BfB-DOL. tlH.PtIS Ptpwfi B«LBtyV/iU«««iA'«*
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
FES 75-83.
PROPOSED BACK BAY WILDERNESS AREA VIRGINIA
PREPARED BY:
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON, D. C. 20240
,Jh SUMMARY
( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement
Department of the Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1. TYPE OF ACTION: ( ) Administrative (X) Legislative
2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION: Proposal recommends that 2.165 acres of the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, located in the city of Virginia Beach, Virginia, be included in the National Wilderness Preservation System.
3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: No immediate or long-range environmental change of significance would occur on the area involved as a result o^f the proposed action. Any impact would derive from protection against any exploitation of the natural resources. There are no developments within the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge that would adversely affect the wilder- ness character of the proposed wilderness area, except that control burning is proposed to continue to contribute to the wilderness resource. There are present and planned developments outside the Back Bay Refuge that will adversely affect the wilderness character of the proposed wilderness. Perpetuation of opportunities to participate in wilderness oriented pursuits will be assured and the added protection against future development will be beneficial to both threatened and non-threatened species of the marsh.
4. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: (a) No action, and (b) Modify the size of the proposal.
5. COMMENTS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED FROM THE FOLLOWING;
*Department of Defense Department of Commerce *Environmental Protection Agency, Region III Department of Agriculture Department of Transportation U. S. Coast Guard Department of the Interior *National Park Service *Bureau of Land Management *Bureau of Outdoor Recreation *Bureau of Mines *U. S. Geological Survey Virginia State Planning and Development Clearinghouse *Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission City of Virginia Beach, Virginia City of Portsmouth, Virginia City of Newport News, Virginia City of Hampton, Virginia City of Norfolk, Virginia City of Chesapeake, Virginia City of Suffolk, Virginia' *Currituck County, North Carolina
6. DATE STATEMENT MADE AVAILABLE TO CEQ AND THE PUBLIC: Draft Statement April 29, 1974 Final Statement September 29, 1975 *Comments received and attached. TABIJ3 OF CONTENTS
MAP, VICINITY i
MAP, VICINITY ii
MAP, WILDERNESS PROPOSAL iii
MAP, REFUGE DEVELOPMENTS iv
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 1
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT 8
III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTION 21
IV. MITIGATING MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION 27
V. ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED 27
VI. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 28
VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED . 28
VIII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 29
IX. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS 38
A. Consultation and Coordination in the Development of the Proposal and in the preparation of the Draft Environmental Statement 38
B. Coordination in Review of Draft Environmental Statement 38
HEARING ANALYSIS 39
BIRD LIST 1^7
SUMMARY OF CHANGES MADE IN FINAL AS A RESULT OF DRAFT COMMENTS 45
BURNING PLAN 47
INVENTORY FORM OF HISTORIC and ARCHEOLOGIC PLACES 53
COMMENTS RECEIVED, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 54
RULING ON OPEN BURNING - VIRGINIA STATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD . . 67 United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife National Wildlife Refuges Region 5
N*w
\ Iroquols • \ Montszuma
Pennsylvania
I Klllcohoo
L-- —-r^"*j—-" ^v-^Sus~ rr^Mh Susquehanna//q 1 I jr l\ /-^Eastern TMgck U / "^^Md. e mj M»son Neck C" W«*l Virginia /• X / Virginia MSrfint magansatt
Pre.quMe.^^.aqune.-^^a^ I Plum Tree IsTand *Flaherman >^*>< ^ Island
ch B 1 Dismal Swamp. A^f ** Atl»" ^-•"^Mackay Island
1B73 !>(.AI.L 01 MILLS :: 30
' ^t%%F^ "~ir ^'\.. —^VC?' "^«r< ^tOO1100 • v^fewis; \ S^>Kc?iVokNT IJ 9:i ,y-Vj -\w^F^4r.rA V n-V ,' -X 7 -)K.n%»'i «i iI «'•""- '.LJ--; I \V'\ c'^Vv r •$< ^•";i^....n.' -^- ,7- ^fe^j .r.:;;; 7^ & >-- ^'-^^'^^"^p^iS^ -x^^^£..^oiP^^^^V l^^^lf fT^;--., ^ ^?i^rr J ^^^f^^-pfy'i«°o"2A«l yi'y yir, T5ti/7 H7791 2/!-"\lM*Pt>»y''3/CoOi *-.-'-•• /XbTo/om V/ vVSN ly •'"" S"" '*: " " " r ^J> 11 <4rr>V8^£/Ne!sof la V ^i L JGu' lord I/,--YJ^*, ' ^b';«^^V'yf"- -"/^•/•/ModeslTo«i n BACK BAY N.W.R. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA UNITED ITATIS FI1H «NO WIIDUFE SEtVICE OIPAITMCNt Of tHl imtdlOl 1UIIAU OF SPOIT FISHEIIEI AND WHOLIFI
C«mptl»4 In III* DIviilcM •! l«fllN»«rliifl Ir.m i.rv«ri kr 1.1.1.1 W. WILDERNESS PROPOSAL u£j Fr«p*i*4 WII4«r
SCALI IN MILIS E *'••• Cid«4«4 f '•M Wtlrfvrncti Back Bay N.W.R. City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Refuge Developments
Preliminary Subject to Change I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Proposed Action
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of the Interior,
proposes that approximately 2,165 acres of the Back Bay National
Wildlife Refuge in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia be designated
as a wilderness unit within the National Wilderness Preservation System.
A public hearing on the initial proposal of 1,950 acres was held on
May 15, 1974-, in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Following the public
hearing approximately 215 acres known as the Green Hills area was
added bringing the total acres proposed to 2,165. A complete descrip-
tion and discussion of the proposal is contained in the Wilderness
Study Summary which is available from the Refuge Manager, Back Bay
National Wildlife Refuge, 287 Pembroke Office Park, Virginia Beach,
Virginia 23462, and the Regional Director, John W. McCormack Post
Office and Courthouse, Boston, Massachusetts.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-577:78 Stat. 890-96) directed the
study of every roadless area of 5,000 acres of more and every roadless
island within the National Wildlife Refuge System to determine the
suitability or nonsuitability or each such area for inclusion in the
National Wilderness Preservation System. In fulfilling this respon-
sibility, a full and comprehensive study has been made of the entire
refuge area.
The Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge is located on the Atlantic
Coast, in the southeast corner of Virginia, within the limits of the
City of Virginia Beach. The refuge consists of a four-mile stretch
of barrier beach and marsh islands in Back Bay. Refuge headquarters
are located in the Pembroke Office Park in Virginia Beach. Sub-headquarters are located one-mile south of the north refuge boundary at Sandbridge. The refuge lies about 110 miles southeast of
Richmond, Virginia, and about 200 miles south of Washington, D. C.
The Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge was established primarily to
provide sanctuary and habitat for migratory birds, particularly the
greater snow goose and other wildlife. Present refuge objectives,
in addition to providing habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds, include responsibilities for endangered wildlife species such
as the peregrine falcon, southern bald eagle, and the status
undetermined osprey. Objectives also provide for the maintenance of
representative populations of native flora and fauna and wildlife-
oriented used by the visiting public. The refuge was established
by Executive Order 7907, on June 6, 1938, by President Franklin D.
Roosevelt. Its boundary encompasses 4,608 acres located within a
9,208-acre area that is closed by Presidential Proclamation to the
taking or molesting of migratory birds.
