waters of Southeastern Virginia

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

THE WATERS OF
SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINiA

VOLUME 1: AN ANALYSIS OF WATER ACCESS NEEDS

Alf,

fall

HE
393 5
.V8 'z@o, 0
W38
JZ

PREPARED BY: SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION JUNE 1988

SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION

CHESAPEAKE @PORTSMOUTH

DR. WILLA S. BAZEMORE JACK P. BARNES
JOHN W. BUTT GEORGE L. HANBURY
JAMES W. REIN L. LOUISE LUCAS

FRANKLIN SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY

JOHN J. JACKSON ROWLAND L. TAYLOR
NANCY R. WATSON C. HARRELL TURNER

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY SUFFOLK

MYLES E. STANDISH ANDREW B. DAMIANI
RICHARD L. TURNER JOHN L. ROWE, JR.

NORFOLK VIRGINIA BEACH

DR. MASON C. ANDREWS JOHN A. BAUM
DAVID CLARK, IV ROBERT W. CLYBURN
ELIZABETH M- HOWELL REBA S. MCCLANAN
JAMES B. OLIVER, JR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF
G. CONOLY PHILLIPS AUBREY V. WATTS, JR.

OEXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER

PROJECT STAFF*ooooooooooooooooooe0*00*0*0000000 *00

ARTHUR L. COLLINS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY

JOHN M. CARLOCK CHIEF PHYSICAL PLANNER
WILLIAM P. WICKHAM PHYSICAL PLANNER

JOYCE M. COOK SECRETARIAL SUPERVISOR
DANA F. SHEARER WORD PROCESSING OPERATOR

ROBERT C. JACOBS CHIEF OF GRAPHICS
JEANNE L. MUNDEN GRAPHICS TECHNICIAN 11
MICHAEL R. LONG GRAPHIC TECHNICIAN
RACHAEL V. PATCHETT REPRODUCTION EQUIPMENT
TECHNICIAN
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission
The Regional Building
723 Woodlake Drive
Chesapeake, Virginia 23320
('804) 420-8300

THE WATERS OF SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA

Volume 1: An Analysis of Water Access Needs

This report was produced, in part,
through financial support from the Virginia Council on the Environment,
pursuant to Coastal Resources Management Program Grant No. NA-86-AA-D-CZ1 16
from the National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Preparation of this report was included in
the SVPDC Program for Fiscal Year 1987-88, approved by the Commission
at its Executive Committee Meeting of March 18, 1987.

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

Prepared by the Staff of the
Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission

JUNE 1988

Property of CSC Library

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The staff of the Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission wishes to
acknowledge the cooperation and assistance extended by the following individuals
and organizations.

Chesapeake Department of Parks and Recreation

Allen Nogiec, Isle of Wight County Recreation Facilities Authority

Don Mathias, Norfolk Department of Community Improvement

Norfolk Department of Parks and Recreation

Norfolk Department of Planning

Norfolk Department of Utilities

Paul Forehand, Portsmouth Department of Parks and Recreation

Michael Johnson, Zoning Administrator, Southampton County

Suffolk Department of Parks and Recreation

Portsmouth Department of Utilities

Virginia Beach Department of Planning

Virginia Beach Office of Environmental Management

Reed Jeavons, Virginia Beach Department of Parks and Recreation

Paul Fisher, Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency

Karl Kuhlman, Army Corps of Engineers

Joseph Stutts, Union Camp Corporation

Lillie Gilbert, Wild River Outfitters

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 1: AN ANALYSIS OF WATER ACCESS NEEDS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................... v

GLOSSARY .............................. ............................... xiv

INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ...................................................... 1
PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY ....................................... 4
REGIONAL WATERWAYS GUIDE ....................................... 5

ASSESSMENT OF THE REGION'S WATER-ORIENTED RECREATION NEEDS ........ 9
LOCAL WATER AND SHORELINE RESOURCES ........................... 9
WATERFRONT ACCESS POINTS ....................................... 15

SPECIFIC WATER ACCESS NEEDS, PROPOSALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..... 25
ATLANTIC OCEAN AND CHESAPEAKE BAY ............................ 25
RUDEE BASIN, LYNNHAVEN RIVER AND LITTLE CREEK .................. 27
WILLOUGHBY BAY AND ELIZABETH RIVER ............................ 30
HAMPTON ROADS AND JAMES RIVER ................................ 32
RIVER, CHUCKATUCK CREEK,
PAGAN RIVER AND LAWNES CREEK ................................. 33
BACK BAY, NORTH LANDING RIVER AND NORTHWEST RIVER ........... 35
ALBEMARLE AND CHESAPEAKE CANAL AND
THE DISMAL SWAMP SYSTEM ....................................... 38
NORFOLK, PORTSMOUTH AND SUFFOLK RESERVOIR SYSTEMS
AND MOUNT TRASHMORE LAKES ................................... 40
BLACKWATER AND NOTTOWAY RIVERS .............................. 42

THE SITING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF WATER ACCESS FACILITIES ...... 44
BOAT ACCESS FACILITIES ............ *...... *... "........... *''** ... 44
SHORELINE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FACILITIES ........................... 50

STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING WATER ACCESS .............................. 55
LAND USE CONTROLS ............................................... 55
LAND ACQUISITION TECHNIQUES .................................... 58
STATE AND. FEDERAL PROGRAMS .................. .................. 59

CONCLUSION ........................................................... 66

APPENDIX A ............................................................ 69
APPENDIX B ............................................................ 72
APPENDIX C ............................................................ 77

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)

BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................... 83

END NOTES ............................................................. 92

VOLUME II: A REGIONAL WATERWAYS GUIDE - SEPARATE DOCUMENT

LIST OF TABLES

1. SUMMARY OF BOAT ACCESS FACILITIES
IN SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA ................................... 6

2. BEACH ACREAGE AS A PERCENT OF DEMAND ..................... 14

3. STATE REGISTERED BOATS BY LOCALITY, 1977 AND 1987 .......... 16

4. ACCESSIBILITY TO ATLANTIC OCEAN
AND CHESAPEAKE BAY BEACHES .............................. 20

5. GUIDELINES FOR THE SITING AND DESIGN
OF MARINA FACILITIES ....................................... 47

6. GUIDELINES FOR THE SITING AND DESIGN OF BOAT RAMPS ........ 49

7. GUIDELINES FOR THE SITING AND DESIGN
OF CANOE PUT-IN/TAKE-OUT FACILITIES ........................ 51

8. GUIDELINES FOR THE SITING AND DESIGN
OF FISHING FACILITIES ........................................ 53

9. GUIDELINES FOR THE SITING AND DESIGN OF
SHORELINE RECREATION AREAS ............................... 54

LIST OF FIGURES

1A. WATER ACCESS FACILITIES IN METROPOLITAN
SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA ......................................7

1B. WATER ACCESS FACILITIES IN RURAL SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA ..... 8

2. ATLANTIC OCEAN AND CHESAPEAKE BAY
BEACH ACCESS CHARACTERISTICS .............................. 22

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Southeastern Virginia is renowned for the wide variety of recreational
opportunities provided by the region's twenty-five major water bodies. The region
is also one of the fastest growing in the country. This growth has resulted in greater
participation in water-based recreation and a corresponding increase in the need
-for additional water access facilities. Due to the concentration of new development
along the region's shorelines and the escalation in the value of waterfront land,
local governments have found it increasingly difficult to meet water access needs.
This report examines this problem from a regional perspective and offers
recommendations for its resolution. ' (1) to identify access opportunities and
The objectives of this report are:
deficiencies throughout the region for all types of water-dependent recreational
activities, and (2) to suggest ways that local governments can individually or
collectively take advantage of the opportunities and rectify the deficiencies. To
meetthese objectives, this report containsthe following:

Volume 1: An Analysis of Water Access Needs. This volume contains a regional
needs assessment, which analyzes the ability of existing resources to meet
regional recreation demand; an identification of those areas, which are
deficient in waterfront access opportunities; proposed siting and design
criteria for developing water access facilities; and recommended strategies for
use by local governments to improve waterfront access-

Volume 11: A Regional Waterways Guide. This volume contains an inventory of
local water bodies and a proposed regional scenic waterways system.

ASSESSMENT OF THE REGION'S WATER-ORIENTED RECREATION NEEDS

in assessing the region's water-oriented recreation needs, the ability of water
and shoreline resources to satisfy the demand for boat-dependent and shoreline-
dependent recreational activities is considered. The ability of existing water access
facilities to adequately serve the users of these resources is also evaluated.

LOCAL WATER AND SHORELINE RESOURCES

As part of the preparation for the 1984 Virginia Outdoors Plan, the Virginia
Division of Parks and Recreation (VDPR) conducted needs assessments for each of
the State's eleven recreation planning regions, including Hampton Roads. These
assessments were based on a statewide participation survey conducted in 1982 for
twenty-six outdoor recreation activities. They included water-oriented activities
such as power boating, water skiing, sailing, fishing, canoeing and beach
swimming/sunbathing. The results of the VDPR's Hampton Roads assessment are
used in this study to analyze the ability of the region's water and shoreline
resources to meet water-dependent recreation demand.

The VDPR assessment indicates that the region has sufficient water and
shoreline resources to satisfy existing and projected demand for most water-
oriented recreational activities. Exceptions include water skiing, for which there is a
significant shortage of suitable water acreage, and surfing, for which there is an
extreme deficiency of designated surfing beaches during restricted use periods.
Known and potential waterway use conflicts would reduce the ability of the
region's waters to accommodate recreational activities. The VDPR assessment does
not account for those conflicts.

WATER ACCESS POINTS

Although the VDPR needs estimates indicate that the region has sufficient
water and shoreline resources to meet most of the demand, access to these
resources is severely limited in much of the region. The adequacy of the region's
water access facilities is discussed in terms of boat access (boat ramps, marinas and
canoe put-in/take-out points) and pedestrian access (for swimming, sunbathing,
surfing, shore fishing and so forth).

BOATACCESS FACILITIES

It is estimated that there are more than 28,000 State registered and Coast
Guard documented motorboats and sailboats in Southeastern Virginia. This
estimate does not include the large number of out-of-region boaters who visit
Southeastern Virginia to take advantage of the region's numerous recreational
opportunities. Also, local boat owners who register their boats outside of the
region to avoid local taxes are not included. Considering only the State registered
and Coast Guard documented boats, it is estimated that approximately 4,900 boats
are kept -at. the region's sixty-seven marinas and 16,800 boaters depend on the
region's 105 boat ramps. The remaining boats use "back yard" slips, ramps or
moorings, or are tied to offshore moorings in public waters.

Nearly all of the marinas are filled to capacity during the summer months,
some with lengthy waiting lists. Boat ramps providing access to tidal waters,
especially to the Atlantic Ocean and lower Chesapeake Bay, often experience
extreme overcrowding during the warmer months. Ramps providing access to
freshwater systems are most heavily used, often to the point of overcrowding,
d,u-ring the spring months. --Ramps located cin- water bodies which do -not attract
significant recreational use rarely, if ever, are used to their capacities.

Nearly all of the region's canoeable water bodies have a sufficient number of
conveniently situated canoe put-in/take-out points to satisfy access needs.
Although canoe access points are generally adequate in number and location, there
are access problems such as limited parking and steep, brush covered banks.

SHORELINE AREAS ACCESSIBLE TO PEDESTRIANS

Adequate pedestrian access to and along the shoreline is essential for such
recreational activities as beach swimming, surfing and shore fishing. There are also

a number of recreational pursuits which do not require shoreline access. Because of
its aesthetic qualities, the shoreline is often the preferred location for participation
in these activities, including sunbathing, jogging/hiking/strolling, picnicking, sight-
seeing and wildlife observation. This report separates shoreline that is used for
recreational activities into three categories: (1) beachfront which, in most cases, is
open to all shoreline-dependent recreational activities, (2) fishing areas which lack
@swimming opportunities, but where most other activities are possible, and (3) other
shoreline which is open for recreational use, but where swimming and fishing are
not permitted or are undesirable.

BEACHFRONT

Of the region's 45.1 miles of beachfront, 30.1 miles are technically open to the
public for swimming and other beach-oriented activities. Not all of this "open"
beachfront is fully accessible. Access to 18.0 miles of the region's beachfront is
if unrestricted" which means there is both parking and pedestrian access from
behind the beach area. The number and spacing of pedestrian access points are
generally adequate. Inadequate parking, however, is a major impediment to beach
access along most of the "unrestricted" beachfront.

Access is "restricted" along 16.4 miles of the region's open beaches. Physical
or institutional constraints impede full access. These constraints include no road
access, no pedestrian access from behind the beach area, no parking facilities,
-ownership disputes, or restrictions which close beaches clu-ririg certain periods or
which severely limit recreational usage.

Approximately 10.7 miles of the region's.beaches are closed to the general
public for recreational use. Nearly all of these beaches front four military
installations.

FISHING AREAS

Approximately five percent of the region's 1,200 to 1,500 miles of tidal and
non-tidal shoreline is open to the general public for recreational use. Only a small
portion of this waterfront is suitable for shore fishing. Therefore, most of the
region's water bodies are deficient in shore fishing opportunities.

OTHER SHORELINE RECREATION AREAS

In Southeastern Virginia, waterfront locations often provide scenic vistas in an
otherwise flat landscape. Such vistas serve to enhance the quality of all recreational
activities including those that do not require physical access to the water. There is a
need along nearly every water body for additional waterfront locations which
provide the public with visual access to the region's wealth of water resources.

vil

SPECIFIC WATER ACCESS NEEDS, EXISTING PROPOSALS AND
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter of the report summarizes water access needs in specific water
bodies. It lists current proposals to improve water access and presents some
additional SVPDC recommendations to resolve access problems and to increase
water-oriented recreational opportunities.

ATLANTIC OCEAN AND CHESAPEAKE BAY

The main access problem along Atlantic Ocean and Chesapeake Bay beaches is
a shortage of parking within convenient walking distance of the beach on peak
days during the summer. This problem is most apparent along the Virginia Beach
oceanfront and bayfront. A shortage of parking along Norfolk's bayfront is not yet
a severe problem.

Although the region as a whole has sufficient beach acreage to accommodate
resident demand, there is localized overcrowding on some beaches that attract
significant tourist usage and/or have a narrow width. Overcrowding is most
common on peak days in the resort area and of Sandbridge.

Existing proposals to improve beachfront access include cooperative
agreements to open beaches at military installations and State parks for public use,
beach replenishment, and development of an oceanfront park in the resort area;
and, renovation of the city pier, construction of a boardwalk-and development of
additional pedestrian access points in Ocean View. Additional SVPDC
recommendations include increased beach parking opportunities, beach access
plans, additional surfing areas, and improvement of bicycle accessto beach areas.

RUDEE BASIN, LYNNHAVEN RIVER AND LITTLE CREEK

Because these water bodies provide the most convenient access to popular
boating and fishing areas in the Atlantic Ocean and lower Chesapeake Bay, they
receive the heaviest demand for boat access. Existing boat access facilities in all
three water bodies are unable to accommodate peak period demand. As a result,
there is a crucial need for additional facilities. There is also a need for more
shoreline that is accessible to pedestrians in some areas of the Lynnhaven and Little
Creek systems.

Existing water access proposals include the construction of waterfront
waysides and walkways, several marina and boat ramp projects, channel dredging
in the Lynnhaven system, and raising the Shore Drive Bridge over Little Creek.
Additional SVPDC recommendations include the use of abandoned Old Donation
Parkway right-of-way for passive waterfront recreation use and canoe access,
inclusion of a portion of the Lynnhaven system in the proposed regional scenic
waterways system, and a boat ramp at the East Ocean View Elementary School site.

viii

WILLOUGHBY BAY AND ELIZABETH RIVER

These water bodies also provide excellent access to Hampton Roads and the
lower Chesapeake Bay. There is a high demand for boat access. The need for
additional access facilities is evidenced by full marinas and severe peak period
overcrowding at the few publicly accessible boat ramps. Additional pedestrian
access points are needed, and a number of existing public waterfront areas need
improvement.

Current water access proposals include several marina and boat ramp projects,
waterfront parks and walkways, cooperative agreements between the City of
Portsmouth and the Federal Government to allow public access to federally owned
shoreline, and the preparation of a shoreline master plan for Scott's Creek.
Additional SVPDC recommendations include the creation of special urban
waterfront zoning districts and the inclusion of certain upstream segments of the
Elizabeth River in the proposed regional scenicwaterways system.

HAMPTON ROADS AND THE Jl.@LMES RIVER

Although these water bodies are heavily used by recreational boaters, most of
the Hampton Roads/James River shoreline is not suitable for the development of
boat access facilities. There is, however, the potential and the need for shoreline-
dependent. recreational facilities. The high bluffs found-along both shorelines
would be ideal for the development of passive waterfront parks. The construction
of fishing plerswould provide shorefishing opportunities where few currently exist.

Current proposals include the development of pu blic waterfront recreation
areas at several locations along the Hampton Roads/James River shoreline, and the
construction of a boat ramp at Tidewater Community College. Additional SVPDC
recommendations include the construction of fishing piers and platforms at several
locations and the development of a public waterfront recreation area at Fort Boykin
Historic Park.

NANSEMOND RIVER, CHUCKATUCK CREEK, PAGAN RIVER AND LAWNES CREEK

These water bodies experience a lower demand for boat access facilities than
tidal systems in the eastern part of the region because they do not provide
convenient access to the lower Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean. Nonetheless,
because there are so few.facilities, the demand for boat access to the downstream
portions of all four waterways is not being adequately met. Facility capacity
problems are compounded by severe downstream shoaling problems in both the
Nansemond River and Lawnes Creek. Boat access is particularly poor in Chuckatuck
Creek. Pedestrian access for shoreline-dependent recreation activities is also poor
in all four systems.

Current proposals'for improved access to these water bodies call for several
marina projects, the dredging of Bennetts Creek, and the development of a public
use area at Constants Wharf on the Nansemond River. Additional SVPDC
recommendations include the development of new and the improvement of
existing ramp facilities, and the inclusion of segments of the Nansemond River,
Pagan River and Lawnes Creek systems in the proposed regional scenic waterways
system.

BACK BAY, NORTH LANDING RIVER AND NORTHWEST RIVER

Due to the decline in hunting and fishing success in the Back Bay, a number of
boat access facilities have closed, and existing facilities easily accommodate current
levels of demand. The North Landing River, unlike the Back Bay, experiences high
recreational usage and most boat access facilities are used to capacity during peak
periods. There is a significant need for additional boat ramps and marinas
throughout the system. The Northwest River is moderately used for recreation. The
one boat ramp that provides access to the system is generally able to accommodate
boat access demand, although overcrowding occasionally occurs. New access
facilitieswill undoubtedly be needed to serve future demand. Shoreline pedestrian
access is currently inadequate in all three systems. Opportunities to develop
waterfront recreation areas are limited, however, due to the presence of extensive
hardwood swamp and marsh systems.

Existing proposals fo, r improved access to these water-..bodies include zoning
districts which would protect water access in the Back Bay system, additional canoe
access facilities in the North Landing system, the formal designation of additional
local and State scenic waterways, the development of a Chesapeake city park on
Pocaty Creek, and the development of a private marina on the North Landing River.
Additional SVPDC recommendations include the development of a public boat ramp
on the Northwest River, the improvement of canoe access points on the Northwest
River, a study to determine whether a portion of the Northwest River is eligible for
inclusion in the State Scenic River System, and inclusion of portions of all three
systems in the proposed regional scenic waterways system.

ALBEMARLE AND CHESAPEAKE CANAL AND THE DISMAL SWAMP SYSTEM

Recreational use of the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal is moderate to
heavy. The existing boat access facilities along the Canal receive heavy usage, but
are generally able to accommodate demand. The Dismal Swamp System, which
consists of the Dismal Swamp Canal, the Feeder Ditch and Lake Drummond, does
not experience heavy recreational usage and existing boat access facilities easily
accommodate current demand. Adequate shoreline pedestrian access is lacking
along the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal. In the Dismal Swamp System,
pedestrian access is adequate along the Dismal Swamp Canal. Limited access to the
Feeder Ditch and the Lake Drummond shorelines is possible only via the Great
Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge trail system.

Current water access proposals for these water bodies include shoreline hiking
trails and boardwalks, the opening of currently impassable ditches to canoeing,
development of a Refuge visitor contact station on the Dismal Swamp Canal, and
resumption of Lake Drummond boat tours. The SVPDC recommends inclusion of
existing City of Chesapeake scenic waterway trails in the proposed regional scenic
-wate rw-a ys system.

NORFOLK, PORTSMOUTH AND SUFFOLK RESERVOIR SYSTEMS AND MOUNT
TRASHMORE LAKES

Of the twenty-six manmade lakes comprising these four systems, twenty-two
are accessible to the public for recreational use and sixteen are stocked for fishing.
Boat access demand is heaviest and ramps may be crowded during the spring
months when freshwater fishing is at its peak. Much of this excess demand could be
accommodated through the improvement of existing ramp facilities. Because most
of these lakes are water supply impoundments, pedestrian access to the shoreline is
non-existent or limited on most lakes.

Water access proposals currently being considered include programs to
improve existing ramp facilities and to develop additional shoreline recreational
facilities on the Norfolk, Portsmouth and Suffolk Reservoirs. SVPDC
recommendations include the construction of.additional shore-fishing facilities, the
development of a regional park at Stumpy Lake, and inclusion of certain lakes in the
proposed regional scenic waterways system.

BLACKWATER AND NOTTOWAY RIVERS

In the upstream areas of these two rivers, recreational activity is light to
moderate. Boat ramp facilities are currently able to accommodate demand.
Recreational usage Is generally moderate in downstream areas, but can become
heavy during peak periods. Ramps can become overcrowded on peak days. The
waters of the lower Nottoway are sometimes overcrowded with water skiers.
Pedestrian access to both rivers is extremely poor.

Current water access proposals include waterfront parks along the Blackwater
River in the Franklin area, additional boat access facilities along both rivers, and
inclusion of a portion of the Blackwater River in the State Scenic River System. The
SVPDC recommends.considering the inclusion of segments of both rivers in the State
Scenic River System and the proposed regional scenic waterways system.

THE SITING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
WATER ACCESS FACILITIES

Because water access facilities can impact or be impacted by the surrounding
environment, their development must take into account a number of
environmental, social and economic issues. Many of these issues are addressed
through federal, state and local regulatory procedures, while other non-regulated
issuescan be resofved through the careful siting and design of wateraccess projects.
Depending on the nature and scope of a project, development of a water access
facility may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for the discharge of
dredged or fill materi'als; state permits for encroachment on subaqueous lands,
wetlands alterations or sand dune alterations; or a local conditional use permit.
Criteria used by regulatory agencies are described in the report in detail. They
should be followed in the planning and design of access points.

