
end of an old barrier island. At the north end, these recurve into the marsh
and the sand spit trails off into a natural levee across the'marsh. A modern
tidal canal parallels the main levee, but it is believed that a large canalI
formerly occupied the site. The south end of this unit was cut off long ago, and
the marsh behind it has not filled in. It is believed that this unit and the line
of beach ridge units are related. The northern area, mapped as inlet deposits,
is a separate unit of about the same age. These units are believed to be the
only ancient deposits on the island.

In the marsh along Ship Shoal Channel at the south end of Ship Shoal Island,I
there are two parallel beach ridge units. The northernmost of these ridge units

-280-

predates the hsitorical part of this study by an unknown. span of time. It is
shown, in place, on the 1871 charts. It is old, but not ancient, and probably
predates the historical period by a century or more. At the north end of this
beach ridge unit there is another, broader, beach ridge unit which cuts across
this unit with a more northerly trend. This latter unit is breached at two lo-
cations, and truncated at the south end by a pre-1871 shoreline. At the north
end it is cut off by the modern shoreline. At the south end this unit consists
of a single ridge, but midway a second ridge merges with it from the north.
This beach ridge unit also predates 1853, but it is younger than the first unit.

At the south end of Ship Shoal Island, on Ship Shoal Channel, a beach ridge unit
lies along the north edge of the channel. The main ridge on the northern side
of this unit is the offshore ridge shown on the 1871 chart. This ridge line
can be traced northeastward until it is cut off by the modern beach. The deposits
south and east of this ridge are all post-1871 in their deposition. It is be-
lieved that the short east-west ridges relate to the period of rapid progradation
of the island between 1871 and 1911. All other features along the shoreline are
quite recent in origin because the very rapid retreat of the island during the
past twelve years has removed most features formed during this century.

D. Geologic History and Interpretation

Even less geologic history can be learned from the geomorphic units of this
island than could be learned on Wreck Island. The units that have been inter-
preted as ancient are so incomplete as to be of little certain value. The
changing character of the marsh area has not helped in preserving ancient fea-
tures. Erosion during the past century or more has destroyed any more complete
ancient features that would have lain seaward of the modern beach. Therefore,
it is only possible to establish that there are ancient beach features in the
marsh area of Ship Shoal Island and that the island has, in the distant past,
prograded eastward of these features. It is not possible to even estimate how
far eastward progradation may have advanced the island.

The beach ridge unit that predates 1853 by a century or more, and the younger
beach ridges that also predate 1853 all relate to the modern period of retreat
of the island. The parallelism of these beach ridge units with similar features
formed after 1853 is strong evidence that the changes in the inlet channels and
ebb tide deltas (that were previously described) are cyclic in nature. Along
Ship Shoal Channel the position of the 1871 beach ridge south of the older beach
ridge indicates that Ship Shoal Channel had migrated south between the formation
of the first ridge and the formation of the second. If the changes in the inlet
channel and the ebb tide delta are somewhat cyclic in nature, and if Ship Shoal
Channel continues to migrate south, then a third ridge unit might be expected to
develop in the future.

MYRTLE ISLAND AND MINK ISLANDI

I. DESCRIPTIVE GEOGRAPHY

Myrtle Island is the tenth island from the north end of the Virginia
Barrier Island Group, and the eighth island from the north in the area
covered by this study. It is also the third island from the southern
end of the barrier island group. Mink Island is the name given to the
contiguous marsh area immediately west of Myrtle Island. Mink Island is
separated from Myrtle Island on the east by the tidal canal, Mink Creek,I
and from Big Creek Marsh to the west by other tidal canals (Big Creek
and Black Rock Channel). Myrtle Island is separated from Ship Shoal
Island on the north by Ship Shoal Inlet, and from Smith Island onI
the south by Little Inlet. Myrtle Island is located due east of the towns
of Capeville and Townsend on the mainland.

Access to the island is made by boat. The north shore of both Mink andI
Myrtle Islands face on Ship Shoal Channel, and are accessible throughout
the tidal cycle. The south shore of both islands fronts on Little Inlet
and Mink Island Bay and again can be reached throughout the tidal cycleI
except for northern portions of Mink Island Bay which are tidal flats.
Mockhorn Island lies west of Myrtle Island and blocks-direct passage
from the mainland, so that it is necessary to reach the island by wayI
of Smith Island Bay and various tidal channels. Boat landings and boat
launching ramps that may be used to get to Myrtle Island are the same
as those cited in the discussion of Ship Shoal Island. Bec~ause of shallow
waters and shifting channels, visitors to the island should be advised to
hire the services of a local waterman who is familiar with these waters.

Myrtle Island is another small island, the second smallest in the VirginiaI
Barrier Island Group. From inlet to inlet it measures 2.13 miles, but
along its curved beach it measures 2.65 miles. The width of the upland
barrier island varies from 400 ft. to more than 2000 ft., but the southernI
half of the island averages about-800 ft. in width, and the northern half
about 1100 ft. The marsh area of Myrtle Island averages about 3000 ft.
in width, and there is marsh behind the beach units for the entire length
of the island. The irregularly shaped marsh area of Mink Island runs west
southwest from Myrtle Island for a distance of 2.6 miles. The width of
Mink Island Bay is located along the south edge of the island near the
western end. The appearance of Mink and Myrtle Islands is remarkablyI
like that of Godwin and Ship Shoal Islands in respect to size, shape,
and orientation.

The north end of Myrtle Island, at the inlet, lies 7.2 miles off the main-
land coast, while the south end of the island, at the inlet, is only 6.4
miles from the coast. At the point of maximum seaward curvature, the beach
is 7.8 miles from the coast. The island lies with its axis parallel to,
and coincident with, the seaward face of the barrier chain. The island
is far enough removed from Sand Shoal Inlet so that it is not influenced
by the processes that are responsible for the coastal indentation at thatI
inlet.

-282-

The area between Mink Island, Myrtle Island, and the mainland is occilpied
by marsh which extends west to Magothy Bay. Magothy Bay is a long, narrow
bay lying parallel to the mainland to the west of Ship Shoal, Myrtle, and
Smith Islands. It averages about 1.7 miles in width and is more than 9.0
miles long, The bay is separated from the mainland by a narrow (1000-1500
ft.) strip of marsh. The Inland Waterway follows a channel through this
bay. The marsh area falls into two distinct units, Big Creek Marsh lies
immediately west of Mink Island and is separated from it by Big Creek
tidal channel. This channel connects from Main Ship Shoal Channel to
Mink Island Bay Channel. Main Ship Shoal Channel separates Big Creek Marsh
from the broad marsh area of Mockhorn Island to the west. The three marsh
areas, Mink, Big Creek, and Mockhorn, occupy about 70 percent of the area
west of Myrtle Island.

PHYSIOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION

The physiographic units in the western half of the area between Mink Island
and the mainland, are the southward extension of units whose descriptions
were begun previously in the section dealing with Wreck Island, and con-
tinued in the section on Ship Shoal Island. Those earlier descriptions
are cited here for reference.

The mainland coast west of Myrtle Island is coincident with the base
of Mappsburg Scarp, as it is to the northwest of Wreck and Ship Shoal Is-
lands. However, the terrace riser slopes up more gently to the terrace
surface in this area, and the feature is less dominant in the topography.
The former beach at the base of the Mappsburg Scarp forms the mainland shore
at the western edge of the tidal marsh. The eastern edge of the marsh
along the western side of Magothy Bay near Townsend is an ancient shoreline
that has been traced southward in the physiographic descriptions of Wreck
and Ship Shoal Islands. On the 1949 black and white aerial photograph
(ANP-2E-30), features of this ancient shoreline are clearly visible in
the marsh along the mainland from Dunton Cove to south of Cushman's Land-
ing. Northeast of Townsend, at Dunton Cove, the line of this beach is
broken by the cove and a semicircular ribbon of marsh that encircles
the cove on the north and east sides. The size and shape of the pattern
formed by the ribbon of marsh and the edge of the tidal flat at the south
side of Dunton Cove indicate that this feature is a drowned Carolina Bay.
Similar bays are seen on the adjacent mainland. This drowned Carolina Bay
is clearly visible on the 1949 and 1973 black and white aerial photographs.
A larger and more distinct Carolina Bay is found on Mockhorn Island due
east of Bull's Landing on the mainland. Both of these Carolina Bays
clearly disrupt the ancient beach ridges where they are located, and are,
therefore, younger than the ancient beach ridges. To the north, in the
area west of Cobb Island, Hog Island, and the southern part of Parramore
Island, the most ancient beach ridges are disrupted by other Carolina Bays.
The very ancient beach ridges are apparently of early Wisconsin age, which
would indicate that the time of formation of the Carolina Bays is more
recent than the early Wisconsin.

East of Magothy Bay, in the marsh of Mockhorn Island, there are a number
of drowned ancient beach ridges. The most strongly developed of these
ancient r~idges forms the eastern shore of Magothy Bay in the area west
of Myrtle Island. At its north end this ridge can be traced northward
into the marsh of Mockhorn Island, but at the south end it disappears
beneath the waters of the bay. There are forested areas on higher ground
along this ridge. The forested ridge described in the section on Ship
Shoal Island has a gap over 2100 ft. in width in this area. It lies 1000
ft. or more east of the ridge that forms the shore of Magothy Bay. The
portion of the ridge south of the gap is lower in elevation and only small
areas of it are forested. At the south end this ridge declines in elevationI
and disappears in the marsh of Mockhorn Island. East of this ridge there
are several other lesser ridges. The easternmost of these ridges merges
to the south with the next ridge to the west. The angle between theI
ridges is 100. The aerial photographs show that all of the ridges on Mockhorn
Island diverge eastward in the northern part of the island, but none as
strongly as the easternmost ridge. From west to east each successive
ridge terminates further to the north. All of these ridges have less than
five feet of relief, and most of them have only 2-3 ft. of relief. On
the U.S.G.S. topographic map of the area they are indicated as sandy areas
in the marsh.
The eastern portion of the marsh of Mockhorn Island, Big Creek Marsh,
and Mink Island do not display any distinctive physiography. There are
a few natural levees in the marsh that indicate former positions of tidal
canals and one that indicates the westward migration of Main Ship Shoal
Channel maintains depths of more than 20 ft. as it passes through this
marsh area to Smith Island Bay. Channel depth rapidly decreases as theI
channel reaches the bay.

The marsh area of Myrtle Island does not contain any features that could-
be interpreted as relating to beach or inlet processes. At the north end
of the marsh there are remnants of former tidal canals, both large and small,
that have been partially filled in by overwash, and all along the seawardI
side of the marsh there are canals that have been cut off by beach retreat.
At the very north end of Mink Island there are two short beach ridge
units that face northeast and their ends are recurved towards the south-
west. It is evident that initially these were a single beach ridgeI
(about 0.4 miles long) that was breached near the middle.

The barrier island deposits of Myrtle Island consist of a beach ridge
unit with several distinct beach ridges at the north end of the island
and along the seaward side; and the active beach. There are peat outcrops
in the beach and surf zone along the seaward facing beach. The beach ridgesI
have been broken by ephemeral inlets in two locations. One of these,
in the short northeast facing beach, at the inlet, has healed and ridges
have grown across the opening. The other, at the north end of the seaward
facing beach, has closed but is still susceptible to overwashing. A broadI
overwash fan has been built into an old channel in the marsh that still
contains water. At both ends of the island the beach ridges curve back

through the inlets and along the inlet channels.

-284-

The active beach is wide, with multiple bermns and bars built in the surf
zone. At the north end of the island, at the inlet, a ridge and runnel
has been added to the island, and all along the seaward side of the is-
I ~ ~land a bar lies 400-500 ft. off the beach. At the south end of the beach
a sand spit has grown back into the inlet. All of these characteristics
of the beach indicate that in 1974 Myrtle Island was, and had been, ac-
creting.

Figure 70a shows the north end of Myrtle Island at Ship Shoal Inlet as
it appeared in July 1975. The northeast facing beach is at the right
I ~ ~and the seaward facing beach is at the bottom. The beach ridges stand
out sharply in the area behind the beach. The p)artially closed ephemeral
inlet that is still subject to overwash can be seen behind the beach at
I ~ ~the lower left of the picture. The older ephemeral inlet that has closed
can be located at the center of the picture. A ridge and runnel has been
added to the northeast facing beach sometime after June 1974. An older
ridge and runnel appears as the whiter beach and dark area inshore from
the newer runnel. The body of water at the left center is the unfilled
portion of a large channel that was cut through the island between 1853
and 1871 when Ship Shoal Channel formed an ephemeral inlet south of the
I ~ ~present inlet. Overwash fans have been built into this channel from the
two smaller ephemeral inlets. Near the upper left two small beach ridges
can be seen at the north end of Mink Island.

Figure 70b shows Ship Shoal Inlet and the north end of Myrtle Island. A
surf line offshore outlines the shallower portions of the ebb tide delta,
and illustrates the asymmetry to the right (south). The place where the
south end of the surf line curves in toward the beach indicates the location
on Myrtle Island that separates the section of beach under the influence
of the inlet (to the left) from the section of beach under the influence
I ~ ~of a wave driven longshore'drift system (right). The abrupt change in the
orientation of the beach just north of that location, and a scallop cut.
in the beach at the location, are characteristic features associates with
this situation. The same features can be seen on Wreck, Cobb, Hog, and
Parramore Islands. Another characteristic feature associated with this
location on thin barrier islands, is that the scallop is a site for ovcrwas'h
or the development of ephemeral inlets. Both have occurred at this location
on Myrtle Island. At a similar location on Hog Island, the beach ridge
was broken through, and the island was badly overwashed about 1871.

III. SHORELINE CHANGES

Shoreline changes on Myrtle Island since 1853 have not been as complex
I ~ ~or as spectacular as the changes on other islands to the north. The northern
and southern portions of the island have behaved differently because they
were influenced by different processes. The southern portion of the island
has been dominated by a wave driven longshore drift system and has not been
strongly influenced by Little Inlet. The northern portion of the island has
been under the influence of Ship Shoal Inlet throughout the observation
period. The island has retreated in a northwesterly direction, but retreat
I ~ ~has not been uniform along the length of the island, and the shape of the
island has changed somewhat.

-285-

a. North end of Myrtle Island at Ship Shoal Inlet. Note
breach in beach ridge closest to the marsh at the center
of the photograph. B

b. Ship Shoal Inlet. Surf line shows position of
shallow portions of the ebb tide delta.

FIGURE 70: Myrtle Island at Ship Shoal Inlet

Figures 71 and 72 portray glhoreline positions for Myrtle Island for various
years from 1871 to 1963. Figure 73 depicts shoreline positions for 1949,
- ~~1968, and 1974. All three figures show that the shoreline of the southern
portion of the island maintained essentially the same orientation throughout
the time period, even though retreat occurred. This is a reflection of the
role of waves and longshore drift in shaping this portion of the island.
.Similarly, the figures show the more erratic behavior of the shoreline of
the northern part of the island where changes in the channel and ebb tide
delta at Ship Shoal Inlet have played the. major role in controlling shore-
line position.

IV. TABULAR PRESENTATION OF DATA

Table III presents measurements of shoreline changes at various locations
on the island for seven different. time periods. The changes shown for any
given date are the net changes during the span of years since the preceding
date. The observations begin with the 1853 shoreline (Bryne, 1972).
Measurements shown are in feet, and the direction of movement is indicated
by arrows. At the ends of the island where changes in both length and
position have occurred, multiple arrows are used to aid in visualizing the
I ~ ~changes. The facing and width of Little Inlet are shown near the bottom of
the Table. The changes at the inlet are almost entirely due to the movements
of the ends of Myrtle and Smith Islands, and not to changes in the inlet
I ~ ~itself. A detailed discussion of the movements of Ship Shoal Inlet and its
channel and ebb ti;de delta were included in. the section on Ship Shoal Island
and will not be repeated here.

1853-1871. The most significant period of retreat of the shoreline of
MyteIsland took place in the 18 years between 1853 and 1871. Sometime
during those years, Ship Shoal Channel turned and broke through the north
I ~ ~end of Myrtle Island and discharged south southeast. The partially abandoned
1600 ft. wide channel cut during this breakthrough is shown in the diagram
of the north end of Myrtle Island in 1871 (Table III). The spit growing
into the inlet from the southern beach indicates that the channel was al-
ready being abandoned when the 1871 survey was conducted. The northern
beach and the southeast facing southern beach were still separated by an
ephemeral inlet when the 1888 survey was done. The abrupt and short lived
change in the position of Ship Shoal Channel, and the marked retreat of
Myrtle Island are undoubtedly related events. The data used for this study
are insufficient to determine what caused those changes, but the short time
I ~ ~span involved, again suggests that a major damage producing storm may be
responsible. Whatever the cause, the movements of Ship Shoal Channel, that
began at this time, continued.

In 1871, Ship Shoal Channel passed through the inlet with an east-west
orientation and extended seaward on this course before it- turned south
and broke up into three east-west distributaries. This position put the
channel seaward of the southern portions of Ship Shoal Island and away
from the north end of Myrtle Island. The ebb tide delta lay seaward of
Ship Shoal Island and the south lobe extended down along the northern

beach on Myrtle Island.

-287-

FIGURE 71.

SHORELINE CHANGES

ON MYRTLE !SLAND'
1871 -1963 .,

WRECK ,

.I ;I~ ~

[ I~~~~

.~ u?/ ;;
Ni I
I *j
l) /' // !
t) ~/ / � I
,.d./ ... /
. ....
/o
i'\ -. .,'I

SHIP SHOAL

~`'...... . . .
~~~~~~., . / - .-];

_ ., x.. I

MYRTLE ,

7 ('0 I 2000 .ords
".". / ' 1
.., .- ,
-II
~'-' ' 1 2 miles

1963
1955
....1934

~-288- ~871

-288-

FIGURE -72.
SHORELINE CHANGES
ON MYRTLE ISLAND;
1911-1960 ,, i

W\ARECK

t g 0 2000 ycrd
v _..?-- I : I I I 1 I
0Y~rLE g 9 1 2 miles

(D - -- A- 1946

I-28,

-289-

i \ ffii

Co~ ~ :

W r W * .FIGURE 73-
az he SHORELI~NE CHANGES
/ I's OCN MYRTLE I SLANDi
�, '1-
t __
t 1

-290-
~~~~~~~~~~~~
A~~~GR H I.

�I ,,
Ir~~~~~~~~~

i� r i
O r~~O

I ,

/I I~c /
U ..-r

-290-~-

ITEM OR POSITION 1871 1911 1929 1943 1955 1968 1974
ON ISLAND

SHAPE OF X sxaxt *
NORTH END

MOVEMENT 88'0 300 1200 142 5 260
NORTH TIP 11000 1500 120 420

NORTH END 830 1300 ephemeral O
NORTHERN . inlet 1210 50
BEACH
FACING OF
NORTHERN E E ENE NE NE NE NE
BEACH
MIDWAY ON ,d/ o
NORTHERN 1000 750 900 80 0 /330 / 450
BEACH
SOUTH END inlet inlet
NORTHERN '-- closed /"0
BEACH 1200 o 1400 1300 350 525
NORTH END O 7 550
SOUTHERN
BEACH 1200 1400 300 170 /2400
SOUTH END eO 400 140JTIP N0C0 'K1750
SOUTHERN 200 300 900 120 50TP
BEACH 12 300 TIP 25TIP
FACING AND / /
WIDTH OF / 830 X200 /1600 /1380 1650 780 870
LITTLE INLET

S. S. INLET S. S. IN LET - -- - - -
OBSERVATIONS UNSTABLE EBB TIDE DELTA
CHANNEL

TABLE mE MYRTLE ISLAND.

Summary of shoreline changes; 1852-1975.

North is at top of page.
Arrows indicate direction of movement.
Lines show compass orientation.

Numbers are in feet.

-291-

1871-1911. By 1911, the turn in the channel from Ship Shoal Inlet had
migrated 3900 ft. to the southwest, and the channel passed through the
inlet to *the southeast. The main channel lay 0.25 mile north of the tip
of Myrtle Island, and the-tip of the island had migrated west by 1500 ft.
The ebb tide delta. had shifted south so that the apex was southeast of the
inlet and it was no longer radially distributed in front of the inlet. The
north lobe which formerly lay seaward of Ship Shoal Island had been removedI
to depths of more than two fathoms. -By 1911, the margin of the north lobe
was more than 6000 ft. south of its former position, and followed a nearly
straight course southeast from the south end of Ship Shoal Island. The south
lobe had grown offshore and down the length of Myrtle Island,.to the deltaI
at Little Inlet. A minor flood tide channel lay between the northern beach
of Myrtle Island and the south lobe of the delta.

The changes in the ebb tide delta at Ship Shoal Inlet are reflected in shore-
line changes on Myrtle Island. The presence of the delta offshore changed
the processes affecting the northern two-thirds of the island. The northern
and southern beaches met near the middle of the island in 1911. Retreat of
this part of the island had been arrested and the ephemeral inlet of 1871
was closed. Retreat had been sharply reduced along the southern beach ex-
*cept near the southern end of the island where the ebb tide delta thinnedI
out. There, retreat reached 300 ft. North *of the middle of the island, the
beach retreated as the northern tip of the island adjusted to changes in the
main inlet channel and to a minor flood tide channel that lay along the north-I
ern half of the northern beach. Retreat reached 1300 ft. along the northern
half of this beach.

1911-1921. The last hydrographic survey of this area was conducted inI
1921, and it did not provide details of the bathy-metry near either inlet,
only shoreline changes and offshore bathymetry. However, both shoreline
changes, and changes in the offshore bathymetry indicate that the ShipI
Shoal Inlet ebb tide delta had continued to change and adjust its shape.
The continued westward retreat of the north end of Myrtle Island combined
with a southward shortening of the north end indicates that the bend inI
Ship Shoal Channel had continued to migrate southwest. This continued
retreat of the north end of the island had thinned the beach, and an
ephemeral inlet had broken through into the abandoned 1600 ft. channel.
Retreat had also turned this northern beach from facing east to facing east
northeast. The offshore bathymetry shows that the north lobe of the ebb
tide delta had grown northward by about 1500 ft. and indicates that the main
channel over the delta was oriented more to the east southeast instead ofI

The northern beach was shorter, running only about one-third th-e length
of the island. The junction between the two beaches had thus shifted north-
ward, and the former midpoint of the island retreated about 500 ft. more than
the rest of the island, which averaged about 900 ft. of retreat. The fact
that the entire island was retreating suggests that inlet processes from
Ship Shoal Inlet had ceased to affect it, except near the inlet. This would
agree with the bathymetric evidence that the inlet channel over the ebb tide
delta had rotated counterclockwise away from Myrtle Island. This shiftI
in the channel, and the growth of the north lobe of the ebb tide delta
had restored some radial symmetry to the delta.

-292-

1921-1960's. By 1943, the northern beach was rotated to face the north-
east and was accreting seaward. The ephemeral inlet had closed, but was
still functional as an overwash channel, and sand dune ridges had formed
behind the beach. The length of this beach still accounted for about one-
third of the island's beach length. Greater accretion near the south end
of this beach produced a bulge in the shoreline. The southern beach also
accreted, more at the northern end than along the southern reach. Accretion
all along the length of the island indicates that the southern lobe of
the ebb tide delta at Ship Shoal Inlet was again active. The 1949 aerial
photographs indicate that discharge from Ship Shoal Inlet was definitely
toward the southeast over the south lobe of the ebb tide delta. Continued
accretion of most of the island into the early 1960's indicates that conditions
around Ship Shoal Inlet remained relatively unchanged until that time.

Most Recent Shoreline Changes. The most recent shoreline changes have been
different than earlier changes in that they have been less systematic.
Without recent bathymetry to show what has happened offshore it is difficult
to confirm observations. The nature of the shoreline changes indicates that
conditions at Ship Shoal Inlet may have become more stable. Beginning in
the mid-1950's, the southern portion of the southeast facing beach began
to retreat slowly to the northwest. With time, retreat spread northward,
until by 1968 it was affecting most of the southeast beach. Retreat has not
been marked, and has been accompanied by alternate advance and retreat of
different sections of the beach. The southern tip of the island, at Little
Inlet, has advanced and retreated by 100-150 ft., and the beach at the inlet
was advanced and retreated. in 1973 a sand spit had actually grown about
800 ft. directly seaward along the north edge of the Little Inlet Channel,
and the south end of the beach curved sharply seaward with the sand spit.
By 1974 all of this had been removed, and the beach curved gently into Little
Inlet. These changes along the southeastern beach and at Little Inlet are
the consequence of the southerly drift of sand along this beach and of the
bypassing of that sand around Little Inlet ot the north end of Smith Island.
The path of this bypass can be visualized from Figure 74 which shows the
pattern of surf activity on the shallow part of the ebb tide delta at Little
Inlet. The pattern of sandbars at the south end of the beach on Myrtle Is-
land shows where sand is entering the bypass around the ebb tide delta.

Discussion of Shoreline Changes. The northern part of the island had begun
to accrete in the period between 1921 and 1943. Accretion had taken two
forms: gradual accretion, with steady advance of the beach; and growth of
sand dune ridges which had occurred near the north-end of the island. North
of the mid-point of the island, where the two beaches met, accretion occur-
red as offshore bars came ashore and welded to the beach. This process has
maintained a ridge and runnel character for this part of the island since
the late 1940's. However, since the early 1960's the offshore bars have
increased in length to the extent that they.have influenced the entire north-
east beach, and this beach has accreted rapidly. Figure 70a shows the
extensive ridge and runnel system extending from the north end of the
southeast beach northward to the inlet. This increased rate of accretion,
and the size of the sand ridges that coming ashore indicates an increased
supply of sand to the north end of the island. The immediate source of this
sand is difficult to determine without recent bathymetric data.

-293-

LITTLE Inlet. The inlet is located between
Myrtle Island (left) and Smith Island. Mink
Island is the marsh area at the bottom of the
picture. The surf pattern outlines the
shallow part of the ebb tide delta and the
main inlet channel.

FIGURE 74

Ebb Tide Delta at Little Inlet

Two types of shoreline changes have affected Myrtle Island during the
past 121 years; normal retreat, and adjustments caused by changes in
Ship Shoal Inlet and its ebb tide delta. The preceding paragraphs have
attempted to explain the nature of the adjustments that have been made
in the shoreline, and to indicate that they are still taking place
along the northern portion of the Island. Table III permits an exami-
nation of the more regular retreat of the island by providing figures
on net change over the time period. The southern half of the island
has displayed the more uniform advance and retreat. Retreat near
Little Inlet has averaged 22.1 ft./yr. since 1853, but the beach has
been retreating at more than double that rate since the early 1960's.
Near the middle of the island retreat has varied from 8.6 ft./yr. to
13.8 ft./yr. since 1853. This part of the island has-been retreating
during the last decade, but has changed little since the late 1940's.
The northeast beach has been accreting recently, and average net re-
treat figures vary from 370 ft. just south of the inlet to an average
along the beach yields a retreat rate of 7.5 ft./yr. since 1853. The
retreat of the tip of the island at Ship Shoal Inlet has been just over
2000 ft., and this yields a retreat rate of 16.5 ft./yr. This is pro-
bably a more representative retreat figure for the northern portion
of the island because it avoids that portion of the beach that responds
quickly to changes in the inlet currents and the ebb tide delta.

Mink Island. Although it is not a shoreline change, there has been a
significant change in the eastern boundary of Mink Island during the
historical period of this study. Mink Creek is taken as the boundary
between Myrtle Island and Mink Island because it is the first tidal
canal west of the beach of Myrtle Island that connects through from
Ship Shoal Channel to Little Inlet. At present, Mink Creek divides
into multiple canals midway between the two inlet channels. It formerly
continued almost due south from that point as a broad canal. The
southern half of the original creek was blocked and filled-in between
the 1921 survey, and that made in 1943. Through drainage had been taken
over by another canal that entered the channel to Little Inlet about
2800 ft. west of the original canal. This change {n the tidal canals
added more than 0.25 sq. mile of Mink Island to Myrtle Island. By
1974 the beach ridge at the southern tip of Myrtle Island was built onto
the southeast corner of the original Mink Island, and the beach at the
tip of the island lay only a few hundred feet east of the original
Mink Creek.

V. GEOMORPHIC DESCRIPTION AND INTERPRETATION

There are no ancient geomorphic units that can be identified on Myrtle
Island (in the marsh or in the beach ridge units). On the Geologic
Map of Myrtle Island, the large pond at the north end of the island
is the remaining portion of the 1600 ft. wide channel, which cut across
the island between 1853 and 1871. The straight shorelines at the north-
east and southwest edges of the pond, where it is widest, are the approxi-
mate shorelines of the old channel. The old inlet opening shown on the
geologic map near the north end of the southeast beach is the opening
where the channel connnected to the sea. The beach ridge curving into
this opening from the south side is the sand spit that grew northward
to close the opening. Other beach ridge units that completed the closing
of this inlet have been eroded in recent years, and at present there
are several overwash channels that cutthrough this part of the island.

-295-

The old inlet symbols through the middle of the beach ridges behind theI
northeast beach indicate the location of an ephemeral inlet that broke
through into the old ch-annel between 1911 and 1921. The position of the
inlet can be seen in Figure 70a where the beach ridge farthest from theI
beach is broken at the middle. The portions of the beach ridge unit closest
to the marsh on either side of this inlet represent the oldest beach ridge
remnants on the island. During the time that this inlet was open the northI
end of Myrtle Island was severely eroded, and it is believed that the low,
breached, beach ridge unit on Mrink Island was formed by storms during this
time span. This inlet closed between 1929 and 1943 when this end of the
island began to accrete. The strand line shown northeast of this inlet isI
believed to be a shoreline of the 1950's. In Figure 70a, the ridge inshore
of this strand line is the ridge that closed the gap of the older ephemeral
inlet. lIt was formed after overwashing, of the partially closed inlet had
ceased, and overwashing was still occurring in April 1949. That strand
line marks the limit of retreat before the most modern period of accretion
began. All of the other geomorphic units along the island date from theI
past quarter century and record accretion of the northern half of the
island and retreat of the southern half of the island.

VI GEOLOGIC HISTORYI
No geologic history can be advanced for Mink and Myrtle Islands beyond
that which has already been outlines in the analysis of shoreline changesI
since 1853. Except for the marsh area and two small sections of beach ridge
on either side of the ephemeral inlet at the north end of the island, -no part
of the upland island has a history greater than 122 years. The orientationI
of the ancient geomorphic units on Wreck and Ship Shoal Islands indicates
that any ancient portion of Myrtle Island would have lain east of the
present position of the island.