Wilderness designation is recommended for all marsh islands and main-
land marsh west of Deep Creek and west of the north-south center lines
of Buck Island Bay and Sand Bay, plus the Green Hills area west of
impoundment unit A. Controlled winter burning of the marsh lands (see
attached burning plan) during November, December and January is planned
to continue to perpetuate use by great flocks of snow geese which are
considered an essential part of the wilderness resource. (see Map, Page
iii). Long Island is included except for three upland areas totaling
approximately 58 acres maintained for goose pasture, and an additional
50 acres of wooded upland which may be converted to pasture in the
future. The majority of the proposed wilderness consists of marsh islands separated by shallow coves and bays. The waters, while legally navigable and not administered as Federal government property, are largely choked with dense accumulations of Eurasian milfoil during the summer months making travel by motorboat difficult. The only clear north-south passage is through the Great Narrows. These water areas are excluded from the wilderness proposal.
The proposal is vegetated mostly with black needlerush, and cattail in the low areas, and wax myrtle, loblolly pine, sweet gum, red maple, black gum, and hackberry on the slightly higher sites. Milfoil, wild celery, Najas, widgeon grass, and sago grow in the coves and ponds.
Bay waters are not strongly influenced by lunar tides, but wind can create a tidal effect.
The marshes are an important part of the wintering habitat of a sizable population of snow geese, whistling swan, Canada geese, and various species of duck. Controlled burning of dead marsh vegetation during winter months to keep the marsh attractive to geese is essential to the attainment of wildlife objectives and is therefore made a part of this proposal. Proposed wilderness designation for marsh lands involved consideration of the following: 1. Preservation of 1,950 acres of marshland and 215 acres of upland on Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge in a natural state. 2. The effects on existing and future public use of the marsh. 3- The effects on existing and future economic, cultural, and social values. 4. the effects on refuge programs and on the attainment of refuge
objectives.
5. The effects of the proposal on existing and future programs by
other State, City, and Federal'agencies, including the State
Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries and their enforcement of
State laws in the Proclamation waters surrounding the refuge, the
State and City Parks which adjoin the refuge to the north and
south, the U.S. Coast Guard which controls boating laws in Back
Bay, and the U.S. Navy which conducts overflights over Back Bay
National Wildlife Refuge.
6. The effects that existing and planned developments outside the
proposal would have on the wilderness area.
The net environmental result, should the proposal be implemented, would be Congressional classification of federally owned lands for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner that will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.
Designation of wilderness areas is within and supplemental to the purposes for which National Wildlife Refuges are established and administered by the u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service* ^
Interrelationships with other Projects, Proposals and Jurisdictions
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge, a satellite of Back Bay Refuge, is located three miles south of the refuge boundary on Knotts Island astride the Virginia - North Carolina border; and Fisherman's Island
National Wildlife Refuge, another satellite, is about 30 miles away
°\ by air. Little Island City Park adjoins Back Bay Refuge to the north.
The southern beach front boundary adjoins False Cape State Park which
is planned to ultimately include all of the beach property between
the refuge and the North Carolina border. Public, waterfowl hunting
is permitted on three State-owned waterfowl management areas (Barbour's
Hill, Trojan, and Pocahontas) within three miles of the southern
refuge boundary.
The Dam Neck and Oceana Naval bases are located approximately five
and ten miles respectively from the north boundary of the refuge.
Aircraft from the Oceana base make approximately six flights over
the refuge per day. The sound of artillery from the Dam Neck base
can be heard from the refuge.
No wilderness areas are presently established within a 150-mile
radius of Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, although Chincoteague
National Wildlife Refuge, approximately 100 air miles to the north,
is being studied for wilderness as are the following refuges located
to the south. Mattamuskeet, approximately 80 miles; Pea Island, 90 miles; Swanquarter, 100 miles; Cedar Island, approximately 120 miles.
The Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge lies about 30 miles to the west, and may be considered for wilderness at a future date.
Located within the heavily populated Tidewater, Virginia area,
(1,250,000 people within two hours driving distance), Back Bay Refuge is exposed to constant human pressures. The areas surrounding the refuge are presently being subjected to rapid development such as vacation homes, campgrounds and permanent homes. Most of the areas, including Charity Neck, which have not yet been developed remain as agricultural lands. These lands are steadily giving way to development.
The barrier beach portion of the refuge has been used since the refuge's establishment as a travel route connecting Virginia Beach with vacation and permanent homes south of the refuge on Virginia's and Worth
Carolina's outer banks. Until March 30, 1973? anyone was permitted to drive a motor vehicle over the refuge beach. As of the above date, restrictive measures limited the vehicular traffic on the beach to property owners and their guests only. Permits are not issued to individuals who wish to travel by motor vehicle over the Back Bay Refuge beach to reach the Palse Cape State Park. The means of future access to the park have yet to be developed by the State. However, there is some pressure by some local people to develop a highway through the refuge to the park.
B. Proposed for Exclusion The remaining lands of the refuge, approximately 2,UU3 acres, are excluded from this proposal for a combination of factors associated with management functions incompatible with wilderness status.
1. On Long Island, 58 acres of pasture are excluded to permit mowing with mechanical equipment. The Bridge and canal cutting through the island west of Bryants Cove and the timbered wooded fringe of 50 acres are also excluded. The wooded upland area may be con- verted to pasture in future years to increase the potential to attract geese and reduce damage to wheat crops on private lands
outside the refuge. 2. The beach is used for vehicle access to private property south
of the refuge.
3. The fore dunes are excluded to permit continued dune maintenance
and repair "by means of grass planting and erection of sand fence.
U. Water in the washflats is impounded by dikes and levels are
manipulated.
5- Most of the marsh and woodlands adjoining the barrier dunes
support existing and proposed public use developments such as
trails, observation towers, contact stations, and exhibits, and
are sites for artificial nesting structures for wood duck and
other birds, boat docks and launching facilities. The refuge sub-quarters, personnel residences, storage facilities, power lines, and access roads are located on lands adjoining the barrier
beach.
7 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
The proposed wilderness area is located in or adjacent to Back Bay
in the southeast, corner of Virginia within the limits of the City
of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Virginia Beach, as of January 1, 1974,
had a population of 220,000. It is a greatly expanded city comprising
258 square miles of land, and 51 squ re miles of inland xraters.
Nearly 30 percent of the land area is devoted to crops such as corn,
wheat, and soy beans. Approximately 23 percent of the land area is
still forested. Residential developments occupy 10 percent of the
city; public and semi-public lands 8 percent; military bases 7 percent;
less than 2 percent commercial and industrial developments, and the
remaining area consists of other privately owned undeveloped land
such as marsh. The primary business in the immediate vicinity and
an important use within the refuge is tourism.
Topography, Geology and Soils
The Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge extends for 4.2 miles along
the Atlantic Ocean shoreline. Approximately 800 acres of the refuge
consists of barrier beach which is generally flat and sandy except
for a 15-foot high dune line paralleling the Atlantic Ocean. Except
for the dunes and upper beach, most of the refuge lies below the
5-foot contour. Soil types include the sand on the beach and in the
dunes, and sandy loams in the uplands on Long Island. The marsh
areas are peat underlain by sand. Immediately to the west of the
dune line lies impounded freshwater marshes. These impoundments
overlie former wash flats which were periodically flooded by ocean
overwash prior to dune restoration. Natural marsh exists further
toward the Bay. The upland portion of the refuge, other than the
8 barrier beach and dunes, includes woodlands, brushy areas afro-- managed grasslands.
Climate
The climate of Back Bay is modified continental with mild winters and warm, humid summers. Mean annual temperatures vary slightly from year to year averaging about 60 degrees. The growing season is 251 days. Precipitation is well distributed throughout the year with the maximum in August and the minimum in November and April.
Normal precipitation is 48 inches per year. In xrtnter some pre- cipitation usually occurs as snow. South to southwest winds pre- dominate. Northerly winds also occur during most months generally reflecting the progression of weather systems across the State.
Hurricanes and other tropical disturbances occasionally affect Back
Bay and the surrounding areas causing damage from wind and high tides.