BOAT ACCESS FACILITIES

Marina development has the potential for causing severe environmental
impacts. The extent of these impacts will depend on a number of interrelated,
project-specific variables. The intensive development of the region's shoreline has
-eliminated many suitable locations for marina development. As a result, sites
proposed for marinas are often environmentally marginal and do not satisfactorily
meet the..criteria necessaryto obtain federal, state and local permit approval.

The environmental impacts of boat ramp development are generally much less
severe than those associated with marina development. However, depending on
the project, a boat ramp project may be subject to federal and state permitting
requirements. As with marinas, the development of boat ramps is hindered by a
scarcity of undeveloped, environmentally suitable shoreline.

Compared to marinas and boat ramps, the development of canoe access points
has few environmental impacts, requires little in the way of construction and
maintenance work, and is relatively inexpensive. Federal and state permits are
generally not required for canoe access. Facilities proposed for sites owned by the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), such as bridge crossings, require a
VDOT special use permit.

SHORELINE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AREAS

Most of the region's unrestricted beachfront has been developed for public
use. If, however, opportunities arise for opening currently restricted or closed
beaches to public use, consideration will have to be given to support facility
requirements and potential environmental impacts. Alterations to primary dunes
may require a state or local sand dune development permit.

x1i

Development of a shore fishing area may be as simple as opening up a stretch
of shoreline to fishing or as extensive as the construction of an open water pier.
Pier construction may be subjectto federal and state regulatory requirements.

The development of shoreline recreation areas that do not include physical
access to the water generally has minimal impact on the environment. if elevated
-walkways and/or observation platforms are constructed over wetlands, dunes or
open water, federal and state permitting requirements may apply.

STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING WATER ACCESS

A number of strategies which local governments may want to consider for
improving water access are identified and described. These strategies include
various land use controls, land acquisition techniques, state and federal assistance
and development programs and cooperative agreements for joint facility use. The
advantages and disadvantages of the use of these programs are described.
Application of a broad mix of these strategies will be necessary to achieve adequate
public access to the region's waters.

SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA REGIONAL WATERWAYS GUIDE

The Southeastern Virginia Regional Waterways Guide is found in Volume 11 of
thisreport. Contained in the Guide is an -inventory of the region's twenty-f ive major
water bodies and a proposal for a regional scenic wate rways@ system.

The regional waterways inventory was prepared to assess the recreational
potential of Southeastern Virginia's waterways. It consists of detailed fact sheets
and maps. The information contained in each fact sheet includes location and
general description, tributaries and related water bodies, size, depth, wind and
tides, shoreline characteristics, indigenous flora and fauna. Appropriate
recreational activities and facilities, such as swimming beaches, fishing access points,
boating constraints, recreational marina slips and boat ramps, and canoe put-
in/take-out points are also described. The maps accompanying the fact sheets show
the locations of boat access facilities and other shoreline access areas.

The second section of the Regional Waterways Guide proposes a regional
scenic waterways system which would serve canoeists and users of other small, non-
motorized craft. Included in this section are descriptions of possible waterway trails
and a discussion of various waterway system development issues.

x1if

GLOSSARY

Access, Formal

Describes a public water access point which has been specifically designed for
boat access.

Access, Informal

Describes a public water access point which has not been specifically designed
for boat access.

Activity Day Method

A needs assessment technique employed by the Virginia Division of Parks and
Recreation in 1982 and used in this study to estimate the regional resident
demand for various outdoor recreation activities.

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway

An inland waterway which begins at Mile Zero in Norfolk, Virginia and ends at
Mile 1095 in Miami, Florida.

Bulkhead

Structure or partition built, usually along a shoreline, to prevent erosion.

Borrow Area (Pit)

A source of earth fill material used in the construction of embankments or
COE other earth fill structures.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CRM

Coastal Resources Management

Culvert

A drain or conduit under a road or embankment.

Design Day Demand

Recreational demand on the peak day of an average week in the prime season.

xiv

Dike

An embankment to confine or control water, especially along the banks of a
ri ve r to p reve nt ove rf I ow.

Downstream

. - In the direction of the mouth of a stream.

Estuarine

Pertaining -to areas where freshwater meets saltwater (e.g., bays, mouths of
rivers, salt marshes and lagoons).

Fastland

The relatively stable land found behind the immediate shoreline. The fastland
is the site of most shoreline development.

Fetch

� continuous expanse of open water.

Groin

� rigid structure built at an angle (usually perpendicular) from the shore to
protect it from erosion orto trap sand.

Habitat

The place, and the characteristics and conditions of that place, where an
organism lives.

Hardwoods

Trees generally characterized ascleciduousand having broad, flat leaves.

Head Boat

Commercial sportfishing boat providing recreational fishing opportunities for
large groups of people.

Headwaters

The source of a stream.
LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Marina

Small boat harbor or boat basin providing dockage, supplies and repair
services for pleasure craft.

Marsh, Embayed or Creek

Marsh occupying a drowned creek valley.

Marsh, Extensive

Marsh with extensive acreage where the length and width are roughly
comparable.

Marsh, Fringe

Marsh which borders a shoreline and generally has a greater length than
width or depth.

M.L.W. (Mean Low Water)

Average height of low waters over a nineteen year period.

Mean Lunar Tide Range

The difference in height between the mean high water and the mean low
NWR water.

National Wildlife Refuge

Pier

A structure, usually of open construction, extending into the water from the
shore. It serves as a landing and loading place for vessels, or for recreational
Piles purposes.

Long, heavy timber or section of concrete or metal driven or jetted into the
earth for support or construction.

PDC

Planning District Commission.

Ramp

A sloping platform for launching small craft. In this study, each launch lane at
a ramp facility is counted as one ramp.

Riprap

Large facing or protective mound of stones randomly placed to prevent
erosion, scour or sloughing of embankment.

xvi

Shoaling

The accumulation of sand on the bottom of a body of water constituting a
hazard to navigation.

Shoreline, Immediate

The buffer zone between open water and the fastland. The immediate
shoreline generally consists of beach, marsh or swamps.

Surge

The rise above normal water level along a coast due only to the action of wind
stress on the water surface.

Tide, Lunar

The rhythmic rise and fall of oceans and their tributaries caused by the
gravitational effects of the moon and the sun.

Tide, Wind

The rise and fall of water level along the coast due only to the action of wind
stress on the water surface.

Tidal Flat

A marshy or muddy area that is covered and uncovered by the rise and fall of
the tide.

Upland

Land above the lowlands along streams.

Upstream

In the direction of the headwaters of a stream.

VCOE

Virginia Council on the Environment.

VCRIVIP

Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program.

VDOT

Virginia Department of Transportation.

xvii

VDPR
VGIF Virginia Division of Parks and Recreation

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.

VOF

Virginia Outdoors Fund.

Water, Brackish

Water with a salinity lower than seawater generally in the range of 0.5 - 17
parts per thousand.

Water, Fresh

Water with a salinity of less than 0.5 parts per thousand.

Water, Salt

Water with a salinity of greater than 17 parts per thousand (ppt). Seawater
has a salinity of 30 - 35 ppt.

WMA

Wildlife Management Area.

xviii

INTRODUCTION

The waters of Southeastern Virginia are the region's greatest recreational
resource. Southeastern Virgin ia has long been a nationally renowned mecca for
boaters, fishermen, waterfowl hunters and beach enthusiasts. This region is also
one of the fastest growing in the country. With this growth has come a greater
number of participants in water-oriented recreational activities, increased private
development along the region's shorelines and an escalation in the value of
waterfront land. This situation has resulted in a growing inability on the part of
government to provide adequate public access to the region's water bodies. This
study, which was funded by the Virginia Council on the Environment through the
Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program, examinesthis problem a*nd offers
recommendations for its resolution.

BACKGROUND

The need to improve waterfront access is not limited to Southeastern Virginia.
As new development continues to concentrate in the nation's coastal areas,
shoreline open space and water access opportunities are disappearing at a rapid
rate. In its 1987 report, the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors
acknowledges this problem and calls for states to conduct or update inventories of
relatively undeveloped shoreline areas and to develop sites where public access is
allowed. This recommendation is- echoed in the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement
which was recently signed by the States of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the
District of Columbia and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The
Agreement, which is a ten year plan for cleaning up the Bay, calls upon the
participating governments to improve and expand public access opportunities by
developing a strategy, by December 1990, which would encourage state and federal
governments to secure additional tidal shorefront along the Bay and its tributaries.
Incorporated in this effort would be the preparation of a baywide inventory of
existing water access opportunitiesto be completed by July 1988.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has acknowledged the problem of inadequate
shoreline access in initiatives other than its commitment to the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement. In 1982, the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation (now the State
Division of Parks and Recreation), conducted the Tidewater Virginia Recreational
Boating Access Study. This study concluded that there had been a dramatic increase
in participation in boat-dependent recreational activities during the previous
decade and that the State and local Tidewater governments would need to more
than double efforts to develop water access facilities to meet existing and projected
1990 demand. The 1982 Outdoor Recreation Demand Survey, which was conducted
by the State Division of Parks and Recreation (VDPR) as part of the preparation of
the 1984 Virginia Outdoors Plan, also indicated that there was an escalating
demand for water-oriented recreational activities and that existing access facilities
were deficient in meeting this demand. As a result of the findings of the Tidewater
Boating Access Study and the Outdoor Recreation Demand Survey, and in response

to considerable comments received from local government during the plan review
process, the need to improve access to Virginia's tidal waters, inland rivers and
beaches was incorporated into the goals, objectives and recommendations of the
1984 Virginia Outdoors Plan. More recently, a study conducted by the 1987 General
Assembly's Joint Subcommittee to Study the Outdoor Recreation Needs of the
Commonwealth concluded that there is a need for a public access grant program
.which, if approved, would provide funds to localities for the acquisition and
development of additional boat launching, fishing, swimming and sunbathing
facilities.

In Southeastern Virginia, the need for additional water access opportunities is
evidenced by long waits and full parking lots at boat launching facilities, high rental
fees and long waiting lists for marina slips, and a scarcity of parking within walking
distance of publicly accessible beaches during the summer. The volatility of this
issue has been witnessed in the magnitude of public controversies brought about by
recent waterfront development proposals or by changes in public policy that
diminish or eliminate existing shoreline access. Recent controversies have included
the following:

0 A decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to close the beaches in the
Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge to swimming, surfing and sunbathing.

.0 _.__4 decision by the Army Corps of Engineers to close the Dismal Swamp
Canal to recreational boaters during the past two summers in order to
protect the ecology of the Swamp during droughts.

0 A decision by the Virginia National Guard to close 400 feet of Camp
Pendleton beachf ront which was previously leased to the City of Virginia
Beach.

0 The initiation of road improvements in Virginia Beach's North End
neighborhood which will eliminate on-street parking used by beach
users.

0 A proposal to build a hotel on the last remaining parcel of open space
along the Virginia Beach Resort Area beach. Subsequently, this parcel
was purchased for recreational development by the City.

Attempts.by -land owners to exclude non-resident beach users from
privately-owned beaches along the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia Beach.

Decisions by private marina owners in the Lynnhaven and Little Creek
systems to replace ramp facilities with more profitable uses.

A number of regio nal and local studies and plans which address the need for
additional waterfront access in Southeastern Virginia have been prepared. At the
regional level, these studies includethe following:

� Regional Open Space Plan: Boat Ramp Element, SVPDC, 1979. This
element assesses regional boat launching needs, proposes site and design
criteria for locating boat ramps, and suggests a process to encourage
regional cooperation in the provision of boat ramps.

� Hampton Roads Boating Study,. SVPDC, 1986. Primarily an economic
analysis of the boating industry in the Hampton Roads area, this study
also provides information about the growing popularity of boating in
the region and the inability of local marinas to absorb this growth.

At the local level, the following studies have been conducted:

0 Chesapeake Scenic Waterways, City of Chesapeake, 1975. This
waterways guide resulted from a program developed and adopted by
the City of Chesapeake which designated six scenic waterway trails and
identified points of access to these trails.

Virginia Beach Waterfront Access Study, SVPDC, 1981. This study
inventoried.. beach access points and boat ramps, assessed local
waterfront access needs and suggested possibilities for improving access.

Little Creek Harbor: Boating Problem Assessment, SVPDC, 1984. This
report inventoried harbor facilities, characterized existing and future
harbor use, and evaluated existing and potential problems resulting
from these uses.

Virginia Beach Scenic Waterway Plan, SVPDC, 1985. This study examined
the potential for a system of non-motorized recreational waterways in
Virginia Beach. Included in this report is a detailed inventory of the City's
inland waterways and the potential access points along them. As a result
of this study, the City officially endorsed the concept of a Virginia Beach
Scenic Waterway System and formally opened the first segment of this
system, West Neck Creek, in September 1986.

Water access needs are also acknowledged and addressed to varying degrees
-in the following local parks and recreation plans and studies:

0 Recreational Facilities Appraisal: the City of Portsmouth, 1985, by the
State Division of Parks and Recreation.

0 Portsmouth Long Range Recreation and Park and Open Space Plan, 1984.

Chesapeake Park, Open Space and Recreation Plan, 1977.

Recreational Opportunities in the City of Norfolk, 1976.

PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY

Although the problem of waterfront access has been addressed in a number of
studies, there has never been a comprehensive, regional approach to this issue. The
objectives of this report are to: (1) identify access opportunities and deficiencies
throughout the region for all types of water-dependent recreational activities, and
(2),suggest ways that local governments can individually or collectively take
advantage of the opportunities and rectify the deficiencies. To meet these
objectives, this report includes the following:

1. A regional waterways guide which contains a comprehensive inventory
of the region's waterways and existing water access points, and a
proposed regional scenic waterways system. This guide is found under
separate cover in Volume 11.

2. A regional needs assessment which analyzes the ability of existing
resources to meet regional recreation demand and identifies those areas
which are deficient in waterfront access opportunities.

3. Proposed sitingand design criteria fordeveloping wateraccess facilities.

4. Recommended strategies for use by local governments to improve
waterf ro nt access.

The water-dependent recreational activities examined in this study fall into
two categories. The first category contains those activities that are dependent on
boat access points (ramps, marina slips and canoe landings) including boat fishing,
power boating, water skiing, sailing and canoeing. The second category contains
those activitiesthat depend on accessto and use of the shoreline and includes beach
swimming, surfing and shore fishing. The second category also includes passive
activities which might not require, but are generally enhanced by, shoreline access
such as sunbathing, wildlife observation, sight-seeing and picnicking.

Twenty-five water bodies or systems located within the Southeastern Virginia
Planning District are studied in this report. The Planning District includes the Cities
of Chesapeake, Franklin, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk and Virginia Beach, and the
Counties of,lsle of Wight and Southampton. The twenty-five water bodies or
systems under study include those surrounding the region (Atlantic Ocean and
Chesapeake Bay within three miles of shore, and Hampton Roads and the James
River within the corporate limits of Southeastern Virginia localities), the major tidal
rivers and creeks that are tributary to these water bodies, the freshwater systems
that flow into the Albemarle Sound, and the major.manmade water supply
impoundments, canals and recreational lakes.

REGIONAL WATERWAYS GUIDE

The Regional Waterways Guide is found under separate cover in Volume 11.
The first chapter of this guide is the Southeastern Virginia Waterways Inventory.
The purpose of this inventory is to determine the recreational potential of each
water body, and to identify existing and potential waterfront access opportunities.
Contained in the inventory are detailed fact sheets for each of the twenty-five
water bodies or systems under study.., Each fact sheet includes information on
location and description, tributaries or related water bodies, size, depth, winds and
tides, shoreline characteristics, and indigenous flora and fauna. Appropriate
recreational activities, and facilities such as swimming beaches, fishing access points,
boating constraints, recreational marina slips and boat ramps, and canoe access
points are also described. Table 1 is a summary of the boat access facilities (boat
ramps, marina slips and canoe put-in/take-out points) listed in the inventory. The
table contains the number of public, commercial and private access facilities found
in each water body or system. A public facility is owned and operated by a local or
state public agency and is open to the general public. Commercial facilities are also
open to the public, but are operated as private enterprises. Private facilities are
closed to the general public and open only to specified users such as members of
private clubs, residents of private communities or military personnel. Figure 1 is a
map showing the locations of the facilities summarized in Table 1 and the locations
of shoreline segments open to the general public forAhe various shoreline-
dependent recreational activities. These include parks, public facility grounds,
wildlife management areas, designated fishing areas and swimming beaches.

The second chapter of the Regional Waterways Guide proposes a regional
scenic waterways system which would serve canoeists and users of other small, non-
motorized craft. Included in this chapter are descriptions of a number of possible
canoe trails. These descriptions contain brief overviews of the trails or trail systems,
trail routes, trail distances, average trip times, and trail access points. Also
contained in this chapter is a discussion of a variety of waterway system
development issues including waterway use conflicts, shoreline use conflicts, safety,
maintenance, promotion, administration and cost.

TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF BOAT ACCESS FACILITIES IN SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA

Boat Rampsl Marina SlipS2 Canoe
Access
Water Body Public Commercial Private4 Public Commercial Private4 PointS3

Atlantic Ocean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rudee Basin 3 0 0 0 180 67 3
Chesapeake Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lynnhaven River 5 3 4 50 1,021 293 24
Little Creek 0 1 4 0 754 205 11
Hampton Roads 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Willoughby Bay 2 4 4 0 653 90 0
Elizabeth River 9 2 6 62 717 292 23
Nansemond River 3 2 1 0 84 43 8
Chuckatuck Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
James River 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
Pagan River 1 2 0 0 116 0 5
Lawnes Creek 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
Back Bay 2 4 0 0 0 0 13
North Landing River 2 6 0 0 90 0 28
Albemarle & Chesapeake 0 1 0 0 200 0 0
Canal
Northwest River 0 1 0 0 10 0 6
Great Dismal Swamp 2 0 0 0 0 0 8
Blackwater River 2 0 1 0 0 0 4
Nottoway River 3 1 1 0 22 0 5
Mount Trashmore Lakes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Norfolk In-Town Reservoirs 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

Suffolk Reservoirs 8 0 0 0 0 0 10

Norfolk Western Reservoirs 4 0 0 0 0 0 4

Portsmouth Reservoirs 6 0 0 0 0 0 6
Total 56 27 22 110 3,847 990 16

Source: SVPDC Southeastern VirginiaL Waterways Inventor 1988.
I Each launching lane is counted as one ramp.
2 Includes both wet and dry slips.
3 Includes boat ramps if they provide access to canoeable waters.
4 includes facilities belonging to private clubs, private communities, military installations or schools. Not included
are private "backyard" facilities found at private residences.

3 7u,

NORFOLK

ISLE OF WIGHT 4

10 SIOUTH

(5 Da
*Ai

SUFFOLK

BOATRAMP CHESAPEAKE
MARINA
o CANOE PUT-I@/TAKE-OUT
o SHORELINE RECREATION AREA
MAJOR SHORELINE PARK
0 L 7K/

N+
PREPARED BY SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION, JUNE 1988

a BOATRAMP
o MARINA
ISLE6F
9 CANOE PUT-IN/TAKE-OUT
o SHORELINE RECREATION AREA
MAJOR SHORELINE PARK
Id'

-X' 1

PREPARED BY SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA
PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION, JUNE 1988

FRANI&IN

SOUTHAMPTON

ASSESSMENT OF THE REGION'S WATER-ORIENTED RECREATION NEEDS

There are two steps in assessing Southeastern Virginia's water-oriented
recreation needs. The first is to determine whether there are sufficient unrestricted
water and shoreline resources to satisfy demand for boat-dependent and shoreline-
dependent recreational activities. The second step is to determine whether existing
water access points adequately serve the users of these resources.

LOCAL WATER AND SHORELINE RESOURCES

In brief, a recreational needs assessment compares the supply of a resource or
facility with the demand for that resource or facility. if demand exceeds supply,
than the difference represents a need '- There are a number of techniques for
comparing supply and demand to determine need. One of the more commonly
used techniques, the activity day method, was employed by the VDPR in conducting
a needs assessment for the 1984 Virginia Outdoors Plan. The first component of this
regional needs assessment, an analysis of the adequacy of existing unrestricted
water and shoreline resources, is based on the results of the VDPR assessment.

The VDPR assessment was based on a participation survey conducted in 1982
for twenty-six outdoor recreation activities in each of the VDPR's eleven recreation
planning regions, including Hampton Roads. In employing the activity day method,
the participation rates derived from the survey were used with VDPR generated
capacity, turnover and peak participation assumptions to estimate regional resident
demand for each activity on the peak day of an average week during the prime
season (also known as the "design day"). The demand estimates were then
compared to existing supply totals to determine need. A more detailed description
of the activity day method and the assumptions used by the VDPR in its application
is found in Appendix A. Participation survey data and activity day method results
were obtained from several VDPR documents including the 1984 Virginia Outdoor
Plan, Virginia Outdoor Recreation Demand, Supply and Needs: 1982-1990-2010,
and the Tidewater Virginia Recreational Boating Access Study.

Although the activity day method is one of the more stringent recreational
needs assessment techniques, it does have several deficiencies when used to
estimate regional demand for recreational water,and shoreline resources. These
deficiencies are as follows:

0 The capacity, turnover and peak participation assumptions were
- developed for the State as a whole and may not reflect local conditions.

0 Demand estimation is based on actual participation only and does not
take into account latent demand that might be suppressed as a result of
inadequate water and shoreline access.

The participation survey included local residents only and not tourists or
residents of adjacent regions who travel to Southeastern Virginia to
participate in water-oriented recreation. On the other hand, it assumes
that local residents restrict their activities to local facilities and resources
only and do not travel outside of the region to recreate. It may be that
in-coming tourist demand and out-going resident demand balance each
other to some degree, but, given the region's wealth of recreational
resources, there is undoubtedly more in-coming than out-going demand.

The activity day method addresses each, recreational activity separately
and does not allow for possible use conflicts. For instance, application of
the activity day method may indicate thatthe region has sufficient water
area to accommodate resident design day sailing demand. Not
considered, however, is that the same water area may be simultaneously
used for other activities such as power boating, fishing and water skiing.
Simultaneous usage may create conflicts that could affect the water
area's capacity to accommodate sailing demand.

For the purposes of interpreting the results of the VDPR assessment, it is
important to know that the latter three deficiencies most likely result in an
underestimation rather than an overestimation of demand.

Before presenting the results of the VDPR assessment, it is important to note
that VDPR's demand estimates were adjusted in two ways by-the-,SVPDC staff to
make them more useful to this study. First, because the VDPR's Hampton Roads
Recreation Planning Region includes both the Peninsula and Southeastern Virginia
regional planning districts, the demand estimates for the entire recreation riegion
had to be disaggregated to produce estimates for Southeastern Virginia only. This
was done by assuming that the ratio of Southeastern Virginia's demand to the total
demand of the recreation region is equal to the ratio of Southeastern Virginia's
population to that of the entire region.