-296-~~~~~~~

SMITH ISLAND

I. DESCRIPTIVE GEOGRAPHY

I *Smith Island is the eleventh island from the north end of the Virginia Barrier
Island Group and the ninth island from the north in the area covered by this
study. It is also the second island from the south end of the group at Chesa-
peake Bay. Little Inlet marks the north end of the island and separates it from
Myrtle Island. The southern end of Smith Island is about equidistant from both
Fisherman's Island and the southern tip of the mainland peninsula. The broad
Smith Island Inlet lies between Smith Island and both adjacent land masses.

The village of Townsend lies west of the north end of Smith Island, and Magotha
and Cedar Grove are just south of Townsend. Otherwise there are no other settle-
ments of consequence on the mainland west of Smith Island. Access to the island
is by boat from the mainland. Bull's, Cushman's, and Steelman's Landings on the
mainland are all located near Townsend. Dixon's Dock and Raccoon Creek are land-
ings near the Cape Charles Air Force Station west of the south end of Smith Island.
The waters of Magothy Bay and Smith Island Bay are very shallow and there are many
tidal flat areas within the bays. Passage to the north end of Smith Island should
only be attempted by way of Main Ship Shoal Channel, Pudding Creek, and Little
Inlet'Channel. Smith Island Bay Channel should be avoided because of shallow water
and shifting shoals. Persons unfamiliar with the waters and the channel markings
of local watermen would be advised to engage the services of a waterman to guide
them to the islands.

Smith Island is a longer barrier island than the islands immediately north of it.
Its length along its axis is 7.1 miles but it has almost eight miles of seaward
beach. The southern 25 percent of the island (Figure 75b) is a broad beach ridge
area without any important marsh area on the bay side. This part of the island
reaches a maximum of 0.85 mile in width, and averages 0.5 mile in width. The relief
of this portion of the island is not great; ranging from 5 to 7 ft. in the beach
ridge areas and 0 to 3 ft. over the rest of the area. There-are numerous marshy
swales between the beach ridge units and along the bay side of the island. The
remaining 75 percent of the island extends northeast as a thin upland barrier island
that averages 500 ft. in width. The associated marsh varies in width from 500 to
4200 ft., but the marsh behind the northern third of the island averages about 3500
ft. in width.

Smith Island is oriented at a sharp angle to the mainland coastline. The beach at
the north end of the island is 6.6 miles east of the mainland, but the beach at the
south end of the island is only 1.9 miles from the Intracoastal Waterway at the main-
land. The mainland coast west of Smith Island trends NS�E, but the shoreline of the
island lies at N45E. This sharp angle can be attributed to the position that Smith
Island occupies, between the tip of the mainland peninsula and the offshore trend
of the Virginia Barrier Island Group. The seaward beach at the rounded north end of
the island coincides with the seaward face of the barrier island chain to the north.

The area west of the northern half of Smith Island is proportioned about 2:1 between
marsh and bay area. Much of the bay area is part of the long, narrow Magothy Bay

-297-

a. Smith Island Inlet. Smith Island is at the top of
the picture and Fishermans Island is at the lower
left. Surf pattern outlines shape of ebb tide
delta, and reveals locations of channels that cross
it. Note shallow bar at bottom center to the right
of the sand spit.

b. Beach ridge provinces at the south end of Smith
Island. Tower near center of picture is Cape
Charles Light. Many of the beach ridges are
forested, but others are only grass covered.

FIGURE 75: South End of Smith Island

which lies adjacent to the mainland. The marsh area is about equally divided between
m marsh and tidal flats and canals. Main Ship Shoal Channel runs north-south through
the middle of the marsh area dividing the marsh of Mockhorn Island on the west from
other marsh areas to the east. The southern end of Mockhorn Island lies west of the
midpoint of Smith Island. The area west of the southern half of Smith Island is made
up of Smith Island Pay, and westward, Magothy Bay. Smith Island Bay has numerous small
marsh islands in it and many tidal flat areas. Magothy Bay is deeper, and has a deep
channel running most of the length except at Smith Island Inlet where it is not well-
defined because of shoals and multiple channels. Smith Island Inlet and the shoals
in the inlet are shown in Figure 75a. Skidmore Island lies in Magothy Bay about a
mile northwest of the southern part of Smith Island. There is a narrow fringe of marsh
between Magothy Bay and the mainland.

I. PEYSIOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION AND DISCUSSION

Most of the physiographic units in the area west of Smith Island can be identified as
the southward continuation of units previously recognized and identified to the north.
The Mappsburg Scarp is not present, because it died out several miles to the north.
The ancient beach at the base of the Mappsburg Scarp continues southward into this area
and can be recognized in the mainland terrain about 800 ft. inland of the edge of the
tidal marsh. Near the south end of the mainland peninsula, the beach is closer to the
edge of the marsh, and there are gaps in it where younger stream valleys cut across it.
At the south end of the peninsula, near Dixon's Dock, the beach turns abruptly westward
toward Chesapeake Bay.

I The next physiographic feature to the east in this group of continuing features is a
drowned beach ridge that lies offshore at Oyster, and forms the edge of the marsh at
Townsend. This ancient beach ridge can be traced as a series of linear ridges lying
in the marsh between Magothy Bay and the mainland, from Dunton Cove (northeast of Town-
send) southward through this area to Dixon's Dock. Between this ridge and the mainland
there are older drowned beach ridges in this area which were not observed in the areas
to the north. These ridges are most strongly developed in the vicinity of Jones Cove,
but can also be seen south of Cushman's Landing. North of Cushman's Landing they merge
to a single ridge that continues north until it disappears along the west edge of
Dunton Cove. South of Jones Cove the ridges are less distinct and have been destroyed
in places by stream erosion when sea level was lower during the Wisconsin glaciation.
But, they can be followed to Dixon's Dock.

Raccoon Island, Holly Bluff Island, and Skidmore Island are all ancient drowned beach
ridge deposits. A beach ridge unit in Holly Bluff Island can be traced through the
marsh to the mainland where it truncates the beach ridge units described in the pre-
ceding paragraph. The same ridge unit may also correlate with one of the beach ridges
on Skidmore Island. Similarly, a younger beach ridge unit on Raccoon Island can be
traced through the marsh to the mainland and in the other direction, toward Holly Bluff
H Island. All three islands contain drowned beach ridges of different ages and islands.
These islands were not included for detailed analysis in this study, but should be
investigated at a later time because there is good evidence that they correlate with
the beach ridges on Mockhorn Island. Some of the deposits on these islands, and in
the marsh at the south end of the mainland peninsula probably correlate with the ancient
barrier island deposits found on the landward side of some of the modern barrier islands.

Mockhorn Island, located east of Magothy Bay, extends south to about the midpoint of
Smith Island before it thins to a narrow peninsula and ends. The drowned beach ridges
on Mockhorn Island were discussed at length in the section on Myrtle Island, and their

H -299-

successive terminations record the eastward migration of the seaward face of the
beach during the early Wisconsin recession of sea level. The southward convergence
of those drowned beach ridges near the south end-of Mockhorn Island-, and the orien-
tations of the seaward faces of the ancient beaches, conforms with an extension of
that trend through Skidmore Island to Holly Bluff and Raccoon Islands, and finally
to the southern end of the mainland peninsula.

In the-marsh and bay areas between Mockhorn Island and Smith Island, there is no
noteworthy physiography. Main Ship Shoal Channel runs through the marsh, maintaining
depths in excess of 15 ft. for its entire length. Pudding Creek and Little Inlet
Channel also cross this marsh with deep channels,-but their depths have not been
charted recently.

On Smith Island, itself, there are two provinces, the marsh area, and the upland
barrier island area. The marsh area, which is primarily confined to the northern
three-quarters of the island, can be considered in two parts: the northern and
western portion; and the portion immediately west of the barrier beach deposits.
The former is older, more typical, marshland. It is composed of silt, finer sedi-
ments, and organics to a considerable depth below the surface. In this older marsh
near the north end of the island, there is a portion of a large ancient tidal canal
and several areas of higher ground that resemble low mounds. There is no recog-
nizable pattern to either feature so no interpretation was attempted beyond recog-
nizing that they are ancient features of the marsh. The remainder of the marsh is
a sandy marsh formed upon recently overwashed fine sand, on sand deltas and on inlet
deposits from ephemeral inlet openings. This latter marsh unit.is therefore younger,
and relates to the past century or more in time. This marsh unit varies in width
from several hundred feet at the north end of the island to as much as 3000 ft. near
the middle of the island, and lies immediately west of the upland barrier beach
deposits. Much of this marsh area is shallow in depth and rests upon a sandy stratum. .
below.

The barrier beach deposits of Smith Island are more varied. The northern three-
quarters of the island consists-oflan active beach area, a foredune ridge, discon-
tinuous areas of dunes, and overwash channels and deposits. Mud Hole Creek at the
north end is a formerly deep tidal canal that has been overwashed and cut off by
retreat of the island. The modern beach and foredune ridge cut across this canal,
but on the marsh side, the canal is deep and provides a safe anchorage for small boats
at the north end of the island. Wind breaks and other shelters near this location
indicate the frequent use of this anchorage by fishermen and others using the northern
beach of Smith Island. To the south, for nearly three-quarters of the length of the
island, the upland barrier island deposits consist of little more than an active
beach and a low (4-8 ft.) dune line that is frequently cut through by overwash channels.
North of the Bungalow Inlet area there are two recent broad overwash channels that
each break the dune line for more than 0.3 mile. The nature of these overwash channels
and of the overwash fans associated with them can be seen in Figure 76. Large volumes
of sand have been carried through these overwash channels and spread over the margin
of the marsh where the sand buries the Spartina alterniflora marsh grass. If the
volume of sand is large enough, as it is with these two channels, it raises the eleva-
tion of the surface of the fan above mean high tide level and prevents the recovery
of the marsh grass. When this happens, other plants (Figure 77a) move in to colonize
the overwash fan, and new dunes (Figure 76b) begin to form as vegetation and dampness
trap wind-blown sand. These processes widen the barrier island and help to maintain

-300-

and reinforce it. There are many locations along this part of Smith Island where
this has happened in the past. Figure 77b shows a drift matt of Spartina alterniflora
that has been driven onto one of the older overwash fans; one that had not built above
the mean high tide, and still supported marsh grass. After the drift matt has decom-
posed, areas such as this frequently stand exposed as sand flats through several sea-
sons until the marsh grass becomes re-established.

During this century, ephemeral inlets have broken through this portion of Smith Island
at two general locations, often remaining open for years. Sand swept through those
inlets by the flood tide has built sand deltas and inlet islands in the bay area be-
hind the middle portion of the island. This influx of sand has also partially filled
Smith Island Bay near the island and created extensive areas of tidal flats. The
sand, moving with currents and waves in the bay, is also responsible for shoaling and
shifting of tidal channels in the bay. Wherever these sand deposits built up enough
to support Spartina alterniflora, they have been colonized by the plant, and new
marsh has formed. Much of the marsh from the southern beach ridge province north to
Mud Hole Inlet has grown upon this sandy base. At several places in this marsh area,
long low sand spits reach back through the marsh to mark the location of former inlets.
The most prominent of these marks the south margin of the former Bungalow Inlet. In
many areas of the marsh bordering Smith Island Bay, sand is being carried up the tidal
canals with the flood tide. This sand is building levees along the distributary canals,
and is beginning to fill tidal flat areas within the marsh.

Near the north end of the island where the older marsh is located, retreat of the
island has driven the beach back-into large well-established tidal canals. Just
north of Mud Hole one of theseslarge canals is rapidly filling with sand being over-
washed from the beach and redistributed by tidal currents. Other overwash channels
are supplying sand to fill Mud Hole Inlet and a large embayed area just south of it.

Retreat of Smith Island has moved the beach and dune lines back over older established
marsh along most of the length of the island. Outcroppings of peat can be found in
the beach and surf zone at many locations. The peat has a high organic content, is
dense and compact, and is very resilient. It is also much thicker than any peat en-
countered while augering in any of the modern marsh areas. No attempt was made to
auger through this tough peat with the split spoon hand auger used for sampling.
However, the exposed thickness exceeded 5 ft., and the actual thickness is undoubtedly
greater.

Figure 78b shows one extensive outcropping of peat that was located east of Mud Hole
Inlet. A similar outcropping nearly a half mile long is located south of Bungalow
Inlet. Sawed boards and small post clusters were found driven into the peat near the
location shown in 78b. The post clusters were of the type that watermen drive in the
marsh for securing boats. Both occurrences indicate that this peat outcropping was
located on the bay side of the island within historical times. One of the posts was
removed from the peat (with considerable difficulty because of the tenacious nature of
the peat) in the hope that it might yield a date for the time when the location was
still on the marsh side of the island. At this time no date (by tree ring dating) has
been determined. Figure 78a shows a large and deep tidal canal in a peat outcropping
north of Mud Hole Creek at the north end of the island. The canal has been partially
filled with sand to the plane of the beach, but the peat walls of the canal stand sev-
eral feet higher, and above mean high water.

I -301-

a. Large overwash channel on Smith Island. Wind blown
sand has been trapped by vegetation to form low
oval mounds.

b. Large oval mound of sand in an overwash channel.
Near to the beach, such incipient dunes grow and
help to close the overwash channel.

FIGURE 76: Large Overwash Channels on Smith Island

a. Overwash fan built into marsh near middle of Smith
Island. Light area is wind blown sand that has begun
to build up on the damp surface of the fan.

b. Drift matt on an overwash fan in the marsh behind
the beach ridge near Bungalow Inlet.

FIGURE 77: Overwash Fans on Smith Island

a. Abandoned tidal channel through peat outcrop on the
beach north of Mud Hole.

b. Continuous outcropping of peat on the beach between
Bungalow Inlet and Mud Hole.
FIGURE 78: Peat Exposures on Beach at Sm ith Island
I~ ~~~~~~~~gli~',,-o,,,i gS ;i:W 0; ; t~i"'.+"

I~~
~ ii

IThe southern quarter of Smith Island is very different from the northern three-
quarters. This part of the island is an older beach ridge province made up of
many beach ridges. The ridges occur in sets, with the ridges in each set being
I parallel to each other. Most adjacent sets of beach ridges meet at angles indicating
a*dffeen direction of progradation for each set. The sets of ridges extend all
te way to he southern tip of the island. The orientation of the sets varies but
is generally east-west across the island. All of the ridges are low, rising to aver-
age elevations of 5-7 ft., and many of them are forested. The low areas between the
rdges control a drainage system that connects ponds and small marsh areas with creeks
that drain west to the bay. To the west, and south, these low areas become wider
Eand take on the appearance of broad meadows or swales. All of the older ridges are
truncated at their seaward end, and most of those lying south of Cape Charles Light
are also truncated on the bay side. Younger beach ridges, roughly parallel to the
shoreline, have been built against the truncated ends of the older ridges along the
Iseaward side of the island. A younger sand dune field lies seaward of those ridges,
and this sand dune field still is actively growing. All along the bay side of the
island a very narrow fringing marsh lies between the truncated ends of the ridges and
the bay. An old beach is found at the back of this marsh, against the truncated
rdges,. and across the lowland areas between the ridges.

ITh e active beach along Smith Island varies from 150-250 ft. in width. The presence
ofmany bars, both offshore and welded to the beach, indicates an active longshore
drift'system that is transporting sand southward along the beach. Along the southern
- half of the island, in particular, accretion is occurring along the beach in the form
* of broad back beach sand flats and actively growing sand dunes. At the south end of
- the island a recurved sand spit-has grown in length and breadth during the past quar-
ter century, even as it retreated.

IISHORELINE CHANGES

Th e shoreline changes on Smith Island have been quite straightforward in comparison
towhat has happened to other islands in the Virginia Barrier Island Group. Smith
Island has retreated, more or less steadily, to the northwest, since 1853. Two
ephemeral inlets have opened, and closed, in the mid-portion of the island. The
length of the island has diminished by a little less than a half mile, mostly due to
losses at the south end. Smith Island Bay has been partially filled, and tidal circu-
lation. within the bay and behind Smith Island has been altered substantially. These
I latter changes are as important to the situation as the changes in the seaward beach,
for they affect the future for Smith Island.

IThe changing appearance and position of Smith Island is portrayed in Figures 79, 80,
and 81, which show the position of the shoreline at various dates during the historical
period of this study. The two ephemeral inlets appear in all three figures and the
changing shape and location of these inlets readily can be seen. Figure 81 also shows
th e extent of new marsh area that was built up inside both inlets between the opening
of those inlets and their closings during the 1960 Is.

A. Tabular Presentatioii of Data

Table IV pre~sents a summary of shoreline changes on Smith Island from 1853 to the
present. Table V summarizes the shoreline changes that occurred on Myrtle Island

I ~~~~~~~~~~~-305-

FIGURE 79.

SHORELINE CHANGES
ON SMITH ISLAND;
1871-1963 ( ,

lei
X

(I/~~~~

,?~~~~~ .-.
cj~~~ ~~ ,,

,~~~~~~~'/~~~~~

0 2000 yards

I O 1 ~ ~~~~~~~ 2 miles

2> 963
i955
934
-871

-3o6-

FIGURE 80.
SHORELINE CHANGES

ON SMITH ISLAND;
1911-1960 : r /

oil~~~~i
;I~~~~~~~~~

/ 2 0yr

0 0 200iylrds

1960,

4929
l911

-307-

FIGURE 81.
SHORELINE CHANGES
ON SMITH ISLAND;
1949- 1974 .

- UZ
AiA IC

- f

E4 Y.I I I

____ f" fa aft
W/fA

-308-
197 I .T

ITEM OR POSITION 1888 1911 1929 1942 1955 1968 1974
ON ISLAND

SHAPE OF > - A
NORTH END

B B. 1. B. SPIT
SHAPE OF 6
INLET OR SPIT .^� - e.6

,'2nd i. 91 2nd I. f4 2ndl
MOVEMENT 117 f /4'92
NORTH TIP 176 670 1560 480 90 200

BEACH is
NORTH END 1000 680 1200 650 20 575 400

BEACH 9 a
0.5 MILES
SOUTH M0\ 830 980 380 100 580 200
BEACH -
t.0 MILE ~ F
SOUTH 380 150 700 300
BEACH >s x
AT MUD HOLE
770 800 600 520 650 560
BEACH Inle Inlet Inlet Inlet Inlet
AT BUNGALOW 77 330 Boch 3occh Beoch ee co
AT BUNGALOW O~open open , open open closed
INLET 770 330 cBeach Beoch Beach Beach 40
~INLET Ireod 600 trend 500 trend 200 trrnd1400 200l
BEACH t inlet Inlet-
4.75 MILES open ,% i open % closed
475 MLES 92O\ 33\ 300 Beach Beach \ 20od
trend 600 trend 500t 200

BEACH ~\\ 45>\ 15030-0\0140 1
LIGHTHOUSE 830 230-0 150
BEACH E \i -\5
SOUTH OF
S. I. LIGHT 0-300 670 0950 125
BEACH
SOUTH END 4 00 670 O 450 250 900 700

SOUTHERN /
TIP o400 | 720 0 / 800 /850 /900 /250

SOUTHERN o/ o . 880o0 700
SAND SPIT - - / 300 /oo /250

TABLE -i. SMITH ISLAND

Summary of shoreline changes; 1853-1974.
North is at top of page. Arrows indicate direction
of movement. Lines show compass orientation.
Numbers are. in feet.

-309-

ITEM OR POSITION 1871 191 1929 1943 155 1968 974
ON ISLAND

SHAPE OF
NORTH END -

MOVEMENT t880 (300 1200 120 70 260
NORTH TIP 1000 1500 420

NORTH END 830 1300 ephemeral O
NORTHERN - inlet 1210 /550
BEACH
FACING OF
NORTHERN E E ENE NE NE NE NE
BEACH
MIDWAY ON �. o/ / o / o
NORTHERN 1000 750 900 /80 /330 /450
BEACH
SOUTH END inlet inlet ,e/ , ,. /
NORTHERN 1"0- closed 1400 1300

NORTH END /o 0 550 I
OEACH 1200 1400
SOUTH END. 400 t o40TIP4o.OO t'\175
SOUTHERN 140 '-
SOTERN 1200 300 9P 14 120 25OTIP 175TIP
BEACH TPO
FACING AND /
LITTLE NLET /830 120 600 1380 1650 780 | 870

S. S. INLET S. S. INLET - -- - >'
OBSERVAT4IONS UNSTABLE EBB TIDE DELTA-
CHANNEL

TABLE M. MYRTLE ISLAND.

Summery of shoreline changes; 1852-1975.

North is at top of page.
Arrows indicate direction of movement.
Lines show compass orientation.

Numbers are in feet.

-310-

I-dring the same period of time. The dates given at the head of each column are the
duates of-the maps and charts utilized in making the measurements of shoreline changes.
Information for the initial interval (1853-1888) was derived from Byrne's (1972) His-
Itorical Shoreline Positions maps. The movement indicated in any column box is the
net movement during the observation period. The tables clearly show the northwestward
migration of the main body of Smith Island, and that, except for the period from 1942
to 1955, retreat was uninterrupted. The tables also show that both ends of the island
experienced changes that were independent of the retreat, but were related to the in-
Mlets found there.

IB. Summary of Retreat

As one would expect (after examining Figures 79, 80, and 81), the Tate of shoreline
retreat along the island's beach has not been uniform, even though it has been more
or less steady. The net retreat of the north end of -the island has been a little less
than 3000 ft., and the averaged rate of retreat has been 24.7 ft./yr. However, it
should be noted that retreat during the 1900's when it has occurred, has occurred at
Ia more rapid rate than during the latter half of the 1800's. Retreat since 1955 has
been at the rate of 51.3 ft./yr. whereas prior to 1911, it occurred at an average of
29.0 ft./yr.

The maximum retreat has occurred opposite Mud Hole where net retreat has reached 3900
ft. since 1853. This yields an averaged retreat rate of 32.2 ft./yr. Retreat increased
I steadily between the north end of the island and Mud Hole. To the south, past Bungalow
Inlet, retreat remains almost as high before it begins to diminish steadily further
south. At Bungalow Inlet the retreat rate has averaged 29.8 ft./yr., but further south,
at the second ephemeral inlet, the averaged retreat rate has only been 23.0 ft./yr.
I which is about the same as the retreat rate at the north end of the island. To the
south the retreat rate falls off sharply. Thus, the greatest retreat is centered be-
tween Bungalow Inlet and Mud Hole, and retreat diminishes away from that area. Retreat
Iof the southern quarter of the island, where the beach ridges are found, has been very
much less. At the site of the old lighthouse and life saving station, retreat since
1853 has been slightly more than 1900 ft., and more than 1000 ft. of that retreat oc-
Icurred prior to 1911. The averaged rate of retreat at this location has been only
15.8 ft./yr. South of Cape Charles Light the beach has had an averaged retreat rate
of 14 ft./yr. since 1853, but has actually been accreting for the past 20 years. The
south end of the island has retreated north a net distance of about 2070 ft. since
1853, or at a rate of 17.1 ft./yr. It should be emphasized that this is a net rate
because the island has grown southward on two occasions.

IC. Dis cussion of Retreat

While the shoreline changes on Smith Island are more straightforward than on other
I islands, the explanation of them is not. As with other islands, it is necessary to
look to the time period 1853 to 1911 to find the beginning of an explanation. Prior
to that time period, a previous cycle of retreat had been operating under a different
set of conditions. Not long after 1853 the channel at Ship Shoal Inlet (several miles
north of Smith Island) abruptly changed its course and began a series of changes that
have continued into the present century. The changes of the inlet channel led to changes
in the ebb tide delta that lay offshore, and thus changes in the longshore sediment
Itransport system. Although Ship Shoal Inlet is north of Myrtle Island the effect of
changes at that inlet were reflected down the coast to affect Little Inlet and Smith
Island. In the mid-1800's, when these changes started, Little Inlet was an established,

if lesser, inlet with a deep (up to 35 ft.) channel. The tidal circulation pattern
of Little Inlet passed through extensive marsh areas to connect with channels in Smith
Island Bay. The 1921 hydrographic survey showed that the ebb tide delta at this in-
let had increased in size since the previous (1911) survey, and that the channel back
into the marsh had changed little.

D. (1853-1911)

Smith Island had been retreating steadily, more or less uniformly, until sometime after
the hydrographic survey of 1911. The northern quarter of the island was backed up by
broad marsh areas, and the southern quarter of the island was a broad beach ridge prov-
ince. But the middle half of the island formed the southeastern boundary of Smith Island
Bay. Retreat of Smith Island before 1911 had gradually driven the beach and dune line
back over the narrow marsh area on the southeast edge of Smith Island Bay, until by 1911,
there was little marsh left tobe overridden. The mid-portion of Smith Island had been
reduced to a thin (as little as 300 ft.) ribbon of beach, dunes, and overwash channels
between the open sea and the bay. The situation was very similar to that on Metomkin
Island just prior to the time when that island broke through into Metomkin Bay. In
Smith Island Bay water depths of 2-8 ft. were charted for the entire area of the bay.
There were very few tidal flats shown, and those that were shown were small. There
was a well-established network of tidal channels in the bay that drained to Ship Shoal
Inlet, New Inlet, and Smith Island Inlet. Depths of 15-22 ft. were found in the main
stems of these drainage networks and there was sufficient water depth in the bay for
boats to navigate directly across the bay to New Inlet and Ship Shoal Inlet. A channel
from Little Inlet passed through the marsh and entered Smith Island Bay with depths
of 14-16 ft. near the north end of the thin middle portion of the island. Tidal chan-
nels of the bay that connected into this channel also lay close behind the beach of
the middle of the island, so that deep water, instead of marsh, lay behind much of this
part of the island. Conditions by 1911 were ideal for Smith Island to breach into
Smith Island Bay.

E. (1911-1929)

The hydrographic surveys of 1911 and 1921 provide enough evidence to show that changes
were in progress. The ebb tide delta of Ship Shoal Inlet had begun to grow south in
front (seaward) of Myrtle Island and toward the ebb tide delta at Little Inlet. In
a gross sense, it may be stated that this started a pulse (volume) of sand moving south-
ward, the effects of which would be seen for many years. In the same interval of time,.
Smith Island breached into Smith Island Bay. The breach shown by the 1921 hydrographic
survey was 4980 ft. wide. However, the shape and pattern of the sand spits at the ends
of the breach would indicate that the initial breach may have been more than a mile
wide. By 1929, the tidal channels leading to Little Inlet had already been partially
filled with sand being drawn in through the breach, and through Little Inlet. The
trapping of sand at Little Inlet indicates that tidal circulation through this inlet
had changed during this time span. In the northern part of Smith Island Bay, channels
leading to Main Ship Shoal Channel had shoaled and water depths in the bay had de-
creased markedly, along with an increase in the number and size of tidal flats. The
similarity to more recent changes in Metomkin Bay should be noted here.

F. (1929-1942)

In the interval after 1929, the effects of the changes in the ebb tide delta at Ship
Shoal Inlet began to be more visible. The beach along the southern part of Myrtle Island

-312-

Igrew seaward. Little Inlet narrowed as Myrtle Island grew south, and the north
end of Smith Island retreated south to maintain Little Inlet. Sand drawn into
Little Inlet accreted on the north bank of the inlet channel. The ebb tide delta
I at Little Inlet merged with the south lobe of the Ship Shoal Inlet ebb tide delta.
The ebb tide delta at Little Inlet also became larger, shallower, and more clearly
-defined. The very north end of Smith Island grew seaward about 650 ft. as the ebb
tide delta at Little Inlet expanded. Reduced beach erosion along the northern mile
ofbeach would indicate that some sand was being bypassed around Little Inlet. The
I"p ulse" of sand was moving south, but some of it was being drawn into Little Inlet
where it was helping to change the pattern of tidal canals and tidal circulation.

I At the breach in Smith Island, which was now called Bungalow Inlet, the effects of
additional sand were obvious. The breach had narrowed to an inlet that was 650 ft.
I wide. Beach retreat near the inlet was diminished. The beach and dune line had been
-rebuilt, and the recurved sand spits at the inlet were long and broad. Large amounts
of sand were being trapped at Bungalow Inlet. Sand deltas were being built into
~Smith Island Bay and tidal circulation in the bay was redistributing sand to fill the
* bay. A significant portion of the new sand was also being drawn into marsh areas by
tdal canals, and Vie nature of the marsh began to change. The changes in the marsh
and bay also signify that tidal circulation was still undergoing a change.

ITrapping of sand at Bungalow Inlet resulted in accelerated retreat south of the in-
let. 'A second breach (more than 1500 ft. wide) had opened a-t. the north end of the
I beach ridge province. This new inlet connected to a deep channel (15-22 ft.) in
Smith Island Bay that led to Smith Island Inlet. A deep channel in Magothy Bay that
led to Smith Island Inlet lay just to the west of the first channel. This new inlet
became dominated by the flood tide and served to draw large volumes of sand into
ISmith Island Bay. Inlet Islands and tidal flats grew rapidly in the bay, and grad-
ually reduced total circulation through the inlet as they ringed the inlet opening,
and excess sand filled the bay.

G. (1942-1950's)

The channel at Ship Shoal Inlet'began to turn northward after 1942 and in the period
I between then and the mid-1950's, the effects of this change began to be visible on
Myrtle and Smith Islands. The rate of accretion of Myrtle Island decreased markedly.
The southern end of Myrtle Island retreated, allowing Little Inlet to increase in
I width. Sand accreted inside the inlet on both Myrtle Island and Smith Island, where
it served to build up and broaden the ends of both islands. A shoaling bar lay along
Little Inlet Channel on the north lobe of the ebb tide delta in 1949, and shoals and
bars lay off the north end and northern beach of Smith Island. These features indi-
Hcate a reduction in sand trapping at Little Inlet, and an increase in the amount of
sand bypassing the inlet. The whole northern three-quarters of Smith Island advanced
mseaward during this time interval in spite of there being two ephemeral inlets, each
*of which was trapping sand from the longshore drift system. The "pulse" of sand had
- reached Smith Islan4. Large volumes of this sand were drawn into Smith Island Bay
through the two ephemeral inlets, but enough of it continued southward along the
Isouthern quarter of the island to dramatically reduce the retreat of the beach. The
beach at the south end of the island accreted 250 ft. and a sand spit grew into Smith
Island Inlet.