Water
Back Bay is essentially one large freshwater lake of approximately
4,600 acres separated from the ocean by a narrow barrier beach. The closest direct connection with the ocean is Oregon Inlet, 58 miles to the south in North Carolina. The fresh bay waters are supplemented by a salt water pumping station located one half mile north of the refuge boundary. The station is operated by the City of Virginia
Beach for the purpose of pumping ocean waters into the bay to supply valuable nutrients which aid in the precipitation of sediments.
Salinities normally vary between 4 and 10 percent sea strength. The average depth of the bay is five feet with a maximum depth of ten feet in the channels. There are numerous coves which do not exceed - ' ... - _•».*»*»-• • two feet in depth. The bay waters are only slightly influenced by
lunar tides, but wind speed and direction create a tidal effect. The
open bay areas and coves are the areas of the refuge most heavily utilized by diving ducks, swans, geese, widgeon, gadxi/all, and coots.
In addition to the bay watern, 495 acres of impounded marsh is main- tained as shallow, fresh water pools. There are three main impound- ments of about equal size, and one smaller unit of 10 acres. These pools produce a diversity of food for waterfowl, including 3-square millet, Panicum and other seed-producing plants. The impoundments are also utilized by herons, egrets, gallinules, grebes, and rails, and are the areas most utilized by the.few waterfowl which nest on the refuge.
Vegetation
The barrier beach vegetation of Back Bay is typical. The fore dunes facing the Atlantic bristle with American beach grass and sea oats, while vegetation such as myrtle, blackberry, and wild cherry stabilize the more protected Bay side dunes.
Between the dunes and Bay lie the impounded marshes where cattail, black needlerush, myrtle, and species of submerged aquatics such as
Na-jas, sago pond weed, and milfoil dominate. When the impoundments are drawn down in the spring, good stands of annuals such as wild millet, smart weed, and panic grasses are produced.
The greenhills area (see map, page iv), is dominated by stands of loblolly pine and sweet gum, with huckleberry in the understory.
10 The marsh islands are vegetated mostly with black needlerush, and cattail in the low areas and loblolly pine, sweet gum, red maple, black gum, and hackberry on the drier sites. Ifyrtle occupies the
zone in between. Great blue herons use the trees and brush on
Long island for nesting sites.
Eurasian milfoil, the dominant bay vegetation, first appeared in
1965. Extremely dense stands occur in virtually all of the waters with depths of five feet or less. During the growing season the areas of the Bay covered by milfoil are virtually impenetrable by propeller-driven boats. The milfoil is heavily utilized as water-
fowl food especially by american wigeons, gadwalls, and coots, and / also benefits the Bay by acting as a filter of sediments, creating
cleaner waters for the growth of more favorable aquatics such as wild celery, Rajas, widgeon grass, and sago. It also provides cover for fish and other aquatic animals.
In order to further provide a supplemental food supply for migratory waterfowl, 58 acres of permanent fescue pasture is maintained on
Long Island for goose browse. The pasture is mowed twice in the summer and fertilized as needed. To connect the three fields on Long Island, two wooden bridges were constructed across canals. A small equipment shed is located on the island to house the tractor and mower. Although originally established for Canada geese, snow geese have taken over the pastures in recent years. These pastures with connecting corridors are shown as excluded on the proposed wilderness map, page iii.
Most of the marsh lands have been burned on a rotational basis in previous years, and this management activity is presently conducted 11 according to the Prescribed Burning Program of 197^- (copy attached) to encourage the growth and availability of desirable plant species for snow geese. Burning normally does not alter the composition of marsh plant vegetation but removes the dead tops enabling the geese to reach the green shoots and plant roots. Burning may contribute to improving the marsh for puddle ducks, since the snow geese dig up the roots while feeding and create "eat outs" where tender spikerushes and .other preferred puddle duck foods usually invade. By making foods available to the snow geese in the spring, they usually will remain on the refuge, thus lessening depredation on surrounding farmlands. Burning programs are designed to cover three year periods with different units being burned in each of the three years. Burning occurs during the months of November, December, and January. The smaller marsh islands are normally designated as no burn units to allow dense vegetation to develop and lessen the erosion rates of these areas.
Wildlife
Back Bay Refuge lies at the focal point of waterfowl migration routes along the Atlantic Flyway. Up to ^0,000 snow geese and as many as
10,000 whistling swans winter at the refuge. Canada geese, although not nearly as plentiful at Back Bay now as in the past, are still very much a part of the autumn scene. Peak numbers have averaged around 11,000 since 1966.
Once renown for its diving duck populations, particularly canvasbacks and redheads, the wintering duck population today is primarily com- posed of American wigeon and gadwall. Diving ducks make exclusive
12 use of the open bay waters which are not under management control
except to prohibit hunting within the proclamation boundary of
the refuge. Use began to decline in the early 1960's when
siltation and turbidity drastically reduced aquatic vegetation. Since then* conditions improved as Eurasian milfoil took over
and contributed to clearer waters. Recent observations have
disclosed a return of more valuable waterfowl food plants such
as widgeon grass, red head, and wild celery. Also, the effects
of a reduction in northern breeding sites for the canvasbacks and redheads have been felt nationwide, particularly along the Atlantic Flyway where these two species exist at a fraction of previous numbers. Duck use in 1972 dropped to 2,200,000 use days compared with nearly k,000,000 in 1971 when peak populations were composed of 65,000 American widgeon, llj-,150 gadwall, 3,000
green-wing teal, and UOO canvasbacks. The primary nesting species are black ducks and mallards and occasionally gadwall and blue- wing teal. An average of 209 ducks have been produced annually since 1966. A wood duck nest box program involving the use of transplanted imprinted birds results in one to two birds of this
species being produced annually.
The refuge is a stopping place during migration for the endangered peregrine falcon and serves as a nesting area for the status undeter- mined American osprey. The threatened Ipswich sparrow frequents the brushy area to the south of the managed pools. Shorebirds are abundant along the refuge beach, particularly during their migratory periods of May-June and August-September. A nesting colony of great blue herons is established in the pine woods on Long Island.
13 The most evident mammal on the refuge and one of the most abundant
is the nutria. From an estimated population of 30 in 1965 this South
American native has increased to 10,000. These large rodents have damaged the refuge impoundments "by tunneling in the dikes causing
cave-ins. They have also denuded large sections of vegetation from
some of the small islands resulting in accelerated erosion rates. For
these reasons a trapping program is now conducted during the winter months and up to 2,800 nutria have been removed annually.
A small healthy herd of approximately 30 white-tailed deer is found
on the refuge. These animals have never caused problems of over- browsing or competed with waterfowl for food at Back Bay, so control measures have never been necessary.
Other mammals found on the refuge include muskrat, raccoon, opossum, mink, otter, feral hogs, cottontail and marsh rabbits.
Bass and bream fishing is excellent in the waters of Back Bay and
excellent surf fishing can be experienced along the refuge beach during certain periods of the year. The most sought after species are bluefish, spot, croaker, channel bass, and striped bass.
Back Bay refuge is participating with Chincoteague, Cape Remain and
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuges located in Virginia, South Carolina and Worth Carolina respectively in an attampt to extend the current breeding range of the Atlantic loggerhead turtle. This program was begun in 1972 and will continue through 1977- Each year turtle nests are marked at Cape Remain National Wildlife Refuge and are subsequently excavated and reburied at Back Bay and the other participating refuses where the young turtles hatch and enter the ocean. The ultimate goal is to establish breeding colonies of 1U loggerheads on the participating refuges.
Minerals
According to the U.S. Geological Survey: "The surface geology of the
Back Bay and Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuges consist of
Quaternary beach and marsh deposits and the mud-flat and sand-ridge
facies of the Bridge Formation. Four discrete sand ridges are
Pleistocene shorelines; they contain laminae with heavy minerals and
are a source of sand. The low areas are underlain by silty clay which may be a source of clay for bricks. Holocene deposits fringe the Back Bay Refuge and they contain some beds of peat that were deposited in
fresh water. Both areas have a potential for oil and gas." The U.S. Geological Survey did not reveal the extent of the oil and gas poten-
tial nor did they specify quantity.