The second adjustment increased 1982 demand estimates to reflect an increase
in the region's population. The VDPR participation survey, though conducted in
1982, relied on 1980 population figures. The demand estimates were therefore
-adjusted upward to -reflect the 1986 Taylde@-Murphy institute population estimates
for Southeastern Virginia. Demand estimates for 1995 were also developed using
SVPDC population projections. For both the 1986 adjustment and the 1995
projections, change in demand is proportionate to change in population. This
assumes that demand is constant and immune from the influences of economic
trends, demographic shifts, changes in the popularity of different recreational
activities, and environmental factors which might affect the quality of recreational
experiences. This, of course, is a potentially erroneous assumption, but it is not
within the scope of this study to predictclemand influencing factors.

The water-oriented recreational activities addressed in the VDPR assessment
include power boating, water skiing, sailing, fishing, canoeing and beach
swimmi ng/su n bathing. Surfing was not included in the 1982 survey, but was
analyzed in the State's 1972 Outdoor Recreation Demand Survey. The 1972 demand
estimates for surfing were therefore adjusted to reflect the estimated 1986
population. Listed below, under each of the water-oriented recreational activities
analyzed, are summaries and interpretations of the adjusted results of the VDPR
needs assessment. The reader is reminded that the VDPR assessment only addresses
the adequacy of existing water and shoreline resources for recreational uses and
does not address the adequacy of access to these resources. The access issue will be
examined later in this chapter.

POWER BOATING

For the purposes of this study, power
boating is defined as the use of a power boat ZIA
7:1
for the sole purpose of cruising and not for
1W
other recreational activities such as f ishing or
water skiing. Nearly seventeen percent of
the region's population participates in
power boating and the average participant
accounts for ten activity days per year.
Approximately 18,000 acres of boatable
water are required to meet the estimated ALBEMARLE AND CHESAPEAKE CANAL, INTRACOSTAL WATERWAY
regional design day demand. By 1995,
regional design day demand is expected to
increase to 20,000 acres. Of the region's
approximately 200,000 acres of water, a
conservative estimate of water area open to
and suitable for some kind of power boating is 150,000 acres.1 It should be noted,
however, that the definition of suitable boating waters can vary significantly when
consideration is given to boat size, wind and tidal conditions, and to waters that
may be boatable, but are aesthetically undesirable. Despite possible reductions in
boatable waters due to these factors, and despite the additional, unmeasured
demand from tourists and out-of-region boaters, it appears that there is more than
enough boatable water acreage in Southeastern Virginia to satisfy existing and
projected power boating demand.

WATER SKIING

Water skiing is participated in by approximately eight percent of the region's
population and the average participant accounts for approximately eighteen
activity days per year. It is estimated that 29,000 acres are needed to satisfy demand
on a design day. By 1995, design day demand is projected to increase to 32,000
acres. It is estimated that approximately 27,000 acres of water in Southeastern
Virginia are suitable for water skiing.2 This means that, on a design day, regional

demand for skiable water area exceeds supply. This finding is consistent with the
observations of local water skiers who report very crowded skiing conditions in such
prime skiing areas as the North Landing River, Broad Bay in the Lynnhaven River
system and in the upper reaches of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. This
situation can only worsen asthe region's population continuesto grow.

SAILING

Approximately ten percent of
Southeastern Virginia's residents participate
in sailing and the average participant
accounts for thirteen activity days per year. Y@
It is estimated that design day demand for
s
'ling area is approximately 11,000 acres.
al
Projected 1995 demand is 12,000 acres. An
estimated 125,000 acres of water are suitable
for some type of sailing3. Not all of the
water area suitable for sailing is appropriate
for all types of sailing craft, but given the
substantial difference between demand and
supply, it can be assumed that the region, as
a whole, has sufficient sailing areas to
accommodate existing and projected design . . ... . .... . . . ... . . ..............5 A.I.L..i..N..G T.H.E C-HESAPEAKE BAY
day demand.

FISHING

With a 26% participation rate, fishing is one of the more popular recreational
activities in Southeastern Virginia. It is estimated that the average participant goes
fishing 21 times per year. Approximately 22,000 acres of water are required to meet
existing design day fishing demand and it is projected that this number will increase
to 25,000 acres by 1995.4 Nearly all of the 200,000 acres of water in the 25 water
bodies under study are open to fishing. Obviously, not all water areas support the
types and quantities of finfish necessary to attract sport fishing activity. The
productivity of a water body is dependent on such factors as past fishing pressures,
water quality, fish migratory patterns and habitat management programs. For
these reasons, it would be quite difficult to estimate the existing quantity of
productive sport fishing waters. Given the difference between the demand for and
the total supply of water area open to fishing, however, it can be assumed that
there are sufficient fishing areasto meet existing and projected design day demand.

CANOEING

Nearly eight percent of the region's population participates in canoeing. An
estimated 180 miles of canoe streams are required to meet existing demand on a
design day. By 1995, there will be a demand for approximately 200 miles of streams.

There are an estimated 281 miles of
canoeable streams in Southeastern
Virginia5. This estimate includes major
streams only and not minor
tributaries, or canoeable open waters
such as bays or lakes. From these
findings, it is evident that the region's
canoeable water areas will adequately
accommodate existing and projected
design day canoeing demand.
CANOEING THE ELIZABETH RIVER
BEACH SWIMMING AND SUNBATHING

Beach swimming and sunbathing are by far the most popular water oriented
outdoor recreational activities in Southeastern Virginia. According to the VDPIR
assessment, an estimated 51% of the region's population participates in one or
both of these beach activities and the average beach enthusiast goes to the beach
about 40 times per year. To accommodate regional resident demand, an estimated
523 acres of beach are required on a design day. By 1995, 579 acres will be required.
Because the region's beaches attract large numbers of tourists and out-of-region
day visitors and the VDPR assessment estimates resident demand only, it can be
assumed that these f igures underestimate actual demand.

Disregarding accessibility problems, 30.1 miles of Southeastern Virginia's
beaches are open to the public for swimming and sunbathing. Translating miles of
beach into beach acreage requires making certain assumptions about beach width.
Table 2 shows acreage totals under a number of beach width scenarios, and shows
the percentage of existing and 1995 demand that can be satisfied under each
scenario. Aerial photos indicate that the average beach width is about 200 feet.6
Using the 200 foot beach width assumption, the 30.1 miles of open beaches would
accommodate an estimated 140% of existing design day resident demand. This
would mean that the region, taken as a whole, has sufficient beach resources to
meet resident demand. Localized overcrowding can and frequently does occur,
however, on beaches that are
significantly narrower than average,
or that attract substantial numbers of
non-resident users. The beach
fronting the Virginia Beach Resort
Area is a case where both of these
conditions exist. Despite the apparent
ability of the region's beaches to meet
resident demand, there are a number
of barriers which restrict beach use.
These barriers will be discussed later in
this chapter. VIRGINIA BEACH BOARDWALK

SURFING

According to the adjusted results of the 1972 State assessment, there is a resident demand
for 9.5 miles of surfing beach on a design day. During restricted hours (10:00 A.M. to 5:00
P.M. from Memorial Day to Labor Day), however, only 0.5 miles of designated surfing
beaches are available to meet this demand. As a result, designated surfing areas become
extremely crowded during restricted periods, especially if the surf is up. During non-
restricted hours, 18.1 miles of beaches are open to surfing. This supply is more than
adequate to meet demand, although the popularity of certain prime surfing areas will
usually lead to overcrowding, even during non-restricted hours.

Since completion of the VDPR assessment, the sport of windsurfing has become
increasingly popular in Southeastern Virginia. Participation rates for windsurfing were not
determined through the VDPR Survey. Also, no capacity or area standards for windsurfing
have been developed. Windsurfers can use the same water areas used by boaters and
surfers. Space requirements appear to be greater than for surfing. Access does not appear
to be a constraint. Space conflicts between windsurfers and boaters have been noted in the
Lynnhaven System and between windsurfers and beach users. This issue should be
addressed in the next VDPR participation survey.

As can be seen from the above discussions, with the exception of water skiing areas
and designated surfing areas, the region has sufficient water and shoreline resources to
satisfy existing and projected demand for the water-oriented recreational activities
included in the VDPR assessment. The VDPR assessment did-r-to-t-specifically address shore
fishing or shoreline-dependent passive activities such as wildlife observation, sight-seeing,
picnicking and so forth, but it appears that there is sufficient potentially accessible
shoreline to satisfy the demand for these activities.

TABLE 2
BEACH ACREAGE AS A PERCENT OF DEMAND
Width Scenarios

50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet

Beach Open to
General Public
(in acres) 182 365 547 730 912 1,094 1,277
Percent of
1986 Demand 35% 70% 106% 140% 174% 209% 244%

Percent of
t 1995 Demand 31% 63% 96% 126% 158% 189% 1 221%

Source: Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, 1988.

Having reached the conclusion that there are adequate water and shoreline
resources to meet most of Southeastern Virginia's water-oriented recreational
needs, the next question is whether there is sufficient access to these resources. This
will be addressed in the next section of this chapter.

WATERFRONT ACCESS POINTS

The discussion of the adequacy of the region's water access points is divided
into two parts: boat access (boat ramps, marinas and canoe put-in/take-out points)
and pedestrian access (for swimming, sunbathing, surfing, shore fishing and so
forth).

BOAT ACCESS FACILITIES

As the regional participation rates presented earlier in this chapter indicate, a
large number of Southeastern Virginia's residents participate in boat-dependent
recreational activities. Another indication of the popularity of recreational boating
in this region is the number of boats registered with the Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries (VGIF) or documented by the U.S. Coast Guard. The VGIF
requires the registration of all motorboats and sailboats over eighteen feet, unless
they are documented by the Coast Guard. Coast Guard documentation generally
applies to larger boats only (more than 26 feet in length) and obviates the VGIF
registration requirement. In 1987, there were 27,413 VGIF registered boats in
Southeastern Virginia. Data on the number of Coast Guard--documented vessels are
not gathered at the local level, but a 1980 estimate put the number of Coast Guard
documented vessels claiming a home port in Hampton Roads at slightly more than
1,000.7 The.total number of VGIF registered and Coast Guard documented boats
does not include the large number of tourist and out-of-region boaters who visit
Southeastern Virginia, especially in the summer, to take advantage of the region's
numerous recreational opportunities. Nor does it include local boat owners who
register their boats outside of the region to avoid local taxes, but still boat in
Southeastern Virginia waters.

The growing popularity of recreational boating in Southeastern Virginia is
evidenced by a twelve percent increase in the number of VGIF registered boats
between 1977 and 1987. (Table 3- presents the number of VGIF registered boats by
locality for 1977 and 1987.) By comparison, population growth was only nine
percent during the same period. Another indication of the growing popularity of
boat-dependent recreation is a 32% increase in the number of activity days
attributable to power boating, water skiing, sailing and fishing between 1972 and
1982 compared to a ten percent increase in population during the same period.8
The increase in boat ownership and boat-dependent recreational activity relative to
population growth is attributable to a strong national and regional economy and a
decline in the real price of fuel.

TABLE 3
STATE REGISTERED BOATS BY LOCALITY, 1977 AND 1987

1977 1987 Percent
Change

Chesapeake 3,704 4,203 +13%
Franklin 249 217 -13%
Isle of Wight 976 1,339 +37%
Norfolk 5,417 4,991 -8%
Portsmouth 2,152 2,547 +18%
Southampton 1,009 1,166 + 11 %
Suffolk 2,222 2,668 +20%
iVirginia Beach 8,713 10,282 + =18%

Source: Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, 1977 1987.

Marinas

The more than 28,000 owners of
motorboats and sailboats in Southeastern
Virginia as well as the visiting boaters from
outside the region are served by 4,947 boat
slips at 67 marinas (2 public, 45 commercial
and 20 private). Due to the large number of
boaters desiring access to the region's
waters, the region's marina facilities are
unable to accommodate existing demand.
Nearly all of the region's freshwater and
saltwater marinas are filled to capacity
during the summer months, some with
lengthy waiting lists.9,10 The only exceptions
are marinas which purposely keep slips open
for transient boaters, or have poor
reputations because of theft and vandalism
or because improper design has resulted in
damaged boats during severe weather
conditions.
WILLOUGHBY HARBOR

Boat Ramps

Considering only the region's VGIF registered boats and assuming that 98% of
the region's marina slips are rented during the prime season, approximately 4,898
of the region's registered boats are kept at marinas. To estimate the number of
registered boaters depending solely on boat ramps for water access, it is assumed
that from 60% - 80% of all registered troat owners depend on boat ramps for water
access.1 1 Using a conservative assumption of 60%, approximately 16,800 boaters
depend on the region's 105 boat ramps (56 public, 27 commercial and 22 private) for
water access. This translates to.about 160 registered boats per ramp. The
remaining 6,352 registered boat owners are not dependent on the marina slips or
boat ramps identified in this study and 'most likely use "back yard" slips, ramps or
moorings at private waterfront residences, or are tied to offshore moorings in
public waters.

That there is one ramp for every 160 registered boats requiring launching
facilities does not fully describe the region's boat ramp shortage. Manyboatramps
are unable to accommodate their proportionate share of the total demand because
of limited parking, poor design, inadequate maintenance, incompatible shoreline
characteristics or restrictions which prohibit usage by the general public. Another
reason why boat access demand is not spread evenly among the region's boat ramps
is that the differing recreational attributes of each water body attract different
.types and quantities of recreational boaters. As a result, -the peak usage periods of
-water bodies will vary as will the numbers of boaters requiring boat ramps. This
means that, depending on the water body, some boat ramps will experience heavy
usage throughout most of the year, others will be used to capacity during certain
times of the year only, and -others will never realize maximum usage.

For example, due to the availability of a wide range of possible recreational
opportunities, ramps providing access to saltwater receive heavy usage throughout
the spring, summer and fall months, with peak usage occurring during the summer.
A ramp user can anticipate full parking lots and/or long waits to launch and retrieve
boats at most tidal ramps on spring, summer and fall weekends and holidays, and,
at some locations, on weekdays during the summer. As a result of this situation,
there is a significant need for additional boat ramp access to the region's tidal water
bodies especially to those providing direct access to the Atlantic Ocean and the
Chesapeake Bay (Rudee Basin, Lynnhaven River, Little Creek, Willoughby Bay and
Elizabeth River).

Ramps providing access to the region's
freshwater systems will be most heavily used
g
in the spring months when freshwater
fishing is at its peak. This is the case at the
stocked Portsmouth and Norfolk water
supply lakes where, on spring weekends and
% it
holidays, the existing public ramps are
unable to accommodate boat access
12
demand. During the remainder of the
year, however, these ramps are generally
able to serve adequately all boat ramp users.
In this case, the excess boat ramp demand is
seasonal.
MUNDEN POINT CITY BOAT RAMPS

Boat ramps located on water bodies that do not have the recreational
attributes necessary to attract large numbers of recreational boaters rarely, if ever,
are used to their capacities and the existing supply of boat ramps is adequate.
Water bodies, where this is the case, include the Back Bay, the Dismal Swamp Canal
and the upper reaches of the Blackwater and Nottoway Rivers.

Canoe Put-in/Take-out Points

Unlike marina slips and boat ramps, it appears that the region's 165 canoe
access points sufficiently meet regional demand. A canoe access point is defined as
any location along a canoeable waterway where a canoe, or any other small craft,
can realistically be hand carried to the water's edge without crossing private
property. Nearly all of the region's canoeable water bodies have an adequate
number of conveniently situated canoe put-in/take-out points that meet this
definition. The only exception is Chuckatuck Creek where there is only one access
point. The adequacy of canoe access opportunities in Southeastern Virginia is due
to a relatively small number of canoeists and the versatility of canoes. Because
canoes can be hand carried, they can be launched and retrieved wherever there is
convenient pedestrian access to the water's edge. Although canoe access
opportunities in Southeastern Virginia are generally sufficient in number and
conveniently situated along canoeable waterways, there are some access problems
that will be discussed in more detail later in this report. These problems include
limited parking, and physical constraints such as steep, brush covered banks. Also,
even though canoe access is generally adequate throughout the region, localities
should still endeavor to take advantage of canoe access opportunities as they arise.
Canoe put-in/take-out facilities are relatively inexpensive to develop, and more
access opportunities will improve the recreational potential of a waterway.

SHORELINE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AREAS

As mentioned earlier in this report, several water-oriented recreational
activities require pedestrian access to and along the water's edge. These activities

include beach swimming, surfing and shore fishing. In addition, there area number
of other recreational activities which do not require shoreline access, but, because
of its aesthetic qualities, the shoreline is often the preferred location for
participation in these activities. Recreational activities falling into this category
include sunbathing, jogging/hiking/strolling, picnicking, sight-seeing and wildlife
observation. Given the variety of recreational activities which either require or are
--improved by pedestrian access to the shoreline, this needs assessment separates
shoreline which is used for recreational activities into three categories. These
categories include: (1) beachfront along which all of the above mentioned activities
are, in most cases, possible, (2).fishing areas where swimming is not allowed, but
where fishing and other activities are possible (includes fishing piers, bridges,
platforms and docks), and (3) other s.horeline which is publicly accessible for
recreational use but where swimming and fishing are either not permitted or
undesirable. Appendix B lists, by water body, all publicly accessible shoreline areas
in the region which fall into each of these categories and Figure 1 shows their
locations. The previously identified boat ramps and canoe access points are
included as pedestrian access areas only if there is significant shoreline adjacent to
the actual ramp or put-in/take-out facility that is appropriate for shoreline-
dependent recreational activities. The remainder of this section addresses the
access needs associated with each of the three categories of publicly accessible
shoreline.

Beachfront

Although 30.1 miles of the region's 45.1 miles of beaches are technically open
to the general public for swimming and other beach-oriented activities, not all of
these beaches are fully accessible. Table 4 shows the degree of accessibility, by
beach segment, of Atlantic Ocean and Chesapeake Bay beaches. Beaches
designated as "unrestricted public beach" are publicly owned, have parking
facilities and provide pedestrian access from behind the beach area. Beaches
designated as "unrestricted private beach" are privately owned, but open to the
general public, have parking facilities and provide pedestrian access from behind
the beach area. "Restricted access" beaches are those that are used by the general
public, but have constraints which impede access. These constraints might include
no road access, no pedestrian access from areas behind the beach, no parking
facilities, ownership disputes, or restrictions which either close beaches during
certain periods or severely limit recreational usage. Beaches designated as "not
open to public" are those where recreational use by the general public is
prohibited. Figure 2 shows the region's beaches and the designations given to each
beach segment.

TABLE 4
ACCESSIBILITY OF ATLANTIC OCEAN AND CHESAPEAKE BAY BEACHES
(Linear Miles)

Beach Segments Unrestricted Unrestricted Restricted Not Open Total
Public Beach Private Beach Access to Public

False Cape State Park 5.7 5.7
Back Bay NWR 4.31
Little Island Park 0.7 0.7
South Sandbridge 0.1 1.5 1.9 3.5
North Sandbridge 1.0 1.0
Dam Neck 3.9 3.9
Camp Pendleton 0.1 0.1 0.2
Croatan 0.8 0.8

Resort Area 2.7 2.7

North End 3.0 0.4 3.4
Fort Story 0.1 3.5 3.6
Seashore State Park 1.0 1.0
Lynnhaven 0.3 1.7 2.0
Ocean Park 1.0 1.0
Baylake Beach 0.6 0.6
Chesapeake Beach 1.0 1.0
Little Creek 2.2 2.2
Norfolk City Beaches 7.5 7.5
Total 15.1 2.9 16.4 10.7 45.1

Source: Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, Virginia Beach Waterfront
AccessStud 1981,p.42.

Swimming, surfing and sunbathing are prohibited. Beach use is for wildlife oriented
activities only.

Forty percent or 18.0 miles of the region's beaches meet the "unrestricted
public beach" and "unrestricted private beach" criteria described above. These
beaches include Little Island City Park, a portion of South Sandbridge Beach,
Sandbridge Park Beach, Croatan Beach, the Resort Area Beach, the North End
Beach, Chesapeake Beach and the Norfolk City beaches. Because a beach meets the
of unrestricted beach" criteria of providing parking and pedestrian access, it does not
mean it is without accessibility problems. A shortage of convenient beach parking
creates severe access problems along most of these beaches during the summer
months. There are approximately 3,800 off-street parking spaces along unrestricted
beaches located in Virginia Beach. A total for on-street parking spaces is not
available for all unrestricted beaches, but a survey conducted by the SVPDC in 1987
counted 6 140 on-street parking spaces in the Virginia Beach Resort Area.13 Parking
spaces wii@in convenient walking distance of most unrestricted beaches fill up very
quickly on weekends during the summer, especially if the weather is conducive to
beach activities. As an indication of the beach parking problem in Virginia Beach, in
the summer of 1986, 1,500 cars were towed away for being illegally parked and
7,000 parking tickets were issued along the City's beachfront. This number of
parking tickets tripled the number issued in 1984. Areas where the parking
shortages create a major impediment to beach access include the Resort Area, the
North End, Croatan Beach and Sandbridge.14

The number and spacing of pedestrian access points is adequate along most
public and private unrestricted beaches. There are about 174 pedestrian access
points along these beaches and in most areas they are located about one block
apart.15 A listing of the pedestrian access points along both unrestricted and
restricted access beaches is found in Appendix C. Figure 2 shows the access
characteristics of the region's beaches. The only unrestricted beach with insufficient
pedestrian access is Chesapeake Beach located along the Virginia Beach bayfront.

Thirty-six percent or 16.4 miles of the
AW region's beaches have restricted access. Ten
miles of these beaches are found in Back Bay
National Wildlife Refuge and False Cape
State Park. Beach access to the Refuge's 4.3
miles of beach is for wildlife-oriented
activities only. Allowable activities include
surf fishing, wildlife observation,
photography and hiking. Swimming, surfing
and sunbathing are not permitted. These
three activities are allowed on the 5.7 miles
of State Park beaches, but there is no auto
E access. Access to the State Park and its
beaches is possible only by hiking or biking
PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS, WILLOUGHBY SPIT through the Back Bay Refuge, or by boat via
the Back Bay.