-313-

Sand drawn in through Bungalow Inlet filled the north end of Smith Island Bay and
created extensive tidal flats. The tidal canal named Mud Hole Inlet had been cut
off from circulation with Smith island Bay by the Bungalow Inlet deposits and it
was filling in. Big Creek was also choked with sand from the inlet as were other
nameless canals that formerly made up the channel network that tied Little Inlet to
Smith Island Bay and South Bay. These changes are all clearly visible in the 1949I
black and white aerial photographs of the area. It is obvious that in this time
period,-the changes at Little Inlet, and to Smith Island and Smith Island Bay were
forcing an adjustment in the tidal circulation to the marsh areas west of MyrtleI
Island and at the north end of Smith Island. These changes all involved tidal cir-
culation through Little Inlet and to a lesser degree tidal circulation through Main
Ship Shoal Channel.

H. (Mid-1950's-1968)

By the mid-19S0's the "pulse"' of-sand had passed and the area of coastline discussedI
in the previous paragraphs gradually returned to more normal conditions. Further
changes had occurred in the marsh and along the shoreline by 1968. The inlet channel
across the ebb tide delta at Ship Shoal Inlet had shifted further to the north, and
a secondary flood tide channel had begun to form off the northern beach of Myrtle
Island. This beach was clearly under the influence of inlet processes and had ac-
creted rapidly. Sand was again bypassing the ebb tide delta at Ship Shoal Inlet,
and accretion was occurring along the southeast beach of Myrtle Island. A more usual
longshore drift system was again functioning along this section of shoreline.

At Little Inlet other changes were apparent. The inlet had narrowed to le ss thanI
half of the former width, indicating a sharp reduction in the volume of water moving
through the inlet on the tidal cycle. The reasons for the reduced volume of water
are found in the marsh areas adjacent to Little Inlet. Mink Creek had been blocked f
by deposition of sand in its network of tidal-canals. A new network of lesser tidal
canals had developed further west to assume the reduced function of Mink Creek. Big
Creek had partially filled with sand, and its functions were taken over by Black Rock
Channel further to the west. The channel called Mud Hole Inlet had continued to shrink
as it filled in, and furthermore, Mud Hole Creek had been cut off by beach retreat.
Mink Island Bay had become a tidal flat, and so had most of the north end of Smith
Island Bay. Most of the deeper canals that had interconnected Little Inlet, SmithI
Island Bay, and Main Ship Shoal Channel were filled in or severely reduced in size.
In effect, the drainage area of Little Inlet had been reduced in size,.and the inlet
became smaller as it adjusted to the change.
Some sand was being trapped at Little Inlet. Sand spits and dune fields had grown
along the north side of the inlet channel and spread from Myrtle Island onto the former
southeastern corner of Mink Island. Similar accretion was occurring along the south
side of the channel, and the beach ridge at the north end of Smith Island had grown in
size and elevation (maximum elevation, 9.0 ft.). An island had, formed in the mouth of U
Mud Hole Creek, just inside the inlet, and a sandy beach had accreted along the edge
of the marsh west of this canal.

Outside Little Inlet, sand was being bypassed around the inlet on the ebb tide delta.
Bars and shoals curved seaward at the south end of Myrtle Island, and lay off the north
shore of Smith Island. A sand ridge had grown offshore and welded to the north end of.

I Smith Island.' The beach ridge along the north end of Smith Island at Little Inlet
continued seaward and curved south behind the beach for about 0.7 mile before it was
cut off by the overwash channel that had cut off and blocked Mud Hole Creek. Small
I sand bars lay off shore and in the surf zone along the northern beach of Smith Island
from the inlet south to Mud Hole, where they died out. All of these features are
accretional, and indicate that longshore transport of sand from Ship Shoal Inlet (or
farther north) was reaching the northern end of Smith Island.

I However, it is obvious that the volume of sand reaching the north end of Smith Island
during this interval of time was inadequate to offset losses of sand along the beach
I of Smith Is land. Retreat of the beach continued between the north end of the island
and Bungalow Inlet, and the north end of the island retreated south by 200 ft. Re-
treat on this reach of beach averaged 600 ft. A large overwash channel had developed
Iat Mud Hole Creek, and a new ephemeral inlet was open -nearby. The inlet was connected
by the southern part of Mud Hole'Creek to Mud Hole, and thus to a large marsh area
behind the north end of Smith Island. A large volume of sand had been removed from
the drift system by these two features. The overwash channel had filled a portion of
EMu d Hole Creek and spread into the marsh west of it. The ephemeral inlet was trapping
sand, and this sand was filling the southern part of Mud Hole Creek and apparently
carrying farther through the canals to reach Mud Hole.

IBungalow Inlet was still open but had narrowed to 200 ft. A long sand spit had grown
2000 ft. into Smith Island Bay along the southern shore of the inlet channel. The
I north side of the inlet did not have a corresponding sand spit. The beach of Smith
Island curved gently at the north side of th e inlet to form the inlet opening. Sand
eroded from the beach north of the inlet was trapped at the inlet and deposited in
the north end of Smith Island Bay. Wnhere there had been open bay behind the middle
Ihalf of Smith Island in 1911, there was now an area of marsh and tidal flat at least
2000,ft. wide, and more than half of the area was in marsh.

I Beach retreat was dramatically less along the beach south of Bungalow Inlet. Retreat
had averaged 600 ft. north of the inlet. South of the'inlet, to the north end of the
beach ridge unit, retreat was only .200 ft. The southern (second ephemeral) inlet at
I the north end of the beach ridge unit had closed, the beach line had straightened.
A line of low dunes had formed where the inlet had been. From this inlet location
south to the old lighthouse, retreat declined rapidly to. 75 ft. at the location of
the former light and to zero just south of that location. From there south to near
Hthe end of the island, the beach accreted by as much as 175 ft. However, the south
end of the island retreated northward by about 900 ft. The sand spit that recurved
into Smith Island Inlet, although also shifted northward, had grown in length and
I breadth and developed a sand dune field.

The dramatic changes in the rates of beach retreat along Smith Island during this
I time span clearly demonstrate the role played by the ephemeral inlets in controlling
retreat along the beach. Along'the northern third of the island the longshore drift
system was inadequate to supply the demand imposed by sand trapping at Bungalow Inlet.
Sand was therefore removed from storage in the beach prism of the northern third of
ISmith Island, and the beach retreated at a rapid rate. South of Bungalow Inlet the
second inlet closed and stopped trapping sand. The demand for sand was reduced to
that which was needed to close the inlet, straighten the beach, and reconstruct a dune

line. Therefore, less sand was taken from storage in the beach prism of the middle
third of the island, and the retreat of the beach was only about 30 percent as great
as that on the northern third of the island. With the second inlet closed, the shore-
line changes along the southern third of the island were occurring as adjustments of
the beach to the single influence of a wave-driven longshore drift system. This system
requires a straighter beach, and the shoreline changes that occurred served to produce
a straighter beach.

The changes to the southern end of Smith Island seem to be a return to a retreating
situation that had persisted throughout the 1900's, except during the time interval
from 1942-1955, when the "pulse" of sand was passing. Events between 1955 and 1968
are certain to have influenced this return to a condition of retreat. The second
ephemeral inlet closed which served to increase the volume of water moving through
Smith Island Inlet on the tidal cycle. The closing also ,changed the current pattern
offshore of the southern quarter of Smith Island by removing the effect of that in-
let's currents along that part of the beach. The inlet channel past the end of Smith
Island had begun to shift westward in the early part of this century, and that shift
would also have led to a change in inlet currents near the south end of the island.
The sand spit at the south end of the island began to grow north northwestward in the
1930's, and by 1942 it had reached a length of about 1100 ft. and a width of about
150 ft. Erosion of the west side of Smith Island was halted during this same interval
of time, and a fringing marsh began to develop. By 1968, this sand spit had grown to
a length of over 1700 ft. and a width of about 550 ft. Tidal flats had grown in front
of the fringing marsh all along the west side of Smith Island. All of these changes
are a response to changing inlet currents along the southern part of the island.

I. (1968-1974)

All of the ephemeral inlets on Smith Island had closed by the spring of 1973. Al-
though some overwashing was still taking place in the vicinity of Bungalow Inlet and
Mud Hole Creek, the episode of breaching into Smith Island Bay had drawn to a close.
Overwashing would continue at various locations as part of the normal process of re-
treat and build up of the barrier island. Little Inlet had begun to increase in width
and by 1974 was more than 900 ft. wide. The reason for the increase in width was an
increase in tidal circulation through the inlet. Drainage to Little Inlet was be-
coming re-established. The tidal canal named Pud4ing 'Creek had deepened, providing a
better connection to Main Ship Shoal Channel. The channel from Little Inlet to Pudding
Creek (not named) had extended into the tidal flats at the north end of Smith Island
Bay. A broad and deep channel extended a mile south of the southern sand spit from
Bungalow Inlet before it branched into a dendritic network of minor channels. The
north end of Smith Island Bay was again directly connected to Little Inlet. The drain-
age in the marsh of Mink Island had also changed. Mink Island Creek no longer provided
a meaningful connection with Ship Shoal Inlet. Big Creek had filled in, adding a sec-
tion of marsh to the west end of Mink Island. Black Rock Creek had diminished in size
and was clearly closing off near the southwest end of Mink Island. Mink Island Bay
had filled and become part of the marsh of Mink Island. Two large tidal flats west
of Mink Island Bay were also beginning to fill and become marsh. For all practical
purposes, Mink Island no longer existed, except in name. The marsh area behind Myrtle
Island extended west to Main Ship Shoal Channel and Pudding Creek. The northern half
of the marsh was draining to Main Ship Shoal Channel, and the southern half drained

Ito the channel from Little Inlet. The marsh behind the northern third of Smith
Island drained to Little Inlet, and a new network of tidal canals was becoming
established. Trapping of sand at Little Inlet has contributed to the change in
tidal drainage at Mink Island Bay and at the eastern end of Mink Island.

By 1974 the changes to the shoreline of Smith Island had produced a very much
I straighter beach, which curved inward slightly along the middle portion of the
is land. Retreat of the northern part of the island was still rapid, occurring at
rates of 50-65 ft./yr. Much of this retreat can be attributed to straightening of
the beach and continuing overwash which is transferring large volumes of sand to
te marsh area. The area of most rapid beach retreat is located between Bungalow
Ilth and the -north side of Mud Hole. This is also where overwash is still occurr-
i-ng. South of Bungalow Inlet the beach has not been overwashed in recent years,
Hand a dune ridge runs the length of this beach. This portion of the beach has been
retreating, but the rate has been only about half as great as in the section near
Mud Hole and about equal to the rate at the north end of the island, south of Little
Inlet. Retreat diminished southward to zero at the bend in the beach southeast of
Cape Charles Light. South of the bend, the beach accreted as much as it had re-
teated just north of the bend. Retreat at the tip slowed, and the sand spit con-
tinued to grow in area. These changes all indicate that shoreline processes are
adjusting to a wave-driven system. The shoreline is straightening, and will con-
Itinue to retreat, but the rate of retreat can be expected to diminish in the near
*future.

I IV. GEOMORPHIC DESCRIPTION AND INTERPRETATION

A. Area West of Barrier Islands

I The geology of the marsh and bay area between the mainland coast and the barrier
islands south of Sand Shoal Inlet includes some geomorphic features that extend
Inorth and south for distances greater than the length of an individual barrier
island. Therefore, discussion of these features was omitted from the sections deal-
ing with Wreck Island, Ship Shoal Island, and Myrtle Island. Many of those geo-
Imo rphic features terminate west of Smith Island, and the discussion of all of them
isincluded in this section.

An erosional feature known as the Mappsburg'Scarp lies at, or very near, the main-
land coast at the western limit of the area covered by this discussion. The scarp
isa wave-cut cliff that averages about 25 ft. in relief. It has been eroded into
barrier island deposits of late Sangamon age that have been dated at 65,000 years
IBP (Mixon, et al., 1974). North of Oyster the west shoreline of Brockenberry Bay
coincides wi-th-the base of the scarp. The scarp can be traced northward for miles
but it passes inland from the modern shoreline north of Indian Town Neck. South-
Iward from Brockenberry Bay to Dixon's Dock near the south end of Miagothy Bay, the
coastline is straight. The Mappsburg Scarp lies within a few hundred feet of the
coastline as far south as the north end of Magothy Bay where the sea cliff begins
to fade away to more gently sloping topography. There is an ancient beach at the
* base of the scarp, and where the modern shoreline is not governed by the base of
te scarp, it follows this ancient beach. From the north end of Magothy Bay south-
ward to Dixon's Dock this ancient beach lies at the landward side of the thin strip

of marsh along the west side of Magothy Bay. West of Dixon's Dock this ancient beach
turns sharply west and follows a west southwest course across Cape Charles to Chesa-
peake Bay. Near Chesapeake Bay a 20-ft. sea cliff lies behind the beach.

In the physiographic descriptions of each of the four barrier islands included in this I
discussion, there were descriptions of two groups of beach ridges that were found in
the marsh and bay area. One group of beach ridges is found west of (or in) Magothy
Bay and Mockhorn Bay. The second group of beach ridges is east of those bays in the I
marsh area between them and South Bay and Smith Island Bay. All of these beach ridges
diverge eastward away from the line of the Mappsburg Scarp as they are traced north-
ward. This same divergent pattern can be seen in the ancient beach ridges west of Hog I
Island Bay.

In the first group of beach ridges, one can be traced easily on the U.S.G.S. topo-
graphic maps for this area. The other beach ridges in this group are more easily lo- !
cated and traced on the black and white and IR imagery. The ridge that can be traced
on the topographic maps begins at the strip of marsh between Brockenberry Bay and Rams-
horn Channel, runs southward as a string of marsh islands in Mockhorn Bay, and on
through the middle of the marsh that separates Mockhorn Bay from Magothy Bay west of U
Mockhorn Channel. Further south it passes west of the small cove at the south end of
Dunton Cove and along the edge of the marsh to Cushman's Landing, then across Jones I
Cove to merge with an older beach ridge to the west. The merged beach ridges can be
traced southward to Dixon's Dock where they join the deposits associated with the
ancient beach that cuts across the south end of the peninsula to Chesapeake Bay. The
beach ridges in this n'e'arshore group must predate the major fall-of sea level during - .
the Wisconsin glaciation, because they are all cut through by-valleys of streams drain+ ii,
ing from the mainland. The group of beach ridges records the beginning of a drop in
sea level, following the time when the Mappsburg Scarp and beach were produced. I

Most of the beach ridges in the second group are contained in the marsh area identified
as Mockhorn Island, but there are beach ridges in New Marsh at the north end of Mock-
horn Island and in the marsh east of the southern portion of Mockhorn Island. Other
beach ridges are found in Elkins Marsh. The larger of these beach ridges rise far
enough above the level of the marsh to be forested, but not enough to be contoured on
the topographic maps. Some of them are shown on the topographic maps as sandy and i
forested areas in the marsh of Mockhorn Island. The pattern of eastward divergence
to the north can also be seen in the beach ridge pattern on the topographic map, al-
though it is much easier to see in aerial photographs. The long southward tapering
shape of Mockhorn Island is a consequence of the merging of these beach ridges to the
south. The relief of the beach ridges also declines progressively to the east in re-
spect to modern sea level, which is a reasonable indication that they had each formed
at progressively lower sea level stands.

The merged beach ridges at the southern end of Mockhorn Island curve gently southwest
toward Skidmore Island at the south end of Magothy Bay. There are ancient beach ridge -T;
units on Skidmore Island that trend generally east northeast. They are truncated on
both ends by the modern shoreline of the island. The northernmost of these beach ridge
remnants line up with a similar beach ridge remnant on Holly Bluff Island to the south- I
west of Skidmore Island. The trend continues to the ancient beach deposits at Dixon's
Dock, and these in turn continue west southwest across the south end of the mainland

-318- I

I peninsula. It is believed that these features on the west side of Magothy Bay
correlate with the merged beach ridges at the south end of Mockhorn Island. To-
gether they define an ancient coastline north of Chesapeake Bay. The pattern of
these ancient beach ridges (diverging to the north; merging to the south) provides
I a record of changing shoreline positions during the initial withdrawal of the sea
-caused by the onset of Wisconsin glaciation. The pattern fades out to the east and
is lost at about the position of the western half of South Bay. East of there the
I elevation of the tops of the beach ridges would be below modern sea level.

In the area between these beach ridges and the modern barrier islands, there is
*little other ancient geomorphology. There are inlet island deposits and abandoned
natural levees at places, in the marsh areas that may be ancient, but they are so
scattered that there is no discernable patterns from which they might be inter-
Ipreted. The antiquity of those features is thus unknown. It would appear that marsh
and bay sediments in this area-are young and simply cover older features. A con-
siderable portion of the marsh in this area has formed during historical times, and
much of that within the past sixty years. This area thus isolates pre-Wisconsin
beach ridge features from post-Wisconsin barrier island features.

B. Smith Island: Ancient Beach Ridge Province

I On Smith island, the oldest geomorphic features are found in the beach ridge province
of the southern quarter of the-island. There are -no significant older geomorphic
features on the northern three-quarters of the island. The northernmost beach ridge
Iin the southern beach ridge province is the oldest unit, and each beach ridge to the
south is younger. The northern beach ridges are also higher than those farther south.
*The northernmost beach ridge is a short ridge that reaches seven feet in elevation.
IIt can be seen on the topographic map northeast of Cape Charles Light, and midway in
the width of the island. On the Geologic Map of Smith Island this beach ridge is lo-
*cated in the northwesterly prominence on the north edge of the beach ridge unit shown
Ion the map. Detailed examination of the ridge in the vicinity of its highest point
reveals that the high area is the remnant of a northwest trending sand spit. Two
lower and thinner sand spits that also trend northwest lie on its west side. A low
narrow beach ridge runs nearly due east from the highest point, for a distance of
I 1800 ft., before it disappears under a younger ridge. Just south of the highest point,
but not connected to it, a second low narrow beach ridge parallels the first to the
east. Westward, this second beach ridge starts to recurve to the northwest, but-is
Itruncated at the modern beach of Smith Island. The northern of these two narrow beach
ridges was obviously a sand spit with a well developed sand dune ridge where it hooked
into the inlet. This could only be the western end of an ancient barrier island.

It is equally obvious that that ancient island was being driven back into Smith Island
Bay when something stopped the retreat, and left the remnant found today. The second
narrow beach ridge that parallels the first is younger, and was formed shortly after
I retreat of the ancient island had been halted. Both of these ridges terminate to the
east where a third low beach ridge cuts across them at a small (130) angle. This
third beach ridge trends more nearly east northeast, and is cut off by the modern beach
Ideposits at its east end. At the west end a sand spit recurves to the northwest be-
fore it is truncated at the modern shoreline of Smith Island.

* This. third low beach ridge is rotated counterclockwise with respect to the first two,
reflecting beach erosion on Smith Island in an easterly direction, and sand spit

I ~~~~~~~~~~~-319-

extension in a westerly direction. It is believed that this third beach ridge was
produced as a result of shoreline adjustments that took place along the seaward (SE) I
facing beach of Smith Island as retreat of the island was halted. These first three
beach ridges are treated together as the first beach ridge unit; one that records the
end of an ancient retreat of Smith Island.

To the south of the three ridges previously described, there is a group of five ridges
that make up a second beach ridge unit. The first, second, and fifth of the beach
ridges in this second unit are prominent and continuous; the third and fourth are lower
and discontinuous. The beach ridges in this group are nearly parallel to the third
ridge in the previous group, but they are oriented a little more to the east. All five
ridges in this group are truncated at their eastern end at the 1949 shoreline and thus I
terminate against younger deposits. The first ridge in this group has two sand spits
at the western end, each of which recurves to the northwest. The older of these two
sand spits terminates -on the island, but the larger, younger one is truncated at the
modern beach. The second ridge in this group extends further west than the first and
ends with several sand spits which recurve northwest to west northwest and terminate
at the shore of the island. The third prominent beach ridge in this group is about
400 ft. south of the second and separated from it by a broad sand flat on which the
lower, discontinuous third. and fourth beach ridges are located. This last prominent
beach ridge merges with a younger beach ridge midway across the island and the merged
ridge continues west across the island until it ends in a broad overwashed recurved
sand spit that terminates on Smith Island. This second group of beach ridges records
a period of rapid progradation of the ancient barrier island, during which time the
island grew westward more than 3100 ft. and southward by 900 ft.

The third beach ridge unit to the south is oriented more to the east than the second
one was, and its northernmost ridge meets the second beach ridge unit at an angle of
5�. This unit is truncated by an old strand line along its southern margin so that
ridges that are present on the eastern side of the island end when they encounter this
strand line. At the eastern end this unit is more than 1350 ft. wide, but at the west-
ern end of the island, it is only about 750 ft. wide because of erosional losses along
the old strand line. There are nine parallel beach ridges of fairly uniform height
and size in the unit, and a number of smaller, discontinuous beach ridges. The north-
ernmost beach ridge merges with the southernmost ridge of the second beach ridge unit
and the two continue west as a single but larger beach ridge. The second ridge in this
unit merges with the first near the middle of the island, but just west of that, one
of the discontinuous ridges takes up the position of the second ridge and continues
west until it ends on the island as an overwashed sand spit that recurves northwest.
Further south near the middle of this beach ridge unit, there is a cluster of ridges
spaced very closely together. At the east side of the island there are three dis-
tinct ridges in this cluster, but across the middle of the island the number varies
from three to five. At the western end of these closely spaced beach ridges, the
two northernmost ridges recurve to the northwest and merge with a younger, composite,
northwest trending sand spit, but at least three younger and smaller ridges die out
I
before they reach the western part of the island. The next beach ridge south, reaches
the middle of the island before it is truncated by the old strand line that marks the
south boundary of this beach ridge unit. Each successively younger beach ridge is
truncated further to the east along this strand line. There is a beach ridge along

-320-

the north side of this old strand line, and all of the truncated beach ridges merge
into this one beach ridge. At the western side of the island the strand line turns
sharply to the northwest and the beach ridge associated with it recurves northwest
and ends abruptly on Smith Island. Farther to the northwest, the strand line has
reworked older sand spits (of this beach ridge unit) to make a large broad composite
sand spit that is truncated at the modern beach line. This third beach ridge unit
represents a second phase in a continuing period of rapid progradation of this end
of Smith Island. The old strand line clearly indicates that this second phase of
progradation was followed by a period of reshaping of this south end of the island
to establish a nearly east-west shoreline. The recurving of the shoreline to the
northwest along a sand spit indicates the continued presence of an inlet channel near
the west end of the beach ridge unit.

The fourth beach ridge unit to the south is a narrow unit, bounded north and south
by old strand lines. It is about 650 ft. wide near the east end but narrows to a
width of about 165 ft. at Cape Charles Light and maintains that width as it recurves
northwest to the modern shoreline. On the U.S.G.S. Topographic Map it appears as
the thin triangular forested area that lies due east of Cape Charles Light. It con-
tains seven to ten closely spaced beach ridges and no noticeable depressions or swales.
The southern boundary is a low (3-4 ft.) wave-cut scarp east of the lighthouse, but
it is only a break in the topography along the northwest sand spit west of the light-
house. The trend of the beach ridges is turned about 4� clockwise of the older strand
line, which places them almost eastward in orientation. The beach ridges come in to
the older strand line, where they are successively welded onto the old beach. The
younger strand line is oriented 3� clockwise of the trend of the beach ridges, so that
it does not truncate many of the ridges. This beach ridge unit represents a third
phase of progradation of this part of the island that was, in turn, ended by a return
to conditions of reshaping of the shoreline by erosion. The southward rotation of
both the beach ridges and the second strand line indicate that to the east of the
modern island, the ancient Smith Island continued to prograde toward the south and
east.

The fifth beach ridge unit to the south is a double ridged unit about 250 ft. wide.
It parallels the older strand line east of the lighthouse, but west of the lighthouse
it does not recurve to the northwest. It continues straight west until it is trun-
cated by a modern beach. Both of the ridges in this unit have south-facing wave cut
scarps from the lighthouse eastward to where the unit is truncated against modern de-
posits. West of the lighthouse, there is a series of low sand spits that progressively
curve from the north side of this ridge unit to the northwest, but the two beach ridges
of the unit continue through as partially overwashed lower beach ridges. The series
of sand spits along the northern of these two beach ridges record the progressive
westward growth of the sand spit and beach ridge that built upon it. The southern
boundary of this unit is another strand line that is oriented 3� clockwise of the one
at the northern margin of the unit.

This fifth beach ridge unit is interpreted as an intermediate (fourth) stage in a
changing history of proeradation. The straight through pattern of the ridges indicates
that the southern tip of island had begun to grow to the west. This in turn implies
that changes in the inlet channel had occurred that would allow this westward growth.
The wave-cut scarps on both ridges probably reflect the oscillations of the beach that
normally accompany changes in inlet processes.

-321-

The character of the beach ridge province changes south of the fifth beach ridge
unit. The beach ridges to the south are lower, generally less defined, and there
are more discontinuous ridges and short ridges that don't follow the trend of the
longer beach ridges.

The area to the south of the first five beach ridge units is designated as the south-
ern beach ridge area, and the numbering of beach ridge units is resumed at one (i.e.,
there is a northern area in the beach ridge province that contains five units, where-
in the beach ridges are of a different character than those in -the southern beachI
ridge area). The spacing of the beach ridges in the southern area is more variable.
(Overall, the ridges are farther apart, and separated by broader sand flats; partic-
ularly on the west side of the island where many of the beach ridges have been over-
washed. Few of these southern beach ridges exceed three feet in elevation, and they
nearly all diminish in elevation at their western end. Strand lines can be traced
between many of the beach ridge-s, but most of them are parallel to adjacent ones.
Only when a strand line was prominently developed, or changed orientation was itI
mapped. The beach ridge units are defined between those mapped strand lines.

The character of all of these southern beach ridges (particularly the discontinuous
ridges and the short ones that lie at a slight angle to the trend of the others),
the presence of numerous linear ponds at the north edge of the sand flats, and the
frequently obvious strand line positions, all suggest that accretion was rapid.
These features also suggest that accretion was pulse-like, with a period of time when
sand ridges came ashore rapidly after a prior period when a well-defined strand line
had developed. Each period of rapid accretion was then followed by a time when ac- f
cretion slowed enough to allow another strand line to form, or-.a higher, more contin-U
uous beach ridge to build. The northern two beach ridge units in this southern section
have a combined width of more than 1400 ft., and the ridges are essentially parallel
throughout that width. This, too, suggests a period of very rapid accretion. TheI
beach ridges in these two units also extend entirely across the island, and are trun-
cated at both ends. None of them shows any recurvature to the north near their western
ends. It is obvious that Smith Island continued to grow westward by 1000 ft. or more.,
because that is about the minimum width of-.the island occupied by the recurved portions
of other beach ridges. (The westward bulge in the island produced by this period of
accretion was removed by erosion prior to 1853).

The third ridge unit in this southern area of the beach ridge province is wider th~an
either of the first two, varying in width from 800-900 ft. It is a beach ridge unit,
but it resembles a broad sand flat, and most of it has been mapped as such. It canI
be divided into northern and southern halves on the basis of physical differences. The
northern half is quite low and has a large number of small ponds strung out in lines
that mark former runnels seaward of strand line positions. Between the rows of small
ponds, the ground is slightly higher with scattered linear hummocks and Parramore Pim-
ples. At the west end of this half of the unit there are fully developed beach ridges
that line up with the high ground- between the rows of ponds.. But, these are cut off,
or cut through, before they reach the western shore of the island. At the eastern end I
of this half of the unit the high ground between the rows of ponds runs gradually into
low beach ridges that are truncated at modern beach deposits. Many features in this
area indicate that although accretion was rapid, the beach ridges were low and subject I
to frequent overwash.

-322-

The southern half of this third section begins with a through-running beach ridge
that has been breached by overwash channels at many places along the western half.
This is followed by other beach ridges, each less frequently breached. The southern-
most beach ridge is the most continuous, but it recurves to the northwest at the
western end. The recurving of the beach ridge and strand line indicates that the
southern tip of the island had been migrating to the south southeast.

The beach ridges in this third southern unit are not sub-parallel as are those in
all of the preceding beach ridge units. The changing orientation of the beach ridges
shows first a counterclockwise turning from the orientation of the first ridge and
then a clockwise rotation of the later ridges. This changing beach ridge orientation,
and the migration of the tip of the island toward the south southeast, while accretion
was taking place, suggests that these changes are adjustments in response to other
changes; at the inlet, on the island to the north and east, and, perhaps, in sea
level. The fifth phase of accretion of the island began with the first of these three
southern beach ridge units, continued through the second, and into the northern part
-of this third unit, without much change or abatement. Then, although accretion con-
tinued to widen this third unit, the beach ridges become smaller and farther apart,
and then larger and closer together,'but disoriented. This phase of accretion then
ended with a reshaping and slight retreat of the shoreline.

The next beach ridge unit to the south is the fourth unit in the southern part of the
island. It is a narrow unit that added only 330 ft. to the island. It is separated
from the previous unit by a broad pond (runnel) along the middle part of its length
where it consists of a single broad beach ridge that is higher (1.0-1.5 ft.) than the
beach ridges to the north. To the east the width of the unit increases and the single
beach ridge leads into three divergent beach ridges. The western end of the unit
splays out into a pattern of sharply recurved beach ridges, some of which have built
across the old strand line and onto the deposits of the third beach ridge unit. The
younger of these recurved beach ridges are cut off at the modern shoreline. The strand
line at the south edge of this unit is a wave-cut scarp that extends all the way across
the island. The orientation of this strand line has been rotated slightly clockwise
from the next one to the norths--so-that-this unit gradually widened to the east of the
present shoreline. The part of this unit that remains on the island is interpreted as
a sand spit that grew in front of the older beach as the island accreted more to the
east of the present island. The recurved beach ridges at the west end define the
southern tip of the island, and show that it had moved back toward the south southwest..