Public Use The refuge is located in the five-city complex of Tidewater, Virginia, with 3,500,000 people within a 150-mile radius and nearly 1,250,000 within two hours driving time. Public use on Back Bay Refuge increased
from 5,UOO in 1960 to over 200,000 in 1972. Following beach driving restrictions which began in the spring of 1973* public use on the refuge has held steady at around 80,000 visitors. Nearly 68 percent of use occurs during the five month period from July through November. Only about 2 percent of total refuge visitor use occurs within the proposed wilderness area; by far the majority of use is related to beach activity.
Beach use, birdwatching and sportfishing are major recreational activities offered by the refuge. The bay waters, although not under the jurisdiction of the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, offer some of the best largemouth bass fishing in the area. Fishing in Back Bay is under the jurisdiction of the State Commission of Game and Inland
15 Fisheries. Boaters within the proclamation waters of the refuge are subject to the State laws. Surf fishing is popular along the ocean
beach, but is allowed only as a walk-on activity. There are no public hunting programs at Back Bay Refuge. Recent visitor use on the refuge
was as follows: Number of Visits* Activities 1972 1973*-*-*
Bay Fishing** 3,395 1,5^0 Surf Fishing 1,810 1,180
Wildlife Observation 11,7^3 2,731 Walking Beach 6,866 7,080
Swimming 20,750 1,520 Picnicking 7,055 80
Beach Driving 175,113 67,^95
Photography 352 290
On Refuge Public Programs 2,2^5 5,377 Total Refuge Visitors 208,056 80,509
*Many visitors participate in two or more activities. **Within Proclamation Waters only••- not actually on the refuge. ***Beach use reduced to access by permit to people owning beach property south of the refuge boundary. Swimming, picnicking, and beach driving by permit only are activities
permitted on the refuge but not encouraged because they are not
considered as program uses since wildlife is not a significant
ingredient.
Since the establishment of the refuge in 1938, the U.2 miles of ocean beach has had unrestricted vehicular traffic. New restrictive regu- lations governing beach traffic by vehicles went into effect on March 30, 1973. These regulations restricted beach traffic by vehicle to owners of property located on the outerbanks south of the refuge.
16 Prior to 1967, the only access to the refuge sub-headquarters was by four-wheel drive vehicles which traversed the one-mile of refuge beach from the city ramp near the north boundary to the refuge ramp. In 1967, a crude sand road with steel mats was constructed behind the sand dunes which now enables two-wheel drive vehicles access to the refuge sub- headquarters. This entrance road has been converted to a two-lane paved surface. Six and one-half miles of dike are traversed by refuge motor vehicles for dike maintenance purposes. The dike trail is included in the refuge objectives as a future auto tour route. Controlled traffic occurs along the lower three miles of ocean beach. Plans for the future are to stress programs favoring wildlife-oriented recreation. Planned developments include improved wildlife interpretive trails, photography blinds, and an improved visitor contact station with exhibits and wild- life programs for groups. A.11 development is planned on the barrier banks except for foot trails, a boardwalk, and an observation tower on
Long Island. There are no plans to develop the marsh islands, where the public is limited to scientific or educational uses with special permits.
The refuge cooperates with Tidewater area universities, public, and private schools by providing outdoor classrooms for students. Further emphasis will be placed on this phase of refuge operations in the future. Teachers will be shown how to effectively use the refuge for teaching environmental relationships along with their regular subjects.
Historical and Archeological Values Although the National Register of Historic Places lists four sites within the City of Virginia Beach, none are located on the refuge. The sites listed are the Cape Henry Lighthouse, the first lighthouse
17 to be erected by the federal government; Pembroke Manor, a mid-18th century Georgian house; Throughgood House, one of the oldest houses in the English-speaking colonies; and the Wishart-Boush House, one of the oldest extant brick dwellings in the United States.
Indian relics have been found during farming operations in the fields on long Island and Ragged Island. The refuge manager has completed an inventory of historic and archeological places in the compliance with
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Executive Order
11593. A copy of the inventory form is attached. The Virginia State
Historic Preservation office and the State Areheologist were asked to comment but did not respond.
Proposal Area
The proposed wilderness area consists entirely of marsh islands with the exception of marsh surrounding Landing Cove on the mainland.
The islands are separated by shallow coves and bays and access to them is by boat only. Long Island and Ragged Island are the only areas of the proposal which show evidence of man's activities, with the exception of a small (less than one acre) portion of the Landing
Cove area which shows evidence of encroachment by adjacent farmland.
Prior to the 1930's hunting clubs were numerous and remains of one of these clubs still exists on Ragged Island. Long Island has an area of 108 acres excluded from the proposal. Within the excluded acreage are an equipment shed, fertilizer building, bridge and bulk- head, and three goose pasture fields. A narrow canal was dug which bisected Long Island during hunt club days. It has largely filled in today and averaged 3-4 feet wide and 1 foot deep and is bridged.
A small family cemetary borders the largest of three goose pastures
18 along the upland fringe, which will be excluded from the proposal. The north end of Long Island was once used as an area of impact, for military ordnance activities during WorHVIar II, and numerous small potholes now exist in this area.
The marsh islands within the proposal area are vegetated mostly with black needlerush, and cattail in the low areas and wax myrtle in the higher sites. A small grove of loblolly pine, sweet gum, red maple and hackberry of less than one acre are found on Bagged Island near the remains of the hunt club. Numerous potholes exist within the marsh area and aquatics such as milfoil, wild celery, Najas, widgeon grass and sage grow in the coves and ponds. During dry periods, annuals such as mullet and-panic grasses invade the potholes.
The marsh islands are home to a variety of bird life. Rails, gallinules and grebes breed there and wading birds such as herons and egrets find the area attractive for feeding. The marshes are an important part of the wintering habitat of a sizeable population of snow geese, Canada geese, and various species of ducks. Mammals such as white-tailed deer, otter, raccoon, nutria, and muskrat all utilize the marshes as homes. Reptiles and amphibians include the cottonmouth, several species of water snake, frogs, and turtles. Black bass, bream, catfish, and crappie are plentiful in the waters surrounding the marshes.
- 19 - Presently, only two management activities are practiced on the marshes within the proposed area. These are: marsh burning, which is done on a 3-year rotational plan to remove dead top growth and make the marsh attractive for snow geese; and fur trapping, which attempts to control the nutria population on the area.
Probable Future Environment Without the Proposal
Located within the rapidly developing City of Virginia Beach, Back
Bay National Wildlife Refuge will be subjected to the effects of an increasing population as well as greater encroachment of the lands near the refuge by summer home and tourist oriented enterprises.
An increased population with an associated shrinkage of lands available for both wildlife and non-wildlife oriented activities will place a heavy demand on Back Bay Refuge. Associated with the further develop- ment of the lands near the refuge will be the increased vulnerability of Back Bay to solid waste pollution, and the reduction of wildlife habitat similar to that found on the refuge. Construction of public use facilities on the refuge in the form of nature trails, observation towers, wildlife tour routes, and an improved visitor contact station are planned, and will be needed to satisfy the expected demand without having a deleterious effect on the refuge habitats. Pressure is developing from outside sources to construct a public highway through the refuge to Rilse Cape State Park south of the refuge. Management of the habitat for wildlife will not differ from the present day practices of water level management, marsh burning, and pasture maintenance, although more wooded upland may be converted to pasture in light of the change from exclusive marshland feeding to occasional field feeding
20 by snow geese. In summary, the quality of the refuge and its environs could be greatly reduced through overcrowding, air and noise pollution, and the visual pollution associated with the encroachment by commercial and residential facilities.
III. ENVIRONMEMTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTION Impact on Wildlife Management to increase production of black duck, mallard, gadwall, blue-winged teal, and wood duck would not be possible where physical alteration of the habitat by mechanical means would be necessary. No studies have been made of the habitat potential under intensive manage- ment, thus this impact cannot be quantified. The habitat of the pro- posed area is now in sub-climax condition as all but the smallest islands are control burned periodically to benefit and maintain snow geese.
Wildlife objectives of providing wintering habitat for waterfowl can be met by retaining this area in its natural state.
The added protection afforded by wilderness status would be favorable to the endangered southern bald eagle and 'threatened osprey along with other species, particularly insects, fish, amphibians, crustaceans, 'and reptiles vhich use the habitat of this marsh. The marshland plants of cattail, black needlerush, cord grasses, and others, and the associated animal life of the marsh including nutria, mus.krats, mink, raccoon, rails, herons, and waterfowl; would remain in their present state if no further damage to the surrounding air and water environments occurs. Fire, a natural though irregular
. - 21 - phenomena often associated with marshlands, is regarded as necessary to preserve the existing wilderness character of the Back Bay marsh.
Continued control burning of 1,900 acres of the proposed wilderness area on a three-year cycle will continue to provide feeding sites for existing populations of snow geese. Should this burning not occur on a regular basis but only on occasion, as it does in nature it is likely that during years of no burn increased depredation by the snow geese in farm fields will occur. In addition, an uncontrolled natural burn may remove all dense cover during one year and not provide cover for small mammals and birds in the marsh. The controlled burning program at Back Bay Refuge is performed only during cold winter months where water levels serve to wet the soil sufficiently to prevent the burning of soil and roots as might occur in an uncon- trolled burn. Burning is always done prior to the nesting season of marsh birds, so nest destruction will not be a factor. Burning on a three-year cycle reduces accumulations of dead vegetation, but since the entire marsh is not burned in any one year and some portions are never burned, den sites of small mammals and dense cover will not be eliminated completely. Burning always presents a potential air pollution problem. Although wind direction while burning is not considered, approval has been obtained from the Virginia State Air
Pollution Control Board and a copy of their letter of approval is attached as an appendix. If burning should contribute to excessive levels of air pollution in future years, burning would be discontinued and alternative methods of vegetation control such as discing with motor-driven equipment could not occur on the wilderness area.
22 Without some form of vegetation control the present refuge snow goose population of 20,000 - ^0,000 birds could be reduced up to 50 percent.
The remaining birds would scatter over the area, and depredation on adjacent and near by farm fields could be expected to increase. The act of burning, resulting in removal of accmulations of dead vegetation,
could create increased erosion of the marsh land. For this reason, the
smaller islands and exposed narrow points of land are not burned. This
consideration serves to preserve the physical existence of the marsh.
Pesticides for plant and insect control and toxicants for animal control will be prohibited except in emergency situations such as heavy growth
of noxious vegetation becoming dominant in the marsh or overpopulations of animals. The potential for these emergencies is considered slight, based on past management experience.
Wilderness status will have no impact on present trapping programs designed to control nutria populations. Motorboats could continue to be used by trappers on excluded Bay waters. Wilderness status would afford no protection to the established nesting colony of herons which exist in an area on Long Island excluded from the proposal.
In summary, the impact of the proposed action on existing wildlife would be negligible as long as controlled burning continues. Wildlife objectives of the refuge can be attained under wilderness status as proposed and the added protection against future development would be beneficial to both threatened and non-threatened species of the marsh.
Impact on Economy
Under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, the City of Virginia Beach received
$6,^8l.08 in fiscal year 1973- This payment will not be affected by the proposed action as wilderness status does not prohibit revenue sharing.
The proposed area includes no timber of commercial value other than the possible sale of the Long Island and Green Hill pines for pulp wood. This would not be permitted under wilderness designation.
There are no plans to harvest timber in these small isolated areas so this impact is considered negligible.
The exploration for and potential commercial exploitation of mineral resources would not be permitted on the marsh lands under wilderness designation. Since the proposal is within an area of possible oil or gas activity, drilling could take place in the excluded Bay. The existence of drilling rigs in the Bay waters around the proposal area would substantially detract from the area as wilderness. There will be no impact on the amount of commercial fishing on the refuge since this activity occurs only on the ocean beach and within the Bay waters included in the Proclamation area. Both areas are excluded from the proposed wilderness area. There are no outstanding mineral leases on the proposed area.
In summary, there will be no effect on the economy by the proposed action.
Impact on Public Use
The proposed wilderness area presently has very limited public use. The marsh islands are regarded as closed areas to the public. Access is granted only to individuals involved in scientific study, fur trapping, and for the purpose of wildlife observation by permit only. Less than 2 percent of the total refuge public use (80,000 anual visits) takes place
2k on the proposed wilderness area. Due to the navigability of the water areas within the proposed wilderness, the proposed action would not affect boating in connection with sport and commercial fishing. These activities will continue to be permitted in accordance with State and and Federal regulations. Wilderness designation would prohibit motor- ized vehicles and development of public use facilities on the area.
Included in the refuge objectives are plans for a conducted foot trail with a boardwalk and a self-guided canoe trail. Wilderness designation would have the effect of precluding development of these facilities.
Public use adjacent to the marshes will probably increase but it is unlikely that wilderness designation would create any additional use restraints other than already exist. The beach area, not a part of the proposal, will continue to be the major attraction of the refuge. Public use, principally sportfishing and wildlife observation, will continue as in the past on the Bay waters surrounding the proposed areas. There would be visual and noise impact from motorboats using these and adjacent waters which would lessen the quality of the wilderness experience. Up to 50 or more outboard motorboats can be seen from the proposed wilderness on a heavy use day. Because of the influx of milfoil in Bay waters, which hampers conventional motorboat use, there has been an increase in the use of airboats. Approximately six of these boats intermittently operate on the Back Bay.
The programs of the State and City Parks adjacent to Back Bay Refuge would not be affected since the primary use of these areas are for beach- associated activities. Development of vehicle access routes through the proposed area to False Cape State Park would not be permitted. A possible increase in the use of foot trails at Seashore State Park could be realized since wilderness designation would preclude foot trail development on Long
Island. In summary, the effect on public use on the refuge will be minimal since little use by the public occurs presently on the proposed wilderness. Distractive factors are present which will lower the quality of the wilder- ness experience. The proposal will prevent the construction of any public use facilities or access routes on the proposed area.
Impact on Historical and Archeological Values
The Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge contains no known archeological or historical sites according to the State Liaison Officer for Historic
Preservation. Compliance with Executive Order 11593 and the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 is in the process of being effected.
No potential conflicts have been recognized and preliminary investigation indicates that Indian artifacts found on Long Island and Ragged Island are the only archeological items of interest within the refuge. Wilder- ness designation would provide added protection against possible destruc- tion of any resource through the exclusion of habitat manipulation by mechanical means. The exploration for and study of archeological sites could be made more inconvenient and costly through denial of sophisticated mechanical equipment.
In summary, there would be negligible impact on the historical and archeological values of the area by the proposed action.
Impact of Off-Refuge Developments on the Wilderness Proposal Heavy summer home construction operations at Sandbridge, overhead telephone and powerlines, maintenance of dikes and traffic on the dike surface which is used for access and will be used as a wildlife drive, operation activi- ties on the refuge, and permanent waterfowl hunting blinds in the Bay out- side refuge boundaries will be visual and auditory distraction to the wilderness user. 26 The possibility of establishment of -oil drilling rigs in the Bay off •••••• • • . jutjuiw.. • the refuge exists. The quality of the wilderness experience would
be lessened as a result of these developments and activities. Damage
to the resource resulting from pollution in the form of oil spills
and solid waste pollution exists as a possible future adverse effect
to the proposed area.
In summary, off-refuge developments -will detract from the wilderness
experience.
IV. MITIGATING MEASURES-INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION
There are no mitigating measures included in the proposed action.
V. ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED " ~~ • '
Management to produce additional numbers of black duck, mallard, gadwall,
blue-wing teal, wood duck, and osprey would not be possible where
physical alteration of the habitat by mechanical means would be neces-
sary. The magnitude of this impact is difficult to quantify, although
it is estimated that 200 additional ducks and 4 ospreys could be
produced annually under intensive management of the proposed area.
Exploration for development of gas and oil would be prohibited with
wilderness designation, possibly representing a foregone future
economic opportunity since both areas have been found to have potential
according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Although no permanent facilities for public use and scientific research
exist on the proposed area, future developments would be excluded under
27 wilderness designation. Alternatives for access to the liaise Cape State Park would be limited to sites not effected by the proposal.
The controlled burning program would reduce the quality of the wilder-
ness experience. During periods of burning in the winter months,
visitors would be excluded from the area. Following a burn, prior to
instigation of new plant growth in the spring, the area that is burned has a charred unpleasant appearance. Adverse audio and visual impacts
from helicopter and jet overflights, motorboats in the surrounding
waters, and pasture management operations would be unavoidable. Pumping station noise, construction activity at Sandbridge and artillery firing
at Dam Week, would also contribute to audio distractions.
VI. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Uses such as birdwatching, photography, nature study and fishing that
are encouraged under existing refuge regulations would continue under
wilderness designation. There would be no change in existing wildlife populations because of wilderness designation. The habitat would remain unchanged. Existing land uses such as burning, trapping, and
pasture maintenance will continue, and long-term productivity should remain unchanged. Wilderness designation will assure long-term pro- ductivity of renewable resources and retention of non-renewable resources.
VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
The wilderness proposal would commit the land, vegetation, wildlife,
possible historic sites, and unknown mineral resources involved for
28 preservation under wilderness classification until such time as the
Congress might determine that the national interest would be better
served by declassification for other purposes.
VIII. Alternatives to the proposed actions are: (A) No Action; (B) Modify
the Area of the Proposal
(A) No Action
Although intensive management is not planned for the marshlands, the
effect of no action would permit any future management prerogatives
to be carried out under refuge administration. Future development
and more intensive wildlife management practices would remain an
option of the Bureau. Land uses other than for wildlife refuge pur-
poses, such as commercial concession now within the authority of the
Secretary of the Interior, could be allowed as that office might
determine. Being within the limits of a rapidly growing city, the
refuge will be subject to intensive human pressures to provide recrea-
tional opportunity to a large number of people. Permanent research
and public use facilities could be constructed. No research facili-
ties are planned in the immediate future, but public use facilities,
including foot trails, a visitor contact station, an observation tower,
and a canoe trail are all included in the refuge objectives. Vehicle
access to the Ealse Cape State Park from the mainland could be developed.
(B) Modify the Areas of the Proposal
(l) Increase the proposal to include the additional 108 acres
of upland area on Long Island for a total proposal of
2,273 acres.
29 BACK BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Wilderness Proposal Alternative (B) (l) Add Long Island Upland
;! %/•v *'/ / . V- •**^. -—" i "jfcir^>£ H-Hi C^v;^"V'.-.A^* i ; v/fS.*x"-•ra£v-V- •<^ X&ipi-} * •, *\5sdPm> t'^ f;v c> ' 4f?r^^^s^v« ^ $F - *:&'! ! ^iK^^fM-
AREA ADDED TO THE PROPOSAL UNDER THIS ALTERNATIVE 30 v-':.1_i. ..Jirj^L^ .: :!,..S.3fcaKiS«i*:a;\*:' ""t-- -'•i'ie-at.-.-iiifeiijj.-. .^U**!*^- j^viites Under this alternative all refuge lands lying on the outer banks portion of the refuge would be excluded.
Impacts The impacts of this alternative would include those previously discussed under the proposed action. Additionally, the following would be effected by this course of action. The present management practices of mowing the upland fields, as well as the possible conversion of the timbered areas to pasture, including possible destruction of a heron nesting colony, would be prohibited under this alternative. Prohibition of these practices would be adverse to average populations of 11,000 Canada geese and U0,000 snow geese which are the primary users of the fields. The geese would be forced to seek an alternative food source, and would likely result in an increase in use at Mackay Island Refuge; and depredation of private farm fields in the area causing an economic loss to the farmers.
The present impact on public use of the refuge under this alternative would be virtually nil as less than .1 percent of the total refuge public use occurs on this area. Access to the area is by boat only, and the likelihood for increased public use of the area is small. A wildlife trail has been included in the refuge objectives which would traverse a portion of this area. This type of development would not be permitted under this alternative. While the area under wilderness designation could not be artificially manipulated by mechanical means, it would be preserved in its present state, and over the long-term, regain a measure of naturalness. The lands and resources would receive the protection benefits afforded by wilderness designation.
31 (2) Increase the proposal to include approximately 150 acres of marshland located on the outerbanks portion of the refuge west of the managed impoundments for a total proposal of 2,315 acres.
Impacts
The impacts of this alternative would include those previously dis- cussed under the proposed action. Additionally, the following would be effected by this course of action. The present management practices of burning and trapping would be permitted to continue under wilderness designation. No public use presently occurs on this area due to its low marshy habitat; however, the area lies immediately adjacent to the dike trails where approximately 75 percent of wildlife observation use on the refuge occurs. No public use facilities exist on the area nor are any planned. The proximity of the area to higher public use in the future could make it valuable to possible future development in the form of boardwalk trails, observation towers, and exhibits which would be precluded under wilderness designation. If a road were needed to provide more dependable and efficient access to private holdings south of the refuge boundary, these presently natural marshlands could be filled and built up to form a base for a highway from Virginia beach to the South
Carolina line.
Parking areas and. boat launching sites could be developed for fishing and boating access to Sand Bay. With or without a possible roadway, spoil could be deposited on the area in the event that at some future date navigation in the bay for intensive public recreation was proclamed as compatable with waterfowl management in the impoundments. With wild- erness designation these and other similar actions could not occur.