FIGURE 2

ATLANTIC OCEAN AND
CHESAPEAKE BAY
BEACH ACCESS CHARACTERISTICS

15
.64 1@3
18 17 @
19

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ROUTE44
-j 10
SCALE IN MILES
9

8
0

LEGEND 7

UNRESTRICTED PUBLIC BEACH
SANDBRIDG
UNRESTRICTED PRIVATE BEACH 6

RESTRICTED ACCESS

NOT OPEN TO PUBLIC
4

1. FALSE CAPE STATE PARK
2. BACK BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE, REFUGE 3
3. LITTLE ISLAND PARK
4. SOUTH SANDBRIDGE
5. SANDBRIDGE CITY PARK
6. NORTH SANDBRIDGE
7. DAM NECK AMPHIBIOUS BASE
B. CAMP PENDLETON STATE MILITARY RESERVATION
9. CAMP PENDLETON PUBLIC BEACH
10. CROATAN BEACH
11. RESORT AREA
12. NORTH END
13. FORT STORY PUBLIC BEACH
14. FORT STORY MILITARY RESERVATION
15. SEASHORE STATE PARK BACKBAY
16. LYNNHAVEN
17. OCEAN PARK
18. BAYLAKE BEACH
19. CHESAPEAKE BEACH
20. LITTLE CREEK AMPHIBIOUS BASE
21. NORFOLK CITY BEACHES VA.
N.67
PREPARED BY SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION, JUNE 1988

Other restricted beaches include a portion of South Sandbridge Beach, North
Sandbridge Beach, Lynnhaven Beach, Ocean Park Beach, and Baylake Beach. These
beaches meet the restricted access criteria because there are no or very few on-
street or off-street parking opportunities. Also there has been an ongoing dispute
between the City of Virginia Beach and some bayfront property owners, especially
along Lynnhaven Beach, over public access rights to Bay beaches. This dispute has
yet to be resolved and has, in the past, kept non-residents from using bayfront
beaches. Access to the Virginia National Guard's Camp Pendleton public beach and
the U.S. Army's Fort Story public beach is also restricted because they are subject to
periodic closings during military operations.

Twenty-four percent or 10.7 miles of the region's beaches are closed to the
general public for recreational use. All but one mile of these beaches front four
military installations (U.S. Navy Dam Neck Amphibious Base, Camp Pendleton State
Military Reservation, the U.S. Army's Fort Story and the U.S. Navy's Little Creek
Amphibious Base). The one mile stretch of non-military beach that is closed to the
public is found at Seashore State Park which opens its bayfront beach to park
campers only.

Fishing Areas

Existing shoreline facilities which
provide pedestrian access for shore fishing "AC
are shown in Figure 1 and listed in Appendix
B. The reader is reminded that pedestrian
4
access to Atlantic Ocean and Chesapeake Bay
beaches for all beach activities, including surf
fishing, is addressed in the preceding section.
Shoreline facilities addressed in this section
include fishing areas along publicly owned,
non-beach waterfront; shoreline at private

ocks; and
shore fishing concessions; public and private
fishing piers, platforms and d
bridges from which fishing is permitted. VIRGINIA BEACH PIER

It is estimated that there are between 1,200 and 1,500 miles of tidal and non-
tidal shoreline in Southeastern Virginia. A vast majority of this shoreline is in
private ownership or is publicly owned for non-recreational uses. Approximately
five percent of the region's waterfront is open to the general public for recreational
activities, and only a small portion of this waterfront is suitable for shore fishing.16
Pedestrian access to the shoreline is not the only requirement for shore fishing. The
presence of such physical features as marsh, tidal flats, very shallow water, steep
banks or dense brush often makes shore fishing impossible or undesirable. Also, not
all publicly accessible shoreline fronts water that supports populations of popular
VAJ

game fish. As a result of a shortage of publicly accessible waterfront and the
presence of shoreline and water characteristics that preclude fishing, most of the

region's water bodies are deficient in shore fishing opportunities. Water bodies
with healthy game fish populations, but with relatively few shore fishing
opportunities, include Chuckatuck Creek, the Nansemond, the Pagan, the North
Landing, the Northwest, the Blackwater, and the Nottoway Rivers, and the Norfolk
and Portsmouth Reservoirs.

Fishing stru ctures-(piers, bridge -platforms or catwalks,-and docks) are often
used to enhance fishing opportunities, especially in areas where the shoreline is not
suitable for bank fishing. Appendix B and Figure 1 note the locations of such
structures throughout the region. Many of the water bodies which currently lack
adequate shore fishing opportunities would greatly benefit from the construction
of fishing structures.

Other Shoreline Recreation Areas

A number of shoreline access areas in Southeastern Virginia are not suitable
for swimming or fishing. Due to their waterfront locations, they provide
aesthetically pleasing environments which can enhance the quality of such
recreational activities as picnicking, sunbathing, wildlife observation, sight-seeing
or walking. Because access to the water's edge is difficult or impossible at most of
these waterfront areas, the benefits incurred by recreationists are generally visual
in nature.

Public shoreline areas can be important resources.in that they provide a
feeling of open space and offer waterfront scenery. They are particularly valuable
in a region like Southeastern Virginia which, because of its flat topography, does
not provide many opportunities to enjoy scenic vistas. The visual benefits of a
waterfront location can be enjoyed in an urban as well as a natural setting. Many
people enjoy Towne Point Park in Norfolk and the Seawall in Portsmouth because
they provide views of the urban skyline, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and various
water activities in the main stem of the Elizabeth River. Natural areas, on the other
hand, provide numerous opportunities to observe and study natural vegetation and
wildlife.

As mentioned in the previous section, only five percent of the region's
shoreline is publicly accessible for recreation use. The remainder is privately owned,
or publicly owned and inaccessible. The value of shoreline access should not always
be measured by the potential for direct access to the water's edge. There is also a
substantial need throughout- the region, along nearly every water body, for
additional publicly accessible waterfront which provides visual access to the region's
wealth of water resources.

SPECIFIC WATER ACCESS NEEDS, EXISTING PROPOSALS AND
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter briefly summarizes water access needs in specific water bodies. It
also presents current proposals to improve water access, and, where appropriate,
includes additional recommendations to resolve.access problems and increase
water-oriented recreational opportunities. The current proposals listed in this
chapter include projects which are presently being considered or planned by local,
state or federal government agencies, or by the private sector. The additional
recommenclations- were developed by the SVPDC staff during the conduct of this
study.

For the sake of brevity, contiguous or similar water bodies have been grouped
together. The proposals and recommendations presented in this chapter are water
body specific. The water access development strategies identified in a later chapter
are more general and are potentially applicable to a number of water bodies.

ATLANTIC OCEAN AND CHESAPEAKE BAY

The main access problem along Atlantic Ocean and Chesapeake Bay beaches is
a shortage of parking within convenient walking distance of the beach on peak
days (weekends and holidays) during the summer. This problem is most apparent
along Virginia Beach's ocean and bay beaches. A shortage of parking along Norfolk
bea'ches is not yet a severe problem. However, as the Citylcontinues its efforts to
revitalize the Ocean View and Willoughby neighborhoods, and as access problems
worsen along the beachfront in Virginia Beach, more people will be attracted to
Norfolk's beaches and parking problems arelikelyto develop.

At the regional level, there is sufficient publicly accessible beach acreage to
accommodate resident demand. There is, however, localized beach overcrowding
on peak summer days along some stretches of the Resort Area and Sandbridge
beaches. This is due to heavy usage by tourists and/or a narrow beach width. There
is also adequate pedestrian access along most of the region's public beachfront.
Exceptions are the False Cape State Park beaches and Virginia Beach's bayfront.

EXISTING PROPOSALS

0 A number of studies and plans, including the 1984 Virginia Outdoors
Plan,,have proposed -that local governments establish cooperative
agreements with local military installations to allow greater public access
to military controlled ocean and bay beaches.

The state and federal governments are negotiating the possible
construction of a paved -road through the Back Bay National Wildlife
Refuge to provide public shuttle bus service to the False Cape State Park
beaches.

0 A bill introduced to the 1988 Virginia General Assembly by local state
legislators proposed that Camp Pendleton and its beachfront be opened
to the public for recreational use. The bill died in committee.

0 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has prepared a beach replenishment
plan which would widen the Resort Area beach by an additional 60-100
-feet -with -dredging spoils from a Chesapeake Bay channel --deepening
project. This would provide additional beach acreage in an area that
experiences beach capacity problems on peak days in the summer.

The City of Virginia Beach recently matched funds raised by a local
citizen's group to purchase a parcel of open space located immediately
north of the Virginia Beach Maritime Historical Museum on the Resort
Area beach. The current proposal is to develop this parcel into an
oceanfront park for passive recreational activities. The City is also in the
process of developing small oceanfront parks where stub-end streets
currently exist.

The 1979 Virginia General Assembly adopted a resolution, still in effect,
which instructs the Governor to work towards reclaiming portions of the
Fort Story beachfront that belonged to the State prior to World War 11.
The State has been in active pursuit of this objective since 1979.

The City of Virginia Beach has formally requested that the State open the
bayfront beach in Seashore State Park to th4 public. This beach is
currently opened to park campers only.

0 A recent report prepared by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) for the City of
Norfolk proposes renovation of the Ocean View City Pier and the
construction of a boardwalk between the City Pier and Harrison's Pier.
The report also proposes the use of jellyfish nets to improve swimming
opportunities during the summer months.

0 The City of Norfolk plans to develop an additional 20-25 pedestrian
beach access points over the next three years.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

0 Any future road improvement projects along oceanfront and bayfront
beaches should.retain or increase on-street parking opportunities as long
as adequate traffic flow can be maintained. This recommendation does
not apply to the Virginia Beach Resort Area where the City, through its
"Streetscape" program, intends to replace much of the area's on-street
parking with off-street parking facilities to improve traffic flow.
Consideration should also be given to converting existing undeveloped
access rights-of-way to off-street parking facilities.

The City of Virginia Beach should consider or encourage the construction
of multi-level parking structures within a three block walk to the beach.

The City of Virginia Beach should consider the establishment of
additional, or the expansion of, existing surfing areas.

Linkages with existing bikeways and bike storage facilities should be
developed in order to provide bicycle access to beach areas with limited
parking opportunities.

The City of Virginia Beach should continue to work towards a resolution
of the controversy regard ing,public access rights along the Chesapeake
Bay. To prevent such problems from reoccurring, beach access plans
should be developed for residential areas bordering beachfronts. These
plans would specifically address conflicts between private property
owners and non-resident beach users.

RUDEE BASIN, LYNNHAVEN RIVER AND LITTLE CREEK

These three water bodies are similar in that they are all located in the most
densely populated portion of the region and they provide convenient access to
popular f ishing and boating areas in the Atlantic Ocean and lower Chesapeake Bay.
Due to their locations, these water bodies receive the region's heaviest demand for
boat access facilities. Marinas in these systems are filled to capacity, and users of the
small number of publicly accessible boat ramps are usually confronted by severe
parking problems and long delays to launch and retrieve their boats. There is,
therefore, a crucial need for more boat access facilities in all three water bodies.
Land suitable for the development of such facilities is at a premium. Most shoreline
is either already developed with other uses or has environmental constraints that
would preclude the construction of boat ramps and marinas.

In some areas of the Lynnhaven River and Little Creek systems, there is also a
need for more shoreline that is accessible to pedestrians. Most of the shoreline in
these two systems is privately owned and developed for residential use. There are,
therefore relatively few existing public access opportunities.

EXISTING PROPOSALS

The Virginia Beach Resort Area Commission has proposed extending the
Oceanfront Boardwalk to pass under the General Booth Boulevard
Bridge and along the shore of Lake Rudee.

� A proposal developed by local state legislators to convert Camp
Pendleton to a recreational facility includes plans to provide freshwater
fishing and boating opportunities on Lake Christine in the Rudee Basin.
A bill supporting this proposal was introduced during the 1988 General
Assembly Session, but died in committee.

� The Virginia-Beach Saltwater Marina Study, prepared by the City,
recommended three potential marina sites, two in the Lynnhaven system
and one in the Rudee Basin. These sites are as follows:

1 . Property owned by the City known as Davis Island. This site is
located west of the Great Neck Road Bridge between Long Creek
and the Long Creek Canal.

2. Private property on Crab Creek just south of the City-owned Winder
property.

3. Private property located on Lake Rudee between the Ocean Way
Marina and the Virginia Beach Sport Fishing Center.

� The City of Virginia Beach is planning to construct a six-lane public boat
ramp with parking for 200 cars and trailers at a dredge spoil site adjacent
to the west side of Lesner Bridge. This facility would also provide for
other beach7type.recreation of activities.

� The Virginia Beach Mayor's Task Force on the City s Appearance has
proposed a "Fisherman's Wharf" nearthe mouth of the Lynnhaven River
which would include restaurants and pedestrian access areas. The Task
Force also recommends the creation of public waysides along city streets
for public enjoyment of local waterways.

� The City of Virginia Beach is planning to dredge the Eastern Branch of
the Lynnhaven River. This will give waterfront homeowners with boats
access to navigable waters thus alleviating demand pressure for public
and commercial boat access facilities. Ancillary channels to provide
access to the City channel have been proposed, and permits applied for,
-by many homeowners.

� The City of Virginia Beach has designed and will soon begin construction
of Great Neck Park which will be located on the banks of Lynnhaven Bay.
This park will not provide direct water access, but will provide
opportunities for scenic vistas of the Lynnhaven River from elevated
walkways and observation platforms.

� The City of Virginia Beach is considering the development of a Nature
Park on Owl Creek adjacent to the Virginia Marine Science Museum.
Current plans call for the development of interpretive trails, a bicycle
path and improvements to the Owl Creek Boat Ramps.

0 The 1987 ULI Report prepared for the City of Norfolk recommends that
the Shore Drive Bridge be raised in order to allow passage of larger boats
which would encourage boat access facility development upstream of
the bridge. The City of Norfolk has determined that additional analysis
of the economic costs and benefits and engineering feasibility of this
proposal is necessary.

0 The City of Norfolk has proposed the development of a linear park and
waterfront trail along the north shore of Little Creek west of the Shore
Drive Bridge.

0 A condominium project with 309 private marina slips is proposed for a
parcel located on the west side of Little Creek Inlet.

0 An existing marina on Fisherman's Cove in Little Creek has proposed a
204 slip expansion.

0 The City of Norfolk has proposed the construction of a 637 foot elevated
wooden walkway with observation decks which would extend from
Tarrollton Community Park over marshes bordering Little Creek. This
facility would be used by park visitors wishing to observe marsh
vegetation and wildlife.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

� The City of Virginia Beach owns several riverfront parcels left over from
the abandoned Old Donation Parkway project. These parcels meet the
water at locations where the Parkway would have bridged the
Lynnhaven or its tributaries. These locations should be considered for
development as possible canoe put-in/take-out points and passive
waterfront parks. Intensive recreation activities including boat ramps are
inappropriate uses of those sites. Similar facilities could be developed
where other public rights-of-way end at the shore of any of these water
bodies.

0 The spine of the Virginia Beach Scenic Waterway System consists of a
canoe trail that runs along the Eastern Branch of the Lynnhaven River
and then continues along London Bridge Creek, West Neck Creek and the
North Landing River. This trail should be considered for inclusion in a
proposed regional scenic waterways system described in the second
volume of this report.

� The City of Norfolk should consider constructing a boat ramp on the East
Ocean View Elementary School site adjacent to the Ocean View
Community Center.

WILLOUGHBY BAY AND ELIZABETH RIVER

Access problems in these water bodies are similar to those found in the Rudee
Basin, Lynnhaven and Little Creek systems. Because Willoughby Bay and the
downstream areas of the Elizabeth River provide good access to the waters of
Hampton Roads and the lower Chesapeake Bay, there is an extremely high demand
...for boat access points. Nearly all marinas are filled to capacity, and the few publicly
accessible boat ramps are severely overcrowded on peak days in the summer. Also,
the Main Stem and Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River form part of the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway. Transient boaters using the Waterway place heavy demand
on local marina facilities, especially during the "migrations" of boaters heading
south in the fall and north in the spring. Opportunities for developing new boat
access facilities are limited because the vast majority of the shoreline is in private or
military ownership, or is environmentally unsuitable.1 7

Although there are a number of opportunities for pedestrian access to the
waterfront along these two water bodies, there are still extensive sections of
shoreline without access and a numberof existing public waterfront areas that need
improvement.

EXISTING PROPOSALS

0 The 1987 ULI report prepared for the City of Norfolk recommends that
- the City develop an approach to the use of the U.S. Navy's dredge spoils
site on Willoughby Bay at the south end of 4th Vieviv Street for a mixed-
use development that would include a marina.

.0 The City of Norfolk is planning to improve the existing boat ramps at its
Willoughby Bay Landing.

0 The City of Norfolk has proposed a wooden walkway and observation
deck that would extend from the City's tourist information center over
the marsh bordering Willoughby Bay.

0 The City of Norfolk has proposed a waterfront park on an abandoned
landfill site near Lambert's Point which would provide opportunities for
passive waterfront recreation- activities. A grant application to the
National Endowment for the Arts for this project has recently been
rejected. Other funding options are being explored.

The City of Norfolk has proposed two separate but adjacent
developments on the Downtown waterfront. The first, Freemason
Harbor Park, would provide passive recreational opportunities including
pedestrian walkways and an observation deck. The second, the National
Maritime Center, would include a museum, a marina and pedestrian
walkways.

The City of Norfolk's 1976 Recreational Opportunities Plan proposes
several water access facilities that have yet to be developed. These
proposed projects include:
1 . A waterfront walkway along Holly Avenue on the Lafayette
River.

2. Two riverside neighborhood parks on the south shore of the
Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River in the Berkely
neighborhood.

3. The renovation and reopening of the Grandy Park boat ramp.

The 1984 Portsmouth Long Rcinge Recreation and Park, and Open Space
Plan includes a number of projects to improve water access including:

1 . The construction of a boat ramp on Craney Island Creek near
the U.S. Coast Guard Base.

2. A waterfront park at the mouth of Scotts Creek which would
include a boat ramp and opportunities for passive waterfront
recreation activities.

3. An expansion of Bayview Park into the Elizabeth River to
create an area for passive waterfront recreation activities.

4. The construction of a boat ramp facility on the southeast side
of the Victory Boulevard Bridge over Paradise Creek.

5. Cooperative agreements between the City and the Federal
Government to allow public access to federally owned
shoreline for recreational activities.

� The City of Portsmouth is currently preparing a Master Plan for Scotts
Creek. This effort was initiated following requests from local citizens
groups to explore options for developing the Scotts Creek shoreline for
water-oriented residential, recreational and commercial uses.
0 The City of Chesape'ake has re que ste d funding through the VGIF
administered Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Program to construct
a boat ramp on city-owned property adjacent to the Jordan Bridge. This
site-would also be the location of a City-waterfront park. Permit
applications for this project have been submitted to the regulatory
agencies.

� The City of Chesapeake has proposed that a park be developed on a
closed landfill located on the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River near
Great Bridge. This park would provide passive waterfront recreational
activities.

0 A private developer has proposed the construction of a private marina
and boat club on the Forbes site at the mouth of Steamboat Creek.
Success of this project depends on the resolution of a property ownership
dispute.

0. A priv ate developer has received the necessary permits to construct a 162
slip marina at the mouth of Scotts Creek.

0 The owners of the Elizabeth Cove Condominiums have received the
necessary permits to construct a private 56 slip marina for use by the
condominium residents.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

� The four cities in the Elizabeth River Basin should consider special zoning
districts for urban waterfront along the Elizabeth River. These districts
might include height limitations and setbacks to maintain visual access,
pedestrian easements to and along the waterfront, provisions for the
preservation of waterfront open space, and provision of pedestrian
plazas, or land use designations which encourage the development of
water access faci I ities.

0 Consideration shoul d be given to the development of passive recreation
areas and canoe put-in/take-out points where public rights-of-way,
including paper streets, terminate or abutthe shoreline.

� Certain upstream segments of the Elizabeth River are suitable for
canoeing and should be considered for inclusion in a proposed regional
scenic waterways system described in the second volume of this report.

HAMPTON ROADS AND JAMES RIVER

Although these water bodies are heavily used by recreational boaters, the
potential for developing water access facilities along their shorelines is extremely
limited., Nearly all of the waterfront is privately owned and, due to long fetches
along most of the shoreline, boat ramp or marina development would require the
construction of costly wave barriers. The development of swimming beaches and
shore fishing areas is also limited -because existing beaches. are- narrow, are
vegetated or composed of clay and rocks, and are often fronted by fringe marshes
and tidal flats. Despite these constraints, there is still the potential and need for
water-oriented recreational facilities along these shorelines. A few isolated areas
do provide enough shelter for boat access facilities, and the scenic vistas provided by
the high bluffs found along much of the shoreline suggest that there are excellent
opportunities for waterfront passive parks. Also, in areas where shore fishing is

precluded by unfavorable shoreline characteristics, piers would be a means of
providing fishing opportunities.

EXISTING PROPOSALS

The 1984 Portsmouth Long Range Recreation and Park, and Open Space
Plan includes several proposals to improve water access to Hampton
Roads including:

1. City acquisition. of theCraney Island. dredge spoil site, once it
has reached its capacity, to develop it with a mix of water-
related uses includi.ng water-oriented recreation.

2. City acquisition of 122 acres of land along Rivershore Road
that is currently owned by the Virginia Department of
Transportation for development of a waterfront park.

3. Establishment of a lease program with the Frederick Campus
of Tidewater Community College to acquire a site for the
construction of a boat ramp.

The 1984 Virginia Outdoors Plan recommends that upland areas adjacent
to the Ragged.1sland Wildlife Management area be acquired by the State
to increase recreational potential of the site. At-present, most of the site
is marsh and therefore has limited recreational potential. The Plan also
notes the unrealized recreational potential of Tidewater Community
College-Frederick Campus.

The owner of Art's Recreation Facility at Tylers Beach has proposed the
development of a swimming beach, a campground and a small boat
harbor on a site adjacent to the VGIF Tylers Beach Landing.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

0 Consideration should be given to the construction of additional fishing
piers-and platforms. Possible locations might include the Ragged Island
WMA, the U.S. 17 James River Bridge and Fort Boykin Historic Park.

0 Isle of Wight County should-work-with the State Department of
Conservation and Historic Resources to provide passive waterfront
recreation facilities at Fort Boykin Historic Park.

NANSEMOND RIVER, CHUCKATUCK CREEK, PAGAN RIVER AND LAWNES CREEK

These water bodies are tidal tributaries of Hampton Roads and the James River
and are popular destinations for many boaters and fishermen. They are not as

heavily used for recreation as the tidal estuaries in the eastern part of the region.
Because they are located in less densely populated areas and do not provide
convenient access to the popular fishing grounds of the lower Chesapeake Bay and
Atlantic Ocean. Despite a lower demand for water access, there is still a severe
shortage of water access facilities in downstream areas. This shortage is evidenced
by full marinas and frequent long delays at publicly accessible boat ramps during
the summer. -Capacity problems are compounded by' -severe shoaling problems
downstream of the Bennetts Creek Park and Hog Island WMA boat ramps. Capacity
problems are not nearly as acute at water access facilities located in the upper
reaches of the Nansemond River. This is because the long distance to Hampton
Roads and the slow speed limits encountered along the way tend to discourage
boaters and divert them to downstream access facilities. Water access is particularly
poor along Chuckatuck Creek which has no marinas and only one unimproved boat
ramp on shallow water near the Creek's headwaters in Lone Star Lakes Park.