The fifth beach ridge unit in this southern section is almost a duplicate of the fourth,
except that it is narrower and visibly narrows to the west as it crosses the island.
There is a broad pond (runnel) between it and the previous unit, except at the west end
where the beach ridge has built against the older unit. The unit does not recurve,
but runs straight across the island to where it merges with a larger northwest trending
beach ridge that recurves from a younger unit to the south. The pattern of this fifth
beach ridge unit shows that like the previous one it grew westward in front of the older
beach as accretion increased farther to the east along the island. Because this unit
does not recurve to the northwest it is clear that the southern tip of the island had
continued to move toward the southwest as this unit was added. The strand line at
the south edge of this unit is rotated clockwise from the previous strand line, indi-
cating that this unit rapidly increased in width, east of the present island.

To the south of the fifth southern beach ridge unit there is less of the island re-
maining, and what is left of the ancient beach ridges has been reworked by man to some

| -323-

extent. Enough data are on hand, however, to show that another narrow beach ridge
unit (sixth) was the next'portion added to the island. This unit is about 250 ft.
wide and is truncated near the western end at the shore of an oval pond that is be-
lieved-to be man-made. The three ridges in the unit are rotated clockwise from the
older strand line and they trend east southeast. The next (seventh) beach ridge lies
950 ft. south of this unit, and it recurves from a west northwest trend at the east
shore of the island to north along the western shore of the island. On the west side
of the island it merges with the western ends of the previous two beach ridge units.
Between this recurving beach ridge and the. prior beach ridge, there was a broad ex-
panse of ponded water which eventually filled in enough to allow some marsh to develop.
Most recently, retreat of the island has caused sand to build into most of this area,
reducing the marsh area and partially filling the remaining ponds. The portion of
this beach ridge on the remaining piece of the island was part of a well-developed
sand spit that grew westward after the island to the east had advanced south by more
than 1000 ft. East of the present island, the beach ridge ran east-west, indicating
that the shoreline at the south end of the island was still oriented in that general
direction and that accretion had been continuing east of the present island. The
beach ridge on this sand spit was well developed and is shown on the 1871 charts as
a distinct ridge. South of this ridge, the 1949 aerial photography show three other
ridges, the first of which is oriented northwest and the other two progressively more
to the north. Reconstruction of the shoreline positions back to 1853 shows that this
end of the island had continued to accrete, and the tip of the island had migrated
southwest. The tip of the island has retreated about 2000 ft. in this century, but
it had advanced about 400 ft. in the latter half of the previous century. It is not
known how much of the 1600 ft. of pre-1853 island that has been lost was made up of
ancient beach deposits, but it would not be unreasonable to assume that all of it
had been.

The modern shoreline of the southern quarter of Smith Island on the bay side is
(today) a straight shoreline, and many of the ancient beach ridges terminate at that
shoreline. However, scuth of the present tip of the island, the part of the island
lost since 1853 curved more southwesterly into the bay. The large ancient sand spit,
mentioned in the preceding paragraph,-had grown northward across the ends of two older
beach ridge units. Ttwould then seem most likely that the erosion of the older beach
ridge units north of the end of this sand spit had occurred in the time interval just
.preceding the building of that sand spit; a time when this part of the island was
not accreting. Growth of the island on the east side and erosion and lack of south-
erly growth on the west side suggests that some change in inlet circulation had oc-
curred, and that the shape of the south end of the island changed to accommodate it.

C. Modern Features

The remaining geomorphic units of Smith Island are all very much younger than the
units just described. The oldest among them are less than a half-century old. The
retreat of Smith Island has been such that all of the island except the ancient beach
ridge province has been reworked by the sea in recent years. The oldest of those
modern units are found near the north end of the ancient beach ridge unit. An inlet
opened at this location in the 1930's and closed in the early 1960's. Whiile the in-
let was open a sand spit grew northwest into Smith Island Bay along the south side of
the inlet, and numerous beach ridges formed on the sand spit. It is shown on the geo-
logic map as a northwest trending beach ridge unit at the very north end of the an-
cient beach ridge unit. Another series of beach ridges formed and grew southward from

-324-

the northern side of this inlet opening, narrowing the inlet as they grew. Just
north of the inlet there is a remnant of a beach ridge that curves toward the bay
along the north shore of the inlet. This is the remnant of the beach ridge that
formed after the island breached and while the inlet was open at its maximum width.
This is the oldest of the three beach ridge units, the other two are somewhat younger
in age.

Two large marsh areas and many smaller ones grew in Smith Island Bay just inside of
this ephemeral inlet while it remained open. There had previously been no marsh in
this part of the bay except immediately behind the beach that breached, and a narrow
fringe along the southern quarter of the island. After the inlet opened, a flood
tide delta formed an inlet island just inside the inlet which served to divide the
inlet channel. As the inlet closed, this island grew rapidly into the inlet to form
a broad sand flat where the inlet had been. Sand dunes then built across the sand
flat near the beadh as the island accreted to erase the scallop in the beach where
the inlet had been.

The marsh area behind the middle third of the island is about the same age as the marsh
areas near the southern ephemeral inlet. This marsh has grown upon sand deltas that
were deposited in Smith Island Bay when this part of the island was breached between
1911 and 1921. The closing of that breach to form Bungalow Inlet and the growth of
the marsh area has been discussed under shoreline changes. In the years before Bunga-
low Inlet closed, a flood tide delta formed as an inlet island in the channel south-
I west of the inlet. A sand spit grew gradually along the southern edge of the inlet.
Eventually it reached the north end of the inlet island and grew past it into the bay
before it recurved to the southwest and ended. Bungalow Inlet has only been closed
for a few years, and the inlet position still serves as an overwash channel.

Near the south end of the island an old strand line cuts across the eastern ends of
the ancient beach ridges, and several beach ridges and a sand dune area lie between
it and the modern beach. The strand line dates from the period of closing of the
southern ephemeral inlet, when this part of the island stopped retreating and began
to accrete. A reasonable data for the strand line would lie between 1960 and 1962,
I and the first beach ridge was in place by March 1963. Accretion since that time has
added other beach ridges and allowed the sand dunes to build as the shoreline advanced.
The remaining geomorphology of the island is comprised of the modern beach, berms,
sand dunes, and overwash channels, fans, and aprons. Retreat of the island north of
the old lighthouse has been so rapid in recent years that all of those features should
be considered ephemeral, and will continue to be for the remaining time that it takes
for the shoreline of the island to finish adjusting after the closing of the ephemeral
inlets.

V. GEOLOGIC HISTORY AND INTERPRETATION

The deposits contained within the area covered by this section on geology yield a
better picture of geologic history than those in areas previously described. The
first part of this section discussed the units found in the marsh and bay areas. Those
units provide the basis for understanding the older geologic history of the southern
end of the barrier island chain. The Mappsburg Scarp and the beach at the base were
formed in the very late Sangamon Interglacial Stage or at the very beginning of the
Wisconsin Stage of glaciation Olixon, et al., 1974). The scarp is a transgressive
feature representing retreat of the shoreline, and could have been formed during a

-325-

still stand of sea level or with a rising sea level. The drowned beach ridges that
parallel the Mappsburg Scarp lie east of the beach at the base of the scarp, and could
only have been formed under conditions of a falling sea level. The first two or three
of these ridges remain roughly parallel to the beach at the base of the scarp, but
later ridges formed at a low angle to the scarp, diverging from it in a northerly dir- [
ection. These earliest ridges all lie within about a half mile of the beach at the
base of the scarp. The first ridges formed were apparently mainland beaches with sand
dune ridges, but the youngest one was probably part mainland beach and part barrier
island beach. It is much straighter, and more continuous than the earlier beaches.
Also, this beach diverges from the mainland trend and lies farther offshore with a
lowland between it and the mainland. North of Indiantown Neck and west of Cobb Island
and Hog Island, another set of beach ridges begins at the mainland and diverges from
it to become offshore barrier beach ridges with broad low areas between them and the
mainland. These are more clearly barrier type islands. The divergence from the shore-
line was probably caused by the configuration of the continental shelf at that time,
but it would also have been influenced by longshore currents which would have been
moving the sediment needed to build the beach ridges.

This early stage of beach ridge building as sea level began to fall was followed by |
the appearance of barrier islands about 1.7 miles east of the beaches previously dis-
cussed. The intervening area is occupied by Magothy and Mockhorn Bays and there is
no clear evidence of any drowned beach ridges within the main part of the bays. It
is not clear whether or not this development should be interpreted as being caused by
a change in the rate of sea level decline. The barrier island that formed ran east-
erly from Cape Charles through Skidmore Island and then curved north to parallel the [
youngest ridge in the older group of ridges on the west side of the bays. The beach
ridge of this barrier island forms the western shoreline on the southern half of Mock-
horn Island but it runs into the marsh north of the midpoint on the island. Presumably
there was an inlet at the south end of Magothy Bay and probably others along the length
of the barrier island. This barrier island can be traced as far north as Oyster, but
not beyond, and it is possible that it ended at an offset inlet at that location. Af-
ter the establishment of this initial barrier island system, other beach ridges formed [
east of it. Each of these succeeding beach ridges diverged from the preceding at the
north end and merged with it at the south end. This pattern gradually rotated the ad-
vancing shoreline in a clockwise sense while the south end remained essentially un- [
changed through the southern end of Mockhorn Island, and on through to Cape Charles.
It is possible that this southern part was mainland coastline, and the point of diver-
gence simply marked the location where a sand spit started offshore into the barrier [
island system. There are breaks in the beach ridges to the north, and the beach ridges
all end in the vicinity of Sand Shoal Channel. There are beach ridges in Elkins Marsh
on the north side of Sand Shoal Channel but they are not extensions of the beach ridges
on Mockhorn Island. Tt seems that an inlet was maintained in the position of Sand
Shoal Channel as the barrier islands advanced seaward, and that the coastline from
there to an inlet near the south end of Magothy Bay acted as a separate section of coast-
line. -

The succession of beach ridges on Mockhorn Island becomes lower in elevation until the
ridges finally disappear beneath marsh and bay sediments in the vicinity of White Perch [
Channel. Similar features are doubtlessly found beneath those sediments, at least as
far east as the modern barrier islands, because the decline of sea level during Wiscon-
sin time caused the shoreline to advance many miles out onto the continental shelf.
The sediments beneath which those features are buried are post Wisconsin in age, pre-
sumably late Holocene.

-326-

In summarizing this section, several characteristics of these very ancient features
should be brought out. Magothy Bay and Mockhorn Bay were framed by beach ridge de-
posits very early in the Wisconsin recession of sea level, and have now been reflooded
by the post glacial rise of sea level. The north edge of the inlet at Chesapeake Bay
remained very close to the wave-cut scarp across the end of the peninsula at Cape
Charles throughout all of the early stages of sea level retreat,'and successive shore-
line positions curve northward from that inlet-opening. An inlet was maintained at
Sand Shoal Channel throughout this early period of retreat, and probably was main-
tained as a mainland valley throughout the Wisconsin period of time. Each successive
shoreline curved smoothly from this inlet to the mouth of Chesapeake Bay.

The remaining ancient features of Smith Island are the beach ridge units at the very
south end of the island. These are post Wisconsin in age, but still old in comparison
to other features on the island. To understand the meaning of these beach ridges, and
the geologic history that they yield, it is necessary to draw upon features not lo-
cated on Smith Island. Raccoon Island is located in the marsh area at the southeast
end of the mainland peninsula. On this island there is a pattern of beach ridges that
correlate very well in size and spacing with the northernmost ridges at the south end
of Smith Island. The orientation of the Raccoon island ridges is different, but they
I were on the opposite side of the inlet to Magothy Bay and Smith Island Bay. The other
information needed comes from WlTreck Island- far to the-north. The analysis of the
geology and shoreline changes for Wreck Island had shown that Wreck Island formerly
extended a long distance to the southeast of the present position and that Ship Shoal
Island had most likely been a part of Wreck Island. The geologic evidence from Wreck
Island also showed the remains of an ancient barrier island that formerly extended to
the southeast, and of large marsh canals draining from that general direction. Lastly,
there were no truly ancient features on Ship Shoal Island, Myrtle Island, or on the
northern three-quarters of Smith Island. Using this information and the description
of the northernmost of the ancient beach ridges on Smith Island, it is possible to re-
I construct the shoreline of the southern part of the Virginia Barrier Island Chain at
some time in the distant past. This has been done schematically in Figure 82, which
shows the configuration of the islands as they were at that ancient time in relation
to the way they are today. The shore of the inlet at Chesapeake Bay was across the
end of the peninsula. The shoreline trend for the barrier island system then ran
eastward to the sand spit at the south end of Smith Island, curved northward along
Smith Island and then curved landward again to an indentation in the barrier island
3 chain at Sand Shoal Inlet.

Prior to the time of the ancient shoreline shown in Figure 82, the barrier islands had
been retreating in response to a rising sea level. After that time the rise in sea
level stopped, and, as noted on other islands, a period of sea level retreat set in
and Smith Island began to prograde seaward. The beach ridge units that have previously
been described provide the means of interpreting sea level changes and the history
of progradation on Smith Island. The phases of progradation that were described have
been shown on Figure 82, where they have been projected seaward to reconstruct Smith
Island for various stages during this history of progradation. The amount of pro-
gradation of the northern three-quarters of Smith Island is unknown but for the pur-
poses of reconstruction, it was assumed that it was less along the long seaward face

-327-

e, Marsh i)

Oyster (X

00 C

SFIOREL NES ,I
1950's o
1870's \ -
Ancient
Prograding -.............
Retreating i

FIGURE 82. SOUTHERN GROUP, VIRGINIA BARRIER ISLANDS
Ancient Configuration and Shoreline Position
-328-

of the island than at the southern end where longshore drift would facilitate greater
accretion.

The three northernmost beach ridges on the island comprise the first beach ridge unit
and provide the record of the halting of the rise in sea level and a brief stillstand
before sea level began to retreat. The second beach ridge unit built in front of the
old sand spit, and parallel to it after the sea level had stopped rising. The third
beach ridge cuts across both of the older ridges, indicating that the island had re-
treated, somewhere to the east of the present island, probably on the curved southern
end of the ancient island. Longshore drift had moved the sediment south and allowed
this ridge to build and grow to the west of the older beach ridges before it recurved
to the inlet. This is interpreted as an adjustment in the shape of the island during
the brief stillstand of sea level, before it began to recede.

The second beach ridge unit previously described records the onset of rapid progradation
of the island and decline in sea level. The island grew westward by more than 3100 ft.
and southward by 90n ft. during this first phase of progradation. As shown in Figure
82, the growth of the ridge unit was attended by southward and eastward progradation
of the ancient Smith Island. In the description of the beach ridge units a differen-
tiation was made on the basis of appearance between a group of northern units and the
southern units. There were five units in the northern group and more than seven units
in the southern group. Progradation of the island on a falling sea level continued
through all of the remaining ridge units in the northern group and into the third unit
in the southern group. Figure 82 shows these units and the amount of growth that had
to have occurred on the ancient Smith Island in order to accommodate these units.

The nature of the beach ridges in the third beach ridge unit of the southern group is
very much different than those in other units. Those differences have been discussed
earlier in this section. Here it should be noted that in addition to those differ-
ences, this ridge unit shows the most severe effects of drowning by the recent rise
in sea level. It is believed that the decline of sea level ended during the time it
took to deposit the northern half of this unit and was either rising or at the end
of its falling cycle during the deposition of the southern half of the unit. South
of this unit the island continued to prograde for a long period of time, but the na-
ture of the ridge units had changed abruptly, and they are interpreted to represent
progradation with a rising condition of sea level.

The next three beach ridge units to the south all show the same characteristics. They
are separated from the previous unit by a broad depression (runnel) and are composed
of closely spaced or crowded beach ridges, and have occasional sand spits that recurve
into the runnel on their north side. They .are all interpreted as sand spits that grew
westward in front of the older beach. Their orientation and interpretation require
that the ancient Smith Island had continued to prograde south at a location east of
the present island. Figure 82 shows how this could occur despite the implied return
to a condition of rising sea level.

Near the south end of the island there is a gap of 950 ft. before the next beach ridge
unit is encountered. This beach ridge unit, like the previous three, represents a sand
spit that grew westward 950 ft. in front of the old beach. The sand spit recurved
strongly at the western end and grew north until it welded to the western side of Smith

I -329-

Island. In the time interval before this sand spit built westward, the western part
of the island has experienced some erosion and a straight shoreline had been formed.
This truncated many of the older beach ridges at the edge of the bay. It is believed
that the channel to Smith Island Bay had shifted against the west edge of the island
and remained there until after the sand spit grew westward and welded on to the island
at the bay side. The growth of this sand spit enclosed a shallow body of water that
had gradually filled and become partly marsh over the intervening years. The marsh
and open ponds can be seen on the 1949 aerial photographs and are also shown on the
1968 U.S.G.S. topographic map. By 1974, beach erosion had partially destroyed this
area and dunes had built over the eastern part of it.

The growth of this ancient sand spit so far to the south of the old beach shows that
ancient Smith Island had continued to prograde south and other sand spits had doubt-
lessly grown westward, even though their-growth was insufficient to reach the former
western shoreline. South of this sand spit other beach ridges follow in succession,
each recurving to weld to the bay shoreline. The study of recent shoreline changes
.shows that these ridges also built progressively west because the part of the island
that has been lost since the 1850's extended southwest from the present tip of the
island. Remnants of some of those ridges are visible in the 1949 aerial photographs.
Figure 82 shows that at this stage of accretion of the south end of Smith Island, re-
treat of the seaward beach was well underway.

How far progradation extended the south end of Smith Island is unknown, but it is
probable that it was not much beyond'the position of the tip of the island in 1853
because the shoreline study shows that the southern tip of the island continued to
grow until the late 1800's. It.is possible that the island had prograded farther
south before 1853 and that the growth after 1853 was unrelated to the earlier pro-
gradation. But it is not necessary that it had, and it is believed that it had not.
If it had not, then the model presented in Figure 82 portrays the geologic history
of Smith Island from the onset of progradation until it is picked up by the descrip-
tion of shoreline changes after 1853. The recent geologic history of the island has
been adequately covered in preceding sections and need not be included here for the
history of the island to be complete.

-330-

FISHERMAN'S ISLAND

I. DESCRIPTIVE GEOGRAPHY

Fisherman's Island is the twelfth island from the north end, and the southernmost
island, in the Virginia Barrier Island Group. It is the tenth, and last, island
covered in this study. The island lies south of Cape Charles at the very southern
end of the mainland peninsula. Fisherman's Inlet lies between the island and the
mainland, and Smith Island Inlet separates it from Smith Island which lies to the
northeast. The nearest mainland communities are Cedar Grove and Townsend which
lie five to six miles north of the island along Virginia Route 600.

Fisherman's Island is managed as The Fisherman's island National Wildlife Refuge.
Access to the island is therefore restricted, and should not be attempted without
prior approval by the manager of the refuge. United States Highway 1-13, which
crosses Chesapeake Bay by way of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel, connects Fisher-
man's Island to the mainland by means of a bridge and causeway. Access to the
island may be acquired from this highway if arrangements have been made with the
proper authorities. There is also a serviceable pier on the west side of the
island and the remains of two other piers which could be employed for landing by
boat. Landing by boat along the northern shoreline should not be attempted be-
cause of the lack of adequate water depth at most locations. There are boat launch
areas at Dixon's Dock at the south end of Magothy Bay and at Raccoon Island on the
Intracoastal Waterway. Both launching areas can be reached from the south end of
Virginia Highway 600 at-Kiptopeke.

Fisherman's Island is nearly rectangular in shape, with the longer dimension
oriented nearly east-west. The maximum length of the island is 2.13 miles, but
it averages about 1.9 miles long. The island is uniformly about 0.9 mile wide,
except at the east and west ends where recurving beach deposits increase the width
slightly. The minimum distance between the island and the mainland is near the west
end where the distance from the north end of the beach to Wise Point on the mainland
is less than 1.1 miles. The average distance to the mainland is a little more than
1.25 miles. The marsh area of the island is encompassed on three sides by barrier
beach deposits, and lies on the north side of the island. About 50% of the area of
the island is marsh and the remaining area is upland, above the range of the tide.

The orientation of the island does not relate simply to any single geographic feature.
The axis of the island lies about 90 south of east (N990E) and this relates best to
the orientation of the south beach which is determined by coastal processes. It
does not relate well to the mainland shore or the trend of the barrier island chain.
The orientation of the south beach is primarily determined by inlet currents passing
through the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, principally related to North Channel and Beach
Channel just inside the bay. The west beach and the south beach are very nearly
perpendicular as they are shown on the 1968 U.S.G.S. topographic map, but shoreline
changes since that time have muted that sharp angular relationship. The orientation
of the western beach, which is essentially north-south, relates best to the shoreline
of Chesapeake Bay, ,ith which it is in reasonable close alignment. The orientation
of the eastern end of the island is approximately northeast-southwest, discounting
the recurving end of the sand spit. This agrees very well with the curving trend
of the seaward face of the barrier island chain. The 1974 shoreline is in better
agreement with this trend than the 1968 shoreline. Figure 83a shows the eastern
beach in relation to the beach of Smith Island, across Smith Island Inlet. Each
of the three distinct beaches on the island has its own orientation owing to the
unique situation of this island.

-331-

a. Smith Island Inlet. The picture shows the trend of
Fishermans Island beach in relation to the trend of
the barrier island chain at Smith Island. (View NE)

b. Central portion of Fishermans Island. Picture shows
beach ridges and artificial fill along Interstate
Highway, 1-13. (View ESE)

FIGURE 83: Views of Fishermans Island

II. PHYSIOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION

The area between Fisherman's Island and the mainland at the south end of the penin-
sula is occupied by Fisherman's inlet. There was only one land unit in the area in
1974, and that was a small unnamed crescent shaped island. It was located north
northeast of the middle of Fisherman's Island and about 0.5 mile off the northern
edge of the island. This small island is near. the west end of a very large sand
bar, and represents the emergent portion of that bar. By July of 1975, the small
island had increased in size and a second small island had appeared on the concave
side of the first island. The second island, like the first, is the emergent west
end of a large bar. These bars are but two in a complex series of concentric bars
that are building far to the northwest, from the eastern end of Fisherman's Island.
This, and other areas of complex bars across the north side of Fisherman's Island,
are partially outlined on the Geologic Map of Fisherman's Island that accompanies
this report. The accretion of this bar complex has occurred rapidly since the mid-
I1960's, and other islands can be expected to appear in this area. However, the
islands can be expected to move or disappear as the bar system shifts with currents.
This phenomenon has been a frequent occurrence along the western margin of Smith
Island Inlet for more than a century. At that location, the ephemeral sand bars
proved to be precursors of steady accretion of the east end of Fisherman's Island.
It is believed that this new bar complex north of Fisherman's Island heralds the
beginning of rapid accretion to that side of the island.

For discussion, the physiography of Fisherman's Island is best divided into that
of the marshy half of the island, and that of the higher, sandier portion of the
island. The marshy portion of the island is divided into two areas by the artifi-_
cial 'fill upon which Interstate Highway No. 13 is contructed; a small western area,
and a larger eastern area. Figure 83b shows how the highway crosses the marsh area.
West is at the bottom of the picture. The artificial fill in the marsh appears as
white areas along the highway in the left half of the picture, and as narrower light
areas along the rest of the highway. The smaller marsh area west of the highway does
not include any noteworthy physiographic features, except a low, short sandy ridge
that emerges from under the highway fill midway along the eastern edge of this marsh.
This is the western end of a tiny island that lay north oi Fisherman's Island in
1869 (see Figure 85, p. 328). This marsh area is bounded on the east by the highway,
and on the south and west sides by the western beach ridge unit of the island. North
of the marsh there is a small enclosed lagoon about equal to the marsh in area. The
lagoon was created when a sand spit grew southwest from the north end of the arti-
ficial fill, toward the north end of the western beach. A narrow inlet separates
the two features. A flood tide delta is building inside the inlet on the floor of
the lagoon. A complex pattern of sand bars lies just off the inlet opening and the
northern sand spit. The oldest marsh area on Fisherman's Island is found in this
western marsh area, in the southern and scuthwestern portions.

The larger marsh area lies east of the Interstate Highway. It is bounded on the
west by the artificial fill area, and on the southwest, south, and east by barrier
beach units of higher elevation. Figures 83a and b and 84a, show this marsh area.
The north side of the marsh faces Fisherman's inlet. This marsh area is built
upon a complex array of coalescing accretionary sand deposits: most of which occurred
as sand bars, sand spits, and shoaling sand deltas. Many of these features were
barely emergent, or slightly awash at the time they welded onto Fisherman's Island.
The emergent features appear in the marsh as short, linear or curving, discontinuous
upland sand ridges that form patterns through the marsh (see Figures 83b and 84a).
The patterns partially reveal the accretionary sequence on the island. The develop-
ment and migration of tidal canals, as drainage became established, and adjusted,
has modified these low ridge features making it more difficult to trace patterns.

-333-

a. View north across Fishermans b. View east along the southern beach
Island. Beach ridge in marsh on Fishermans Island. Note the
near center of the picture was one diagonal stubs of former sand ridges
of the Isaacs of the 1890's. that welded to the island.

FIGURE 84: Southern Beach of Fishermans Island

1852

, I

1869
I\".,i1 RELATIVE TO 1852

1905
.,... RELATIVE TO 1a88

I
1911
RELATIVE TO 1905

FIGURE 85. GROWTH STAGES OF FISHERMANS ISLAND;
1852-1911

-335-

Low areas between the ridges have been filled with sediment (mostly sand) carried
in through tidal canals, and this too, has helped to obliterate details. The marsh
has grown over these low sand deposits and has doubtlessly helped to stabilize the
margins of the enlarging island and marsh area. Nearly all of this marsh has formed
since the turn of the century, and it is clear that the marsh'is still evolving,
even in its interior.

There is a bold beach ridge standing in the marsh just east of the highway. It has
a westward recurving sand spit at the south end. The ridge is highest along the
northern half where elevations reach 5-8 feet, and small areas of forest are
established. This ridge can be seen in Figure 83b at the center of the picture,
and it is also shown in Figure 84a. This ridge is identifiable as the northernmost
of The Isaacs of the 1890's, after it had been driven westward and welded on to the
eastward growing Fisherman's Island. About 0.3 mile east of the southern end of this
beach ridge, there is a second beach ridge jutting northward into the marsh (Figure
83b, upper right) from the modern beach ridge behind the southern beach. From the
north end of this unit, a ridgeline can be traced first south then west into the
modern east-west beach ridge. This is identifiable as the island that was called
The Isaacs during the 1930's and 1940's, before it was driven close onshore and in-
corporated into the accreting Fisherman's Island in the late 1940's. In 1949 there
were inlets in the southern beach east and west-of this island, and tidal canals
enclosed it on the north end. Incorporation was completed with the closing of
those inlets in the early 1950's.

At the eastern edge of the larger marsh area there is a large north trending beach
ridge area. The westernmost portion of this is a separate beach ridge system that
lies within the marsh, except along the southeast side. The north end of this ridge
unit recurves strongly to the west before it dies out. The ridge lines on it show
that the beach ridge was overwashed near the middle of the unit. This beach ridge
unit is identifiable as the remains of Adams Island after it had been driven into,
and incorporated with, Fisherman's Island in the late 1950's or early 1960's. The
rest of the beach ridges and linear sand-flats that lie north and east of the remnant
of Adams Island are beach ridge- units that were added during the mid-1960's as sand
spits grew northward and were driven westward until they welded to the island.

The physiographic features of the higher, sandier, part of the island fall into two
groups; relatively modern beach deposits, and older features that are now isolated
from the beach by younger deposits. The older features are found in the south-
western part of the island where they occupy an area resembling a right triangle
with the hypothenuse oriented northwest-south-east and the right angle aimed to the
southwest. The area contains several sets of beach ridges, some areas of sand flats,
and a pond. The northwestern portion of the area has been extensively utilized by
man. There is an artificial, conical sand hill, slightly more than 25 feet high,
built upon the beach ridges. There are other lower artificial piles of sand. There
are also numerous buildings, towers, two docks, and a number of roads that run all
through the area. Fisherman's Island Naval Base was situated here, as were facili-
ties for the construction of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. As far back as the
1880's there have been National Quarantine facilities located in this same area.
The activities of man have blurred the details of the northwestern ends of most
of the beach ridges, and the details of large areas at other locations. These
areas have been mapped as sand flats on the Geologic Map of Fisherman's Island.

The older beach ridges average 5-10 feet in elevation, but in several places they
exceed 10 feet. The ridges are largely forested, except at their northwestern
ends, and in areas where recent human activity has been concentrated. Those areas
are more sparsely vegetated. The northernmost portion of this area of beach ridges

-336-

can be identified as the oldest part of Fisherman's Island. It is what is left
of the southern half of the 1850's Fisherman's Island. A clear strand line marks
the southern boundary. These features can be seen in Figure 83b, at the lower
right of the picture. The beach ridge unit shows many active sand areas (white),
and the strand line appears on the sharp right boundary of it. A second strand
line lines south of the first, but it is truncated by a third strand line at the
Interstate Highway. The portion of the beach ridge and sand flat area between the
first and second strand lines can be identified as what is left of what was added
to the island between 1869 and 1888. South of the second strand line a third, and
other strand lines can be seen, but they cannot be traced (through areas disturbed
by man) with sufficient clarity to be able to relate them to dateable charts. All
that can be said is that they are younger.

The pond that is located in this area of older beach ridges is a salt pond. It is
connected to tidal drainage on the southeast side of the highway by a culvert under
the highway. It was formerly more than twice as long as it is at present, but the
southeastern half was cut off and nearly filled in by the artificial fill emplaced
between two arms of the island that grew southeastward between the 1860's and the
early 1900's. The pond was created when the seaward end of the embayment filled
with sediment, except for a tidal canal that maintained tidal circulation.

The physiographic features found along the western shore of Fisherman's Island have
all been formed in this century. A sand spit extends north from the main body of
the island. This feature has a half dozen transverse beach ridges that trail out
into the marsh or lagoon behind it. These are beach ridges that formed across the
broad north end of the sand spit as it grew northward. A new beach ridge is currently
forming at the north end of the sand spit. A second sand spit extends southwest from
the end of the artificial highway fill at Fisherman's Inlet to meet the first sand
spit across a narrow inlet. The alignment of this second sand spit, except near
the ephemeral inlet, matches that of the first sand spit, to effectively extend
the north shore of Fisherman's island to the highway bridge abutment at Fisherman's
Inlet. There is a lagoon behind these two sand spits. The second sand spit contains
several islands that had first formed in the position of the sand spit. The smaller
islands gradually coalesced along their Chesapeake Bay shoreline to form a single,
long, narrow island. The north end of this island then became attached, tombollo
fashion, to the artificial fill of the highway. Continuing accretion is broadening
this feature and allowing sand dunes and sand dune ridges to grow upon it. Accretion
is also beginning to fill the lagoon.