Wildlife utilization of this area would be unaffected by wilderness
32 J BACK BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ,/ " City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Wilderness Proposal Alternative (B) (2) Add Outerbanks Marshland
.- -J _..»_.- ir : i.t y-.v-C7 fl ___._^. ^ '^. '-'~-, ??^m i X / • -N; ~^ : v w•%• - ~ - • v - ^v X f -J-Pi -^'r':/.!; ; ' N/X\ X q - -1^ L ; ~Wtt ^ w^,t ^ 4" 41'-- ^»i1i v ft [f., /t^W XI 7} V, -*i^ ^ * /' n-ii^ AC^^V * tv I ^TF /I / .H l.t *!1« i-^-Tr- -—^y-"^> "" .t-r- *" *-^---' ! rv />I- >->•:^rsH- -x)r;. -i, ', --n^ Wt^,^-•_Hi-KI 4fI->J 1 "15it i ? -" ^SL»^* iJ? ii- P• *• I ftffy.. ;# &ii JBF «/ ' w : -^ in „ ttW ,,rta, ..;>• . -•>? ,WJ1 1 JTO!rT^ :.^;^'"'>(^>AtTr / M'T fW-JH'- jft(t$ ^ ^ •-}( mi \ i ^v-gl' (_ IS ^ tM/«.< XT / < I .^ < ^*• llswir- > f W ..-ffetl^ ' .^ .-i-l ->' ^>i flt I! ^-£i? ^^4l^-fPf -5.J7 / :>r 4#_ . ;#^tp|;%M 4--ilv - ^-lu - ^vy^r^fUliiMH »i*3;i-:Oi1 "^llil ro3Pw r i^; .-*-.--vr zi;! . !«// - -* ,- • -* i\\ • P-" _ S—-T* ^ Nv ^-V'i . f/-:• ( : ' -1 1 -I *-^J J , "" *-.-" ^*~4-. tmwll ^ -^ • -L *"V-~' --:-' '• i ^^-•-Vy fell ' 'Q^ tS^W^-^-VK?^.^>-^ftll; - ^5d3s^. >• » *.-: > fki- ^ca-mR-—"-c^T-r-^'-J, ~.,-I* , ^^ »-.;S:H- —-i-^-~~^j T i*• ' ' ..s•* ^ **-t/* -•*•'*''**/ V\$-J • # j ^^*;y^-W^'c>-«v--/--v--"—r- ^X_i^r- • "* - - --. v"-- . 84;i-f"V '• jI ; ; FaS£Q^^-^--;-:Z>>-i/?^, -" *^: *r->* •* -^-^.--^fe-i-- •.;-<-M St.; .:: i;: ^3, T-^uiy-sV^-,..- ;~_^ -,^0 /Mljj . -v^lrszr Cv". -W.V--S, .,-1^ I irmSS'Hi^^" -"'t*' ->-V-*-'v"-py ° >|j;f^;1j i' -'.->Wi.-,--« .-ji-.:, '*?' Ojcr —» .» . ••> _..» iW, ,«, I , ? rT : - *.--.^»> «-?*^^~. ^ -.->^ — -.-«?^*^3' , /';5/}* n' ; ^iii^ 1JII\ \-\\\ o ll i %% VV;*"-' ».".•*• V;^r .' :.••'- *••r-^.-^-^^V'-» .~-i»- *.' '-1l K«:•( •) •i i \^:^.x ., - - . „ - , •«. >%• j' .& } -I , X°'"':- \'*•'A\ , ~W*I '"' ^ VW\ ir-hp-x*-p ? ^|L-^Sv-i^*^ ^ <\ %v> \ - a-. -^l i-L ^ •.x \\ -\ :-, '-—•-> i 4"-r j' i -^^i^f^fii'.--W.YL /r r 'a?;11 •*-Ai . '.: .^-c: : ' ^y-»H,,•"•..,/"", ^*s•j -i- - '-'Vrfr + ' '£ ",Ai\ •\f-1f , ! * --..••. <\\ f li' ^,. ^^f^-f^V: r v4:* -A -\\ \ '•/• x ' - "TS<:--?, -^ •% '-Vx / x / *'Vr< 1t•"'" ^J- / -v'' &j*ii, j,j, i -Mi - PROPOSED WILDERNESS E - AREA EXCLUDED FROM WILDERNESS AREA ADDED TO THE PROPOSAL UNDER THIS ALTERNATIVE 33 designation. (3) Reduce the area by eliminating the marshes of Long Island, approximately 650 acres, for a total proposal of approximately 1,515 acres. Impacts The impacts of this alternative would be similar to those examined under the proposal except for the following: Because of the wet marshy condition of the area and access by boat only, the area holds little potential for extensive development from a public use standpoint. Presently, the area is closed to the public except by permit for the purpose of scientific study or wildlife observation. However, included within the refuge objectives are a proposed wildlife trail and board- walk and a self-guided canoe trail. These facilities could be constructed if the area was excluded from wilderness. In addition, nesting structures for ospreys and ducks could be established on the area in the future. The only present management activities which occur on this land are burning and trapping, which could continue under wilderness designation. Without wilderness protection development could occur by filling the marsh. The islands could be used to bridge vehicle traffic from the mainland to the barrier beach and could be diked and filled to meet future demands for intensive recreation such as picnicking and camping. Pipe lines and utilities could cross the area to possible but unknown future off shore oil resource development. In summary, present wildlife management practices can be continued by either including or excluding this area from wilderness. However, by excluding this area, it would be subject to encroachment and non- 3^ IN BACK BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE FiEFUGE City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Wilderness Proposal Alternative (E) (3) Exclude Long Island ~ ,• •'• ~~* i ' - -i%- "I -»- /&, V i/ / / \\\^\. XM /\ "^-'^.Vy: />/ r-Wl4- ^- ":'• /\>?V->•/-"- : ^tfe x <> VJiX--."'Xii.X--.' • _,-<-Uvi-,•Jlif . ..»-. m""• * ! .'* ? Xx/'/K^-' y- /i ' ~ - • .}»- Vx - .— x'~.—'rj:f' • •' £rri ^ Jf - ; ,-:•Xnv^i^• - , ; .-..- .-..: ,. " -i--knjl'f-' tTiJ-rr ev f'/ ,q-^-. Ci"4''''-v OV , ' f< |V_ 1 ; ; h : ! #ft -' :^1-^.."itt lf^-vtfX-'-;-1 ~- ' • -••' .,-'LK.-jlr K ' >•'- - '-4;T^J' T^L -'l ,-,,..-,<( : -^'\v\*0 v Y '^fey i?S ;\ , ••r^'41-^^i'i"^-. .^- -I -L "^-'i ^ - -;"-V- i * -«t '--'~ ^ T-rii-'!'•.• ''-*S*/!- '"• ^CP±;..-i4 r^.p,: X; C-'K:- - ,.-^. 5 /^ ,.,^:r / '-:p ----j; l; ••.:-^.-»*-*"T-' < .»-.- i% r;^>-- \ '] •xV-j-nJ ^; \r?. . «.>!-'1 '.' *^^-r^v. -v• T r}' .-- •'• tta 5 = * *.*.'i >•- ^4ft ^ JSKS^- #1;^ --'" ^ * -"^*- ', * -•"""' -. •" -^. • .'"' ,." ^ -'-»v :;ry' k•o: ,i - < " -^* ^ - .~,>- i *f_f~r. 'f I •'..- ,'' ".'"J.S- i W ; / • A.---j> - -- '-.-'V; > - - ,,;.t-lr^ZA'--'^> ' :' V) I , S?*fcv -o -~-h / XOv - -' H A, °"*'»,of**-°*ff - -.\, j J^Ht^- v /' -"'^. ^ /..,i^.--•;-^^r- • . '. t". -O • -fr--. t -i"1".-j/ ,^;-s, ••' :'•' ,> S::.-r^^';"-^—-"-" £'-s~~ ^ u rf:iife Ci^^/'t -^ ^' St. ^, I ^:Pif - - ^rT-r^fft! .„.^ />>*/>/* - * 5 • •:' '** ; NlV^ ' '•*' --l "*"' A* *r : : 1 3 *«r ^ ^ ^^Q/0 ^^ -••~,fe2\ _ ;t;i:^rV^?X. * //M, "I -• '.'J --i +•*,'"°** ^X *-.: S x^'. -! ' *^A I * ~~" '.^••'-Vf'^ '^ ..,' ..^nt;^ •* -«.'• ,,<- 4} -i^H^I- -n--«j^/ -" TU L v Vr;, %i « 1IS t»-.!,•• O;x4-k^ /••'-* ^ c^^ - ^:^&:^i'-•>'' j-, / : ;-^. > v^>. i: ^K"^'-^^\» ._— fj ->y v-t-j--- 'r-:hrC^^SC ' -o-,>"' v:H, ch:. • -v :**?3 ' &CT ,:*> :tV-V> •:-'-,' x.-. , ,fiJmm ,^_ . - - - • -.--'/"^-" .-. -.j.'» J "4 ,-.~^'-CL .-'V^-'^rr r' •-I-" ^-M*-5 "X"* "^•'.pi^S-. -F^UM^ HJ^.D ^i^L'^l--^^-^*'" : .'^riW^'f^Ui l |; ^ ^>:^ ,,]/; •:--:\>-;Vl\; V^fi.-i IVx : •^{V •* -M. ^•'* • . ^^ • - •, '•-P.il! • / i ' ;;fc^ F : \-.v;-?V.;»» :•'••! /i \K ^/ /' ^*.'?:*^.V-C'..- o ;i ' / V**T\;^^.-;* V-^, ^M*i V\S\ ' 17^,;'^} -.-•\ -«? C , '- \- -*.V: - -<" |T|':' : ; ^ W% \ v-l : / '{^a -l- f \\\ \x . -, ;--;if- \\ ' PROPOSED WILDERNESS -'^V'''' ';• ;; - AREA EXCLUDED FROM WILDERNESS '' - AREA EXCLUDED FROM THE PROPOSAL UNDER THIS .ALTERNATE 35 /// BACK BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Wilderness Proposal Alternative (E) (4) Exclude Ragged Island r _4_ : H /;V/ "X // .--*.-^' -•-' • I s . 