There are also few opportunities for pedestrian shoreline access along these
water bodies. Nearly all of the shoreline is either privately owned or publicly owned
but inaccessible. Again, Chuckatuck Creek has poor shoreline access for pedestrians
with the only opportunity being at the Creek's headwaters in Lone Star Lakes Park.

EXISTING PROPOSALS

0 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has proposed to dredge a navigation
channel in Bennetts Creek- This will improve access.to. the Nansemond
River for boaters using Bennetts Creek Marina and the boat ramp at
Bennetts Creek Park. Due to shoaling problems, access to the River is
presently possible at high tide only.

The City of Suffolk proposes to develop, or solicit proposals to develop, a
marina and launch ramp facility at the abandoned Lone Star wharf on
the Nansemond River in Lone Star Lakes Park. Water access at this
location was also proposed in the Lone Star Lakes Recreation Master Plan
and the 1984 Virginia Outdoors Plan.

� The City of Suffolk plans to solicit proposals for a private mixed use
--clevelopment at Constant's Wharf on the Nansemond River near the
City's downtown area. Current plans are to preserve part of the site for
some type of public use.

� The necessary permits have been obtained to construct a private 35 slip
marina to serve the residents of the Bennetts Creek Landing subdivision.

The owners of Smithfield Station hotel/restau rant on the Pagan River
have proposed a 35 slip addition to the existing marina facility to allow
more visitors to arrive by boat.

0 Gatling Pointe, a residential subdivision currently being constructed on
the Pagan River, will include a private marina.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

� Once the dredging of Bennetts Creek has been completed, the City of
Suffolk should consider expanding its existing boat launch facility in
Bennetts Creek Park.

0 The ramp and parking lot at the Hog Island WMA boat launch are in poor
condition. The VGIF should consider repairing and possibly expanding
the facility.

� Segments of the Nansemond River, the Pagan River and Lawnes Creek
should be included in a regional scenic waterways system described in
the second volume of this report.

BACK BAY, NORTH LANDING RIVER AND NORTHWEST RIVER

These water bodies are tributary to the Currituck Sound in North Carolina. All
three are fresh or brackish water systems with moderate to heavy recreational
usage.

The Back Bay was once one of the most productive hunting and fishing areas
in the state.. During that time, ithe Bay supported a number of boat launching
facilities, marinas and hunt clubs. In recent years, however,@d'uerto a drastic decline
in submerged aquatic vegetation, fishing and waterfowl hunting have been poor.
The cause for the decline in vegetation is currently under investigation, but the
result has been a significant decrease in recreational use of the Bay and a
corresponding decrease in the number of water access facilities. There are now no
functioning marinas on the Bay and only three publicly accessible boat ramps which
are never used to capacity. The Bay is used only moderately for hunting and fishing.
It is hoped, however, that existing and proposed management programs will
improve the Bay habitat and restore the populations of fish and waterfowl species
that once attracted large numbers of hunters and fishermen. The Bay is also
moderately used by those participating in recreation activities other than hunting
and fishing. The relative isolation, natural scenery-and abundance of non-game
wildlife offered by the Bay environment attract participants in such activities as
canoeing, bird watching, wildlife photography and hiking.

Existing boat access facilities on the Back Bay easily accommodate current
levels of demand. These facilities should be maintained to serve existing users and
assure continued water access opportunities if conditions in the Bay improve. There
does appear to be a need for additional shoreline areas which provide convenient
pedestrian access, especially along the western and northern sides of the Bay.
Opportunities for the development of such areas are limited, however, because
nearly all of the shoreline is in private ownership and fronted by extensive marsh
systems.

The North Landing River, unlike the Back Bay, experiences high recreational
usage. This is because it is part of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, provides
good fishing opportunities and, in the downstream areas, is used extensively for
water skiing. The River and its tributaries are included in several scenic waterways
systems and are therefore popular with canoeists. The River and its tributaries are
--included in the Virginia Beach Scenic Waterway System. This system will eventually
be a city-wide network of non-motorized recreational waterways. West Neck
Creek, a tributary of the North Landing, is the first formally designated segment of
the system. The City of Chesapeake also has a scenic waterways program and has
designated Pocaty Creek as one of its six Scenic Waterway Trails. In addition, the
State has recently added a portion of the North Landing River and three of its
tributaries to the State Scenic River System.

Due to the recreational attributes of the North Landing River, existing water
access facilities are heavily used. During the summer, marinas are fully occupied and
nearly all boat ramps are crowded on peak days. The River's largest launching
facility at Munden Point City Park has yet to experience frequent overcrowding, but
park personnel and ramp use data indicate that usage is increasing annually and
capacity problems may develop in the future.18 Shoreline pedestrian access is
severely deficient in the North Landing System. Only one percent of the shoreline is
in public ownership and Munden Point Park has the only accessible publicly owned
shoreline in the system. 1 9-,Development opportunities for additional boat access
points or shoreline pedestrian areas are limited along most.@ofl-the River due to
private land ownership, and the presence of extensive marsh systems and hardwood
swamps.

The Northwest River is moderately used for recreation. The most popular
recreation activity along the Northwest is fishing. The River's status as a water
supply source, however, has limited fishing potential. During the past two
summers, substantial water withdrawals during droughts have resulted in saltwater
intrusion from the Currituck Sound. This has had a detrimental effect on freshwater
fish populations and has discouraged many fishermen. The Northwest has
remained popular for fishing during the spring and fall, however, and is used for
other water-oriented recreational activities throughout the year. A portion of the
system has been designated by the City of Chesapeake as a Scenic Waterway Trail
and attracts a number of canoeists.

Water access in the. Northwest River System is limited. There is only one
publicly accessi ble boat ramp, one ten-slip commercial marina and four canoe put-
in/take-out points. At present, the existing commercial boat ramp is generally able
to accommodate boat access demand, although overcrowding occasionally occurs
on spring weekends. It is expected that, as the region continues to grow, additional
facilities will be needed. Shoreline pedestrian access is currently inadequate. The
only available access is at Northwest River Park where either a shuttle bus ride or a
1-1/4 mile walk is required to reach the main stem of the River. Like Back Bay and

the North Landing River, opportunities forth edevelopment of addition a I access a r e
scarce due to the presence of hardwood swamps between the fastland and the river
channel.

EXISTING PROPOSALS

The 1984 Management Plan for Back Bay recommends that the City of
Virginia Beach adopt zoning in the Back Bay watershed for "areas of
critical community value" which would include water access points.

The Virginia Beach Scenic Waterway Plan, the planning document which
conceptualized the existing Virginia Beach Scenic Waterway System,
recommends the improvement of existing canoe put-in/take-out points
in the Back Bay and North Landing River systems. Such improvements
might include additional parking, signs to identify access points, picnic
tables, restrooms, litter receptacles, or the reconstruction of steep
waterside banks to facilitate access for people carrying canoes from their
cars to the water. The Plan also recommends the establishment of a
11 service center" along West Neck Creek or the North Landing River which
would provide canoeists with parking, canoe access, information
regarding the waterway system, equipment rental, food, restrooms and
possibly camping.

The City of Virginia Beach plans to formally designate portions of the
Back Bay system and additional portions of the North Landing River
system as components of its Scenic Waterway System.

� A segment of the Northwest River from Bunch Walnuts Road to
Northwest River Park has been found by the VDPR to be "worthy of
future evaluation" for inclusion in the Virginia Scenic Waterways System.
No official action has been taken.

0 The City of Chesapeake has acquired a 568 acre parcel of land on Pocaty
Creek which it plans to use for a recreational facility which would provide
water access.

� A private developer has been granted a COE permit for the construction
of a 26 slip private marina on the North Landing River one mile north of
Pungo Ferry..Road.. This marina would serve a proposed residential
subdivision.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

0 The realignment and reconstruction of the Route 168 bridge over the
Northwest River has left an abandoned right-of-way that might be used
in the future as a site for a public boat ramp facility.

0 .,The City of Chesapeake should consider improving the designated canoe
access points located along its Northwest River Scenic Waterway Trail.
Improvements might include signage, additional parking, and bank
reconstruction to facilitate water access.

0 If the City of Chesapeake decides not to proceed with additional water
supply development of the Northwest River, it should request the State
Division of Parks and Recreation to conduct a study to determine
whether the River from Bunch Walnuts Road to Northwest River Park is
eligible for inclusion in the Virginia Scenic River System.

0 The second volume of this report identifies canoe trails in the Back Bay,
North Landing River and Northwest River systems that should be
considered for inclusion in a proposed regional scenic waterways system.

ALBEMARLE AND CHESAPEAKE CANAL AND THE DISMAL SWAMP SYSTEM

These water bodies are freshwater systems compris@d,',,Mai@qjy of manmade
canals and ditches. The only natural component of either of these systems is Lake
Drummond in the Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. This lake is one of only
two natural lakes in Virginia.

The Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal is a segment of the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway which links the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River with the North
Landing River. The level of recreational activity in the Canal is considered moderate
to heavy. The main recreational users of the Canal are shore fishermen, water skiers
and transient boaters following the Intracoastal Waterway. Wakes caused by heavy
commercial and recreational boat traffic along this relatively narrow waterway
generally preclude canoeing and fishing f rorn small boats.

There are two small marina and boat ramp facilities which provide boat access
to the Canal. These marinas are filled to capacity in the summer and the boat ramps
are heavily used, but are rarely overcrowded. Adequate shoreline pedestrian access
is lacking. There are only two areas providing public access, and only one of these
areas, Great Bridge Locks Park, is developed specifically for public access.

The Dismal Swamp System consists of three main water bodies, (the Dismal
Swamp Canal, the Feeder Ditch and Lake Drummond) and a number of unnavigable
drainage ditches. The Dismal Swamp -Canal, a component of the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, is open only to smaller recreational craft and offers an

alternative to the more active Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal/North Landing
River route. Recreational use of the Dismal Swamp water bodies is usually
moderate with the primary users being fishermen, canoeists and transient boaters
following the Intracoastal Waterway. During the past several summers, however,
there has been a decline in recreational usage due to the closing of the Dismal
Swamp Canal locks. The locks were closed to maintain water levels in the Dismal
.;.Swamp National Wildlife Refuge during droughts, and to make lock repairs-.- -During
the closures, boat ramp access was still possible at the VGIF Dismal Swamp Canal
Landing, but transient boaters and local boaters depending on the locks were
denied access.

The VGIF boat ramp and numerous canoe put-in/take-out points along the
Dismal Swamp Canal and the FWS boat ramp on Lake Drummond adequately serve
the existing demand for boat access to the Dismal Swamp system. Pedestrian
shoreline access is adequate along the Dismal Swamp Canal due to five waysides
along U.S. 17 which parallels the Canal. Pedestrian access to the Feeder Ditch and
Lake Drummond, however, is very difficult. A public Army Corps of Engineers
campground, which is accessible only by boat, is located next to the Feeder Ditch.
The Refuge's trail system offers an opportunity for a three mile hike to the shore of
Lake Drummond from the west side of the Refuge.

EXISTING PROPOSALS

_A 1987 report entitled,- Trail Opportunities in the City of Chesapeake,
which was prepared by the SVPDC for the City ofrChetzipie'ake, proposes
two recreational trail facilities that would improve pedestrian access to
the Albemarle and Chesapeake and the Dismal Swamp Canals. These
proposals are as follows:

1 . An eight mile hiking trail along the Albemarle and
Chesapeake Canal. This trail would offer shore fishing
opportunities, scenic waterfront vantage points for hikers and
possibly small shorefront parks for passive recreational
activities.

2. A 12.4 mile hiking trail along the Dismal Swamp Canal. This
.-trail would also offer shore fishing opportunities and scenic
vantage points. It would also benefit from the existing
recreational facilities at the six waysides along U.S. 17.

The 1986 draft Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Master Plan
contains several proposals that would improve public access to the
Refuge's water bodies. These proposals include:

1 . Construct a boardwalk and visitor contact point on the shore
of Lake Drummond.

2. Open currently impassable ditchesto canoeing.

3. Develop a visitor contact point on the Dismal Swamp Canal
near the mouth of the Feeder Ditch.

4. Re-establish a private concession to operate private boat tours
to Lake Drummond from Arbuckle Landing on U.S. 17 at the
mouth of the Feeder Ditch.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION

0 The two Chesapeake Scenic Waterway Trails located within the Dismal
Swamp System (the Dismal Swamp Canal Trail and the Feeder Ditch Trail)
should be considered for inclusion in a proposed regional scenic
waterways system described in the second volume of this report.

NORFOLK, PORTSMOUTH AND SUFFOLK RESERVOIR SYSTEMS AND MOUNT
TRASHMORE LAKES

These four water systems comprise a total of twenty-six manmade lakes. All,
except the two Mount Trashmore Lakes, are water supply impoundments, and, all
but three of Norfolk's In-Town Lakes and one of Suffolk's lakes, are accessible to the
public for recreational use. Fishing is the most popular recreational activity on these
lakes. This is due primarily to ongoing VGIF programs which stock sixteen of the
twenty-two publicly accessible lakes- Fishing pressures and boat access demand are
high during the spring months when freshwater fishing is alits.pj@ak-

Because most of these lakes are water supply impoundments, many
recreational activities are limited or prohibited. Depending on the lake, outboard
motors are either prohibited or are limited to ten or twelve horsepower. In
addition, swimming and water skiing are prohibited in all lakes. With the exception
of Lake Trashmore, pedestrian access is strictly controlled along all lake shorelines.
Due to extensive private land ownership around many lakes and the need for the
cities owning the lakes to maintain water quality, pedestrian access opportunities
are nonexistent on some lakes and limited to a few small, well-defined areas on
other lakes.

Twenty-two public ramps provide access to seventeen of the -twenty-two
publicly accessible lakes. At present, the existing ramps are able to accommodate
ost of the demand for boat access. Fishing pressures and boat ramp usage have
been steadily increasing in recent years, however, especially in the Norfolk Western
m

and Portsmouth Reservoirs. This is due to an increasing regional population and a
decline in fishing success in Back Bay and the Norfolk In-Town Lakes.20 There have
been occasions on some spring weekends and holidays when certain ramp facilities
along some of the better fishing lakes have become overcrowded. Some of this
growing demand could be accommodated through improvements to existing
ramps. A number of public ramps are in states of disrepair and/or have inadequate
parking facilities.

As alluded to above, there is also a deficiency of shoreline pedestrian areas in
some of the water systems. Pedestrian access is good in the Suffolk Reservoir and
Trashmore Lakes systems, fair in Norfolk's In-Town system, and poor in the Norfolk
Western and Portsmouth systems. The Norfolk Western and Portsmouth Reservoirs,
which consist of seven lakes and nearly 5,000 acres of water, have only four small
shore fishing areas and one lakefront park where -access to the water's edge is
prohibited.

EXISTING PROPOSALS

� The City of Norfolk has embarked on a program to improve existing and
develop new boat ramp facilities on both the Western Reservoir and In-
Town Lakes.

0 The Cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth are considering the development
of additional pedestrian shoreline access and fishing piers on their water
supply lakes in Suffolk. These facilities would be of a barrier-free design
to ensure access by the widest range of participants.

� The City of Suffolk has plans to improve boat ramp facilities on its water
supply lakes in Lone Star Lakes Park.

� The 1984, Virginia Outdoors -Plan recommends that additional
recreational facilities such as picnic grounds-and hiking traits be
developed at the Norfolk Western and Portsmouth reservoirs.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

� One of the alignment alternatives for the proposed Constitution Drive
Flyover projectwould involve a bridge over a portion of Lake Trashmore.
If this alternative is selected and safety permits, consideration should be
given to constructing a catwalk along the bridge forfishing.

� Consideration should be given to developing a regional public park with
water access facilities at Stumpy Lake. The City of Norfolk currently
but has put up for sale, the Lake and about 1,000 acres of
surrounding land. Part of this property is being used for a golf course,
but the remaining land is undeveloped open space and would be ideal
for-a-regional-scale park; -Development of a regional park at Stumpy
Lake was included in the 1984 Virginia Outdoor Plan and in the 1972
SVPDC Regional Open Space Plan.

� Certain lakes in the Norfolk, Portsmouth and Suffolk reservoir systems
should be considered for inclusion in a proposed regional scenic
waterways system described in the second volume of this report.

BILACKWATER AND NOTTOWAY RIVERS

These two freshwater streams traverse Southeastern Virginia and merge at the
North Carolina line to form the Chowan River which ultimately flows into the
Albemarle Sound. The degree of recreational activity along both of these streams
varies depending on location. In the upstream areas, recreational activity is light to
moderate. This is due to navigation difficulties (shallow water, timber snags, and a
narrow, poorly defined stream bed), limited access and low population density.
Upstream reaches are mostly used for canoeing, fishing and hunting. In the wider
downstream areas, recreational activity is generally moderate, but can be heavy on
some peak days during the summer. Popular recreational activities in the
downstream areas include fishing, power boating and waterskiing.

Ramp facilities along the upper reaches of these rivers are currently able to
accommodate boat access demand. In downstream areas, however, ramps can
become overcrowded on peak summer days and the waters of the lower Nottoway
are sometimes overly congested with water skiers. Pedestrian access to both rivers is
extremely poor. Nearly all of the shoreline is in private ownership and the small
areas of publicly owned riverfront have not been improved for public access. Public
riverfront pedestrian access is possible only at small areas adjacent to the five VGIF
boat landings (two on the Blackwater and three on the Nottoway).

EXISTING PROPOSALS

0 A 1983 study conducted for the City of Franklin by an American Institute
of Architects Regional/Urban Design Team recommended that a
- community park be developed at Barrett's Landing at the southern end
of Main Street. This park would include a terrace overlooking the
Blackwater, picnictablesand boat rental facilities.

9 The City of Franklin Comprehensive Plan (1980 Update) proposes a linear
park consisting of trails and natural areas which would follow the
Blackwater River through Franklin. The.Plan also includes a regional
recreation/natural area along the Blackwater to the north of the City.
This area was originally proposed in the 1979 Virginia Outdoors Plan.

0 The 1984 Virginia Outdoors Plan recommends that additional water
access points be developed along both the Blackwater and Nottoway
Rivers.

0 The VDPR has determined that a 12.5 mile segment of the Blackwater
River between Zuni and Franklin qualifies for inclusion in the Virginia
Scenic Rivers System. No legislative action has been taken. The VDPR has
also found that other segments of both the Blackwater and Nottoway
Rivers are worthy of future evaluation.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

0 The Counties of Isle of Wight and Southampton should formally request
that the General Assembly designate the Blackwater River from Zuni to
Franklin as a component of the Virginia Scenic River System. Also, the
two Counties and the Cities of Franklin and Suffolk should request that
the VDPR conduct evaluations to determine whether other segments of
the Blackwater and Nottoway qualify for inclusion in the State Scenic
Rivers System.

0 Segments of both the Blackwater and Nottoway Rivers should be
considered for inclusion in a proposed regional scenic waterways system
described in the second volume of this report.

0 The local governments should work with the Virginia Department of
Transportation and the VDPR to develop additional boat access facilities
at highway bridges across the Blackwater and Nottoway Rivers and their
principal tributaries.

THE SITING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
WATER ACCESS FACILITIES

Because water access facilities can significantly impact or be impacted by the
surrounding environment, their development must take into account a number of
environmental, social and economic issues. Many of these issues are addressed
through federal, state and local regulatory procedures, while other non-regulated
issues can be resolved through careful siting and design of water access projects.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the existing regulations
governing water access development and to propose guidelines for facility siting
and design. This chapter is divided into separate discussions for boat access facilities
(marinas, boat ramps and canoe put-initake-out points) and shoreline pedestrian
access areas (beachfront, fishing areas and other shoreline recreation areas).

BOAT ACCESS FACILITIES

MARINAS

The construction and operation of a marina has the potential for severe
environmental impacts. Possible adverse impacts include the loss of upland,
wetland or benthic habitat due to dredging or filling activities, decline in water
quality due to stormwater runoff, discharges from boats or bottom paint
dissolution, and degradation of aesthetic values. The significance of these impacts
will not be the same for every marina. The extent of adverse environmental impacts
associated with marina development is a function of many interrelated, project-
specific variables including the degree of dredging and filling activities, existing
.-hydrologic characteristics (particularly flushing rates, depths and wave heights),
existing water quality, upland soil and topographic conditions, the presence of
sensitive plant and animal communities, the size and design of a marina, the types
of services offered at a marina, the cumulative environmental impacts of other
shoreline uses, and the existing uses and navigation patterns of the adjacent water
body.

Due to the potential severity and complexities of the environmental impacts
associated with marina construction and operation, marina development is subject
to strict regulatory procedures. Depending on the scope of a marina project, the
following federal, state and local permits may be required.21

A Federal permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for the
discharge of dredged or fill materials in navigable waters, their
tributaries and adjacent wetlands. In addition, a certification from the
State Water Control Board that no adverse water quality impacts will
result will be required before a permit is granted.

A state permit from the
Virginia Marine Resources
Commission (VMRC) for all
non-exempt activities
affecting State-owned
subaqueous lands. Also
before a VMRC permit can
be granted for the
development of a marina, a
plan for sewage treatment
or disposal must be
approved by the State
'61
Department of Health. RMMA
BENNETTS CREEK MARINA
0 A state or local permit is required for any activities which alter vegetated
or nonvegetated tidal wetlands. This permit is obtained from local
authorities when a locality has adopted a State-approved wetlands
ordinance and established a wetlands board. The permit is processed
through the VMRC when a locality has elected notto adopt an ordinance
establishing a wetlands board. In Southeastern Virginia, Chesapeake, Isle
of Wight County, Norfolk, Suffolk and Virginia Beach have wetlands
boards, while the VMRC has administered the permit process for
Portsmouth. Portsmouth has recently established a local Wetlands
Board. Franklin and Southampton County do not have tidal wetlands
and are therefore not subject to the permitting process. Local
government development activity on publicly owned land is exempt
from this permit requirement.

0 At the local level, a marina developer will, in most cases, have to obtain a
rezoning and/or a conditional use permit before a building permit is
issued.

The intensive development of the region's shoreline over the last two decades
has eliminated many suitable locations for marina development. As a result, sites
proposed for marinas are often environmentally marginal and do not satisfactorily
meet the criteria necessary to obtain federal, state or local permit approval. Table 5
presents a synthesis of the criteria used by federal, state and local authorities in
evaluating marina development proposals. These criteria should be given
consideration early in the process of siting any marina facility.