Southward along the western shoreline of the island there are rows of low beach ridges
that are of two distinct ages. The older of these two groups is built against the
reoded ends of the beach ridges of the oldest part of the island. To the south,
these newer beach ridges are all truncated, with each successively younger beach
ridge truncated farther to the north. These ridges are grass covered and relatively
well stabilized. The younger group of beach ridges parallels the modern shoreline.
There are four to five ridges in this group, and they are only very sparsely vegetated.
Seaward of these ridges, several berms lie at the top of the active beach, and along
the beach numerous sand bars lie in the surf zone. This shoreline is, and has
recently been, prograding toward Chesapeake Bay.

The physiographic features along the southern shoreline of the island are more
varied. Along the south edge of the marsh there is a linear area of sand dunes
and discontinuous beach ridges that runs the entire length of the island. The
upland area varies in width from less than 250 feet to more than 800 feet. The
discontinuous beach ridges lie near the marsh edge of the unit, and the ends of
the beach ridges recurve into the marsh area. These beach ridges were islands and
shoals that migrated nortlhwestward until they welded onto Fisherman's Island. They

-337-

probably represent the various smaller islands that were called the Isaacs, that
repeatedly formed off the eastern shore of Fisherman's Island and eventually welded
to the island. The western end of this area is extensively grassed over, but the
vegetative cover becomes more sparse toward the east where the dunes are younger and
more active. 3

The next physiographic feature to the south is a narrow (200-300 feet) strip of low,
sub-parallel beach ridges. The beach ridges at the western end of this unit trend
southeasterly and are truncated at their eastern ends. Toward the east, the beach
ridges trend more nearly east-west, but are still truncated at their eastern ends.
This strip of beach ridges, and the sand dune area north of it, can be seen in the
photographs of Figure 84.

The beach ridges in this group record the establishment and growth of the southern
beach of Fisherman's Island, The truncated eastern end of each beach ridge marks
the eastern limit of the island and the base of a sand spit that recurved into Smith
Island Inlet at the time the beach ridge formed. Later, each sand spit was cut off
and its sand overwashed into the marsh area, leaving the truncated beach ridge. 1

The next set of features to the south are an alternating series of lagoons and large
southeast trending ridges. These features are shown best in Figure-84b. Each of
the large ridges is truncated along the modern beach, and the lagoons are inter- 3
connected by tidal canals, and are connected to the sea by a narrow, shallow ephemeral
inlet. The ridges are the landward ends of large sand ridges that came ashore and
welded on to the island, and the lagoons are the runnels that formed between them
and the island. The modern beach ties the eroded ends of all of these ridges together. *
Sand dunes and a beach ridge are forming landward of the active beach, and a smoother,
more continuous beach is developing as sand bars and other sand ridges continue to come
ashore. 3

At the eastern end of Fisherman's Island there is an area composed of beach ridges,
sand dunes, and extensive sand flats on which new sand dunes are forming. These
features fall in arctuate patterns that curve around the eastern end of the island
from the sand dunes behind the southern beach until they trail off into the bay in-
side of Fisherman's Inlet. All of these features are better developed at their
southern end where elevations of 8-10 feet are attained, but their elevations decline
toward the north where they become active sand flats. These features have formed
since the mid-1960's as sand ridges have migrated onto the island, welding first
to the southern beach, then recurving into Smith Island Inlet until they are driven
ashore on the east end of Fisherman's Island. East of these features there is an
arctuate active beach with many transverse sand bars attached to it, some of which
are emergent, but most of which lie below high tid level. This, too, is a sand
ridge that has been driven ashore. The runnel behind it has been nearly filled,
except for a short distance midway along the northeast face of the beach where
open water still is found. Still farther to the east, the most recent sand ridge
lies offshore (see Figure 83b) of the eastern end of the island, recurving into
Smith Island Inlet as a broad sand spit. Southward along the sand spit, the ridge
has already welded on to the southern beach and its sand is being reworked along
the southern beach.

IlI. SHORELINE CHANGES AND COASTAL PROCESSES

Fisherman's Island is unique among the islands of the Virginia Barrier Island Group.
Principally it is unique because it is an accreting island, growing in size and
advancing against the sea. All of the other islands are retreating before the
rising sea, and adjusting their size and shape as they do so. But Fisherman's Island
is unique in other ways as well. It is a new island. Reportedly, it has grown

-338-

around the bones of a British merchantman that was wrecked on shoals at the entrance
to Chesapeake Bay. The merchantman's cargo of linen, salvaged by local residents,
gave rise to the island's original name, Linen Island. Historically, the island
was known as Fisherman's Island by the mid-1800's. The validity of this report was
not researched for this study, but is reported here as relayed by Mr. Hennessey of
The Nature Conservancy on the basis of research done by others involved in the
Virginia Coast Reserve Study.

Fisherman's Island is also unique in its position. No other island in the chain
can be said to be the first in the chain. Wallops Island is followed by Chinco-
teague and Assateague Islands, and further north at Cape Henelopen the first "island"
is a sand spit extending south from the mainland cape. But Fisherman's Island
emerged from the sea to take its position at the southern end of the Delmarva Fenin-
sula. It is pivotal in its nature; it extends the curve of the eastern shore of
Chesapeake Bay, it defines the north shore of the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, and it
offers the southern end point for the seaward curvature of the trend of the Virginia
Barrier Island Chain.

An important point, in terms of coastal processes, is that this is a barrier island
that emerged from the sea. It was originally proposed by deBeaumont in 1845 that
barrier islands could form when offshore bars became emergent, but other investi-
gators (McKee and Sterret, 1961; Leantyen and Nickiforov, 1966; and Hoyt, 1967)
have questioned this origin. Hoyt (1967) has stated that if such an origin were
possible, then there should be marine sediments and fauna deposited beneath the
lagoon and marsh before the barrier island was formed. Fisherman's Island is such
an island, and Hoyt's contention might be proven by coring operations in the marsh
of the northern half of Fisherman's Island. The role played by the foundering of a
linen-cargoed merchantman is questionable. The important fact is that the ship ran
aground on shoals that were building in this area. The shipwreck was not a necessary
ingredient in the history of the island. The shoals were building emergence by
themselves as evidenced by the emergence of the Isaacs and other islands. The
shipwreck only hastened and localized a phenomena that was already in progress.

The location of Fisherman's Island marks an area adjacent to a confluence of different
sediment transporting current systems. The area operates as a sediment trap. As
sediments have accumulated in that trap, Fisherman's Island has appeared and grown
in size. To appreciate the creation of a sediment trap at Fisherman's Island, it
is necessary to go back in time to be the beginning of the late Holocene. At that
point in time the beach ridge province on the southern quarter of Smith Island did
not exist, and the shoreline trend of the southern group of barrier islands curved
in smoothly to the southern end of the mainland peninsula; to end at Cape Charles.
(See Figure 82, p. 325).

Magothy Bay and Smith Island Bay shared a common inlet, and ebb tide deposits at
that inlet formed pait of the smooth curve of the barrier shoreline. Longshore
currents along the barrier islands brought their sediment load south to this inlet,
and perhaps across the ebb tide deposits to the mouth of Chesapeake Bay. The south-
ward growth of Smith Island during late Holocene time changed those conditions and
produced a new set of conditions.

The main inlet channel to Magothy Bay and Smith Island Bay grew southward with Smith
Island. The sharply recurved sand spits that formed at the ends of the beach ridges
on Smith Island indicate that the inlet channel remained close to Smith Island during
this period of growth. The truncated ends of some of the beach ridges show that
the channel even shifted in against the west side of Smith Island. Throughout this
time sediment was being brought south by longshore currents to the south end of

-339-

Smith Island. Sediment may also have been introduced into the area by Chesapeake
Bay currents, but that is unknown. The ebb tide deposits at the mouth of this
channel were thus gradually shifted south, away from the shelter of Cape CharlesI
and more directly into the realm of Chesapeake Bay currents and waves. The inlet,
however, had only one-functional side, the other side (at the south end of the
peninsula) grew increasingly remote as Smith Island built south (growth of SmithI
Island eventually exceeded two miles). Inlet deposits, both flood tide and ebb
tide lacked definition because of the absence of topographic constraints on the
west side of the inlet. They also lacked topographic protection from waves and
wave driven currents and consequently took the form of shifting shoals and bars
that were gradually driven westward by wave activity.

The triangular area formed south of lMagothy Bay by the extension of the Bay shore
of the mainland and the seaward shore of Smith Island is the area into which the
inlet deposits of Smith Island Inlet were driven. It appears to be an area that
became unaffected by directed currents after the growth of Smith Island deflectedI
the longshore currents away from it. Chesapeake Bay currents, principally in
Beach Channel and North Channel, seem to have been directed south past this area
(by the bottom topography of the .bay mouth) throughout this whole time period.
Thus, the triangular area served as a sediment trap, and sediments were reworked
by waves and tidal currents until they came to rest in locations that did not
interfere with tidal circulation to Magothy Bay and Smith Island Bay. ConsiderationU
of the wave climate reported for this location (Goldsmith, et al., 1974) would indi-
cate that the effect of waves would be to drive shoals and b`ar~sin a west-northwest-
erly direction across this triangle. It was along the western margin of this tri -
angular area that Fisherman's Island first appeared, and it is toward that direction
that sand ridges are still being driven.-

The type of analysis of shoreline changes followed with other islands in the Virginia f
Barrier Island Group is inappropriate for Fisherman's Island. Composite overlaysU
of the type previously employed are unintelligible, and measurements of rates of
changes from changes in shoreline positions produces figures with little meaning.
It is more appropriate to acknowledge that the is'-and is an accreting island, andI
to examine the pattern of that accretion for insight into the process. For that
purpose, Figures 85 and 86 have been prepared. In these figures the outline of
the island at one charted date is compared to the outline of the island at theI
previously charted date. The earlier outline is shown as a dotted line, and the
younger as a solid line. The shorelines shown in Figure 85 are from Byrne's His-
torical Shoreline Positions Map (1972) and charts of the U.S. Coast and Geodatic3
Survey, and those of Figure 86 are from U.S. Geologic Survey topographic maps.U
In both figures, the letter "I" is used to denote islands that have the name "The
Isaacs", and the letter "At' denotes Adams Island. The crosses are latitude and
longitude intercepts that were used for maintaining correct indexing of the theI
shorelines. The series of seven diagrams in the two figures serves to clearly
portray the history of growth of the island. Figure 87 compares three recent
shoreline positions on a single overlay. The 1949 shoreline is from aerial photo-
graphs, the 1968 from the U.S. Geological Survey topographic map, and the 1974 is
from aerial false color IR imagery. This figure shows the rapid nature of the
change in shape of the island, and why the procedures for measuring shoreline
changes on other islands would not be meaningful.
IV. GEOLOGY

Most of the geomorphology and geologic history of Fisherman' s Island is contained
in the foregoing parts of the this section dealing with physiography, coastal pro-
cesses and shoreline changes. This study has not be able to establish a date for
the 'first charting of Linen Island. Older charts examined at the Oyster Museum at

-34o-~~~~~~

FIGURE 80. GROWTH STAGES OF FISHERMANS ISLAND;
1911 -1968

1942
RELATIVE TO 1911

I uv'i2 t RELATIVE TO 1942
-<..- *. : .955

SM/ TH
ISLAND
Cape Char/es
Fisher mn In/el

Inlet

I *... 0, .1968
. 'a , 2 RELATIVE TO 1955

-341-

FIGURE 87.

SHORELINE CHANGES

ON FISHERMANS ISLAND;

1949 -1974

HISTORIC SHORELINES
1974
196B8
-MAY. }1949

Bose mop from uncorrected
NIV A.SA. /o/lops Fl;ht Center
June, 1974 L R. Imogery

( I:

. '

\0 I1 mile
I

AVERAGE S CALE
S LA N 0 i'

VERGE I mile

-3h2-

FIGURE 88. SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF RETREAT SINCE i.852 IN THE
SUBDIVISIONS OF THE VIRGiNIA BARRIER ISLAND CHAIN
(NVuYmbers are in feet, arrloMs indicate genera! direction of movement)