BOAT RAMPS

Like marina development, the construction and operation of boat ramp
facilities is likely to have an adverse impact on the shoreline environment. In
general, however, boat ramp impacts are much less significant than marina impacts.
This is because boat ramp facilities are generally smaller in scale, accommodate less
noxious uses and usually require less encroachment on subaqueous land. Boat ramp
development is subject to the Federal COE, State subaqueous and State/local
wetlands permit requirements described above.
I As with marina development, there
77-11T7, is a scarcity of shoreline that is both
environmentally suitable for boat
ramp development and located in an
area where boat ramp access is
deficient. The Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries has
developed criteria to assist in the
identification of suitable landing sites
and to ensure the proper design and
construction of boat ramps. These
criteria are contained in Table 6.

PUBLIC RAMP AT LAKE PRINCE

TABLE 5
GUIDELINES FOR THE SITING AND DESIGN OF MARINA FACILITIES

LOCATION

1. The need for a marina facility should be clearly demonstrated.

2. The additional vessels drawn to a waterway by a new facility should not
exceed the carrying capacity of that waterway.

3. The physical dimensions and characteristics of a waterway (i.e. depth,
current, tide range, fetch,-surface area, flushing rate) should be
compatible with the size and design of a marina and the type of vessels it
will berth.

4. Vessel movement in and out of a facility should not infringe on the
riparian waters of adjacent properties or interfere with navigation on
the receiving waterway.

5. Convex shoreline areas at the mouths of waterways are preferred
locations. Also, deep water sites are preferred over sites where dredging
is required.

6. Marinas should be sited away from productive or actively worked
shellfish areas, seagrass communities, finfish spawning areas and areas
..frequented by endangered species.

7. The site should be served by public water and sewer services.

8. A marina should be compatible with adjacent land and water uses.

9. A marina should not restrict existing physical or visual waterfront access.

DESIGN

1 . Marinas should have sufficient upland area to accommodate necessary
parking, storm water management best management practices, fuel and
sanitary faci-lities. __r
2. An upland or deep water site should be identified for construction and
maintenance dredging spoils

3. Structures should not extend more than one-third the distance across a
waterway and should not impede existing navigation.

TABLE 5
GUIDELINES FOR THE SITING AND DESIGN OF MARINA FACILITIES
(Continued)

4. If a site involves wetlands, all structures except those needed for access
should be located landward or channelward of wetland vegetation. The
dredging or filling of wetlands should always be kept to an absolute
minimum.

5. All structures should be open-pile orfloating.

6. Slips for deep draft boats should be built in the naturally deeper waters
of the marina.

7. Dredging of access channels and basins should be kept to a minimum.
Where channels and basins are necessary, dead-end canals and restricted
inlets should be avoided and depths of basins and channels should not
exceed depth of receiving waters.

8. Design of breakwaters should permit adequate water circulation within
the facility.

9. Dry storage facilities are encouraged to minimize, e.nvironmental impacts.

Sources: Existing and proposed VIVIRC regulations.
COE, EPA, FWS and NIVIFS permit evaluation criteria.
Virclinia Beach Saltwater Marina Study, updated 1987.

TABLE 6
GUIDELINES FOR THE SITING AND DESIGN OF BOAT RAMPS

LOCATION

1. Primary consideration should be given to sites in areas where the
demand for boat ramp facilities exceedsthe supply.

2. Sites should be at least three to five acres in size with two or more acres
suitable for parking.

3. Water depth should be a minimum of two feet at the end of the ramp at
mean low water.

4. Avoid sites with excessive siltation or erosion.

5. Sites requiring extensive dredging or filling should be avoided.

6. Site should be close to a public road to avoid the expense of access road
construction.

DESIGN
1. Build ramps at a slope of eleven to thirteen percent witS'lane widths
between twelve and sixteen feet.

2. Ramps constructed on flowing rivers should enterthe river at an angle to
facilitate boat launching and reduce siltation.

3. Extend the ramp to a depth of five feet, install riprap at the end of the
ramp or increase the slope for the last ten to fifteen feet of the ramp to
protect the end of the ramp.

4. Provide about 35 car-trailer parking spaces for each launching lane. Each
car-trailer space should be ten-feet wide -and forty feet long, and the
parking lot should provide adequate maneuvering room.

5. If two launch lanes are constructed, build a pier between the two to
serve both lanes and to insure that one user cannot tie up both lanes.

6. Support facilities should include litter receptacles and restrooms.

Source: Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, 1986.

CANOE PUT-INfTAKE-OUT POINTS

Because the development of canoe put-
in/take-out points does not normally involve
filling or dredging activities, encroachment
on subaqueous land or the alteration of
wetlands, the permits discussed in the
previous sections of this chapter are usually
not required. Many existing informal canoe I
access points are located next to bridge
crossings on land owned by the Virginia sm
Department of Transportation (VDOT). The
VDOT does not encourage the use of these
locations for water access, but will not
prohibit access unless negligent use occurs.
Should a locality wish to develop a formal
canoe access point on VDOT owned land a
special use permit must be obtained from the POCATY CREEK AT EILACKWATER ROAD
VDOT.

Compared to marinas and boat ramps, canoe access points have few adverse
environmental impacts, require little in the way of construction and ' maintenance
work, and are relatively inexpensive to develop. Table 7 contains siting and design
criteria for canoe access points.

SHORELINE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AREAS

BEACHIFRONT

In Southeastern Virginia, nearly all of the unrestricted beachfront has been
developed for public beach use. There are, however, extensive segments of
restricted and closed beaches which are suitable for development as public beaches.
If these beaches ever become available for public usage, there are a number of
factors which must be considered in their development. Public beaches require
extensive support facilities. These facilities include restrooms, showers, drinking
fountains, litter receptacles, rental equipment and food concessions, and life guard
facilities. Public beach development
@A may also require the construction of
facilities that impact or alter the
primary coastal dune system. Such
facilities might include access roads to
the beach site, parking lotS,22 and
pedestrian and/or emergency vehicle
44@
access points to the waterfront
through the dune line. The State, in

PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS, VIRGINIA BEACH -NORTH END

TABLE 7
GUIDELINES FOR THE SITING AND DESIGN OF
CANOE PUT-IN/TAKE-OUT FACILITIES

LOCATION

1 - Facility should be on a waterway that is suitable for canoeing and along a
stretch of that waterway that is deficient in canoe access opportunities.

2. Access point should be within a short portage of parking area.

3. Facility should not be located on water that is t oo shallow, has an
extreme drop-off, has severe currents or has underwater obstructions.

DESIGN

1 . Approach to waterway should not be too steep and should be clear of
brush. if banks are steep, consideration should be given to
reconstructing the bank through grading and possibly the installation of
steps.

2. Site should provide adequate and safe parking, preferably in an off-road
location.

3. Site should have picnic tables, litter receptacles, restrooms, an
-information kiosk and signs which designate the site as a canoe access
facility.

Source: Virginia Beach Scenic Waterway Plan, 1985.

recognizing the environmental importance of coastal primary dunes, has
promulgated strict development guidelines and permitting procedures for activities
which alter dunes. Under State enabling legislation, a locality which has a State-
approved wetlands ordinance and a wetlands board may adopt a primary sand
dunes ordinance and entrust its wetlands board with the permitting process. In
Southeastern Virginia, the two localities with coastal primary dunes, Norfolk and
Virginia Beach, have locally administered sand dune permitting programs. It should
be noted, however, that local government activity on publicly owned or leased
property is exempt from the permitting requirements. in other words, if a city is
developing a public beach on land owned or leased by that city, a sand dune
development permit would not be required.

FISHING AREAS

Development of a fishing area might be as simple as opening up a stretch of
publicly owned shoreline to fishing or as extensive as constructing an open water
pier. For the most part, the development of fishing areas is not as heavily regulated
as the development of other water access facilities. The development of shoreline
fishing areas is not subject to federal COE, state subaqueous or state/local wetlands
permits unless dredging or filling of wetlands or subaqueous land is required. The
construction of noncommercial fishing piers does not require a wetlands permit,
but may require a state subaqueous and/or a federal COE permit. The construction
of commercial fishing piers, however, is subject to all three permitting procedures.,
Table 8 lists suggested guidelines for siting and designing fishing facilities.

OTHER SHORELINE RECREATIONAL AREAS

Because these shoreline facilities accommodate recreational activities that do
not require direct access to the water, their development generally has minimal
impact on the marine environment. It may be desirable at some facilities, however,
to construct elevated walkways and/or observation platforms over wetlands or open
water for nature observation or to provide scenic vistas. Construction of such
facilities by a local government may require a federal COE and/or a state
subaqueous permit, but not a state/local wetlands permit. Guidelines for the siting
and design of shoreline facilities that do not provide boat access and are unsuitable
for swimming or fishing are found in Table 9.

TOWN POINT PARK

TABLE 8
GUIDELINES FOR THE SITING AND DESIGN OF FISHING FACILITIES

LOCATION

1 Facility should be located.on a water body with a productive fishery and
acceptable water quality.

2. Consideration should be given to potential conflicts with adjacent land
use and other water activities.

3. A shore fishing area should be free of obstructions such as steep banks,
dense brush or low hanging tree limbs. Also, the water fronting a fishing
area should be of sufficient depth and devoid of underwater
obstructions that would interfere with fishing.

4. Consideration should be given to incorporating fishing facilities into
water-related construction projects. For example, catwalks and
platforms can be built into bridge projects, or fishing areas can be
developed in areas adjacent to bridge approaches. Safety considerations
must be integral to the location and design of such facilities. Fishing
areas may also be developed at park sites, next to boat landings, on
breakwaters, along bulkheading projects or.at h.ighway waysides.
Adequate space for safe parking must exist or be easily provided.

DESIGN

1. Support facilities appropriate to fishing areas include parking areas,
restrooms, drinking fountains, litter receptacles, picnic tables, fish
cleaning facilities, and boat rental, bait and food concessions.

2. Fishing structures should be of barrier-free design to afford fishing
opportunities for the widest range of participants.

3. - Piers should be of open-pile construction, and piers constructed over
vegetated wetlands should be high enough to prevent loss of existing
vegetation through shading.

Sources: Existing VMRC regulations.
Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, 1988.

TABLE 9
GUIDELINES FOR THE SITING AND DESIGN OF SHORELINE RECREATION
AREAS1

LOCATION

1 - Site should offer special qualities that will attract public usage (e.g.,
scenic vistas or nature observation).

2. Public access to the shoreline (either pedestrian or visual) should be
incorporated whenever possible into public and private waterfront
development projects. Such projects might include waterfront retail,
office, residential or mixed use developments, marinas, public parks, and
highways.

DESIGN

1. Conflicts between public shoreline access facilities and adjacent uses
might be mitigated by design techniques such as grade separation,
landscaping and natural buffering, and fences.

2. .,Rec.reational facilities that.might-be included in public shoreline areas
include piers and observation decks, telescopes, play grounds,
amphitheaters, walkways or bike paths along the waterfront, children's
play areas, and picnic tables. Support facilities might include parking
areas, park benches, food concessions, restroorns and litter receptacles.
Facilities should be barrierfree.

3. Publicly accessible waterfront in downtown areas should be well lit,
patrolled frequently by law enforcement personnel and designed so as to
provide an overall sense of security.

Source: Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, 1988.

1 Includes areas that provide waterfront access but do not provide boat access
and are not physically or environmentally suitable forswimming orfishing.

STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING WATER ACCESS

This chapter identifies and briefly describes a number of strategies that local
governments can use to improve water access. These strategies have been divided
into four categories: land use controls, land acquisition techniques, state and
federal programs and cooperative agreements forjoint use.

LAND USE CONTROLS

A number of traditional and innovative land use controls can be implemented
by local governments to promote public shoreline access. These strategies can be
used to control development on privately owned land, or on publicly owned land to
be sold, leased or donated for private development.

PRIVATELY OWNED LAND

Under a local government's "police powers" to regulate the use of privately
owned land, a number of techniques exist to encourage public shoreline access.
These techniques follow.

Traditional Zoning

In re-cog.nizing that the-waterfront is -a. unique area deserving special
treatment, a local government may adopt a "waterfront zon.e" aspartof itsexisting
zoning ordinance. This zoning classification would regulate waterfront
development by specifying permitted as-of-right and conditional shoreline uses,
and by establishing design and siting criteria that are appropriate to waterfront
development. It could also be employed to insure that physical and/or visual water
access opportunities are maintained or created. Because of the environmental
sensitivity of shoreline areas, a locality may also want to consider the inclusion of
performance standards in a waterfront zoning classification. Performance
standards permit land use activities up to the point at which they begin to interfere
with or harm environmental processes.

Waterfront zoning would be most effective if implemented in conjunction
with the adoption of special waterfront planning areas. These planning areas
would be incorporated into the city or county comprehensive plan and would be
subject to area-specific goals, objectives and policies established by the community
to govern waterfront development.

Concessions from Developers

Developers of waterfront properties can be encouraged to provide water
access through the following techniques:

0 Open Space Dedication Requirement. In some Southeastern Virginia
]ocalities, as a condition for approval of a final subdivision plat, a city or
county may require a developer to reserve or dedicate land for parks,
schools or similar public uses. If a proposed subdivision is located on the
water, an open.,space dedication requirement -may be used to acquire
and develop a water access site.

Rezoning Negotiations. During rezoning negotiations, a developer of a
waterfront site may be encouraged by a locality to provide water access
as a condition forthe desired rezoning.

Density Bonuses. Zoning ordinances might be revised to allow the
granting of development bonuses to developers who provide some type
of public benefit. For example, a waterfront developer who incorporates
public waterfront access into his project would be allowed an increase in
the project's floor area ratio or in the number of allowable units per acre.

Overlay Zoning

1.4
Overlay zoning offers an alternative to the sometimes static nature of
traditional zoning. Overlay zones "float" over a community and are placed in
specific locations, such as waterfront areas, when they are needed. These zones are
not intended to replace existing zoning. Instead, they impose additional regulatory
provisions to strengthen existing zoning. If current zoning is outdated or
inefficient, it would be better to undertake a comprehensive rezoning than to apply
an overlay zone. In a waterfront area, overlay zoning is typically used to promote
public access to the water, improve scenic and aesthetic controls, and encourage
compatibility among shoreline uses.

Special Di5trict5

Special districts are sub-units of local government which are created to provide
services to or to govern the development of a specified area. These districts are
Jormed.wh.en the needs of-an-area cannot-be adequately met by local governmental
processes. Created through state enabling legislation, special districts often have
powers similar to those held by local governments, including eminent domain,
taxation powers, and controls over planning and urban design. Special districts
have specific boundaries and the powers granted to the appointed or elected
officials of the district apply only within these boundaries. In waterfront areas, the
special district is often used to address a variety of community issues including

public shoreline access. Other issues might include economic development, historic
preservation, recreation, and open space conservation.

Planned Unit Development

A strategy that is particularly effective in preserving waterfront open space
and creating water access opportunities is planned unit development (PUD). PUD is
a land use control technique in which subdivision and zoning regulations apply to
an entire project area rather than to individual lots. Through the PUD approach,
development density criteria are. applied to the whole project area rather than to
specific parcels. This allows a PUD designer to cluster development and maximize
areas available forthe developmentof public facilities and the preservation of open
space. In a waterfront setting, PUD can be used to preserve environmentally critical
shoreline areas, and to leave shoreline open for the development of waterfront
parks and/or boat access facilities.

Transfer of Development Rights

Another method for preserving waterfront open space is through the transfer
of development rights (TDR). The TDR process allows a property owner to transfer
(sell) his development rights to a developer of another site. That developer would
then be allowed to increase the density or size of his development. The advantage
to this approach is. that the. loss of . development potential due to governmental
action does not result in financial loss to the property owner. Like PUD, this
technique could be used to preserve the shoreline environment and improve public
water access. Before TDR can be implemented, however, a city or county ordinance
must be adopted which delineates eligible transfer and receiving properties, and
clearly defines the restrictions and criteria guiding the process.

PUBLICLY OWNED LAND

If a locality decides to sell, lease or donate waterfront property to a private
developer, there are two ways that it can insure that the property is developed in
such a manner that public physical and visual access to the water is maintained or
created. First, any land transfer agreement between public and private entities
-could include stipulations that dictate the amount 'location and types of public
access to be provided; any design criteria to be used in the development of water
access facilities; and any waterfront property that is to remain in public ownership.
Second, where land is-disposed of through a competitive bid process, the use of a
Request for Proposals (RFP) can be effective in exacting development concessions.
An RFP can stipulate that, for a proposal to be considered, it must meet certain
water access and facility design criteria.

LAND ACQUISITION TECHNIQUES

This section identifies and briefly describes a variety of techniques that can be
used by local governments to acquire waterfront land for the purpose of
developing water access facilities.

.-FEE-SIMPLE ACQUISITION

Fee simple acquisition is the assumption of complete ownership of land
through outright purchase, gift, condemnation or purchase with donated funds.
Unless land is acquired through donation, this is the most expensive way of
acquiringland. It does assure, however, that a locality will have full control over the
use of the purchased land.

One variation of fee-simple acquisition is a purchase/leaseback arrangement.
Under this arrangement, a local government will purchase land and lease it back to
a private interest which will develop it. There are several advantages to this
approach. First, the local government can defray acquisition costs with revenues
from the leaseback arrangement. Second, the costs of improvements are assumed
by the developer. Finally, and most important in the context of waterfront access, a
local government can attach stipulations to the lease requiring that the developer
provide public benefits, including physical and visual access.

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

A conservation easement is a technique by which certain rights to the use of
land are granted, through sale or donation, by a landowner to a public agency or a
conservation organization. Private property ownership is retained by the
landowner. Only those rights which he specifically agrees to forego are transferred
to the recipient of the easement. An easement is signed and recorded like other
deeds and is a covenant running with the property title. The State Open Space Land
Act of 1966 enables all public landholding bodies in Virginia to use conservation
easements. The 1988 Virginia General Assembly passed a bill creating the Virginia
Conservation Easement Act. This Act enables private, tax-exempt conservation
organizations to acquire conservation easements.

In waterfront areas, conservation easements are used to protect
environmentally critical shoreline, to provide public access to or along the shoreline,
andlor to provide visual access by restricting building heights or creating setbacks.
Conservation. easements benefit property owners by providing tax breaks and
assurances that land will remain perpetually undeveloped. They can provide public
benefits by achieving conservation and water access objectives without having to
commitfunds forfee-simple land acquisition.

LAND BANKING

Land banking is the public purchase of land which is held in reserve for resale
or future public development. Land banking can be used by a locality as a hedge
against predicted inflation in land values, to control the pattern of private
development orto obtain optimum locations for future public facilities. Largescale
.-....lancl banking is generally impractical for most localities because it requires large
capital outlays, is often politically unpopular and takes property off the tax rolls.
Small scale land banking, however, is more feasible in that it can provide specific
sitesforfuture public water access facilities, and.itcan allow localities to control and
attach appropriate deed restrictions and covenants to the eventual disposition of
public waterfront land for private development.

LAND TRUSTS

Land trusts are similar to land banks. The principal difference is that land is
acquired for conservation only, without intentions for eventual resale or
development. Limited public waterfront access can often be developed on land
held for conservation purposes. Land trusts are usually established by state
governments or private nonprofit organizations. The primary role of many private
land trusts is to pre-acquire conservation land for conveyance to public agencies. In
this way, private land trusts can offset the limited land acquisition funding capacity
of the public sector., The creation of land trusts by local governments is not
common, but it may be worth investigating. The prime disadvantage in establishing
a public land trust is finding a dependable, longterm funding source. Manypublic,
trusts are funded by periodic bond authorizations. Other potential sources include
general funds, recreation user fees and rental fees from environmentally
appropriate uses of land trust properties.

STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS

A number of state, federal and joint state/federal programs exist which can be
used to develop local water access facilities. Some of these programs were created
specifically to provide water access. Others were devised to achieve other
objectives, but water access may be realized as a secondary benefit.

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Prograrm

The Federal Aid in. Sport Fish Restoration Program has been -the principal
source of public funds for the development of water access facilities. This program
diverts the federal excise taxes on fishing tackle, motorboat fuel taxes and impart
duties on tackle and boats to state fishery agencies for the development of sport
fisheries and boat access projects. The Sport Fish Restoration Program is
administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) at the federal level. At the
state level, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VGIF) receives program
funds from the FWS, combines them with fishing license revenues and then provides

grants to eliglible recipients for Federally approved projects. A variety of water
access projects can be approved for funding as long as they promote state fishery
management objectives. These projects might include boat ramps, docking and
marina facilities, breakwaters, restrooms, parking areas and maintenance of
existing facilities. Eligible recipients include other state agencies, county or
municipal governments, universities or private organizations.

Sport Fish Restoration funds are provided as a 75% reimbursement for
completed projects. This means that the VGIF must fund 100% of a project.up-
front. The VGIF has indicated that chances- _f or--acceptance of a. project into the
program will be greatly enhanced if a local recipient rather than the State provides
the 25% share not covered by Sport Fish Restoration funding. The VGIF is also more
inclined to consider sites that are readily available and do not have to be acquired
by the State.

The development of a number of boat ramp facilities in Southeastern Virginia
was made possible by the Sport Fish Restoration Program. For a proposed boat
ramp to be accepted into the program, it must meet certain VGIF siting and design
criteria (See Table 6). In addition, once a proposed boat ramp site has been
accepted into the program, the VGIF reserves the right to conduct all design and
construction activities. The locality will be responsible for maintaining and
operating the ramp.

Virginia Board on Conservation and Development of Public Beaches,Grant Program

The Virginia Board on Conservation and Development of Public Beaches was
created under the Public Beach Conservation and Development Act of 1980 to
conserve, protect, improve, maintain and develop public beaches for the benefit,
use and enjoyment of the citizens of the Commonwealth. In keeping with this
mandate, the Board administers a grant program to provide local governments with
up to 50% fund assistance for erosion abatement projects on public beaches. A
public beach is defined by the Act as a sandy beach located on a tidal shoreline
suitable for bathing and open to indefinite public use. To qualify for a beach
development grant, a local government must have an erosion advisory commission.

--Projects funded by this program often provide water access as well as erosion
control benefits. For example, the City of Norfolk recently applied for a beach
development grant to construct elevated beach accessways over the dunes to the
Chesapeake B.ay beachfront. -This project will.serve-the dual purpose. of protecting
the fragile dune system and increasing beach access opportunities. Other eligible
erosion control projects may serve to protect beachfront recreational facilities
and/orto ensure adequate beach width forbeachfront recreational activities.

State Scenic Rivers Program

The Scenic Rivers Program is administered by the Virginia Division of Parks and
Recreation (VDPR) of the Department of Conservation and Historic Resources. The
purpose of this program is to identify and protect those rivers or streams whose
scenic beauty, historic importance and natural free-flowing characteristics make
them resources of particular statewide importance. Although the VDPR has
conducted a number of preliminary assessments of potential scenic rivers, formal
designation of a river must be initiated by-the city or county in which that river is
located.

Enabling legislation for this program was passed in 1970 in the form of the
Scenic Rivers Act (Title 10, Chapter 15 of the Code of Virginia). Although this Act
does not contain specific provisions for the development of water access, it does
include provisions which promote preservation of a river's recreation, scenic,
historic and biological resources. In addition, the Act prohibits the construction of
any structure which impedes the natural flow of a scenic riverwithout authorization
from the General Assembly. It also authorizes the Director of the Department of
Conservation and Historic Resources, or other administering agency, to acquire,
through gift or purchase but not through eminent domain, any property which is
necessary or desirable for the protection of a scenic river. This provision could lead
to the acquisition of property that is suitable for water access facilities.

Legislation to include a portion of the North Landing River and several of its
tributaries in the Virginia Scenic Rivers System was passed by the 1988 General
-Assembly. This is the first time a Southeastern Virginia waterway has been granted
State Scenic River status. A portion of the Blackwater River has been found to
qualify for inclusion in the system, but no action has been taken.

Virginia Outdoors Fund

The Virginia Outdoors Fund (VOF) is administered by the VDPR and is a
supplemental source of funding for the acquisition and development of recreation
lands at the state and local levels. The VOF is comprised of state funds appropriated
by the General Assembly, and funds allocated to the State from the National Park
Service's Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). At least 50% of the LWCF
allocation must go to local projects. For individual local projects, the VDPR may
allocate,up t9_50%. f und assistance through the VOF.- The -remainder of-the project's
cost is the responsibility of the local government.

Because of decreasing Federal LWCF@allocations, VOF allocations to localities
are able to finance only a small portion of local recreation needs. At one time, the
LWCF was the single most important source of funding for the acquisition and
development of recreational facilities. The Fund has provided almost $3 billion in
assistance to state and local governments nationwide since 1965. However, federal

budget cuts since 1980 have led to a severe decrease in LWCF appropriations. For
example, in 1979, Virginia received $7.5 million from the LWCF. By 1986, the State's
LWCF allocation had declined to $723,000. Nonetheless, if a proposed water access
facility is consistent with VDPR's policies and criteria, a VOF grant is worth pursuing.

Virginia Outdoors Foundation

The Virginia Outdoors Foundation is a private entity established under state
charter by the General Assembly in 1966. The Foundation, which is housed in the
Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks, is,authorized to -solicit and accept gifts of
money, securities, property or property easements in order to preserve open space
resources. Since its inception, the Foundation has solicited easements on over
30,000 acres of open space and protects another 4,000 acres through fee-simple
ownership. In many instances, waterfront property or water access easements have
been acquired by the Foundation. A locality might further its conservation and
water access objectives by informing the Foundation of acquisition opportunities
within its jurisdiction.

Virginia Department of Transportation Programs

There are several Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) programs
which might either directly or indirectly provide water access opportunities. These
programs are as follows:

� The VDOT, the VDPR and the VGIF have initiated a cooperative
agreement aimed at increasing public access to rivers, streams and
estuaries. Potential bridge replacement and road realignment projects
are screened by all three agencies to determine the feasibility an'd
desirability of incorporating water access into the project.

� State enabling legislation permits the VDOT to construct fishing piers or
attach fishing structures to bridges in conjunction with bridge
construction projects. However, the costs associated with such projects
must be borne by others.

0 The VDOT administers a Recreation Access Fund which is used to provide
road or bikeway access to public recreation sites or to the major
attractions within such sites. Although this program does not directly
provide water access, it-may be -used to construct roads or bikeways to
waterfront recreation areas, or to water access facilities within
recreation areas.

9 The VDOT will often allow the development of water access facilities on
VDOT owned waterfront property. Before such development occurs,
however, a local government would have to apply for and be granted a
VDOT special use permit.

Chesapeake Bay Youth Conservation Corps Program

The goal of the Chesapeake Bay Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) program is to
improve the waters and the environment of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries
through conservation projects that employ youth, with an emphasis on the
employment of the economical ly-d isadvantaged. Through this program, which is
administered by the VDPR, a total of $300,000 in grant funds is made available
annually to eligible recipients and projects for the hiring of YCC workers. Eligible
recipients include all political subdivisions in the Tidewater area. For a project to be
eligible for funding,.it must provide a direct benefit to the waters and environment
of the Bay. Eligible projects generally involve such activities as erosion control,
shoreline stabilization and clearance of clumpsites. Consideration will be given,
however, to projects which incorporate the development of water access facilities
into these activities.

The Chesapeake Bay Agreement

The Chesapeake Bay.Agreement was signed in 1987 by the States of Virginia,
Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia and,the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This Agreement consists of a number of initiatives which
constitute a ten year plan for cleaning up the Bay. One of these initiatives calls
upon the participating governments to improve and expand public access
opportunities to the Bay. Commitments contained in this initiative include (1) the
preparation of an inventory, by December 1988, of the States'existing and potential
water access sites, and (2) the development of a strategy, by December 1990, which
would encourage state and federal governments to secure additional tidal
shorefront along the Bay and its tributaries. in response to these commitments, the
Virginia Department of Conservation and Historic Resources has directed the VDPR
to begin working with local governments to compile an inventory of water access
sites. This study should provide the information necessary to complete the
Southeastern Virginia portion of this inventory. The VDPR has also proposed a
public access grant program which would make available $5 million per year in
grants to Tidewater localities for the purpose of constructing or developing
additional- b I
oat Jaunching,-Jishing,- swimming -and. sunbathing facilities. It is
proposed that participating localities would be required to provide 25% of each
project's cost.

Coastal Resources Management Grant Program

Coastal Resource Management (CRM) grants are allocated to state
governments through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Office of Coastal Resource Management. The CRIVI grant program is authorized by
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The purpose of the CRM grant program
As to provide funding to state, regional and local governments for coastal resource
planning and technical assistance. For a state to qualify for CRIVI grants, it must
establish a coastal resource management program that is approved by the Secretary
of Commerce. In Virginia, this program is the Virginia Coastal Resources
Management Program (VCRMP) administered by the Virginia Council on the
Environment (VCOE). One of the stated goals of the VCRMP is "to provide and
increase public recreational accessto coastal waters and shorefront lands."23

The VCOE has committed to allocating up to one-half of federal CRM funds to
the 44 localities and nine planning district commissions (PDCs) in the Tidewater
area. The remaining funds are used to assist state agency bay and coastal activities.
There are two sources of CRM funding available to local governments and PDCs
through the VCRMP - basic formula grants and competitive grants. The basic
formula grants are allocated to the PDCs primarily for providing technical assistance
to local governments. The competitive grants are available to both local
governments and PDCs and may be used for a variety of planning projects including
those clea.l.ing with water access improvement. The conduct of this water access
study was made possible through a VCRMP competitive gra.nt.-, fin -addition, several
of the Southeastern Virginia localities bordering the Chesapeake Bay or its
tributariesare currently engaged in CRM projectsfuncled by competitive grants.

Design Arts Program

The Design Arts Program is administered by the National Endowment for the
Arts and is authorized by the National Foundation of the Arts and the Humanities
Act of 1965. The aim of this program is to encourage communities to integrate art
into the design of public places through the collaboration of design professionals
and visual artists. Funds are therefore used to select appropriate designers and
artists and to support the integrated clesign/art process. The City of Norfolk applied
for; but did not receive, a Design Arts Grant for a proposed waterfront park on the
abandoned Lambert's Point Landfill on the Elizabeth River.

Miscellaneous Federal -Programs

There are other federal grant programs that represent potential indirect
funding sources for water access facilities. These programs, which are targeted at
other problems (e.g. water quality, community development, etc.), may fund water
access facilities if they are consistent with grant regulations and contribute to
overall program goals. Funding sources fitting into this category include
Community Development Block Grants and Urban Development Action Grants.

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

Nearly twenty percent of the region's ocean and bay beaches, as well as other
shoreline areas with significant recreational potential, are closed to public
recreation by virtue of their control by the military. Similarly, other public entities
and private., corporations own large undeveloped or under-used shoreline areas.
Joint use of such areas would greatly enhance the region's ability to satisfy resident
and tourist demand for water-oriented recreation.

Cooperative agreements between local governments and the state or federal
government or the private sector represent a vehicle for achieving joint facility use.
At the present time, 0.2 miles of military-controlled beaches have been opened for
public recreation through such agreements. Similar agreements have permitted
long-term public use of military lands for other forms of public recreation and for
various public services including education, fire training and youth homes. Camping
and other outdoor recreation opportunities have been made available to the Boy
Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar groups through cooperative agreements with the
military. The private sector has participated in similar agreements for joint use of
waterfront lands. In other communities, long-term recreational use of public lands
earmarked for development has been achieved. Similarly, land being held for
future development has been used for recreational purposes through agreements
between the local government and ..the private developer. Southeastern Virginia
does not have a conserted ongoing program, under the ausp.ices.-o-f--Iand owners or
the pubic, to obtain joint use agreements.

-Joint use agreements cover the terms of the shared use of lands. These terms
include lease costs, security, nature of facilities provided, duration of agreement
and time restrictions on joint use. For example, the U.S. Army permits weekend
summertime use of only a portion of the Fort Story beach and may close the beach
to avoid potential conflict with training activities. Agreements with the private
sector have provided for public use only during special events. Lease costs are
generally minimal. Obviously any agreement must be "tailored" to the specific
circumstances.

m The use of cooperative agreements may enable the locality to meet additional
recreational needs in a cost-effective manner. This is especially true for shoreline
access facilities which are not capital intensive. They may enhance community
goodwill toward major shoreline.landowners. Unfortunately, the cooperative
agreement approach may require protracted negotiations with landowners. Time
restrictions on joint use and short durations due to planned development will tend
to preclude this approach from being a long-term solution, on a site-specific basis,
to the community's recreation needs.

CONCLUSION

The abundance of recreational opportunities provided by the waters of
Southeastern Virginia is one of the contributing factors to the region's healthy
economy and high quality of life. According to the VDPR's 1982 Recreation Demand
Survey, the majority of the region's residents participate in some type of water-
dependent recreational activity. From this finding it is clear that water-based
recreation plays an important role in the happiness and well being of the region's
residents.

The recreational attributes of the region's waters also provide a number of
economic benefits. Tourism is one of Southeastern Virginia's leading industries and
is essential to the vitality of the regional economy. Such an industry has been made
possible by the recreational attractions provided by the region's waterways and
beaches. in addition, the recreation potential offered by the region's waters lends
strength to the regional economy by serving as one of the prime amenities that
draws new employers and workers to Southeastern Virginia. A substantial service
industry has also developed around water-dependent recreation. The total
economic impact of such enterprises as boat and yacht sales and repairs, marina
services, water-oriented sporting goods sales, and fishing concessions is
considerable.

The recreational use of the region's waterways also has:indirect water quality
benefits. All water-oriented recreational activities depend to some extent on the
maintenance of adequate water quality. This is especially true for primary contact
activities (swimming, water skiing and surfing) as well as for wild I if e-oriented
activities such as fishing, hunting and nature observation. Participants in these
activities have a stake in the continued health of the region's water and are likely to
be on the "front-line" in any efforts to improve water quality.

Adequate public water access is essential if the region is going to continue
realizing the benefits noted above. Unfortunately, the development of water
access facilities has not kept pace with the increasing demand for water access
brought about by a rapidly growing population. As a result, many of the existing
facilities experience extreme *overcrowding problems. To make matters worse, in
some areas there has been an actual decline in water access opportunities. This has
been caused by commercial property owners who have responded to escalating
land values by converting water-access facilities to more profitable uses, and by
public entities who have eliminated or restricted water access to achieve non-
recreational objectives. Contributing to the inability of the public and private
sectors to accommodate water access demand is an overall decrease in the
availability of suitable waterfront sites due to extensive private waterfront
development and increasingly stringent environmental regulations.

As the region continues to grow, so will barriers to water access development.
It is therefore essential that local governments not only work towards resolving
existing deficiencies, but also begin planning for future water access demand. It is
hoped that the information presented in this report will provide some guidance in
these efforts.

The following summarizes the key findings and recommendations contained
in this report:

0 The region has sufficient shoreline and water resources to satisfy existing
and projected demand for most water-oriented recreational activities.
Throughout much of the region, however, adequate access to these
resources is lacking.

0 There is a severe shortage of marina slips and boat ramps in the water
bodies which provide convenient access to the Atlantic ocean and lower
Chesapeake Bay. This problem will worsen as the popularity of
recreational boating continuesto grow.

inadequate parking is the greatest impedimentto public beach access.

� There is a need to maintain and encourage additional visual access to the
reqion's waterways. There is also a need throughout the region to
develop public shoreline areas for passive recreaton.at activities.

� A variety of water access projects has been proposed for specific water
-bodies throughout the region by the local, State and Federal
governments and by the private sector. These projects are listed in the
report and include public and private marinas, public boat ramps,
elevated walkways and piers, waterside trails, scenic waterway trails,
passive waterfront parks, channel dredging for recreational boating, and
cooperative agreements for the public use of waterfront property
located atschoolsand military installations.

� In addition to the existing proposals noted above, the SVPDC staff has
presented a number of waterway-specific recommendations for
improving water access. Some of the more notable recommendations
detailed in the report include a regional scenic waterways system,
neighborhood-specific-beach access plans, waterfront zoning districts,
the renovation or expansion of a number of existing facilities, and the
useof abandoned road rig hts-of -way for water access development.

Specific siting and design criteria have been presented which promote
the development of functional, safe and environmentally compatible
water access facilities.

A number of strategies, which are available to local governments for
improving water access, have been identified and described. These
strategies include a variety of land use controls, land acquisition
techniques, state and federal programs and cooperative agreements
between local governments and public or private landowners.

PORTSMOUTH SEAWALL

I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX A
I A DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIVITY DAY METHOD
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -
I
I -
I
I

METHODOLOGY

The first step in the Activity Day Method is to determine the number of
activity days" during the prime season which are attributable to the activity being
studied. An activity day represents any part of a day spent participating in an
activity. Thus, one person could account for several activity days in a single day's
outing. The total number of activity days for an activity can be determined through
a random sample survey by determining the average number of activity days per
survey participant and multiplying that number by the total population of the
region. The estimated total number of activity days for an activity during the prime
season can then be used with capacity, turnover and design day assumptions to
estimate demand. The formula used in this process is as follows:

AD IF
WCT

A = estimated total number of activity days during the prime season
D = estimated percent of activity days occurring on the design day
W = number of weeks in prime season
C = daily capacity
T = turnover rate
IF = designdaydemand

ASSUMPTIONS

The following capacity and turnover assumptions were used by the VDPR in
estimating.the demand associated with the water oriented recreational activities
examined in this study.

POWER BOATING

Instant Unit Capacity: 3 people/boat, 1 boat/1 2 acres
Maximum Turnover: 3
Daily Capacity: .75 activity days/acre

WATER SKIING

Same as power boating.

SAILING

Instant Unit Capacity: 3 people/boat, 1 boat/6 acres
Maximum Turnover: 2
Daily Capacity: 1 activity day/acre

FISHING

Instant Unit Capacity: Boat - 2 people/boat, 1 boat/4 acres
Shore - 10 people/mile
Maximum Turnover: 4
DallyCapacity: Boat - 2 activity days/acre
Shore -40 activity days/mile

CANOEING

Instant Unit Capacity: 2 people/boat, 4 boats/mile
Maximum Turnover: 6
Daily Capacity: 48 activity days/mile

BEACH SWIMMING AND SUNBATHING

Instant Unit Capacity: 150people/acre
Maximum Turnover: 2
Daily Capacity: 300 activity days/acre

SURFING

Instant Unit Capacity: 0.2 people/linear foot of beach
Maximum Turnover: 5
Daily Capacity: 1.0 activity days/linear foot of beach

APPENDIX B

PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE SHORELINE AREAS

NOTE: These areas do not include boat ramp or canoe put-in/take-out facilities,
unless there is significant shoreline adjacent to these facilities to
accomodate other shoreline-dependent activities.

WATER BODY SWIMMING BEACHES FISHING AREAS OTHER SHORELINE
RECREATION AREAS
Atlantic Ocean False Cape State Park Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Little island City Park Little Island Fishing Pier
Sandbridge Beach Virginia Beach Fishing Pier
Sandbridge City Park
Camp Pendleton Public Beach
Croatan Beach
Resort Area Beach
North End Beach
Fort Story Public Beach
Rudee Basin Shoreline Adjacent to Lighthouse Restaurant Virginia Marine Science Museum
Private Fishing Concession Across from Rudee Inlet
Chesapeake Bay Lynnhaven Beach Lynnhaven Fishing Pier
Ocean Park Harrison's Fishing Pier
Baylake Beach Seagull Fishing Pier
Chesapeeike Beach
Norfolk City Beaches
Lynnhaven River Seashore State Park Great Neck City Park
Beach Adjacent to Lesner Bridge Thai ia ES a nd Pri ncess Anne H S
(Thalia Creek)
Virginia Beach Boulevard bridges at Thalia and
London Bridge Creeks
Laskin Road Bridge over Linkhorn Bay
Mt. Trashmore Park (Thalia Creek)
Shoreline between 18th Bay and 22nd Bay Streets
Little Creek System (including the Ocean View Community Center) Tarrallton ES and Park
Norristown Drive Park
Halprin Drive Park
Mona Avenue Park
Hampton Roads Tidewater Community College (Pier)
Ragged Island State Wildlife ManagementArea

WATER BODY SWIMMING BEACHES FISHING AREAS OTHER SHORELINE
RECREATION AREAS
Willoughby Bay Willoughby Bay Marina Fishing Pier
Willoughby City Boat Ramp Willoughby Neighborhood Park
Northside Park (Mason Creek)

Elizabeth River
Main Stem Mowbray Arch Walkway
(Smith Creek)
Hague Park (Smith Creek)
Stone Park (Smith Creek)
Lafayette River Fishing Platform on Hampton Boulevard Bridge The Hermitage Foundation Museum
Fishing Platform on Granby Street Bridge Larchmont Library
G ra n by ES (Cra b Cree k)
North Shore Road Park (Crab Creek)
Millbrook Road. Park.(Crab Creek)
Larchmont ES
Lafayette Park
-j Mayflower Drive Walkway
26th Street Bridge Park
Lindenwood ES
Barraud Park
Lakewood Park (Wayne Creek)
Eastern Branch Town Point Park
Waterside Promenade& Esplanade
Berkeley Waterfront Park
Grandy Park
Poplar Halls ES (Broad Creek) Poplar
Broad Creek Pedestrian Bridge
Wayside Park
Arrowhead ES
Carolanne Farms Park
Fairfield Forest Park

WATER BODY SWIMMING BEACHES FISHING AREAS OTHER SHORELINE
RECREATION AREAS
Southern Branch Area Adjacent to Jordan Bridge Portsmouth Seawall
Deep Creek Locks Park (Shoreline and Pier)
Great Bridge Locks Park
Western Branch Area adjacent to south side of West Norf ol k Bridge Simonsdale ES (Baines Creek)
Portsmouth City Park Western Branch Park (Bailey Creek)
Southwestern ES
Nansemond River Bennett's Creek Park (pier) Sleepy Hole Park
Constants Wharf
Chuckatuck Creek Lone Star Lakes Park
James River Tylers Beach
Fort Boykin Historical Park
Pagan River Carrollton Nike Park. (Pier on Jones Creek)
Mt. Holly Creek Reservoir
Lawnes Creek Hog Island Wildlife Management Area
Back Bay Little island City Park Lotus Gardens Park (Asheville Crk.)
Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Pocahontasfrrojan Wildlife Management Area
Ln
False Cape State Park
VGIF Back Bay Landing
Davis Landing
Numerous areas adjacentto bridge crossings
on Bay tributaries
Private Fishing Concession next to North Landing Road
North Landing River Captain George's Restaurantl Bridge
Indian River Road Bridge (West Neck Creek)
Munden Point Park
West Neck Road Bridge (West Neck Creek)
Numerous areas adjacent to bridge crossings
on the River's tributaries
Albemarle and
Chesapeake Canal Great Bridge Locks Park
Area adjacent to Centerville Turnpike Bridge
Northwest River Northwest River Park
Bob's Fishing Hole
Battlefield Boulevard (S.R. 168) Bridge
Indian Creek Road Bridge (Indian Creek)
Bunch Walnuts Road Bridge
Ballahack Road (Central Ditch)

WATER BODY SWIMMING BEACHES FISHING AREAS OTHER SHORELINE
RECREATION AREAS
Great Dismal Swamp Deep Creek Locks Park
SixU.S.17 aysides along Dismal Swamp Canal
Terminus of Washington D itch Trail (Lake Drummond)
Blackwater River Blackwater Bridge (S.R. 603) VGIF Landing Blackwater Ecological Preserve
Joyner's Bridge (S.R. 611) VGIF Landing
S.R. 189 turnoff (1/2 mile east of junction with S.R. 690)
Nottoway River VGIF Carey's Landing (S.R. 653)
VGIF Hercules Landing (S.R. 671)
General Vaughn Bridge (S.R. 258) VGIF Landing
Mt. Trashmore Lakes Mount Trashmore City Park
Norfolk In-Town Norfolk Botanical Gardens
Reservoirs (Fishing Islands and Piers) Larrymore ES
Lake Smith Bait and Tackle Shop Lake Taylor High School
Suffolk Reservoir Lone Star Lakes Park (fishing docks and piers)
Norfolk Western
Reservoir System Lake Prince Bait and Tackle Shop
Western Branch Bait and Tackle Shop
Portsmouth
Reservoir System Lake Cohoon Dam Lakeside Park
Lake Kilby Dam

Fishing is prohibited

I
I
I
I
I

APPENDIX C
I -
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS POINTS ALONG
I UNRESTRICTED AND RESTRICTED ACCESS BEACHES
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

FALSE CAPE STATE PARK (Restricted Access Beach)

Dudley Island Trail
Wash Woods Beach Trail
False Cape Landing Trail

BACK BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (Restricted Access Beach)

Dune Trail
Seaside Trail

LITTLE ISLAND PARK (Unrestricted Access Beach)

Wooden walkway from parking lotto beach

SOUTH SANDBRIDGE (Unrestricted Access Beach)

Whitecap Lane Molly Cooper Road
North of Whitecap Lane (1) Angelfish Lane
North of Whitecap Lane (2) North of Angelfish Lane (1)
North of Whitecap Lane (3) North of Angelfish Lane (2)
,Seascape Road North of Angelfish Lane (3)
North of Seascape Road (1) North of Angelfish Lane (4)
North of Seascape Road (2) North of Angelfish Lane (5)
North of Seascape Road (3) North of Angelfish Lane (6)
North of Seascape Road (4) Pike Lane

SOUTH SANDBRIDGE (Restricted Access Beach)