NORTHERN- GROUP MIDDLE GROUP SOUTHERN GROUP

Fa,-a/Ie/ Becad? Retreat Rotational instability Nn-P-rc//el Beach Retrfieat

1/OL LOPS -ARIM PA /RRA 1OR Inlet Offset '*:"3 'S-I/P SHOAL inlet 12401 2200
ISLAND BulkheadS -900 ISLAND Increased ISL A ND Became 8-900
ISLAND ~~Bulkheads /IIOlkANDOfe
Groins 1575 t -2000
Ave, Retreat Ersatz Dunes ----675 Clockwise
ASSAWOMAA/ 1 HOC Inlet 0 Rotation 4175 Reduced
~~~i- 900 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~-----~~~Rdue 3700
.4,55A 11'10MA I V 1ll250 HYOG Inlet Offset
w /SI. k" ND f /SL A fl/D ~~~~~~~~~~~Reversed ~iS5500 /W YR r-L E
-*-I1750 ISLAND ISLAND
Breached
<-~1 500 14
Ave. Retreat Clock�wise ,-O
*-670
:400 Rotation�.~-' 7
400'- 900 Inet-Offset ~L-5520 /
Reversed
METO3MNICN Inlet Offset COBB 0 SMITH inlet Became o3 000
Re-move'd P -- 0 SW n e eoe30
ISLA I.oi750 ISLAND 4200 600 SLA ffset
---2100 (- 37 O0
Breached <200400 Breached .1- 3600
Ave. Retreat Clockwise V-3000
1990 ~---2100 Rot2ation Inlet Offset 2600 2I900
Reduced \~7c0
CEDAR Inlet Offset IE- 900 P, WR yECK
Removed - 900 2500 FISHER/WA/VS Accreting
___ A ____e1 650 ISLAND
Cnlet '~- 200 ISLAND New Island
650 ~~~~Ciosed 0-
1715 50 185i2 '1146 Acres
Ave. Retreat Inlet Ccunter - 3600
9pencd -2200 Cloclkwise 1968 4 1400 Acres
-1 50 Rotation 6250

Chincoteague, Virginia and'elsewhere failed to yield any early date for the island.
However, some of those charts, dating back to the mid-1600's indicate shoals in the
area south of Cape Charles and southwest of Smith Island. It is quite probable that
prior to the formation of Linen Island around the wrecked merchantman, other ephemeral
islands were forming in this shoal area. It is not known if one of those might have
served as a nucleus for'Fisherman's Island, but it seems quite probable that oneI
would have.

On the basis of historical data, Fisherman's Island was established by 1852 as a
northwest-southeast trending island. It was really.a double island, as is shown
in Figure 85. Another emergent sand island lay to the southeast. The diagrams of
Figure 85 clearly show two developments in the evolution of the island. The western
shoreline of the island rapidly stabilized in an orientation in line with the south- I
ward projection of the Chesapeake Bay-shoreline of the peninsula to the -north. This
shoreline increased in length as the island grew. At. the same time the sand island
called The Isaacs and presumably submergent sand bars, migrated northwest and onto I
the southeast end of Fisherman's Island. As one "Isaacs" moved northwest-, it was
replaced by another, and Fisherman's Island grew steadily southeast, then south
southeast. By 1911 a southern shoreline including The Isaacs had been established,
and the island began to grow eastward. The eastward growth of the island is clearly
shown in the diagrams of Figure 86. The growth of the island due to the addition of
sediment from the east and southeast is clear. Functionally, Adams Island was just
a 'bigger "Isaacs" and added a larger area to the east end of Fisherman's Island.
The appearance and growth of Fisherman's Island created Fisherman's Inlet and
narrowed Smith Island Inlet. Continued eastward growth of Fisherman's Island
extended the separation of these two inlets, and helped to define their channels,
and their role in tidal circulation. Initially there was a deep channel along the
south shore of Wise Point, and water depths to six feet in the bay between Fisherman's
Island and the mainland. By 1911 the bay area had gradually shallowed to 1-2 feetU
and the deeper channel had shrunk and diminished in depth to 8-9 feet. The area
immediately south of the mainland had filled in and a large area of new marsh had
formed there. The infilling of the original channel and the growth of marsh areaI
south of the peninsula continued until by the mid-1940's the channel was only 1-3
.feet deep and a large part of the bay south of the mainland was tidal flat. However,m
the mid-part of the bay north of Fisherman's Island, 1-2 feet deep in 1911, began to f
increase in depth as the island grew eastward and Smith Island Inlet became more
restricted and defined. By the mid-1940's, water depths of 2-6 feet were found in
the bay north of Fisherman's Inlet and it is clear that Fisherman's Inlet was begin-
ning to play a larger role in tidal circulation behind the new island.
By 1949 Adams Island was incorporated iinto Fisherman's Island and a sand spit had
grown east of it. The sand spit recurved into Smith Island Inlet and provided aI
western shoreline for the inlet. The sand spit proved ephemeral and was soon
driven westward onto the island. But it was quickly replaced by another that
also was driven ashore on the island. The appearance of these sand spits signalled I
a change in the manner of accretion of the island. Large sand ridges began to form
south and southeast of the island. One after another these sand ridges migrated
inshore and welded to the island. The end of each ridge at Smith Island Inlet re-
curved into the inlet as a sand spit. Each sand ridge, after welding on to the island
was reworked by waves and currents to build the south shore of the island and the sand
spits were driven inshore to weld to the east end of the island. Each successive
ridge welded to the island east of its predecessor, and the landward ends of these I
ridges along the southern beach produced the peculiar diagonal ridge and runnel
pattern found there. The ridges have continually renewed the eastern sand spit and
have provided a source of sand for the accretion of the southern shoreline. TheI
most recently added sand ridge forms the sand spit and bulge in the southern beach
that are shown on the Geologic Map of Fisherman's Island that accompanies this report.

It is clear that the eastward growth of Fisherman's Island has steadily defined
and narrowed Smith island Inlet. This has facilitated the definition and growth
of an ebb tide delta at the mouth of that inlet. The position of the curving front
of that delta can be seen in aerial photography, and is clearly shown in Figure 83a
of this report. The sequential appearance of the sand ridges and sand spits in the
mid-1950's, and the rapid growth of Fisherman's Island since that time, indicate
that sand from the longshore drift system of the barrier islands was being directed
to Fisherman's Island by the bypass around the newly defined ebb tide delta at
Smith Island Inlet. With the establishment of independent inlets at each end of
the island, each with its own tidal circulation and with its increase in length,
Fisherman's Island had becoma. the southernmost barrier island in the Virginia Barrier
Island Chain.

-345-

REGIONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND PROCESSES

The preceding sections of this report have provided detailed descriptions
and analyses of each island of the Virginia Barrier Island Chain. However,
there are many topics which cannot be adequately discussed in terms of in-
dividual islands as they influence the entire island chain or large segments
of this chain. These topics are covered in the following section.

I. COMPARISON WITH OTHER ATLANTIC BARRIER ISLANDS
The Virginia Barrier Island Chain is characterized by a strikingly smaller
scale of physiography when compared with the adjacent barrier island chains
to the north and south. Not only are inlets more numerous so that the length
of the individual islands is smaller, but the overall relief and scale of dunes,
beach ridges, washover channels and other geomorphic features are similarly re-
duced. The time averaged longshore transport direction is to the south along
the entire coast from Cape Henelopen to Cape Charles. The Virginia Barrier
Island Chain is thus the down drift half of the Delmarva Barrier Island Chain.
Comparison of this coastal section with other coastal sections along the Atlantic
Seaboard shows that the pattern of smaller scale barrier islands on the southern.
or down drift segment of a barrier island chain is not unique to the Delmarva
Barrier Island System. A similar pattern is noted along the New Jersey Barrier
Island Chain from Manasquan Inlet to Cape May, along the outer Banks of Southern
Virginia and North Carolina from Virginia Beach to Cape Lookout, on the barrier
island chain of the North Carolina shore from Cape Lookout to Cape Fear, and
again along the Florida East Coast barrier island chain from Cape Canaveral to
West Palm Beach. This pattern does not seem to develop among the Gulf Coast
barrier island systems with the possible exception of the system from Fort Walton
Beach, Florida to Gulfport, Mississippi. The reason that this pattern of large
scale updrift and small scale down drift barrier islands develops is not under-
stood at this time. However, the prevalence of this pattern clearly indicates
that the Virginia Barrier Island Chain is a rather typical section of an Atlantic
Coast barrier island system.

The Delmarva Chain, which extends from Bayard, Delaware to Cape Charles, Virginia,
and all of the other barrier island chains mentioned above are not closed systems
in regard to longshore sand transport. There are varying degrees of sediment in-
put and loss to these barrier island chains as a result of sediment exchange with
the continental shelves, adjacent lagoons and major estuary systems. The individ-
ual islands of each chain are not independent of the other islands of the chain
either, so that a reasonable degree of interaction is always apparent. This point
is detailed later where the effects of changes occurring along Assateague Island
on the Virginia Barrier Island Chain are discussed.

The Atlantic Coast of the United States is characterized by varying degrees of
submergence during the last 15,000 years as a result of post glacial world-wide
rise in sea level. This has been discussed in detail in the introductory portions
of this report. However, it must be noted that the rate of sea level rise varies
from one point to another along the Atlantic Coast as a result of many factors.
Two of the most important factors are the crustal uplifting which has occurred in
northern areas owing to the loss of the glacial mass which recently rested upon
it, and the effects of local crustal warpings in other areas which have occurred

-346-

since the retreat of the Wisconsin glacier. Although these factors complicate
I the pattern in local areas, it is obvious that the rise of sea level during the
last 15,000 years has caused the Atlantic barrier islands to migrate westward,
and this process continues. Thus, it is highly significant to examine the evi-
dence for local recent crustal warping to find reasons for some of the differences
* between the various Atlantic barrier island chains. The effect of these local
crustal warpings are given in the following section of this report. It is likely
that these crustal movements have strongly contributed to the development of the
particular configuration of the Virginia Barrier Islands.

II. GENERAL SUBDIVISION OF VIRGINIA BARRIER ISLAND CHAIN

Examination of a map -of the Eastern Shore of Virginia shows that the barrier
island chain that lies along that shore is divided into three segments: northern,
middle, and southern. The northern section begins with WIallops Island and includes
Assawoman Island, Metomkin Island, and Cedar Island. All of these islands (with
the possible exception of Wallops Island) can be described as narrow barrier is-
lands with extensive marsh areas between them and the mainland. The islands in
this group have been experiencing parallel beach retreat during the past 125 years.
Assawoman Island and Metomkin Island have breached into bay areas west of their
southern ends and a small ephemeral inlet opened in Cedar Island.

The islands in the middle group include Parramore Island, Hog Island, Cobb Island,
and Wreck Island. These islands have not shown the parallel beach retreat char-
acteristic of the northern section of the barrier island chain. Instead, the is-
--J* lands in this group have shown what is best described as rotational instability
during the past 125 years. The term rotation is used herein to describe changes
in island orientation that have been brought about by a combination of erosion of
one end of an island accompanied by accretion, or no change, at the other end of
the island.

On each of the islands in this group there is at least one area where the beach
in 1975 lay near, or east of, the position of the beach in 1852. However, the
greatest amounts of beach retreat (2200-6250 ft.) have been associated with other
areas of these islands. Furthermore, some parts of the islands have accreted, and
two of these islands have actually advanced seaward along part of the island. It
is difficult to say whether these islands are retreating. Because at least part
of each island has maintained its position while other parts of the island have
changed position, the shoreline changes have been termed rotational movements. None
of these islands has been breached in the last 125 years, although small ephemeral
inlets have appeared on Cobb, Hog, and Parramore Islands.

The southern segment of the barrier island chain includes Ship Shoal Island, Myrtle
Island, Smith Island, and Fishermans Island. W!ithin this segment, Fishermans Is-
land is atypical and unique. it is a newly formed barrier island that has increased
in area nearly ten-fold since 1852. Despite its newness and growth, Fishermans Is-
land is included with this southern segment because its growth is bringing the is-
land to a terminal position in this segment. The other three islands in this group
have all suffered severe beach retreat. The retreat has not been parallel beach
retreat, however, but has varied along the length of each island. This retreat has
been termed non-parallel beach retreat that appears to relate to various causes,

-.347-

but generally to a straightening of the outer face of the barrier island
chain.

The reason that the Virginia.Barrier Island Chain is segmented is not known,
and should be the subject for further research. Observations of this study
indicate that two factors are most likely involved in producing the segmenta-
tion. The work of Holdahl & Morrison (1974) shows that there are differential
rates of elevation change (Figure 10, p. 134) along the Eastern Shore of Virginia.
For example, subsidence at Wachapreague Inlet is occurringat the rate of 1.6I
mm/yr., while at Fishermans Island the rate is only 1.2 mm/yr. Their data is
derived from a relatively small number of re-leveling stations (at tide gauge
sites), and was used to derive the contours of Figure 26.

The work of this study has revealed two northeast trending areas in the marsh
that suggest troughs or bands of local subsidence. Within the bands, the marsh
areas appear to be drowned, marsh canals are unstable, and they have undergone
recent changes in drainage networks and direction. One of these bands of drowned
marsh was mapped across the southern part of the marsh on Cedar Island and along
the northern edge of Burtons Bay where it conforms well with the division be-
tween the northern and middle segments of the barrier island chain. The second
band of drowned marsh was not mapped as such, but it extends across the western
end of Godwin Island and through New Inlet; where it coincides with the boundary
between the middle and southern segments of the barrier island chain.

The second factor that might be involved in the segmentation of the barrier is-
land chain is the focusing of wave orthogonals from the southeast quadrant. Thie
work of Goldsmith, et al. (1974) on a wave climate model for the mid-Atlantic
shelf and shoreline indicates that waves from the southeast are focused by off-
shore bathymetry so that they do not affect the barrier islands uniformly. Wave
paths (orthogonals) are turned (bent) by bottom topography as the waves cross the
shallow continental shelf., and are sometimes focused or concentrated on particu-
lar reaches of the barrier island chain. Longer period waves are focused more
sharply than are short period waves. Because waves from the southeast quadrant
affect the islands for the greatest part of each year, this focusing of wave ortho-
gonals may be an important factor in the coastal processes affecting the islands.

Goldsmith's (op. cit.) work shows that there is very little focusing of wave ortho-
gonals along the islands of the northern segment of the barrier island chain. Wave
attack is thus more uniform along the beaches of those islands. The effect of fo-
cusing of wave orthoqonals along the beaches of the southern segment of the chain
also is not severe. MIore focusing of orthogonals occurs in this section than in
the northern section, but focusing is not significant. Depending upon the period
of the waves, the points of focus shift along the shoreline so that in the average,
wave attack on the beaches is reasonably uniformly distributed. However, the in-
creasedeffect of focusing along this segment, particularly of long period waves,
might account for the unequal, and greater, rates of shoreline retreat along this
segment of the barrier chain.

The most severe focusing of wave orthogonals for waves of all periods occurs along
the shoreline of the middle segment of the barrier island chain. Here, wave attack
is concentrated on short (8-10 mile) reaches of shoreline, and diverted from other
reaches of shoreline. A frequent target of wave attack is Hog Island, and the af-
fected area includes the north end of Cobb Island and the south end of Parramore

-348-

Island. .A second important area of focus occurs at Wachapreague Inlet.

The effect of the focusing. of wave orthogonals may have more to do with ex-
plaining the erosional behavior of each of the segments of the barrier island
chain than it does with causing the segments themselves. The phenomena is cited
here because it may be a causative factor, and it should be investigated further.
The results of this study (geomorphology, shoreline changes, geologic history)
would all indicate that the segmentation of the barrier island chain is mostly
tectonic in origin, and not entirely a consequence of coastal processes alone.

III. PROCESSES WITH AMPLIFIED EFFECTS

Some coastal processes appear to have an amplified effect at places along the
Virginia Barrier Island Chain. Most notable are thie effects of processes acting
at inlets where rapid and frequently severe alterations of the islands have oc-
curred. This study has shown that along the Virginia Barrier Island Chain, in-
lets, not overwash, have played the major role in maintaining and repositioning
the islands. The role of the inlets on each island has been described in the
section covering the islands affected by an inlet.

A. Inlet Types

In the Virginia Barrier Island Chain, four categories of inlets can be recog-
nized: permanent, intermediate, small ephemeral, and major breaches. Two of
the inlets in the barrier island chain (Wachapreague and Sand Shoal) can be de-
scribed as permanent; that is, their position and channel direction have remained
remarkably unchanged over long periods of time, perhaps more than 1000 years.
There is evidence that Sand Shoal Inlet has existed as both an inlet and a stream
valley since the late Sangamon interglacial period or the beginning of the Wis-
consin glacial period. Historically, its channel has remained in the same posi-
tion over the past 125 years, despite the shifting sand shoals within it that
have given it its name. Wachapreague Inlet has similarly occupied the same posi-
tion for a very long time. The geomorphic and other evidence of this study in-
dicates that Wachapreague Inlet opened between 1905-2200 yrs. B.P. This was at
a time when a previous transgression was breaching an ancient barrier island that
occupied the position of the southern half of Cedar Island and Parramore Island.

Intermediate inlets in the Virginia Barrier Island Chain would include all of the
other inlets that separate the barrier islands in the chain. Although large and
deep, all of these inlets have experienced appreciable change (in the past 125
years) in either their position or the direction of their channel, or both. Sonime
have also experienced changes in depth and dimension of the inlet throat. In-
lets in this category are obviously much less permanent than the two mentiuned pre-
viously.

Ephemeral inlets are of two types; small, discreet openings through the barrier
island, and large (sometimes multiple) shifting breaches that affect long lengths
of the barrier islands. The larger breaches that have occurred in the past 125
years have all been located at sites where the island was backed by relatively
deep bay waters. Along other bays, where water depths were shallow, breaching of
the island has produced narrow discreet inlet openings that usually close within
a decade.

The opening of either type of inlet into a bay has been followed by a period of
active trapping of sand from the longshore drift system, accelerated erosion of

-349-

the beach in the up drift direction, and usually the building of a sand spit on
the down drift side of the inlet. The sand trapped by these inlets builds into
broad sand deltas on the floors of the bays. Flood tide islands may appear on
the surface of the sand deltas if the life of the inlet is sufficiently long.
Eventually, the sand deltas cut off circulation through the inlets and they close.
The site of the opening frequently remains as a large overwash channel for many
years. Sand carried through these overwash channels is added to the sand deltas,
often raising part'of their surfaces above mean high water, and extending the area
that can be colonized by marsh grass. A large radial sand delta can be seen along
the sand spit of Cedar Island where it built through a narrow discreet ephemeral
inlet that opened and closed between 1955 and 1963. Multiple sand deltas, inlet
islands, and later overwash deposits have added up to 2000 ft. to Smith Island I
along Smith Island Bay where the island experienced multiple migrating breaches.
Substantial amounts of sand were also deposited in Smith Island Bay.

B. Inlet Control of Ocean Beach

Careful study and analysis of shoreline changes along certain of the barrier is-
lands was coupled with analyses of the changes in the known offshore bathymetry.
The results revealed that inlet processes have far-reaching effects on the ocean
front beaches of the islands. Detailed accounts of these effects will be found
in the section dealing with Hog Island, Cobb Island, Ship Shoal Island, Myrtle l
Island, Smith Island, and Fishermans Island.

Many of the islands along the Virginia Barrier Island Chain have a distinct east
facing beach at the north end of a longer southeast facing beach. Over the past I
125 years these east facing beaches have advanced and retreated, lengthened and
shortened, in accordance with the shifting of the principle channels on the ebb
tide delta just outside of the inlet. When a secondary flood tide channel
lay close offshore, these beaches tended to become longer and straighter and to
accrete. Wien such a channel was absent, or lay farther offshore, these beaches
shortened, and frequently retreated. It is clear that the character of these l
beaches is a function of inlet currents interacting with wave generated currents
responding to the bathymetry of the ebb tide delta. When the down drift lobe of
the ebb tide delta extends far down the island, and there is no near shore channel
across the delta, these east facing beaches lose their straight character and ad-
vance or retreat with greater irregularity.

Another feature that illustrates inlet control on ocean beaches is the formation
of a distinct nickpoint in the face of the beach down drift of the location where
the influence of inlet processes ends. The nickpoint appears as a distinct scal-
lop eroded in the beach face. The length of the scallop varies, but is in the I
range of 0.3-0.6 miles long, and the width generally varies from 150-300 ft.,
but may be more on some islands. The location of the nickpoint also lies downl
drift of the location on the island that is inshore from the place where the down
drift lobe of the ebb tide delta curves inshore to meet the island. Nickpoints
may be found on Cedar Island, Parramore Island, Hog Island, Cobb Island, Myrtle
Island, and Smith Island. In recent years, the nickpoint on Parramore Island has
been eroding into the maritime shrub province behind the beach and migrating to
the south. The shoreline analyses made for many of the islands reveals that these
nickpoints migrate along the beach in accordance with the changing position of
the ebb tide delta. The cause of the nickpoint was not investigated in this study,

-350-

but it is inferred that it is due to a different current regime at the up drift
end of the area not influenced by inlet processes. It would appear that less
sand reaches the nickpoint from the up drift side than is leaving it on the dozen
drift side, and that the difference is made up by erosion of the beach prism.

C. Ebb Tide Deltas

The erosional history of many of the islands in the middle and southern segments
of the Virginia Barrier Island Chain during the past 125 years, has been influenced
directly by changes taking place on the ebb tide deltas that lay outside of the
inlets. Changes that have taken place on the ebb tide delta in one time interval
are inevitably followed by changes to the adjacent islands in that, or the succeed-
ing time interval. Changes to an ebb tide delta, once set in motion, continue for
various periods of cime that are believed to be on the order of decades and per-
haps a century. Changes observed in the ebb tide delta at Little 'Machipongo Inlet
.that were set in. motion in the latter half of the 1800's, have not yet (1975)
ended. A similar time span is involved with changes that have been occurring in
the ebb tide delta at Ship Shoal Inlet. The changes at Great Machipongo Inlet oc-
curred in a time span of shortly less than one century.

The initiation of changes in the shape and configuration of an ebb tide delta ap-
pears to be triggered by a relatively rapid change in direction of the principal
channel leading across the ebb tide delta from the inlet. The changes at Little
Machipongo Inlet and Great Mlachipongo Inlet were initiated by nearly 90� changes
in channel direction that occurred quickly. How quickly could not be determined
by this study, nor could the cause of the change be determined. The time of change
only can be narrowed to a time period of about a decade. The change is termed to
have occurred quickly, because previously existing portions of the ebb tide deltas
were still intact (or nearly so), when the next bathymetric survey showed that the
changes had taken place. Abandoned portions of ebb tide deltas often remain un-
disturbed for three or four decades before they begin to change, although new parts
of the ebb tide delta begin to form immediately after the change in channel dir-
ection.

The adjacent islands begin to show changes soon after the channel across the ebb
tide delta has moved. Generally the island toward which the channel has moved be-
gins to accrete, and the island that it has moved away from begins to erode. This
was precisely the case when the channel across the ebb tide delta at Little Machi-
pongo Inlet turned 90� southward toward Hog Island. The north end of Hog Island
began to accrete rapidly, and the south end of Parramore Island began to erode rap-
idly. Another phenomena that was noticed in association with these inlet changes
was a sharp acceleration of sand trapping on the side of the inlet toward the island
that was experiencing rapid erosion. The rate of sand trapping was greatest in the
one or two decades following the onset of change to the ebb tide delta, and fell
off quickly thereafter, usually allowing channels leading to the marsh from the in-
let to deepen and re-establish themselves. The inlet end of the Swash behind Parra-
more Island became choked with sand in the quarter-century following the onset of
changes at that inlet. The role of changes in the ebb tide deltas on the erosional
and depositional history of the islands, and their marsh and bay areas is more fully
covered in the sections describing the islands.

D. Rapid Marsh Changes

Geologically rapid changes have been found to be occurring in some marsh areas west
of the barrier islands. The causes of these changes have not always been apparent,

-351-

although the occurrences of such change were noted in the sections describing
the islands. Bands of apparently drowned marsh that occur on Cedar Island and
Godwin/Ship Shoal Island have been cited earlier in this section. Within these
marsh areas, tidal canals are typically building natural levees and deltas where
the canals bifurcate and connect to ponded areas and interior mud flats. There
are numerous unfilled portions of former tidal canals located in the interior of
these marsh areas, indicating the disruption of a former canal system. A south-
westward extension of the band of drowned marsh on Godwin Island coincides with
a location on Mockhorn Island east of Steelman's Landing where a piece of pri-
vate property on an ancient beach ridge has reportedly been diked to hold back
a rising sea level UIcCaffrey, 1975; personal communication). As stated earlier,
these bands of drowned marsh (and ancient beach ridge) suggest local crustal sub-
sidence. The fact that changes can be seen from one set of remote sensing im-
agery to another, since 1949, suggests that this apparent subsidence is occurring
at a rapid rate.

Rapid changes in the nature of marsh areas have also been found at other locations
along the barrier islands. West of the northern half of Smith Island, on Mink
Island and in Bic Creek Marsh, there have been significant changes in the marsh
area. These changes have been brought about by the disruption of a former tidal
circulation pattern when Smith Island breached into Smith Island Bay. The changes
have included the filling of former tidal canals, bays, and mud flats, the cutting-
off or blocking of other tidal canals behind the beach, and the establishment of
an entirely new tidal drainage system as the breaches in Smith Island slowly healed.
Similar, but less dramatic, changes in tidal drainage networks were found and de-
scribed at other locations along the barrier island chain where changes in tidal
circulation had occurred.

The role of the Intracoastal Waterway and other dredged channels in changing ti-
dal circulation through the marsh areas is also instrumental in causing changes
in the marsh areas, and perhaps at the nearby inlets. Teagle's Ditch, when it
was dug, served to connect Cedar Island Bay to Burtons Bay. Today, tidal circula-
tion through this ditch, has scoured the opening to nearly 100 times its original
width (see Decar Island section), and filled Cedar Island Bay until most of the
bay area is mud flat. Similar conditions are found in the marsh west of Metomkin
Island where dredging for the Intra-coastal Waterway has caused changes in the
drainage system of the marsh and altered the position and configuration of Gargathy
Inlet (see Metomkin Island section). The role that the Intracoastal Waterway is
playing in terms of changed tidal circulation in the marsh behind Metomkin Island
may become more apparent over the next two decades as the breaches into Metomkin
Bay are healed. The data of this study strongly suggest that Metomkin Inlet will
close and a new inlet will form near the north end of Metomkin Bay, in part because
of increased north to south tidal drainage in the marsh area that is fostered by
the Intracoastal Waterway.

In the marsh along the west side of Parramore Island, west of Little Beach and the
beach ridge south of it, there are other, different changes in the marsh. These.
changes, too, have been occurring rapidly, and they suggest a falling sea level,
or conversely, urlift of Parramore Island marsh. The marsh in this area is built
upon sand deltas that were built into Swash Bay long ago. Tidal canals in this
area exhibit a dendritic drainage pattern. Furthermore, comparison of remote sens-
ing imagery shows that stream piracy has occurred among these tidal canals since
1942. A large tidal canal has also extended (since 194.9) inland on the island by
headward erosion to connect to the large pond east of Little Beach. A delta at the
end of this canal has divided the former large pond into two ponds. These features
are described more fully in the section on Parramore Island.

-352-

E. Rapid Retreat

The islands in the Virginia Barrier Island Chain experience more rapid shoreline
changes than would be expected for barrier island at other locations, although
the entire Delmarva Barrier Island Chain seems to experience large scale changes.
Typical high retreat rates along sandy coastlines have been reported to be in the
range of 3-5 ft./yr. Retreat of the outer shore of Cape Cod averages slightly
more than 3 ft./yr., and annual retreat of Plum Island (a barrier island on the
northeast coast of Massachusetts) probably does not exceed 1.5 ft./yr. Retreat
rates of 5-10 ft./yr. have been reported along sections of the Chesapeake Bay
shoreline at some locations. But none of these retreat rates approaches the re-
treat rates observed in the Virginia Barrier Island Chain, where retreat rates
of 5-6 ft./yr. are unusual. The typical retreat of the northern segment of the
barrier chain has been at rates of 15-18 ft./yr. There retreat has occurred in
the middle segment, retreat rates of 40-60 ft./yr. are typical. In the southern
segment, retreat at rates of 16-24 ft./yr. have been found. Over short intervals
of one to two decades, rates of retreat of up to 150 ft./yr. are not uncommon a-
mong these islands.

Retreat of this magnitude is quite unusual. The data of this study indicates
that such rates of change of shoreline positions for these islands are not unusual.
A period of progradation of the islands that is reported in this study probably
occurred at an average rate of between 8-10 ft./yr. The retreat of the islands
which followed that progradation seems to have occurred at similar rates, at least
until sometime into modern historical time. There is strong evidence to suggest
that in the previous two centuries, the islands have been retreating more rapidly.
The reasons for this historically increased rate of retreat are not certain. A
thorough historical search of the efforts and effects of man should be made to
determine if man has contributed to this increased rate of retreat. However, the
cause may be natural (see page 453).
U~~~~~
*IV. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF BARPIER ISLANDS

The very early history of the geomorphic features associated with the Virginia
Barrier Island Chain is somewhat obscure. Mixon, et al (1974) have established
that the Eastern Shore peninsula is formed of Sangamon aged barrier island deposits.
The older part of the peninsula lies north of Painter, and averages 40-60 ft. above
modern sea level. The barrier island deposits of this part of the peninsula yield
dates of 126,000 yrs. B.P. East and south of the older part of the peninsula are
found younger barrier island deposits that yield dates of approximately 65,000
years. B.P. Fossil assemblages of these younger barrier island deposits are typi-
cal of warm climates. The Mappsburg Scarp, which is more or less continuous from
north of Chincoteague Inlet to Cape Charles, has been eroded into these older bar-
rier island deposits.

A. Pre-Wisconsin

Seward of the Mappsburg Scarp there are beach ridge deposits that are younger than
the scarp. These younger beach ridges are clearly related to a regression in sea
level that is believed to be the early Wisconsin regression. These beach ridges
diverge from the Mappsburg Scarp in a northward direction, but southward they con-
verge and merge at various locations with the scarp. In the area west of the north-
ern segment of the barrier island chain, these ridges are not prominent in the
marsh area as they are west of the two southern segments of the island chain. The
reason for this is not known. The eastern portions of the marsh and bay area do

-353-

not exhibit any of these very ancient beach ridges, and it is presumed that in
this area they lie below sea level. |

B. Early Holocene

During the Wisconsin stage of glaciation, sea level was lowered until the shore- I
line lay many tens of miles eastward of its present location.' When sea level be--
gan to rise again, following the Wisconsin glaciations, the shoreline began to re- [
treat westward toward its present location along the modern barrier island chain.
The retreat of the Virginia Barrier Island Chain as sea level rose has not been at
a uniform rate. The rate of retreat has been influenced by changes in the rate of
rise of sea level, and by movements of the earth's crust beneath the Eastern Shore |
area. Harrison, et al. (1965) have shown (Figure 9, p. 132) that past crustal uplift
of this area has been substantial. Holdahl and Morrison, (1974) have shown (Figure
10, p. 134) that crustal movements are continuing at relatively high rates, and that [
there is differential movement along the Eastern Shore. The interaction of verti-
cal crustal movements with sea level rise-determined the relative rate of sea level
change along the eastern shore at any point during post Wisconsin times. The rate [
of retreat (or advance) of the barrier island chain has thus been determined by
this relative rate of sea level change.

C. Late Holocene [

The geomorphology of a barrier island reflects the history of movement of the island.
A barrier island that has been retreating steadily for a long period of time usually [
is narrow with only a single beach ridge unit along its length. A barrier island
that has been advancing for a period of time should show a succession of beach
ridge units and other landforms that record the advance of the island. The geomor- [
phic features of the Virginia Barrier Island Chain are varied, recording both ad-
vance and retreat of the barrier islands.

The geologic history of the barrier islands that has been determined during this study |
shows that at some prehistoric time, the barrier island chain had retreated westward
to a position near, or slightly west of, its present position. At that time Wacha-
preague inlet did not exist, and the northern half of the chain does not appear to
have been segmented as it is today. That ancient barrier island chain also had a
smoother ocean front than the modern chain has. The date of that ancient transgres-
sion is not known with certainty, but what has been learned'during this study sug- i
gests that a date in the range of 1905-2200 years. B.P. is reasonable. The data upon
which this conclusion is based are presented in earlier sections of this report.

The ancient retreat of the barrier island chain was followed by a period during which |
the barrier islands advanced seaward against an apparently falling sea level. Because
no eustatic drop in sea level is knolwn for the time period involved, it is presumed
that the apparent drop in sea level was due to crustal uplift. Whatever the cause, [
the islands advanced, and the geomorphology of many of the islands records the be-
ginning of that advance. Recent retreat of the islands has eroded away most of what
was added to the islands. The change in the relative position of sea level is believed[
to have been in the order of 6-10 ft., and the advance of the islands on the order of
2-3 miles.

The prehistoric advance of the islands was eventually reversed, and the islands be-
gan to retreat westward again. That westward retreat, and the relative rise of sea
level that it imnlies, has continued to the present. The time when the islands re-
returned to a condition of retreat is not known. Newman and Rusmak (1968 report that [
the marsh west of Wachapreague Inlet tegan to form about 1000 yrs. B.P., but this

-354-

could have occurred with a falling relative sea level. Harrison, et al.(1965),
reports a date determined from peat exposed on Hog Island that is 1170 yrs. B.P.
That peat exposure is above modern high water, and may also have been formed with
a falling relative sea level. Thus, the date of the beginning of subsidence (rel-
atively rising sea level) is not known, but may have occurred more recently than
1000 years B.P.

D. Historical Retreat