North of Pike Lane North of Tuna Lane (1)
Whiting Lane North of Tuna Lane (2)
North of Whiting Lane (1) North of Tuna Lane (3)
North of Whiting Lane (2) North of Tuna Lane (4)
North of Whiting Lane (3) North of Tuna Lane (5)
Rock Lane North of Tuna Lane (6)
North of Rock Lane (1) North of Tuna Lane (7)
North of Rock lane (2) North of Tuna Lane (8)
-North of Rock Lane (3) North of Tuna Lane (9)
Tuna Lane

SANDBRIDGE CITY PARK (Unrestricted Access Beach)

Pathway from Sandfiddler Road to beach

NORTH SANDBRIDGE (Restricted Access Beach)

Marlin Lane ..North of Marlin Lane (7)
North of Marlin Lane (1) Perch Lane
North of Marlin Lane (2) North of Perch Lane (1)
North of Marlin Lane (3) North of Perch lane (2)
North of Marlin Lane (4)
North of Marlin Lane (5)
North of Marlin Lane (6)

CAMP PENDLETON PUBLIC BEACH (Restricted Access Beach)

Pathway from parking lotto beach

CROATAN BEACH (Unrestricted Access Beach)

Lockheed Avenue
Maryland Avenue
Aqua Lane
Carolina Avenue.(Croatan Road)
Twilight Lane (Diane Lane)
Dare Drive

RESORT AREA (Unrestricted Access Beach)

1 st Street 22nd Street
2nd Street 24th Street
3rd Street 25th Street
4th Street 26th Street
5th Street 27th Street
6th Street 28th Street
7th Street 29th Street
8th Street 30th.Street
9th Street 3 1st Street (Laskin Road)
1 Oth Street 33rd Street
1 1th Street 34th Street
12th Street 35th Street
13th Street 36th Street
14th Street 37th Street
16th Street 38th Street
17th Street (Virginia Beach Blvd.) 39th Street
18th Street
20th Street

NORTH END (Unrestricted Access Beach)

40th Street 66th Street
Cavalier Drive 67th Street
42nd Street 68th Street
43rd Street 69th Street
44th Street 70th Street
45th Street 7 1 st Street
46th Street 72nd Street
47th Street (Bay Colony Drive) 73rd Street
48th Street 74th Street
49th Street 75th Street
50th street 76th Street
51 st Street 77th Street
52nd Street 78th Street
53rd Street 79th Street
54th Street 80th Street
55th Street 81 st Street
56th Street 82nd Street
57th Street 83rd Street
59th Street 84th Street
60th Street 85th Street
61 st Street 86th Street
62nd Street 87th Street
63rd Street 88th Street
64th Street 89th Street
65th Street

FORT STORY PUBLIC BEACH (Restricted Access Beach)

Pathway from parking lot to beach

LYNNHAVEN (Restricted Access Beach)

Kendall Street Beech Street
Calvert Street Old Seaview Park Property
First Landing Lane Whaler, Ketch and Spinnaker
Walke Street Courts
Hatton Street Ebbticle Road
Wake Forest Street Red Tide Road
Bayberry Street Seashell Road
Sandlewood Street Lynnhaven Pier
Maple Street Starfish Road
Oak Street Jade Street
Duck Inn

OCEAN PARK (Restricted Access Beach)

Lesner Bridge - West End Albemarle Avenue
Stratford Road Jefferson Boulevard
Dinwiddie Road Raleigh Avenue
Rockbridge Road WoodlawnAvenue
Roanoke Avenue

BAYLAKEBEACH (Restricted Access Beach)

Windy Road
Sandy Bay Drive (Joyce Avenue)

CHESAPEAKE BEACH (Unrestricted Access Beach)

Lee Avenue
Mortons Road
Seaview Avenue
Fentress Avenue
Bay Bridge Lane & Beaufort Avenue
Bayview Avenue
Lauderdale and Guy Avenues

NORFOLK CITY BEACHES (Unrestricted Access Beach)

City Beach Atlans Street
27th Bay Street Chesapeake Boulevard
25th Bay Street Community Beach
23rd Bay Street Ocean View Pier and Beach
2 1 st Bay Street First View Street
19th Bay Street Sarah Constance Beach
17th Bay Street 4th View Street
15th Bay Street Harrisons Fishing Pier
13th Bay Street 6th View Street
1 1th Bay Street 8th View Street
9th Bay Street 9th View Street
7th Bay Street Salem Street
5th Bay Street 1 Oth View Street
3rd Bay Street 1 ith View Street
1st Bay Street 12th View Street
Inlet Road 13th View Street

Cape View Avenue 15th View Street
Grove Avenue 16th View Street
Beaumont Street
Stu rg is Street

Source: Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, Virginia Beach
..Waterfront Access Study, (Norfolk, Virginia: SVPDC, 1981), pp. 6-15.
SVPDC Survey, 1987.

I
I
I
I
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I
I -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Adams, Gerald and Robert Kornman. "The Midland County River Corridor Study" in
Michigan Planner. Spring, 1984, p. 13.

Alexandria Drafting Company. Back Bay Fishing Map. Alexandria,Virginia: ADC,
1978. 'James River Fishing Map. Alexandria, Virginia: ADC,1981.

Virginia Beach Fishing Map. Alexandria, Virginia: ADC, 1981.

American Institute of Architects Regional/Urban Design Team. Franklin.Regional
Design Assistance Team Report. Norfolk, Virginia: SVPDC, 1983.

American Planning Association. "Greenbelting Riverfronts" in Zoning News.
November, 1987, pp. 1-2.

Ausband, Stephen C. "Swamp Water Road" in Virginia Wildlife. August, 1986, pp.
5-7.

Barrow, Mary Reid. "Auclobon Society Counts on Stumpy Lake's Trees" in The
Beacon. February 28, 1988.

. "Rudee Wasn't Only Gateway to the Sea" in The Beacon.
November 18, 1987, p. 7.

Breen, Ann and Dick Rigby. "Sons of Riverwalk" in Planning. March, 1988, pp. 26-
28.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Conserving our Wetland Resources: Avenues for
Citizen Participation. Richmond, Virginia: CBF, 1987.

Chesapeake Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Public
Communications. Chesapeake Scenic Waterways. Chesapeake, Virginia: The
City, undated.

-Chesapeake Department of Planning. City of Chesapeake, Park, Open Space and
Recreation Plan. Chesapeake, Virginia: The City, 1977.

Commonwealth of Virginia. Title 10, Chapter 13, pp. 233-35. Code of.Virginia,
1950, as amended.

Title 10, Chapter 14, pp. 236-37. Code of Virginia,1950, as
amended.

Title 10, Chapter 15, pp. 238-48. Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended.

Title 62.1, Chapter 1, pp. 234-39. Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended.

Proposed VIVIRC Criteria for the Siting of Marinas or Community
Facilities for Boat Mooring" in Virginia Register of Regulations. February 15,
1988, pp. 901-04.

Report of the Joint Subcommittee Studying the Outdoor
Recreation Needs of the Commonwealth. Richmond, Virginia: The State,
1988.

Corbett, Roger H. Virginia White Water. Seneca Press, 1977.

Davis, Marc. "Council to Appoint Committee to Study Municipal Boat Ramp" in The
Beacon. June 25, 1987.

Duke, Alvah. Dismal Swamp Wildlife. Chicago, Illinois: Adams Press, 1973.
U1

E. Verner Johnson and Associates, Inc. Virginia Marine Science Museum Park and
Nature Area. Boston, Massachusetts: E. Verner Johnson and Associates, Inc.,
1987.

Franklin, City of. City of Franklin Comprehensive Plan - 1980 Update. Franklin,
Virginia: The City, 1980.

Gilbert Associates Inc. Engineering Feasibility Study and Report: Northwest River
Water Supply Proiect (Draft). Reading, Pennsylvania: Gilbert Associates Inc.,
1969.

. Supplemental Report: Northwest River Water Supply Project.
Reading, Pennsylvania: Gilbert Associates, 1970.

Gooch, Bob. "Fishing at Lake Drummond" in Virginia Wildlife. August, 1974, pp.
22-25.

Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency. Hampton Roads Water Qual!!Y
Mana.gement Plan. Virginia Beach,,Virginia: HRWQA, 1979.

Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency and Southeastern Virginia Planning District
Commission. Comprehensive Elizabeth River Water Quality Management
Plan. -Norfolk, Virginia: SVPDC, 1986.

Heerwald, John. "A Sportsman's River: The Blackwater" in Virginia Wildlife.
November, 1983, pp. 11-13.

Hutchinson, Bob. "Hot Spot: Suffolk's Lakes Gain Popularity" in The Virginian-Pilot
and The Ledger-Star. January 10, 1988, p. D-12.

Jackson, Joe. "Preliminary Contracts for Park Awarded" in The Virginian-Pilot and
The Ledger-Star. July 15, 1986.

Johnson and Roy, Inc. "Shoreline Protection Efforts Yield Recreation Benefits" in
Urban Land. September, 1987, p. 30.

Knepler, Mike. "'Bold Hand Urged in Ocean View" in The Virginian-Pilot and The
Ledger-Star. November 21, 1987.

Mar-tin, Robert G. "Northwest River" in Virginia Wildlife. June, 1976, pp. 4-5, 32.

National Marine Fisheries Service. Anglers Guide to the Atlantic Coast: Section V,
Chesapeake Bay_. Washington D.C.: NMFS, 1976.

National Resources Defense Council. Who's Minding the Shore? - A Citizen's Guide
to Coastal Zone Management. Washington, D.C.: NOAA, 1976.

Norfolk Department of City Planning. A General Development Plan for Willoughby
Ocean View. Norfolk, Virginia: The City, 1978.

Recreational Opportunities in the City of Norfolk. Norfolk,
Virginia: The City, 1976.
Norfolk Depa'rtment of Utilities. Western Reservoir System (Lake Prince, Lake Burnt
Mills, Western Branch): Water Quality Management Plan - Phase 111. Norfolk,
Virginia: The City, 1980.

Norman, Mitchell. "Lakes Smith and Whitehurst: Where Fishing is Good Because
the Management Has Worked" in Virginia Wildlife. June, 1987, pp. 27-29.

. "Lake of Many Faces" in Virginia Wildlife. April, 1984, pp. 33-35.

Portsmouth Open Space Task Force. Long Range Recreation and Park, and Open
Space Plan. Portsmouth, Virginia: The City, 1984.

President's Commissidh on Am- ericans'O'u*tdo o-'rs. Americans Outdoors: The Legacy,
The Challenge. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1987.

Reed, Bill. "City Will Get to Work on Oceanfront Lot" in The Beacon. March 15,
1988.

Roy Mann Associates. A Management Plan for Back Bay - Volumes I & 11. Boston,
Massachusetts: Roy Mann Associates, 1984.

Rural Clean Water Project Coordinating Committee. Nansemond - Chuckatuck Rural
Clean Water Project: 1986 Annual Report. Suffolk, Virginia: RCWP, 1986.

Scenic Hudson Inc. Integrating Public Access With Private Development: The Two
Can Mix. Poughkeespie, New York: Scenic Hudson, Inc., undated

Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission. Hampton Roads Boating
Study. Norfolk, Virginia: SVPDC, 1986.

Little Creek Harbor-, Boatinct Problem Assessment (Draft). Norfolk,
Virginia: SVPDC, 1984.

. Lone Star Lakes: Recreation Master Plan. Norfolk, Virginia: SVPDC,
1983.

"Memorandum to SVPDC Commissioners: Wetlands and
Subaqueous Lands Permitting Analysis - 1979." Norfolk, Virginia: SVPDC,
1980.
Open Space Plan. Norfolk, Virginia: SVPDC,1972.

Regional Open Space Plan. Norfolk, Virginia: SVPDC, 1979.

Southeastern Virginia Recreation Facilities Inventory. Chesapeake,
Virginia: SVPDC, 1987.

Trail Opportunities in the City of Chesapeake. Chesapeake,
Virginia: SVPDC, 1987.

Virginia Beach Scenic Waterway Plan. Norfolk, Virginia: SVPDC,
1985.

Virginia Beach Waterfront Access Study. Norfolk, Virginia: SVPDC,
1981.

Southwick, Ron. "Trash to Fishes" in Virginia Wildlife. April, 1984, pp. 31-32.

Union Camp Corporation. "The Dismal Swamp: For All To Enjoy" in Virginia
Wildlife. April, 1974, pp. 19-20, 24.

Urban Land Institute. Urban Waterfront Development. Washington, D.C.: ULI,
undated. I

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway: Dismal Swamp
Route. Norfolk, Virginia: COE, 1970.

-. Dismal Swamp Canal: Virginia and North Carolina. Norfolk,
Virginia: COE, 1974.

Dismal Swamp Canal: Virginia and North Carolina: Bulkhead
Improve ents, Draft Environmental Assessment. Norfolk, Virginia: COE,
1988. Flood Plain Information: Coastal Flooding, City of Chesapeake,
Virginia. Norfolk, Virginia: COE, 1972.

. I . Flood Plain Information: Coastal Flooding, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Norfolk, Virginia: COE, 1969.

Flood Plai n Information: Southampton County, Virginia, Nottoway
River. Norfolk, Virginia: COE, 1975.

Local, State and Federal information Guide and Joint Permit
Application. Norfolk, Virginia: COE, undated.

. Navigation Study of Bennetts Creek, Suffolk, Virginia. Norfolk,
Virginia:COE, 1986.

. Navigation Study of Jordan Bridge Park Channel, Chesapeake,
Virginia. Norfolk, Virginia: COE, 1985.

. Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia: Deepening and Disposal.
Norfolk, Virginia: COE, 1980.

Phase I Feasibility Report: Chowan River Basin, Virginia and North
Carolina. Norfolk, Virginia: COE, 1975.

. Record of Public Meeting: Navigation Difficulties in the Nottoway
River, Southampton County. Norfolk, Virginia: COE, 1978.

. Rudee Inlet, Virginia Beach, Virginia: Phase I General Design
Memorandum and Environmental Assessment (Draft). Norfolk, Virginia: COE,
1982.

. Willoughby Spit and Vicinity, Norfolk, Virginia: Hurricane
Prot@_clion and Beach Erosion Control Study, Draft Feasibility Rer)ort and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Norfolk, Virginia: COE, 1982.

U.S. Bureau of -Sport Fisheries,and-Wildlifei Northeast Region. Developmental
History and Ecology of the Dismal Swamp with Recommendations for Public
Ownership and Management. BSFW, 1974.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Management. Commonwealth of Virginia Coastal
Resources Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Washington, D.C.: NOAA, 1986.

Improving Your Waterfront: A P.ractical Guide. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. The Great Dismal
Swamp and Dismal Swamp Canal:_A Report on Recreation Potential. BOR,
1974.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5. The Great
Dismal Swamp and Dismal Swamp Canal. FWS, 1974.

. Master Plan for the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Newton Corner, Massachusetts: FWS,
1986.

Public Use Development Plan: Great Dismal Swamp National
Wildlife Refuge. Norfolk, Virginia: Presnell-Kidd Associates, 1979.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Mid-Atlantic Regional Office.
Conserving the Garden of the Great Spirit: The St. Lawrence River - Thousand
Islands Area Study. Washington, D.C., 1983.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division.
Hydrology of the Dismal Swamp, Virginia, North Carolina. Richmond, Virginia:
USGS, 1974.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook.
Atlanta, Georgia: EPA, 1985.

Virginia Beach, City of. Virginia Beach Saltwater Marina Study. Virginia Beach,
Virginia: The City, 1984, updated 1987.

Lynnhaven Boat Ramp Committee Report to City Council. Virginia
Beach, Virginia: The City, 1988.

Virginia Beach Department of City Planning. The Comprehensive Plan: Virginia
Beach. Virginia-Beach,.Virginia: The City, 1985.

Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation. Tidewater Virginia Recreational
Boating Access Study. Richmond, Virginia: VCOR, 1982.

Virginia Department of Game and inland Fisheries. Building Boat Ramps.
Richmond, Virginia: VGIF, 1986.

Virginia Division of Water Resources. City of Chesapeake - Northwest River and
Dismal Swamp Water Supply Project. Richmond, Virginia: VDWR, 1970.

Virginia Division of Parks and Recreation. The North landing Scenic River System: A
Report to the Governor and the General Assembly. Richmond, Virginia: VDPR,
1987.

. Recreation Facilities Appraisal: City of Portsmouth. Richmond,
Virginia: VDPR, 1985.

. Tidewater Virginia Boating Access Inventory. Richmond, Virginia:
V D P 8 5.

Virginia's Scenic Rivers. Richmond, Virginia: VDPR, undated.

Youth Conservation Corps - 1988 Administrative Manual.
Ric mond, Virginia: VDPR,1988.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science. City of Norfolk Tidal Marsh Inventory.
Gloucester Point, Virginia: VIMS, 1987.

. City of Virginia Beach Tidal Marsh Inventory: Volumes I and 11.
Gloucester Point, Virginia: VIMS, 1987.

. Isle of Wight County Tidal Marsh Inventory. Gloucester Point,
Virginia: VIMS, 1981. -

Shoreline Situation Report: Cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk and
Portsmouth. Gloucester Point, Virginia: VIMS, 1976.

Shoreline Situation Report: City of Suffolk. Gloucester Point,
Virginia: VIMS, 1976.

. Shoreline Situation Report: City of Virginia Beach. Gloucester
Point, Virginia: VIMS, 1978.

. Shoreline Situation Report: Isle of Wight County. Gloucester Point,
Virginia: VIMS, 1975.

Virginia Marine Resources Commission. Subaqueous Guidelines. Newport News,
Virginia: VIVIRC, 1986.

. Wetlands Guidelines. Newport News, Virginia: VMRC, undated.

Virginia Outdoors Foundation. Virginia Outdoors Foundation: Encouraging the
Preservation of Open Space. Richmond, Virginia: VOF, undated.

Virginia Sea Grant College Program. Tide Graphs and Tidal Difference Table for
Hampton Roads Virginia. Gloucester Point, Virginia: VIMS, 1987.

Virginia Water Control Board with Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency and
Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission. Background and Problem
Assessment Report for the Elizabeth River. Richmond, Virginia: VWCB, 1984.

Historical Review and Current Status of Water Supply Planning in
Southeastern Virginia. Richmond, Virginia: VWCB, 1983.

Virginia Water Resources Center. Virginia's Waters. Blacksburg, Virginia: VWRC,
1986.

Wiseman, Joe. "Chesapeake's Scenic Waterways" in Virginia Wildlife. July, 1975,
pp. 10-11.

Zaneski, Cyril T. "Bill May Help Make ill-fated Norfolk Landfill a Winner" in The
Virginian-Pilot and The Ledger-Star. February 11, 1988.

"Day Visitors, Residents Fight for Spot in Sun" in The Virginian-
Pilot and The Ledger-Star. May 31, 1986.

"Improvements at Beach Are Calls to Arms" in The Virginian-Pilot
and The Ledger-Star. December 13, 1987.

"Military Holdings Draw Envious Looks" in.The Virginian-Pilot and
The Ledger-Star. May 31, 1986.

"Restricted: Pushing and Tugging" in The Virginian- Pilot and The
Ledger-Star. May 31, 1986.

"Stakes High in Battle For Shoreline" in The Virginian-Pilot and The
Ledger-Star. May 31, 1986.

I
I
I
I
I
END NOTES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

1. Assumes 115,000 acres of offshore waters and 35,000 acres of in I and ticla I
and nontidal waters are boatable.

2. Assumes that water skiing is possible in portions of the following water
bodies: Lynnhaven River, Elizabeth River, Nansemond River, Chuckatuck
Creek, Pagan River, North Landing River, Albemarle and Chesapeake
Canal, Blackwater River, Nottoway River and James River.

3. Assumes that 115,000 acres of offshore waters and 15,000 acres of inland
tidal waters are suitable for sailing.

4. Estimates include demand for fishable water area that is accessed by
either boat, shore or pier.

5. Supply estimate assumes canoeing is possible in the following water
bodies or systems: Rudee Basin, Lynnhaven River, Little Creek, Elizabeth
River (upstream areas only), minor tributaries to Hampton Roads,
Nansemond River, Chuckatuck Creek, minor tributaries to the James
River, Pagan River, Lawnes Creek, North Landing River, Northwest River,
Dismal Swamp, Blackwater River and Nottoway River.

6. Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, Virginia Beach
Waterfront Access Study, (Norfolk, Virginia: SVPDC, 1981), p.2.

7. Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, Hampton Roads
Boating Study, (Norfolk, Virginia: SVPDC, 1986),Ip. 24.-
8. 1972 and 1982 Outdoor Recreation Demand Surveys conducted by the
State Division of Parks and Recreation (known as the Virginia
Commission of Outdoor Recreation in 1972).

9. City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Beach Saltwater Marina Study, (Virginia
Beach, Virginia: The City, updated 1987), pp. 13-18.

10. Conversation with Don Mathias, City of Norfolk Environmental Services
Coordinator, February 16, 1988.

11. Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, 1979 Regional Open
Space Plan: Boat Ramp Element (Norfolk, Virginia: SVPDC), p. 4.

12. Conversations with the Norfolk and Portsmouth Public Utilities
Departments, February, 1988.
13. Waterfront Access SIty_0y, p.35, and SVPDC Oceanfront Parking Survey,
1987. Off-street parking estimates for Norfolk City Beaches are not
available.

14. Cyril T. Zaneski, "Day Visitors, Residents Fight for Spot in Sun" in The
Virginian-Pilot and the Ledger-Star, May 31, 1986.
15. SVPDC, Waterfront Access Study, pp. 17-j9, and SVPDC Survey, 1987.

16. Estimate of shoreline open to the public for recreational use was derived
from a series of Shoreline Situation Reports prepared by the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, 1975 - 1978.

17. In Portsmouth, 29.3% of the shoreline is owned by the Federal
Government, 68.1% is in private ownership and only 2.6% is owned by
the City.

18. Monthly boat launch data gathered by park personnel show that,
between 1982 and 1987, there was a 125% increase in the number of
boat launches occurring during the summer.

19. Virginia Division of Parks and Recreation, The North Landing Scenic River
System, (Richmond, Virginia: VDPR, 1987), p. 9.

20. Hutchinson, Bob, "Hot Spot: Suffolk Lakes Gain Popularity" in the
Virginian-Pilot and Ledger Star, January 10, 1988, p. D-12.

21. To avoid redundancy, applications for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
permits, VMRC subaqueous permits and State/local wetlands permits are
processed through a joint application process.

22. The National Recreation and.Park. Association recommends one parking
space for every four anticipated beach visitors. .-.Given the high demand
for beach access in Southeastern Virginia, however, it may be difficult to
develop parking facilities that would meet this standard.

23. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management,
Commonwealth of Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program and
Final Environmental Impact Report, (Washington, D.C.: NOAA, 1986), pp.
1-3.

I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11INIIIIIIIIIII@
3 6668 00002 6221