The historical time span covered by this study is from 3852 to the present, al-
though some of the hydrographic data goes back to 1847. Figure 88 has been pre-
pared to aid in summarizing the historical changes in position of the Virginia
Barrier Islands. In the.figure, the islands have been grouped as they occur in
the three natural segments of the barrier island chain. For simplicity, each is-
land is schematically represented by a line. The lines are not drawn to scale
for the islands, nor are they correctly orientated to the islands' axes, except
that the top of the page represents a northerly direction. Arrows are used to in-
dicate the direction of movement of the island's shoreline, and numbers indicate
the general net amount of movement in feet. The column headings for each segment
of the barrier chain are phrased to reflect the general nature of shoreline and
island movement.

Comparison of the three columns of Figure 88 shows that the amount and nature of
shoreline movememt is quite different in each of the three segments of the island
chain. Along the northern segment of the islands, beach retreat has not been every-
lwhere equal on an island, but it has been such that the islands have retreated
without changing their orientation, and their modern beaches are approximately
parallel to older beach positions. Locally higher amounts of retreat on an island
are traceable to ephemeral inlets that have opened during the historical period.
The column for this northern segment of the barrier chain also shows that retreat
increases along the segment, to the south, past Metomkin Island.

The columns in Figure 88 for the middle and southern groups of islands in the chain
show that these islands have experienced greater amounts of movement, and changes
in the orientation of the islands. For both groups of islands, the numbers reflect
the net movement of the islands during the historical period, but they do not show
the fluctuations in shoreline positions that have occurred.. All of the islands in
these two groups have shown one or more periods when parts of their shorelines have
advanced and then retreated again. The seaward beaches of all of these islands are
influenced by inlet processes and the ebb tide deltas associated with them. The
rotation of the island orientations that is seen in the islands of the middle group
is directly attributable to changes in the ebb tide deltas at the inlets between
these islands. The rapid changes in shoreline position that are indicated for the
north end of Cobb Island are related to changes on the ebb tide delta at Great Mlachi-
pongo Inlet. Similar changes have occurred to the sand spit at the north end of
Wreck Island.

The islands of the southern group, with the exception of Fishermans Island, have
shown the greatest amount of retreat. Because changes at inlets, and to their ebb
tide deltas, have occurred, these islands also have undergone changes in their shape
and orientation. The changes that have affected these islands are described and
discussed in the sections of this report covering those islands. Average retreat:
rates for the islands have little real meaning because retreat has varied so greatly
along the length of each island. Maximtm retreat of Ship Shoal Island and Myrtle
Island has occurred at the ends of the islands where changes in the inlet openings
and channel positions were occurring. Both islands have built east facing beaches
near their north ends, which have had the effect of reducing retreat of that por-

-355-

tion of the islands. Maximum retreat of Smith Island has occurred along the north-
ern two-thirds of the island where the effects of breaching into Smith Island Bay
have been concentrated. Net retreat on these islands, away from locations that
have been affected by localized processes, appears to have been in the order of
1500-2000 ft., which is not significantly different from net retreat along the north-
er group of islands.

Little is known about the volume of sand that is moving along these islands in the
longshore drift system. The analyses of shoreline changes and coastal processes
that were done for this study suggest that there is not much sand moving from is-
land to island in the longshore drift system north of Wachapreague Inlet. It was
only south of that inlet that any evidence was found to suggest that sand was mov-
ing from island to island. It appears that the volume of sand so moved increases
toward the southern end of the barrier island chain.

The reduction in the volume of sand in the longshore drift system along the north -
ern segment of the barrier island chain can be traced to a loss of sand from the
drift system at the south end of Assateague Island. Fishing Point, which is the
hooked sand spit at the south end of the island, has grown in its entirety since
1852. Prior to 1852, the beach along the southern end of Assateague Island had
grown past Chincoteague Island and had begun to accrete seaward. Fishing Point
then built southward from that portion of Assateague Island for more than two miles
before it recurved toward Chincoteague Inlet. The seaward, and southward growth
of Fishing Point removed very large volumes of sand from the longshore drift system.
In addition, the growth of the sand spit created a sand trap wherein sand in the
longshore drift system is drawn off into the area sheltered by the sand spit where
it is deposited. Byrne (unpublished report) has reported that the U.S. Corps of
Engineers estimate that sand is being trapped in this area at a rate of 500,000
cu. yds./yr. This is about double the amount of sand that is generally believed to
be moved in a longshore drift system in a year's time.

The sand trap at Fishing Point is a feature of historical origin, within the histor-
ical time period of this study. However, the accretion of the south end of Assa-
teague Island, which led to the growth of the sand spit, undoubtedly reaches back
into prehistoric time. It is, therefore, quite probable that there has been a re-
duced volume of sand reaching the northern segmnent of the Virginia Barrier Island
Chain for many hundreds of years. The cause of the recessed nature of that north-
ern segment of the barrier chain is then seen to be due to an excess volume of sand
removed from the longshore drift system, over the volume introduced into the area
by the drift system.

-356-

SPECIAL TOPICS

I. ORIGIN OF PARRAMORE PFIhLES

Some of the barrier islands along the Delmarva Coast exhibit peculiar mounds
which are most frequently oval or crudely circular in shape. The mounds are in-
variably found as features of broad, sandy plains which have been referred to in
this report as sand flats or swales. The relief of these features above the sur-
rounding plain is generally quite low, ranging from 0.5 ft. to 3-4 ft. The mounds
have been referred to in the literature as Parramore Island Mounds, or Parramore
Pimples because they are abundant, and generally most well developed in the cen-
tral area of Parramore Island, but may also be seen on Assateague Island, Cedar
Island, Hog Island, and Smith Island.

Several authors have suggested modes of origin for these features. Melton (1929)
suggests that they result from recent erosion of older features. Rich (1934) in-
dicates that this origin is unlikely because the areas exhibiting Parramore Pim-
ples today are remote from open stretches df water which could produce erosion.
An alternate hypothesis is offered by Deitz (1945), he suggests that these features
develop during the establishment of new marsh in areas of pre-existing lagoon bot-
tom. His idea is that circular clumps of marsh grass developed, which served to
trap other sediments and eventually produce the elevated mound. Despite the fact
that Redfield (l9SR) shows that newly vegetating marshes tend not to produce suach
circular clumps in northern marshes, the imagery used for this study shows numer-
ous circular clumps of marsh in areas of newly forming marsh. More recently, Cross
(1964) suggests that subsurface flow of muddy strata may produce mound-like struc-
tures at the surface. This argument likens the origin of Parramore Pimples to that
of the giant salt dome structures of the Gulf Coast, which are diapir structures.

Various Parramore Pimples were examined on Cedar Island, Parramore Island, and
Smith Island when field work was conducted in September 1975. The mounds that
were examined were all found to be composed entirely of fine sand and to rest upon
a sandy substrate, including those that were located in marsh areas. Borings and
excavations were employed to investigate both the mounds and the plain upon which
they were found. Borings were carried to a depth of eight feet. The substrate
upon which the mounds are located was found to consist of sand) strata with some
minor silty-sandy layers up to 6-8 ins. thick. Most of the strata were firm and
compact, but occasional layers up to two feet in thickness were found to have a
high water content. The auger would sink freely into them as the hole was bored.
However, the possibility of flow in these layers seems unlikely because it was pos-
sible to auger past them without the hole filling with water, or caving.

The Geologic Maps of Cedar Island and Parramore Island show that most Parramore Pim-
ples occur in rows which probably represent former beach ridge or dune ridge deposits.
However, they are also found with more random distribution, particularly on sand
flats along the marsh side of the islands. The features are easy to identify on the
IR imagery employed for the study, and although many were drawn on the geologic
maps, many more were too small to show on the map. Wherever Parramiore Pimples were
found on the islands, they were always associated with geomorphic features that rep-
resent rapid prouradation of the island, accompanied by occasional storm overwash.

The association of Parramore Pimples with features of rapid progradation and over-
wash, and their absence at other locations, suggests hypotheses to account for their
formation. The occurrence of these features in rows on sand plains that have accreted

-357-

rapidly indicates that low sand dune ridges or beach ridges behind the accreting
beach were breached at close intervals by storm overwash. This would leave a row I
of low, isolated, mounds protruding a few inches to several feet above the sur-
rounding overwashed 'sand flat. Following a period of storm overwashing, the mounds
would be nourished and perhaps enlarged by wind-blown sand, before overwashing a-
gain reshaped them and enlarged the gaps between them.

Gradually the prograding beach would leave these isolated mounds inland and a new
sand dune ridge, or beach ridge, would form seaward of the first row of mounds. I
Apparently, as long as the relief of the overwashed sand flat above sea level re-
mains low, and rapid progradation continues, successive rows of Parramore Pimples
are started. It is believed that repeated flooding of the sand flat area by suc-
cessive storm high tides produces wave wash effects that help to maintain the gen-
eral circular character of the mounds. Drift lines of marsh grass that build around
some of the mounds probably help to trap washed, and wind-blown, sand to create the
annular character of some of the Parramore Pimples. The formation of a high beach
ridge, the relative lowering of sea level, or both, appears to terminate eventually
the process of forming Parramore Pimples.

Parramore Pimples that occur with a more random pattern of distribution appear to
occur on sand flats that have been built by overwash on the marsh side of the islands.
Such sand flats may not always be associated with rapid progradation, but they are
aggradational features which form over short spans of time. An alternate mode of
origin for Parramore Pimples is found at these sites. Clumps of water borne detri-
tus left on the surface of the overwashed area, and damp areas, serve as sites for
accumulationbof wind-blown sand derived from other, drier, areas of the sand flat. I
Rapid colonization (within 2-5 yrs.) of the sand flat by vegetation after overwash-
ing ends, prevents further modification of the low mounds by the wind. While these
hypotheses are tentative at this time, the field observations and data of this in- I
vestigation support them quite well.

II. INFRARED PHOTOGRAPHY FOR COASTAL PROCESSES DATA BASE

This study of geomorphology and coastal processes has profited greatly from the use
of false color thermal infrared aerial photography obtained from, and via the kind l
permission of, the Environmental Studies Program of the N.A.S.A., Wallops Island
Flight Center. During the course of this study, techniques have been developed to
determine the significant processes which dominate the various sections of each
barrier island. These techniques generally consist of careful study of each avail- |
able photo and the determination of the form of each geomorphic feature shown. With
practice and training, an extremely detailed map can be produced. High quality IR
photography should not be used exclusively in future studies as all information ob-
tained from this photography should be verified through comparison with other forms
of aerial photography, map data, and field work to check the assumed nature of fea-
tures shown on the IR photography. These verification techniques were utilized in
this study with the pleasing result that interpretations from different sources agreed
well.

-358-

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE'RESEARCH

I. GENERAL STATEMENT

nThis study has been of a reconnaisance nature and should not be considered the
final word in regard to any of the geomorpholcgical processes operating in the
Virginia Barrier Islands. The study has produced a valuable regional analysis
and yields many new insights into the coastal processes and geomorphology of
this area. The authors do not possess the wisdom or hubris to foresee all of
the potential future research which will be accomplished in this area. However,
the Virginia Barrier Islands are a valuable scientific resource with an undis-
turbed array of natural!processes to be studied. The results of many future
studies will have applications well beyond the local area, as they can be used
for undisturbed analogs for many other coastal areas which are already too
heavily developed to permit study of natural processes.

II. SPECIFIC PROJECTS

Many future studies appear to be significant in light of the study performed
in producing this report. Some are given in relatively random order in the
following paragraphs.

The most important unknown item in the present state of knowledge of the coastal
processes acting on the Virginia Barrier Island Chain is the rate of longshore
sediment transport. Byrne, et al. (1965) and Goldsmith, et al. (1975), as well
as others, indicate that the general longshore drift along the northern five
islands appears to be to the south. The results of the present study indicate
that general longshore drift is to the south along the entire barrier island
chain. They also indicate that the volume, or rate of drift, along the northern
five islands is low, and that the rate increases in a southerly direction. How-
ever, the existing data are qualitative, not quantitative. If studies could be
conducted to determine the rate of sediment transport over a long period of time
at each of the barrier islands, valuable information would be derived, which
could be used to determine future natural changes to these islands.

A second marine geomorphological study which would be of value would involve
making a quantitative determination of the rate at which the lagoon and marsh
areas are undergoing sedimentation. Newman and Munsart (1968) and John Boon
(V.I.M.S., Ph.D thesis) have studied this topic at local areas. Newman and
Munsart (1968) report that the age of the marshes may be relatively young (1000
years B.P.). If this is the case, then the filling of these lagoon and marsh
areas may be reaching a waning phase. This in turn implies that less sediment
may be worked into the lagoons from the ocean beaches in the future. Thus ocean
beach erosion rates may decrease in the future.

A related problem of interest is the cause of the virtual absence of peat de-
posits in the Parramore Island marshes, as well as in other marsh areas. The
augering and probing conducted by the authors of this report indicate a sand
substrate and virtually no peat in these marshes. This may imply that they are
very young. If this proves true, a determination of why they are young may pro-
vide new insight into the pre-historic development of this area.

Further insight into the pre-historic development of this island chain could be
obtained by acquiring dates on the live oak (~uercus viriniana)stumps on the

-359-

seaward face of Parramore Island and the marsh peats exposed south of the Mud
Hole on the seaward beach of Smith Island.

Additional study of the drowned beach ridges called Holly Bluff; Skidmore,
Racoon, and Mockhorn Islands may yield datable material. It would be useful
to confirm the pre-Pleistocene age of these features.

Complete studies of the tidal hydrodynamics and sedimentation patterns at all
inlets are important to gaining insight into the processes which dominate much
of the development of these islands. Byrne et al. (1974) reports on one such
detailed study of Wachapreague Inlet. Byrne and his students have been engaged
in other similar studies, and this work should be continued. The inlet which
offers most promise for new productive study is Ship Shoal Inlet. This inlet
plays a dominant role in the southern sections of the Barrier Island Chain. It
has a recent history of abrupt changes in the position of the channels on its
ebb tide delta. It has shifted its marsh and inlet channel southward by about
3700 feet, and it exhibits a series of relatively long beach ridges on the nor-
thern shore of the marsh channel leading to the inlet.

The value of high quality, large scale, false color thermal infrared photography
for geomorphic studies of the Virginia Barrier Islands has been documented in
this report. Future research would benefit if a series of such aerial photogra-
phy were produced from flights at regular intervals. The optimum series would
consist of a flight once every two years at the same seasonal period.

-360--

MANAGEMENT RECOM}ENDATIONS

Clearly the generally small physiography and the comparatively rapid rates of
geomorphic change in the position, size, shape, and number of barrier islands
in the Virginia Barrier Island Chain dictates that a carefully designed system
of land stewardship be applied by The Nature Conservancy. The great natural
beauty of this area as well as the general shortage of undeveloped coast, immedi-
ately suggests a land custody system which preserves these islands. However,
this report has gone to great length to show the large and rapid changes which
continually occur on these islands. It is most important to begin any management
plan by recognizing the ubiquitous nature of these changes. It is important to
recognize that the changes in the position, size, shape, and number of barrier
islands in this chain do not fit well with our legal system's concepts and regu-
lation of land ownership. Thus an enlightened management policy must not only
consider the social value and ecological implications of its policies, but also
the legal realities of implementing any given policy or course of action. The
authors of this report would be loath to see widespread commercial or private
development of these barriers. However, there will always be an economic incen-
tive to allow this to occur. Therefore, it must be stressed that private owner-
ship of lots will be difficult to maintain as almost all areas are subject to
erosion and flooding hazards. The tendency to wish to maintain the position of
sea facing lot boundaries implies increasing activity and expense to control
coastal erosion. Such activity is generally only marginally successful, but is
prone toward seriously disrupting the finely balanced array of geomorphic pro-
cesses which presently control these islands. The high rate of retreat of these
islands and the lack of knowledge of the rate of longshore drift of sediment,
serve to emphasize the need to restrict efforts to control beach position.

On a larger scale, the questions of land stewardship, coastal change, and our
present legal system, indicate that The Nature Conservancy must act at an early
date to assure that its control of all land areas of the islands which they pre-
sently own is maintained. As each island undergoes its natural migrations, some
land areas disappear while new land areas are created. Steps must be undertaken
to assure that all new land areas become the property of the owners of the mi-
grating barrier island. This should be rather trivial in the case of new land
areas which are always contiguous with the barrier island, but is more of a pro-
blem when small islands emerge adjacent to the main barrier island. Such new
minor islands are common in the Virginia Barrier Island Chain. They tend to fall
into three groups: (a) ebb tide delta islands; (b) flood tide delta islands; and
(c) inlet islands. The first of these categories is exemplified by the islands
which have developed and disappeared off the northeast shore of Hog Island, Cobb
Island, and Myrtle Island during the last century. Only the island off Cobb Is-
land appears to have been named and was called Pig Island. All of these small
islands developed on the downdrift side of the ebb tide delta of the adjacent in-
let. In time, each migrated towards the adjoining maior barrier island and ulti-
mately the two islands fused together. Some of these islands are quite extensive
(Pig Island was 1.0 mile long) and one may last a decade before it fuses with the
major barrier island. It appears likely that similar islands will develop off Hog,
Cobb, and Myrtle Islands so The Nature Conservancy must be prepared to establish
its control over these new lands before they appear. Such occurrences are defi-
nitely not limited to these three islands, although they are most likely there,
so the policy must be of a general nature.

The second and third types of new minor islands will probably he more difficult to

-361-

deal with. Both the flood tide delta islands and the inlet islands do not tend
to migrate, and thus do not fuse with the adjacent major barrier islands. Flood
tide delta islands are generally marsh islands with small sand beaches where they
face a large open body of water. Inlet islands tend to be sand islands with lit-
tie or no vegetation. Both types develop from some degree of horizontal assyme-
try between the flood and ebb tidal currents at the inlet and are both really
mated to the inlet processes, rather than processes unique to either of the ad-
jacent major barrier islands. Thus, it appears difficult to establish ownership
of these new islands based on ownership of the adjacent barrier islands. The
authors of this report have no legal expertise and thus recommend that legal ad-
vice be sought elsewhere to create a system wherein all new islands developed
within the section of the barrier chain owned by The Nature Conservancy will be
possessed by The Nature Conservancy. As these types of new islands develop com-
monly, and are already producing disputes at Wachapreague Inlet and Quinby Inlet,
it would be well to take early action to determine the correct legal actions to
acquire title to these small islands. Finally, it must be recognized that inlet
islands are most often short-lived, but some may grow to be major islands as in
the case of Little Cobb Island. Other new islands, such as those produced by the
recent breaching of Metomkin Island, can grow to be major barrier islands.

The nature of the islands in the Virginia Barrier Island Chain has been defined
in this report. The high rate of retreat of the islands, combined with their low
relief, makes them prone to frequent overwashing and storm flooding. These con-
ditions are unfavorable for private, or commercial, development, but they favor
the maintenance of a productive natural ecologic system. Management plans deve-
loped by The Nature Conservancy for their stewardship of this area should be
framed with these conditions in mind.

Because it is understood that the intent of acquisition of the'island area was
its preservation, and not its development, the management recommendations of this
report do not consider the many problems that development would create. The
recommendations are directed to large-scale policies and procedures that would
benefit the entire chain of islands. They also advise on practices that might
be employed (or should be avoided) in local areas.

A most important concept to be expressed by this geomorphological report is that
the existing barrier island chain is the result of relatively delicately balanced
natural processes and that rapid rates of physiographic change are common. This
has clearly been the case for the several thousand years that this barrier island
chain has existed, and thus the islands are resilient and durable in their natural
condition. All too often this fact has not been recognized in other areas so
that landowners and managers have attempted to modify and control natural pro-
cesses so as to stabilize some arbitrary position and outline of the barrier is-
lands. The barrier islands from the southern coast of Long Island, New York, to
the eastern coast of South Florida which have been developed and "stabilized",
have proven to be extrememly difficult to control and very expensive to maintain.
Clearly, the proper future management of the Virginia Barrier Island Chain re-
quires a policy of minimum interference with the natural processes acting on these
islands. However, this policy should not develop by default nor appear to local
citizen and governmental agencies as neglect. Inevitably both local citizens
and government agencies are prone to producing schemes to "stabilize" or "improve"
coastal systems. This sociological phenomena too frequently results in pressure
to "do something" about the natural changes of such coastal systems. This in
turn produces hostility, legal problems, or unnecessary and expensive projects.
Therefore,it is recommended that a policy of minimum maintenance of the Virginia
Barrier Island Chain be deliberately chosen. A public information system should
be developed to make all concerned individuals aware of the specific reasons that
such a policy has been adopted. This public information system can take the form-

-362-

of periodic news releases, a pamphlet series, talks by Conservancy personnel at
civic or social organization meetings and any other method of publicizing the
sound rationale which has led to this policy. In the short run, this will
probably result in some noisy dissent but in the long run it will forestall many
specific public and governmental pressures as well as be more economical than
an unending series of stabilization and maintenance projects.

A minimum maintenance/minimum interference policy does not preclude any activity
designed to control or modify natural processes. It does preclude any action
which has not been fully planned and thoroughly researched, so that the far-reach-
ing effects and interactions are understood, as well as the immediate local ef-
fects which are intended or a necessary byproduct of the action. Certain govern-
ment agencies have developed a reputation for producing planning documents which
are made up of non-specific information as well as generalized data indicating
that proposed projects have favorable economic effects while creating a minimum
of immediate environmental problems. These documents exemplify the form of in-
complete environmental analysis which frequently results in widespread environ-
mental damage that could have been foreseen. On the other hand, there are many
fine examples of well planned projects which have greatly benefitted coastal
areas.

In making future assessments of any plan which will affect the coastal systems
of the Virginia Barrier Island Chain, the following recommendations should be
fully considered.

I. INLET STABILIZATION

This report has documented the close interrelationship between the historic
changes in various inlets (via natural processes) and changes in the ocean beaches,
marsh channel and tidal creek systems, and in lagoonal currents and sedimentation pat-
terns. Thus, any plan intended to stabilize an inlet, improve its navigability, or
change its sedimentation pattern should be carefully studied and evaluated in terms
of the probably large scale side effects of the project. It must be stressed that
the inlet does not merely consist of the passage between adjacent islands, but also
involves the ebb and flood tidal deltas which may extend for many miles about the
inlet throat.

II. BEACH EROSION CONTROL PLANS

It is Unlikely that serious pressure to control beach erosion will occur if the
Virginia Barrier Islands remain undeveloped. However, in the event that evaluation
of such plans should become necessary, the following recommendations should be con-
sidered. Considerable documentation exists in this report and other documents and
publications to prove that there is a general westward migration of these barrier
islands due to a continued, slow rise in sea level. Thus, the natural future devel-
opment of these islands involves continued westward migration realized by continued
erosion of their ocean beaches. The natural maintenance of these islands is assured
through the variety of barrier island processes described in the introductory sec-
tions of the report which serve to transport and deposit sediment behind, over, and
through barrier islands. The only exceptions to this natural pattern of westward mi-
gration occur at the north ends of the islands in the middle segment of the barrier
island chain and over much of Fisherman's Island. In the case of the middle seg-
ment of the barrier chain, there is no assurance that the present accretion of the
north ends of the islands will continue long into the future. Thus, any system to.
control beach erosion will eventually be overridden by this general migration.

-363-

Attempts made to retard erosion at a specific location can produce only short term
benefits. If it is crucial to retard erosion at such an area. for a period of five
to ten years, then the services of a licensed engineer should be sought to design a
sea wall or groin field. It must always be borne in mind that trapping of sand with
groins or the retarding of erosion at one place with a sea wall, usually results in
considerable disruption of the longshore transport of sand. This, in turn, can and
often does, produce acceleration of erosion in other areas (usually, but not always,
down drift of the site of the erosion control area).

Another method for locally stabilizing the position of a portion of ocean beach is
beach nourishment. Sand from some remote area is dredged and deposited at, or up
drift of, the area to be protected. Such projects are costly, as they require tre-
mendous volumes of sand, and their beneficial effects are short-lived. In many
areas the source of the large volume of sand is difficult to determine. Recently,
beach nourishment plans in othecareas have required an offshore sand source. The
seaward margins of the ebb tide deltas of the Virginia Barrier Islands appear to be
adequate sources for such large volumes of sand but great care must be exercised to
avoid changing the channels, or pattern of currents through the inlet as this can
lead to major changes in island shape and position.

DUNE STABILIZATION PLANS

Many Atlantic Coast barrier islands have experienced attempts to stabilize their
coastal dune system. These efforts have been made to control beach erosion, to
limit the occurrence of storm flooding, and to inhibit overwash processes from in-
nundating inshore areas with overwash sand deposits. The plans vary from the par--
tial burial of a few scattered old Christmas trees to trap windblown sand, through the
use of snow fence for similar purposes, to extensive artificial dune ridges which
are bulldozed into position and stabilized with beach grass. The results of these
efforts has been varied. Dune stabilization systems do offer some promise for pro-
tecting some upland areas in the Virginia Barrier Islands from storm flooding dangers,
but they must be used cautiously.

It is impossible to predict all of the circumstances where dune stabilization may
appear to be beneficial. However, the following recommendations and cautions should
be considered. In all cases, the services of a competent coastal geologist should
be secured to determine the feasibility of the project, and the long term or distant.
side effects which may occur.

Dune stabilization projects can work in almost any coastal area where there is an
adequate source of windblown sand. However, these projects should be limited to
areas immediately adjacent to broad portions of the barrier islands which show no
indication of overwash and recent ephemeral inlet deposits. Therefore, the thin and
low portions of each island, which may appear to be most in need of stabilized dune
fields, should not be the site of such projects. These areas depend for their exis-
tence on the landward migration of dunes, the growth of sand deposits within the
lagoon via ephemeral inlets and the deposition of sand through storm overwash. These
processes slowly extend the lagoon side of the islands so that the island's existence
is maintained as the ocean beaches erode. A dune stabilization project in such an
area can increase the height of the backbeach dunes. However, this creates a situa-
tion wherein continued beach erosion eventually breaches the dunes with far more
catastrophic results than would occur had the dunes been left to migrate in their
natural condition. These areas of low, thin barrier island with migrating dunes,
ephemeral inlet deposits, and many over.ash channels are easily located on the geo-

-364-

logic maps which accompany this report.

In areas within the broad portions of the barrier islands where the above-mentioned
geomorphic features are uncommon, it may be desirable to stabilize the coastal sand
I dunes. This may be accomplished with snow fence or by bulldozing and grass planting.
However, it must be remembered that the stabilized sand dunes may ultimately be eroded
as the ocean beach erodes back. The eventual effect of this large reservoir of sand
in modifying the longshore sand transport system should be considered, as should the
effect of depleting the longshore sand transport system at the time of stabilization.

IV. CONTROL OF ISLAND BREACHING

'he geologic history of� the islands in the Virginia Barrier Island Chain shows that
breaching of the islands is a common natural phenomenon. The nature of the ephemeral
openings thus formed has been discussed in an earlier section (page 436). The life-
time of ephemeral inlets varies from a few days to many years, and is determined by
many factors; chief amlong which are the location of the breach on the island, the
morphology of a large area surrounding the breach, and tidal circulation on the marsh
side of the island. This study has shown that along these islands the lifetime of
narrow discrete ephemeral inlets is usually less than a decade, while that of the
larger, major breaches is on the order of 25-40 years.

' The frequency at which breaching and the development of ephemeral inlets occurs is
less certain. The number of minor ephemeral inlets that have opened, and closed a-
gain, in time periods between a few days and a few years, is unknown. Such openings
are too short-lived to have left significant and noticeable deposits. Because the
retreat rate of the islands is quite rapid,the number of such breaches into tidal ca-
nals is probably quite large. Unfortunately, hydrographic, photographic, and topo-
graphic surveys of the islands have been too infrequent to provide any meaningful
data on this rate of occurrences The work of this study suggests that many of the
larger (0.1-0.3 mile side) overwash channels may have been initiated as shortlived
ephemeral inlets.

The data base of this study does provide evidence bearing on the opening of signi-
ficant ephemeral inlets. During the century and a quarter of the historical period
of this study, every island in the chain, except Fishermans Island, Wallops Island,
and Wreck Island has experienced only one period of breaching. In each instance,
the breaching period has occupied no more than several decades, and often less than
one decade. In every case the ephemeral inlets have altered tidal circulation and
shallowed the inland marsh and bay areas, thus stabilizing that portion of the bar-
rier island.

Metomkin Island and Smith Island have both experienced major breaching within this
century; Metomkin Island, most recently. The episode of breaching on Smith Island
is drawing to a close. Both major breaches have healed, but retreat is still rapid
near Mud Hole, and short-lived breaches may be expected in that area as the retreat
of the beach intercepts marsh canals. As the beach along Smith Island recovers
from its breaching episode, a new, and higher beach ridge should form, and the pre-
sent process of breaching should come to a close. The breaching of Metomkin Island
has been more recent, major changes and inlet migration are still occurring, and can
be expected to continue to occur for the next 10-20 years.

H The data of this study may be used to prognosticate. Cedar Island breached once
(about 1956) and will probably breach again just south of the northern marsh area
at the base of the southern sand spit. However, Burtons Bay is very shallow, and

-365-

the breach'may be predicted to occur as a narrow, discrete, ephemeral inlet, and
produce another extensive sand delta as was produced by the earlier inlet. Cobb
Island, south of its midpoint is the next most likely candidate for major breach-
ing. A long section of this island faces open bay, and is already overwashing at
a rapid rate. The nature of the breach that will probably occur here is difficult
to predict because of the marsh configuration. A "best estimate" would suggest
that it will be a discrete inlet opening.

The Nature Conservancy should resist the temptation to try to forestall these e- I
vents as those attempts are unlikely to be successful over the long term, and may
commit the organization to an expensive policy where attempts are made to plug all I
possible future breaches, Tnese temporary breaches are necessary to bring sand to
the lagoon side of the islands, and are simply natural events in the continued de-
velopment of the islands. They should, therefore, be left alone to conduct their
function. I

In some restricted cases it may be profitable to limit the distance that overwash
deposits are spread into the lagoon. These deposits occasionally threaten comn-
mercial shellfish grounds. A system of marsh grass transplanting may be attempted
to artificially induce marsh development behind the barrier island so that the
future overwash is trapped by the marsh rather than spread into the lagoon. An
attempt to induce marsh development via this method was tried by P. Godfrey in I
North Carolina and was successful (Codfrey, personal communication, 1974). How-
ever, the services of a competent agricultural agent or botanist should be secured
if this method is attempted. I

V. WATERWAY AND CANAL DREDGING

Preceding sections of this report have shoim the importance of tidal inlets to the I
maintenance of the barrier islands. The tidal inlets also are intimately related
to the exchange of tidal waters within the lagoon and marsh system. Changes in I
the natural circulation patterns within the lagoon and marsh may often have sub-
stantial detrimental effects at inlets, as well as within the marsh and bay areas.
Examples of the effect of tidal scour on artificial channels such as Teagles
Ditch and the Intracoastal Waterway have been cited earlier. Moody (1963) docu- I
ments two other similar situations where artificial ditches within the marsh of
the northern Delmarva barrier island chain were widened greatly by tidal scour.

The alteration of tidal channels within-the marshes and lagoons can chanre the I
tidal flow at the adjacent inlets. It has been she-,m several times in this report
that changes in the :nlet tidal currents have dramatically altered the pattern of
erosion and deposition on the ocean beaches. Therefore, any project which involves
dredging existing or new channels should be carefully evaluated in terms of its
system-wide effects by a coastal geologist.

If a project of this nature becomes necessary, and if it can be shown to have I
minimal harmful effects to the entire environmental system, then the site for deposit-
ing dredge spoil must be considered. At present, there are several old dredge spoil I
deposits on old marshes behind the Virginia Barrier Islands. This practice probably
only damages the least productive portions of the marsh and thus does not critically
endanger the estuarine system. However, these old dredge sites do not revegetate
rapidly (the process appears to require some decades) and thus produce long-lasting I
scars. It would be better to use this dredge spoil as artificial beach nourish-
ment wherever possible. The suitability of the spoil for this purpose is deter-
mined by its grain size and pollutant content. The economics of dredging are seldom |

-366- I

favorable for using long pipes to transport the spoil from the site of the
dredge to a remote ocean beach. Thus, dredge contractors resist having to
do this wherever possible. The Nature Conservancy should be prepared to in-
sist on this practice whenever it appears beneficial. Theservices of a
coastal geologist and an engineer should be sought to work together in assist-
ing The Nature Conservancy in planning such projects.

VI. THE USE OF THE VIRGINIA BARRIER ISLANDS AS A SCIENTIFIC RESERVE

The Virginia Barrier Islands which are owned by The Nature Conservancy ap-
*pear destined to become a reserve for scientific research. If this course
is followed, there are several specific recommendations which would serve to
enhance these islands for scientific study. First, a full-time management
team is required to lend supervision and continuity to the program. The uses
of the islands and the qualifications of individuals who will be permitted to
carry out research must be clearly stated at an early date. A local library
should be promoted, possibly in conjunction with, or through support of, the.
library at the V.I.M.S. Marine Station at Wachapreague. That library has already
collected many of the books, journals, theses, articles, and reports which are of
interest to investigators of the adjoining coastal areas. However, an effort
should be made to assist that library in future acquisitions. This may be parti-
cularly important in regard to the many limited circulation reports which have
been, and will be, written about this area.

A detailed map series should be available to investigators with navigable channels,
landing sites, and basic topography indicated so that scientists can adequately
plan their research. These maps should be of large-scale for use as base maps
where such are required.

A standardized report should be required from all projects, regardless of funding
source, so that The Conservancy is kept aware of all scientific finds. Such
reports should be kept on file so that subsequent investigators will be aware of
all previous research.

Some prepared landings might be established on the marsh side of some of the is-
lands to allow access to theisland over the greatest range of the tide possible,
and to guide foot traffic to a central pathway. If it becomes possible to ac-
quire some of the abandoned U.S. Coast Guard facilities, they could be maintained
as base camps for scientific parties, with minimal inconvenience to The Nature
Conservancy personnel.

VII. POTENTIAL HARBOR EXPANSION

At the present time, there is a potential for the need to develop harbor facili-
ties which will support an offshore oil industry near the Virginia Barrier Is-
lands. If such a course develops, then it is recommended that Sand Shoal Inlet
be considered as the best inlet for access between the ocean and the mainland.
This inlet has shown relative stability during the historic period covered in
this report. It has also maintained maximum depths in the order of 90 feet and
minimum depths across the ebb tide delta of 20-24 feet. The natural channel
across this ebb tide delta is prone to drifting sand shoals that modify its
position, but its depth is naturally maintained and the shifts in channel posi-
tion can be monitored, and channel markers can be moved. The use of most other

-367-

inlets in the southern'portion of the Virginia Barrier Inlets will likely re-
quire jetties and dredging, which would probably prodiuce substantial environ-
mental and erosional damage to the islands.

A final management recommendation which should be made concerns activities
that may occur along the entire Delmarva Barrier Island Chain, and mainland
coast. The bay, island, marsh area owned by The Nature Conservancy is a very
delicately balanced system. Many factors which have been discussed in this
report affect that delicate balance, and changes in those factors can cause
rapid and significant changes in the islands, or the entire barrier island sys-
tem. It is imperative that The Nature Conservancy realizes that changes in fac-
tors remote from their property can affect their property. A case in point is
the recently proposed Delmarva Waterway (U.S.A.C. of E. proposal), which would
seriously disrupt tidal circulation in the bay and marsh areas, as well as at
inlets, to say nothing of the problems associ.ated with dredge disposal. The
Nature Conservancy must remain aware that any changes within the system will
affect their holdings, and they must be prepared to intervene in any proposal.
that will affect the Virginia Barrier Islands, evenr though it may be many tens
of miles away.

-368-

REFERENCES

I ALLEN, E. A., and J. C. Kraft, 1974: Late Holocene paleoenvironmental reconstruction
of the Lewes Creek Marsh, Delaware., Geol. Soc. Amer., 9th Ann. Meeting, N. E.
Section, Abstracts with Programs, V. 5 (1), p. 1.

Alt, D., 1968: Pattern of Post-Miocene eustatic fluctuation of sea level., Paleogeog.,
Paleoclimat., Palececol., v- 5, p. 87094.

I Alt, D., and H. K. Brooks, 1965: Age of the Florida Marine Terraces., J. Geol., v. 73,
p. 406-411.

I Balats, E. I., 1974: Vertical crustal movements on the middle Atlantic Coastal Plain as
indicated by precise leveling., Geol. Soc. Amer., 9th Ann. Meeting, N.E. Section,
Abstracts with Programs, v. 5 (1), p.5.

Bandy, 0. L., 1968: Cycles in Neogene paleoceanography and eustatic changes., Paleogeog.,
Paleoclimat., Paleoecol., v. 5 (1), p. 63-77.

I Barton, 0. C., 1928: Meandering in tidal streams., J . Geol., v. 36, p. 615.

Barwis, J. H., and J. H. Makurath, 1974: Environmental sequence in marine transgressions
Barrier-Inlet complex in the Keyser Limestone (upper Siluraian-cayucan) of Virginia.
Geol. Soc. Amer., 9th Ann. Meeting, N. E. Section, Abstracts
with Programs, v. 5 (1), p. 7.

Bevan, A. C., 1942: Publications on the geology and mineral resources of Virginia.,
Virginia Geol. Surv. Circ. No. A.Univ. of Virginia, 58 pp.

I Biggs, R. B., 1970: The origin and geological history of Assateague Island, Maryland and
Virginia., Natural Resources Inst. Contribution No. 446., Assateague Ecological
IStudies, Final Report, Part 1., University of Maryland, p. 8-41.

Bloom, A. L., 1964: Peat accumulation and compaction in a Connecticut coastal marsh.,
J. Sed. Petrol., v. 34 (3), p. 599.

Bloom, A. L., 1971: Glacial-eustatic and isostatic controls of sea level since the last
glaciation., In, The Late Cenozoic Glacial Ages, Ed. Turekian, K. K., Yale Univer-
sity Press, New Haven, p. 355-379.

Bloom, A. L., and M. Stuiver, 1964: Submergence of a Connecticut coastal marsh., J. Sed.
I Petrol., v. 34, p. 599-603.

Boggess, D. H. and S. G. Heidel, 1968: Water resources of the Salisbury area, Marylanid.,
Maryland Geological Survey, Report of Investigation No. 3 , 69 pp.

Bond, G. C., and R. H. Meade, 1966: Size distributions of mineral grains suspended in
Chesapeake Science, v. 7, p. 208-212.

Bouma, A. H., 1963: A graphic presentation of the facies model on salt marsh deposits.,
Sedimentology, v. 2 (2), p. 122.

-369-

Bowen, J. A., 1969: The generation of longshore currents on a plain beach., J. Marine
Research, v. 27, n. 2, p. 206-215.

Brennen, L. and W. F. Tanner, 1958: Possible abandoned barrier islands in panhandle,
Florida., J. Sed. Petrol., v. 28, p. 342-344.

Brazee, R. J., and W. K. Cloud, 1958: United States Earthquakes 1956., U. S. Dept.
Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Surv., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., 78 pp.

Bretschneider, C. L., 1959: Hurricane sturge predictions for Chesapeake Bay., U. S.
Army Corps Engineers, Beach Erosion Board, Misc. Paper, 2-59, Washington, D.C.,
p. 3-59.

Byrne, R. J., 1972: Physical and geological characteristics of Virginia Barrier Islands.,
Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, (Unpublished communication).

Byrne, R. J., 1975: Erosion of Virginia Barrier Islands - an assessment. Virginia
Institute of Marine Sciences, (Unpublished communication).

Byrne, R. J., DeAlteris, JT., and P.A. Bullock, 1974: Channel stability in tidal
inlets: a case study., American Society of Civil Engineers (reprint from Procs.
14th Coastal Engineering Conf., Copenhagen, Denmark, June 1974)., Chapter 92.

Callahan, B. L., 1972: Investigation of tidal channels and tidal deltas near Wachapreague,
Virginia. (unpublished) M.S. thesis submitted to West Virginia University, 109 pp.

Campbell, M. R., 1927: Meanings of meanders in tidal streams., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer.,
v. 38, p. 537.

Chapman, U. S., 1960: Salt marshes and salt deserts of the world., Interscience Pub.,
Inc., London, 392 pp.

Cherry, A. L., 1968: Shore erosion on eastern shore of Virginia: general observations.,
Philadelphia Office Rept., U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Clark, W. B. and B. L. Miller, 1912: Physiography and geology of the coastal plain
province of Virginia., Virginia Geol. Surv. Bull., No. 4.

Clark, C. B., 1950: The eastern shore of Maryland and Virginia., Vol. I and II., Lewis
Historical Publ. Co., New York.

Clifton, H. E., 1969: Beach laminations: nature and origin. Marine Geol., v. 7,
p. 553-559.

Coch, N. K. and D. H. Krinsley, 1971: Comparison of stratigrahpic and electron
microscope studies in Virginia Pleistocene coastal sediments. J. Geol., v. 79,
p. 436-437.

Colquhoun, D. J. and H. S. Johnson, Jr., 1968: Tertiary sealevel fluctuations in
South Carolina., Paleogeog., Paleoclimat., paleoecol., v. 5, (1), Special Issue,
p. 105-127.

-370-

I Cooke, C. W., 1930: Correlation of coastal terraces., J. Geol., v. 38, p. 577-580.

Cooperman, A. I., and H. E. Rosendal, 1962: Great Atlantic coast storn., Mariners
Weather Log, v. 6 (3), p. 79-85.

Cooperman, A. I., and H. E. Rosendal, 1963: Mean five-day pressure pattern of the
great Atlantic coast storm, March 1962., Monthly Weather Log, v. 4 (4), p. 337-344.

I Cross, C. I., 1964: The Parramore Island Mounds of Virgiria., The Geologic Review,
v. 54, p. 502-515.

Curray, J., 1961: Late Quaternary sea level, a discussion., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer.,
v. 72 (11), p. 1707--1712.

| Davies, C. A., 1910: Salt Marsh formation near Boston and its geological significance.,
Econ. Geol. v. 5, p. 623.

Davies, D. K., Ethridge, F. G., and R. R. Berg, 1971: Recognition of barrier environ-
ments., Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., v. 55 (4), p. 550-565.

* Denny, C. S., 1974: Sand dunes on the lower Delaware Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware.,
Geol. Soc. Amer., 9th Ann. Meet., N. E. Section, Abstracts with Prorams, v.
5 (1), p. 18.

Dietrich, R. V., 1960: Virginia minerals and rocks., 3rd Ed., Virginia Polytechnic
Inst., Blacksburg, Va., 59 pp.

I Dietrich, R. V., 1970: Geology and Virginia., Univ. of Virginia Press, Charlottesville,
Va., 213 pp.

* Dillon, W. P., 1970: Submergence effects on a Rhode Island barrier and lagoon and
inferences on migration of barriers., J. Geol., v. 78 (1), p. 94-106.

Disney, L. P., 1955: Tide heights along the coasts of the United States., Procs.
Amer. Soc. Civil Engin., v. 81, Separate 666.

Dolan, R., and P. J. Godfrey, 1973: Effects of Hurricane Ginger on the barrier islands
I of North Carolina., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., v. 84 (4), p. 1329-1334.

Dolan, R., Godfrey, P. J,, and W. E. Odum, 1973: Man's impaction on the barrier islands
of NOrth Carolina., Amer. Scientist, v. 61 (2), p. 152-162.

Dowham, J. J., and P. J. Godfrey, 1973: Effects of mosquito ditching on salt marshes
of Fire Island National Seashore, Long Island, New York. (Abstract) Bull. Ecol.
Soc. Amer., v. 54, p. 34.

Duane, D. B., 1964: Significance of skewness in recent sediments, Western Pamlico
Sound, NOrth Carolina., J. Sed. Petrol., v. 34, p. 864--874.

-371-

Duane, D. B.,'Field, M. E., Meisburger, E. P., Swift, D.J.P., and S. J. Williams, I
1972: Linear shoals on the Atlantic inner continental shelf, Florida to
Long Island., In: Shelf Sediment Transport: Process and Pattern (Swift, D.S.P.,

Duane, D. B., and 0. H. Pilkey, Eds.), Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., p. 447-498.

Earle, S., 1924: The Chesapeake Bay Country., Thomson-Ellis So., Baltimore, Md.

El-Ashry, M. T., and H. R. Wanless, 1965: Birth and early growth of a tidal delta.,
J. Geol., v. 73, p. 404-406.

Elder, R. D., 1971: The effect of runoff from Hurricane Camille en the continental I
shelf waters of the Chesapeake Bight., (Unpublished) M.S. Thesis, Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, 137 pp.

Emery, K. O0, and R. E. Stevenson, 1957: Estuaries and lagoons., Geol. Soc. Amner.
Mem., v. 67 (1), p. 673-749.

Emery, K. O., and R. E. Stevenson, 1957: Sedimentation in estuaries, tidal flats, I
and marshes., Treatise on Marine Ecology and Paleoccology, v. 6, 729 pp.

Emery, K. O., Wigley, R. L., and M. Rudin, 1965: A submerged peat deposit off the I
Atlantic coast of the United States., Limnology and Oceanograh~y, v. 10,
Supplement, p. R97-R102.

Everts, C. II., and W. N. Seelig, 1973: Geometry of profiles across some inner contin-
ental shelves of the United States., Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, v. 54 (1), p. 336.

Ewing, J., Ewing, M., and C. Frey, 1960: Buried erosional terrace on the edge of I
New Jersey., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., v. 71, p. 1960.

Ewing, M1., Donn, W., and W. Farrand, 1960: Revised estimate of Pleistocene ice volume
and sea-level lowering., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., v. 71, 1961,

Fairbridge, R. W., 1958: Dating the latest movement of the Quaternary sea level., |
Trans. N.Y. Acad. Sci. Ser. 2, Vol. 20, p. 471-482.

Fairbridge, R. W., 1961: Eustatic changes in sea level., Physics and Chemistry of the
Earth, Pergammon Press, v. 4, p. 99-185.

Fairbridge, R. W., 1966: Mean sea level changes, long-term eustatic and other., In: I
Enclyclopedia of Oceanography, Ed., Fairbridge, R. W., Reinhold Pub. Co.,
Encyclopedia of Earth Science Series, Vol. 1, p. 479-485.

Fairbridge, R. W., and W. S. Newman, 1964: Postglacial crustal subsidence of the
New York area., Zeit. fur Geomorph., p. 298-301.

Fairbridge, R. W., and W. S. Newman, 1965: Sea level and the Holocene boundary in the
eastern United States., Reapt. 6th intern. Congr. Quarternary, Warsaw, v. 1, p.
397-418.

-372-

Fisher, J. J., 1973: Bathymetric projected profiles and the origin of barrier islands.
Johnson's shoreline of emergence revisited), In: Coastal Geomorphology, Ed.
D. P. Coates, State Univ. New York, Binghamton, p. 161-179.

I Footner, H., 1944: Rivers of the eastern shore., Tidewater Publ., Cambridge, Mass.

Frey, R. W., and J. D. Howard, 1969: A profile of biogenic sedimentary structure
in a Holocene barrier island saltmarsh complex, Georgia., Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc.
Geol. (A.A.P.G.), v. 19, p. 427-444.

Friedman, G. M., 1961: Distinction of dune, beach and river sands from their texture
characteristics., J. Sed. Petrol., v. 31, p. 514-529.

Gawne, C. E., 1966: Shore changes on Fenwick and Assateague Islands of Maryland and
Va., (Unpublished B.S. Thesis, University of Illinois, 140 pp.

Godfrey, P. J., 1969: Adaptations of Spartina Patens vegetation to over-wash burial
on North Carolina's low barrier islands., XI Inter. Botanical Congr. Abstracts, P. 71.

Godfrey, P. J., 1970: The use of Spartina alterniflora to control erosion and build
| new salt marsh., National Park Service, Washington, D. C., 63 pp.

Godfrey, P. J., and M. M, Godfrey, 1973: Comparison of ecological and geomorphic
interactions between altered and unaltered barrier island systems in North
Carolina., In: Coastal Geomorphology, Ed., D. R. Coates, Publications in
Geomorphology, State Univ. New York, Binghamton, p. 239-258.

Godfrey, P. J., and M. M. Godfrey, 1974: An ecological approach to dune management
in the National Recreation Areas of the United States East Coast., Int. J.
Biometeor. v. 18 (2) p. 101-110.

Godfrey, P. J., and M. M. Godfrey, 1974: The role of overw7ash and inlet dynamics in the
formation of salt marshes on North Carolina barrier islands., Ecology of
Halophytes, Academic Press, Inc., p. 407-427.

Godfrey, P. J., and M. M. Godfrey, 1976: Barrier island ecology of Cape Lookout Natinal
Seashore and vicinity, North Carolina., In: Procs.-A.A.A.S. Symp. on Research
in the National Parks, National Park Service.

Godfrey, P. J., and M. M. Godfrey, 1976: Some estuarine consequences of barrier island
stabilization., In: Proc. 2nd Intern. Estuarine Conf., Ed. M. O. Hayes, Myrtle
Beach, S.C., (in press).

Goldsmith, V., Douglas, M. W., Byrne, R. J., and C. W. Whitlock, 1974: Wave climate
model of the Mid-Atlantic Shelf and Shoreline (Virginian Sea) model development,
shelf geomorphology, and preliminary results., Scientific and Technical Info.
Office, N.A.S.A., Washington, D.C.

Goldsmith, V., and J. M. Colonell, 1974: Results of ocean wave--continental shelf
interaction., Proc. 14th Coastal Engr. Conf., v. 33, p. 586-600.

1 -373-

Goldsmith, V.; Byrne, R. J., Sallenger, A. H., and D. M. Drucker, 1975: The influence
of waves on the origin and development of the offset coastal inlets of the
southern Delmarva Peninsula, Virginia., Ed. M. O0 Hayes, Estuarine Research,
v. II, Academic Press, p. 183-200.

Gorsline, D. S., 1966: Dynamic characteristics of West Florida Gulf Coast Beaches,
Marine Geol., v. 4, p. 187-206.

Grover, N. C., and R. H. Bolster, 1906: Hydrography of Virginia., Bull. Virginia
Geol. Surv. No. 3.

Hadley, J. B., Devine, and F. James, 1973: Seismotectonic map of the eastern United
States., U. S. Geol. Surv. (to accompany IX-620),o

Hails, J. R., and J. H. Hoyt, 1968: Barrier development on submerged coast and
problems of sea-level changes from a study of the Atlantic coastal plain of
Georgia, U.S.A., and parts of the east Australian coast., Zeit. fur Geomorph.,
v. 7, p. 24-55.

Halsey, S. D., Paterson, W., and J. C. Kraft, 1974: The Delmarva Peninsula: late
Pleistocene-Holocene evolution of a barrier island system., Geol. Soc. Amer.,
9th Ann. Meet., N.E. Section, Abstracts with Programs, V. 5 (1), p. 34.

Hansen, H. J., 1966: Pleistocene stratigraphy of the Salisbury area, Maryland and
its relationship to the lower Eastern Shore: a subsurface approach.
Maryland Geological Survey, Report of Investigation No. 2, 56 pp.

Hansen, H. J., 1974: Sedimentary facies of the Aquia Formation in the subsurface of
the Maryland Coastal Plain. Maryland Geological Survey, Report of Investigation
No. 21, 47 pp.

Hargis, W. J., Jr., and M. P. Lynch, 1971: Virginia State Agencies concerned with
coastal zone planning, management or scientific and engineering activities.,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science Special Report., in Appl. Mar. Sci. and
Ocean. Engin., v. 14 (end. ed.)

Harris, P. M., 1973: Holocene sediments and stratigraphy of marshes at Chincoteague
Inlet, Virginia University, 154 pp.

Harrison, S. C., 1972: The sediments and sedimentary processes of the Holocene tidal
complex Delmarva Peninsula, Virginia., Coastal Studies Institute Technical
Report No. 112, Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge.

Harrison, W., 1966: Partial correlation model for waters off the southern portion of
the middle Atlantic Bight, U.S.A., 10th Conf. on Coastal Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.

Harrison, W., and C. J. Lyon, 1963: Sea level and crustal movements along the New
England-Acadian shore -- 4500-3000 B.P., J. Geol., v. 71, p. 96.

Harrison, W., Malloy, R. J-Rusnak, G. A., and J. Terasmae, 1965: Possible late
Pleistocene uplift, Chesapeake Bay entrance., J. Geol., v. 73 (2).

Harrison, W., Malloy, R. J., Pors, N. A., and E. M. Stanley,
1967: Circulation of shelf water off the Chesapeake Bight., N.O.A.A. Prof.
Pap. #3, 82 pp.

Harvill, A. M., Jr., 1965: The vegetation of Parranore Island, Virginia., Castanea,
v. 30, p. 226-228. -374-

Hayes, M. 0., Goldsmith, V., and C. H. Hobbs, ]970: Offset coastal inlets., Proc.
I 12th Coastal Engr. Conf., v. 75, p. 1187-1200.

Herron, W. J., Jr., 1972: Case history of Mission Bay Inlet, San Diego, California.,
13th Coastal Engineering Conf., Vancouver, B. C., Amer. Soc. Civil Engineers,
U.S. Army Coastal Engin. Centers p. 801-822.

Hicks, S. D., ]972: On the classification and trends of long period sea level series.,
Shore and Beach, v. 40 (1), p~ 20-23.

I Hicks, S. D., 1968: Long period variations in secular sea level trends., Shore and
Beach, v. 36, p. 32.

Holdahl, S. R., and N. L. Morrison, 1974: Regional investigations of vertical crustal
movements in the U.S., using precise relevelings and tlareograph data., Tectonophysics,
v. 23, p. 373-390.

Horton, R. E., 1945: Erosional development of streams and their drainage basin;
hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., v. 56,
p. 275.

Howard, J. D., 1969: Radiographic examination of variations in barrier island facies,
Sapelo Island, Georgia., Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc. Amer. (A.A.P.G.) Trans.,
v. 19, p. 217-232.

Hoyt, J. H., 1967a: Barrier island formation., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., v. 78, p. 1125-1136.

Hoyt, J. H., 1967b: Occurrence of high-angle stratification in littoral and shallow
neritic environments, Central Georgia Coast, U.S.A., Sedimentology, v. 8, p. 229-239.

Hoyt, J. H., 1968: Genesis of sedimentary deposits along coasts of submergence., Int.
Geol. Cong__r., v. 8, p. 311-321.

Hoyt, J. H., 1969: Chenier vs. barrier, genetic and stratigraphic distinction., Bull.
Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., v. 53 (2), p. 299-396.

Hoyt, J. H., and V. J. Henry, Jr., 1967: Influence of island migration on barrier
island sedimentation., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., v. 78 (1), p. 77-86.

Hoyt, J. H., and V. J. Henry, Jr., 1971: Origin of capes and shoals along the southeastern
coast of the United States., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., v. 82 (1), p. 59-66.

Ingle, J. C., Jr., 1966: The movement of beach sand., Elsevier, New York, 221 pp.

Johnson, D. S., and H. H. York, 1915: The relation of plants to tide levels., Carnegie
Inst., Washington, D.C., Publ. 206, 162 pp.

Kaye, C. A., and E. S. Braghorn, 1964: Late Quaternary sealevel changes and crustal
rise at Boston, Massachusetts with notes on the autocompaction of peat., Bull.
Geol. Soc. Amer., v. 75, p. 63.

Kemerer, T. F., 1972: Barrier island origin and migration near Wachapreague, Virginia.,
(unpublished) M.S. Thesis, University of West Virginia, 154 pp.

-375-

Knowles, C. E., Langfelder, J., and A. McDonald, 1973: A preliminary study of storm-
induced beach erosion for North Carolina., Center for Marine Coastal Studies,
Repott #73-5, North Carolina State University.

Knowlton, S. M., 1971: Geomorphology history of tidal marshes, Eastern Shore, Virginia,
from 1852-1966., (unpublished) M.S. Thesis, University of Virginia, 192 pp.

Koh, R. C. Y., and B. LeMehaule, 1966: Wave shoaling., J. Geophys. Res., v. 71
(8), p. 2005-2012.

Komar, R. D., 1969: The longshore transport of sand on sea beaches., Dissertation,
University of California, San Diego. I

Komar, P. D., and D. L. Inman, 1970: Longshore sand transport on beaches., J.
Geophys. Res., v. 75, n. 30, p. 5914-5927.

Kraft, J. C., 1971: Sedimentary facies patterns and geologic histroy of a Holocene
marine transgression., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., v. 82 (8), p. 2131-2158.

Kraft, J. C., Biggs, R. B., and S. D. Halsey, 1973: Morphology and vertical sedimentary
sequence models in Holocene transgressive barrier systems., In: Coastal Geomorphology,
Ed. D. R. Coates, State Univ. of New York, Binghamton, p. 321-354.

Krumbein, W. C., and W. R. James, 1974: Spatial and temporal variations in geometric
and material properties of a natural beach., Coastal Engin. Res. Center, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Technical Memor. No. 44.

Kumar, N., 1973: Modern and ancient barrier sediments: New interpretation based on
stratal sequence in inlet filling sands and on recognition of nearshore storm
deposits., Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, v. 220, p. 245-340.

Langfelder, L. J.,.Stalford, D. B., and M. Amein, 1970: Coastal erosion in North
Carolina., J. Waterways and Harbors Division, Procs. Amer. Soc. Civil Engineers,
May, p. 531-545.

Leontyen, O. K., and L. G. Nickiforov, 1966: An approach to the problem of the origin
of barrier bars., Intern. Ocean. Congr. Abstract of Papers, p. 221-222.

Lueke, J. B., 1934: A study of Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, and related shoreline
phenomena., Shore and Beach, v. 2 (2), 46 pp.

Loaguet-Higgins, M. S., 1970 A & B: Longshore current generation by obliquely incident
sea waves., J. Geophys. Res., v. 75, p. 6778-6801.

Mason, C., and R. M. Sorensen, 1972: Character and stability of a natural tidal inlet.,
13th Coastal Engin. Conf., Vancouver, B.C., Amer. Soc. Civil Engineers, U.S. Army
Coastal Engin. Center, p. 781-800.

Mather, J. R., Adams, H., III, and G. A. Yoshicka, 1964: Storm damage along the east
coast of the United States., J. Appl. Meteor., v. 6, p. 20-30.

McGee, W. J., 1890: Encroachment of the sea., The Forum, v. 9, p. 437-449.

-376-

McKee, E. D., 1957: Primary structures in some recent sediments., Bull. Amer. Assoc.
Petr. Geol., v. 4]. (8), p. 1704-1747.

Mercer, J. H., 1968 The discontinuous glacio-eustatic fall in Tertiary sea level.,
Paleogeog., Paleoclimat., Paleoecol., v. 5 (1), Special Issue, p. 77-87.

Milliman, J. D. and K. 0. Emery, 1968: Sea levels during the past 35,000 years.,
Science, v. 162, p. 1121-1123.

Mixon, R. B., Hazel, J. E., Rubin, S. Sirkir, L. A., and B. J. Szabo, 1974: Geologic
framework of the southernmost Delmarva Peninsula, Accomack and Northampton Counties,
Virginia., Geol. Soc. Amer., 9th Ann. Meeting., N. E. Section, Abstracts with
Programs, v. 5 (1), p. 56.

Moody, D., 1964: Coastal morphology and processes in relation to the development of
submarine sand ridges off Bethany., (unpublished) Ph.D. Thesis, Johns Hopkins
University., (Univ. Microfilms, Ann Arbor).

Moore, D. G., and P. C. Scruton, 1957: Minor internal structures of some recent un-
consolidated sediments., Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., v. 41 (12), p. 2723-2751.

Morris, P. A., 1951: A field guide to the shells of our Atlantic and Gulf coasts.,
H6ughton-Mifflin Co., Boston, 236 pp.

Morton, R. A., and A. C. Donaldson, 1973: Sediment distribution and evolution of tidal
deltas along a tide-dominated shoreline, Wachapreague, Virginia., Sed. Geol.,
v. 10, p. 285-299.

Mudge, B. F., 1858: The salt marsh formations of Lynn., Proc, Essex Inst., v. 2,
p. 117.

Myrick, R. M., and L. B. Leopold, 1963: Hydraulic geometry of a small tidal estuary.,
U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 422B, 18 pp.

Nesbit, D. M., et. al., 1885: Tidal marshes of the United States., U. S. Dept.
Agri. Misc. Sp. Reprt. 7, p. 33.

Newman, W. S. and S. Marh, 1968: Littoral of the Northeast United States: Late
Quaternary warping., Science, v. 160, p. 1110-1112.

Newman, W. S. and C. A. Munsart, 1968: Holocene geology of the Wachapreague Lagoon,
Eastern Shore Peninsula, Virginia., Marine Geology, v. 6, p. 81-105.

Newman, W. S., and G. A. Rusnak, 1965: Holocene submergence of the Eastern Shore of
Virginia., Science, v. 148, (3676), p. 1464-1466.

Newsome, J. D. (Ed.), 1968: Proceedings of the marsh and estuary management symposium,
L.S.U., Baton Rouge, La., T. J. Moran and Sons, Inc., Baton Rouge, 250 pp.

Niedoroda, A. W., 1973: Waves, currents, sediments, and sand bars associated with
low energy coastal environments., Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. of Geol. Soc.,
(A.A.P.G.), v. 22, p. 229-240.

-377-

Niedoroda, A. W., and W. T. Tanner, 1970: Preliminary study of transverse bars.,
Marine Geology, v. 9, p. 41-62.

Nichols, R. L., and A. F. Marston, 1939: Shoreline changes in Rhode Island produced
by hurricane of September 21, 1938., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., v. 50, p. 1357-1370.

Oaks, R. Q., Jr., and N. K. Coch, 1963: Pleistocene sea levels southeastern
Virginia., Science, v. 140, p. 9790983.

Oaks, R. Q., Jr., and N. K. Coch, 1973: Post-Miocene stratigraphy and morphology,
southeastern Virginia., Virginia Div. Min. Res. Bull. No. 82, Charlottesville,
Va., 135 pp.

Oaks, R. Q., Jr., Coch, N. K., Sanders, J. E., and R. F. Flint, 1974: Post Miocene
shorelines and sea levels, southeastern Virginia., In: Post bMiocene Stratigraphy
Central and Southern Atlantic Coastal PLain, Oaks, R. Q., Jr., and Dubar,
J. R., Eds., Utah State University Press, Logan, p. 53-87.

Oldale, R. N., Friedman, J. D., and R. S. Williams, Jr., 1973: Changes in coastal
morphology of Monomoy Island, Cape Cod, Massachusetts., U. S. Geol. Surv.
Prof. Paper 750-B, p. B101-B107.

Olsen, S. J., 1968: Miocene vertebrates and north Florida shorelines., Paleogeogr.,
Paleoclimat., Paleoecol.( v. 5 (1), p. 127-135.

Osmond, J. K., May, J. P., and W. F. Tanner, 1970: Age of the Cape Kennedy barrier and
lagoon complex., J. Geophys. Res., v. 75 (2), p. 469-479.

Otvos, E. G., Jr., 1979: Development and migration of barrier islands, northern Gulf
of Mexico, Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., v. 81 (1), p. 241-246.

Owens, J. P., and C. S. Denny, 1974: Provisional stratigraphic sequence in the Maryland-
Delaware parts of the lower Delmarva Peninsula., Geol. Soc. Amer., 9th Ann. Meet.,
N. E. Section, Abstracts with Pogramns, v. 5 (1), p. 61.

Pattullo, J. G., 1966: Mean Sea Level. In: Encyclopedia of Oceanography, (Ed.),
Fairbridge, R. W., Reinhold Publ. Co., Encyclopedia of Earth Sci. Series, p. 475-478.

Pestrong, R., 1965: The development of drainage patterns on tidal marshes., Geol. Sci.
V. 10 (2), 96 pp.

Phleger, F. B., and J. S. Bradshaw, 1955: Sedimentary environments in a marine marsh.,
Science, v. 154 (3756), p. 1551.

Pickett, T. E., and R. L. ingram, 1959: The modern sediments of Pamlico Sound, North
Carolina., Southeast. Geol., v. 11, p. 53-83.

Pierce, J. W., 1959: Sediment budget along a barrier island chain., Sedimen. Geol.,
V. 3, p. 5-16.

Pierce, J. W. 1970: Tidal inlets and washover fans., J. Geol., v. 78 (2), p. 230-234.

-378-

Pierce, J. W. and D. J. Colquhoun, 1970: Configuration of the Holocene primary barrier
chain, outer bank, North Carolina., Southeast. Geol., v. 11 (4), p. 231-236.

Pierce, J. W. and D. J. Colquhoun, 1970: Holocene evolution of a portion of the
North Carolina coast., Bull, Geol. Soc. Amer., v. 81 (12), p. 3697-3714.

Price, W. A., 1963: Patterns of flow and channeling in tidal inlets., J. Sed. Petrol.,
v. 33 (2), p. 279-290M

Pore, A., 1960: Chesapeake Bay hurrican surges., Chesapeake Science I, p. 178-186.

Postma, H., 1967: Sediment transport and sedimentation in the estuarine environmentl,
In: Estuaries, (Ed.), Laur, G., A.A.A.S. Publ. No. 83, p. 158-179.

Ragotzkle, R. A., 1959: Drainage Patterns in Salt Marshes., Proc. Salt. Marsh Conf.,
Sapelo Island, Georgia, p. 22.

I Redfield, A. C., 1965: Ontogeny of a salt marsh estuary., Science, v. 147, p. 50-55.

I Redfield, A. C., and M. Rubin, 1962: The age of salt marsh peat and its relation to
recent changes in sea level at Barnstable, Massachusetts., Proc. Nat. Acad.
Sci., v. 48 (10), p. 1725-1735.

Richards, H. G., 1958: The Thrtiary history of the Atlantic Coast between Cape Cod
and Cape Hatteras., Paleoeoog., Paleoclimat., Paleoecol., v. 5, p. 95-104.

Robinson, A. H. W., 1960: Ebb-flood channel systems in sandy bays and estuaries.,
Geography, v. 45, p. 183-199.

I Schwartz, M. L., 1971: The multiple casualty of barrier islands., J. Geol., v. 79,
p. 91-94.

Shales, N. S., 1884: PrelIminary report on sea-coast swamps of the eastern United
States., U.S. Geol. Surv.., 6th Ann. Rept., p. 359.

Shales, N. S., 1896: Beaches and tidal marshes of the Atlantic coast., Nat. Geogr.
Monograph I, p. 157.

Shepard, F. P., 1960: Gulf coast barriers., In: Recent sediments northwest of Gul.f
of Mexico: Symposium., Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., Tulsa., p. 197-220.

Shepard, F. P., 1963: Submarine Geology., Harper and Row, New York, 557 pp.

| Shepard, F. P., and H. R. Wanless, 1971: Our changing coastlines., McGraw-Hill,
New York, 579 pp.

Shideler, G. L., 1973: Evaluation of a conceptual model for the transverse sediment
transport system of a coastal barrier chain, Middle Atlantic Bight., J. Sed. Petrol.,
v. 43 (3), 748-764.

-379-

Shideler, G. L., Swift, J. P., Johnson, G. H., and B. W. Holliday, 1973: Late
Quaternary stratigraphy of the inner Virginia Continental Shelf: a proposed I
standard section: reply., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., v. 84 (6) p. 2161-2164.

Sinnott, A., and G. C. Tibbitts, Jr., 1968: Ground-water resources of Accomak and I
Northampton Counties, Virginia., Virginia Div. Min. Res., Mineral Resource
Redt. No. 9, Charlottesville, Va., 113 pp.

Sinnott, A., and G. C. Tibbetts, Jr., 1961: Pleistocene terraces on the Eastern
Shore Peninsula, Virginia., U. S. Geologic Surv., Prof. Paper 424-D, Art. 381,
p. D248-D250.

Sinnott, A., and G. C. Tibbitts, Jr., 1954: Summary of geology and grondwater resources
of the Eastern Shore Peninsula, Virginia., Min. Rles. Circ. No. 2., Virginia Dept.
Conservation and Development, Charlottesville, Va., 18 pp.

Sirkin, L. A., 1974: Microflora in Sangamon and younger beds of the Delmarva
Peninsula, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia., Geol. Soc. Amer., 9th Ann. Meeting,
N. E. Section, Abstracts with Programs, v. 5 (1), p. 74.

Smith, D. D. 1961: Geomorphic and sedimentologic studies on the outer banks of North
Carolina., Coastal and Shallow Water Research Conf., p. 459-461.

Sonu, C. J., and W. R. James, 1973: A markov model for beach profile changes., J. Geophys.
Res., v. 78 (9), p. 3427-3440. I

Stahl, L., Koczan, J., and D.J.P. Swift, 1974: Anatomy of a shoreface-connected sand
ridge on the New Jersey shelf and implications for genesis of the shelf surficial
sand sheet., Geol., v. 2 (3), p. 117-120.

Stafford, D. B., 1971: An aerial photographic technique for beach erosion surveys in
North Carolina., Coastal Engineers Res. Center Tech. Memor. No. 36, U. S. Army,
Corps of Engineers.
Stapor, F., 1973: History and sand budgets of the barrier island system in the Panama
City, Florida region., Marine Geol., v. 14, p. 277-286.

Steers, J. A., 1959: Physiography of salt marshes., Proc. Salt Marsh Conf., Sapelo
Island, Ga., p. 3.

Stefansson, K., and J. P. Owens, 1974: Dispersal of clay-silt clasts in the formation
of the lower Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware., Geol. Soc. Amer., 9th
Ann. Meet., N. E. Section, Abstracts with Programs, v. 5 (1), p. 79.

Stephenson, L. W., Cooke, C. W., and W. C. Mansfield, 1932: Chesapeake Bay region.
16th Intl. Geol. Congr., Guidebook 5, Excursion A-5., U. S. Govt. Print. Office

Swift, D.J.P., 1968: Shoreface erosion and transgressive stratigraphy., J. Geol., v.
76, p. 444-456.

Swift, D.J.P., 1973: Delaware shelf valleys estuary retreat path, Nat. Drowned River
Valley., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., v. 84 (8), p. 2743-2748.

-380- I

Swift, D.J.P., and R. W. Boehmer, 1972: Brown and gray sands on the Virginia shelf:
color as a function of grain size., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., v. 83 (3), p. 877-884.

Swift, D.J.P., Dill, C. E., Jr., and J. Methane, 1971: Hydraulic fractionation of
Ieavy mineral suites on an unconsolidated retreating coast., J. Sed. Petrol.,
v. 41 (3), p. 683-690.

Swift, D.J.P., Holliday, B., Avignone, N., and G. L. Shideler, 1972: Anatomy of a
shoreface ridge system, False Cape, Virginia., Marine Geol., v. 12, p. 59-84.

Swift, D.J.P., Kofoed, J. W., Saulsburg, F.P., and P. Searst, 1972: Holocene evolution
of the shelf surface, central and southern Atlantic Shelf of North America.,
In: ShelfSediment Transport: Process and Pattern. (Swift, D.J.P., Duane, D.B.;
and Pilkey, O.H., Eds.), Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pa.,
499-574.

Talley, H. C., Jr., and W. K. Cloud, 1962: United States Earthquakes 1960., Coast and
Geodetic Survey, U. S. Dept. Commerce., U. S. Govt. Print. Office, Washington, D.C.,
90 pp.

Tanner, W. F., 1968: Multiple influences on sea-level changes in the Tertiary.,
Paleogeog., Paleoclimat., Paleoecol., v. 5 (1), p. 165-171.

Tanner, W. F., 1970: Significance of Camille, 1969., Southeast Geol., v. 12 (2), 95-103.

Tanner, W. F., 1968: Tertiary sea level symposium-introduction., Paleogeog., Paleoclimat.,
Paleoecol., v. 5 (1), p. 7-14.

Tennyson, P. S., Barrick, S. O., Wojcik, F. J., Norcross, J. J.,
and W. J. Hargis, Jr., 1972: The Chesapeake Bay Bibliography, Vol. II, Virginia
Waters., Virginia Institute of Marine Science Spec. Sci. Rept. No. 63.

Thompson, W. W., 1937: Original structures of beaches, bars, and dunes., Bull. Geol.
Soc. Amer., v. 48, p. 723-752.

Todd, T. W., 1968: Dynamic diversion and influence of long-shore current-tidal flow
interaction on chenier and barrier island plains., J. Sed. Petrol., v. 38 (3),
p. 737-746.

Truitt, R. V., 1968: High winds, high tides., Natural Resources Institute, Univ. of
Maryland, Educational Series, No. 77, 35 pp.

Wass, M. L., 1961: A revised preliminary checklist of the invertebrate fauna of marine
and brackish waters of Virginia., Virginia Inst. Marine Sci., Spec. Sci. Rept.
No. 24,

Weigle, J. M., 1974: Availability of fresh ground water in northeastern Worcester County.
Maryland: With special emphasis on Ocean City Area., Maryland Geological Survey
Report of Investigation No. 24, 64 pp.

| Withington, G. F., 1974: Regional structures of the middle Atlantic coastal plain as
seen from ERTS-1 Imagery., Geol. Soc. Amer., 9th Ann. Meet. N. E. Secticn, Abstracts
with Programs, v. 5 (1), p. 86.

-381-

Whitlaw, R. T., 1951: Virginia's Eastern Shore., Yirginia Historical Soc., 2 Vols.,
I
GENERAL REFERENCES
I
Assateague Ecological Studies, 1970: Final Report, Part I Environmental Information.,
Natural Resources Institute, University of Maryland, Contribution No. 446, October.
Connecticut Arboretum, 1961: Connecticut Coastal Marshes: A
vanishing resource., Conn. Arboretum Bull., v. 12, 36 pp.
Earthquake History of the;United States, Part 1, Continental I
United States and Alaska., U. S. Dept. Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Surv.,
Washington) D. C., 1956, 79 pp.
Earthquake Investigation in the United States, 1958: U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Coast
and Geodetic Surv., Special Publ. No. 282, U. S. Govt. Print. Office, Washington, D.C.,
40 pp.
Eastman Kodak Company, 1976: Applied Infrared Photography., A Kodak Technical Publication,
88 pp.
Encyclopedia of Oceanography, 1966: Storm surges, (Ed.), R. W. Fairbridge, New York,
Reinhold Pub. Co., p. 222-283.
Flood Plain Information, Coastal flooding, Town of Wachapreague, Virginia., U. S. ALmy
Corps Engineers, Norfolk, Virginia District, 1971.

I
I

Do~ Io Scan

RepreDo-Insert Do Not'Scan
Document Here

Document ID:D~ Z~~qr MpVV{S

Page #.i4r\.

FI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FSHERMANS ILN

AVERAGE SCALE

PLASEROI .... P.OOP .... . . Al- .', .....

uNOO.cEONE.sA~wLLOPS l--. PLIAN APR-0 OA.,.I....I ~.I,
NoS COO 0IAGR