'X : ' j- \ • "• "' ~ •%-. v y/ \ "••< ,^:rs- -: / v-->- i's'$y\r } viw" ' - / \\ \ ' \l LAW1'' - PROPOSED WILDERNESS t r AREA EXCLUDED FROM WILDERNESS AREA EXCLUDED FROM THE PROPOSAL UNDER THIS ALTERNATIVE IA conforming uses by man such as roads, permanent recreation facilities, and utility easements as future needs might dictate. Under wilderness status these and other future actions could not be approved by the Director or the Secretary. (U) Reduce the area by eliminating Ragged Island, approximately '460 acres, for a total proposal of approximately 1,705 acres. Impacts This area is composed entirely of low wet marsh and potholes, with the exception of a small stand of trees less than 1 acre surrounding the Old Ragged Island Club site. Access to the area is by boat only. The area is considered closed to the public and access is permitted only for the purposes of scientific study and wildlife observation. With its numerous potholes it is a very desirable marsh in its natural state for supporting waterfowl and other waterbirds. Bridges, seawalls, and hunting club buildings at one time existed on Ragged Island. The impacts of this alternative would include those previously discussed under the proposed action and those discussed under alternative $3. The practices of the habitat manipulation by mechanical means, and the establishment of artificial nesting structures for waterfowl and osprey would continue to be options available for management of the area if excluded from wilderness. These options can not exist on a wilderness designated area. In summary, while the probability for development of this land is presently considered low, this course of action would permit unlimited wildlife management options and leave it subject to encroachment and non-conforming uses by man as future needs might dictate. The protection afforded by 37 wilderness designation which would preclude all development and commer- cial exploitation of the area, would be lost. IX. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS A. Consultation and Coordination in the Development of the Proposal in the Preparation of the Draft Environmental Statement. Coordination has been effected with the U. S. Geological Survey re- garding their knowledge on mineral resources. The State Historical Officer and State Archeologist were contacted but did not respond. A public hearing to receive comments concerning this proposal was held May 15, 1974. B. Coordination in Review of Draft Environmental Statement Copies of this statement have been sent to the following for official review: Department of Defense Department of Commerce Environmental Protection Agency Department of Agriculture Department of Transportation U. S. Coast Guard Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Bureau of Mines National Park Service U. S. Geological Survey Virginia State Planning and Development Clearinghouse City of Virginia Beach, Virginia City of Portsmouth, Virginia City of Newport News, Virginia City of Hampton, Virginia City of Norfolk, Virginia City of Chesapeake, Virginia City of Suffolk, Virginia Currituck County, North Carolina 38 BACK BAY WILDERNESS STUDY PUBLIC HEARING ANALYSIS In accordance with requirements of the Wilderness Act, a public hearing concerning the Back Bay Wilderness Study was held on May 15, 1974 at the City Council Chambers, Virginia Beach, Virginia. From a total of 33 individuals attending the hearing, 16 presented oral statements. Twelve oral statements were made in support of designating wilderness at Back Bay. Four had some reservations concerning the proposal. Eight people recommended extending wilderness designation to include the Green Hills area and the fingers of natural marshland directly north. A total of 236 individuals submitted statements. All but one (a Michigan resident), who questioned the desirability of the proposal, supported the proposed Back Bay Wilderness. Eight of these were not entirely clear in regard to their position on the specific wilderness proposal. About half of the wilderness supporters requested that the Bureau proposal be enlarged to include the Green Hills area for a total of 2,400 acres of wilderness. The following table summarizes communications from organizations, individuals, elected officials, local, State and Federal agencies, and the position taken on the proposal. 39 SUMMARY Total Support Bureau Oppose Bureau Proposal Plus Position Not Proposal Wilderness Add Green Hills etc. Clear Communications 270 136 2 119 13 'Rpp.p'i vpfi _ Organizations 23 11 11 1 Individuals 236 119 1 103 3 Elected 3 2 - - 1 Officials State Agencies 2 1 - - 1 1 1 - - Local Agencies - 1 2 Federal 4 1 - Agencies 1 - - Petitions 1 - As a result of the public hearing and communications the proposal was revised to include an additional 215 acres in the Green Hills area (see Wilderness Proposal Map, Page iii), for a total proposed wilderness area of 2,165 acres. 40 nn- J October 1973 •>... -»J4-f»-- BIRDS OF THE BACK BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Varied by sand dunes, ocean beach, marsh, woodland, and cultivated fields, BACK BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE has a rich, diverse bird life. Spectacular whistling swa"ns, and large flocks of snow and Canada geese and many kinds of ducks greet the winter visitor, as well as other interesting speciesf among them snow buntings, yellow ruinped warblers, and many gulls, sandpipers, plover, and terns. Other seasons, although not as productive of birds, nevertheless will amply reward the birder who comes to the refuge. Back Bay Refuge, created in 1938 and comprising l+f600 acres, is located in southeastern Virginia in the famous Back Bay waterfowl region of Princess Anne in Virginia Beach. Adjacent to the population centers of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, it has become a showcase for large concentrations of waterfowl. This folder lists 258 birds that have been identified on the refuge. Forty-seven more, considered accidental as they have been seen only once or twice, are listed separately. Any information regarding additions or changes to this list would be greatly appreciated and should be reported to Refuge Personnel. Birds preceded by * are known to breed on the refuge. Symbols for seasonal abundance of each species are coded as follows: S - March-May a - abundant S - June-August c - common F — September—November u - uncommon W - December-February o - occasional r - rare 41 Birds of BACK BAY National Wildlife Refuge Varied by sand dunes, ocean beach, marsh, woodland, and cultivated fields, BACK BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REF- UGE has a rich, diverse bird life. Spectacular whistling swans, and large flocks of snow and Canada geese and many kinds of ducks greet the winter visitor, as well as other interesting species, among them snow buntings, Ipswich sparrows, myrtle warblers, and many gulls, sandpipers, plover, and terns. Other seasons, although not as productive of birds, nevertheless will amply reward the birder who comes to the refuge. Back Bay Refuge, created in 1938 and comprising 4,600 acres, is located in southeastern Virginia in the famous Back Bay waterfowl region of Princess Anne County. Adjacent to the population centers of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, it has become a showcase for as many as 200,000 waterfowl. This folder lists 240 birds that have been identified on the refuge. Thirty-four more, considered accidental as they have been seen only once or twice, are listed separately. Refuge Leaflet 162-R2 • December 1970 42 S.ras preceded by • aic known to bre«l on jSJ~SjF]w" the refuqe. Symbols for seasonal abundance ot cuch ;.pecies are coded 3s follows: Oidbfiuaw /-t- S - \\irch-May a - abundant White-winyed Scoter r u!c S - June-August c • common Surf Scoter 0 _Oj_C F September-Novemboi u - uncommon Common Scotu r uiu V.1 - December-February n - occasions! r - rare Ruddy Duck c Tir Hooded Merganser HT. Common Merganser f C'L- Red-breabtrd Merganser c r c !c ; isjs .HE Turkey Vulture c c dc Cornmo-n Loon .i."-l— c jc Black Vulture u u U i U Red-throart'd Loon | c | o i c Sharp-shinned Hawk u r u;u Red-necked Grebe J ' . r Cooper's Hawk o o io u iC Red-tailed Hawk o 0 n io Horned Greb^ 1 u I — — --J — • Pied-billed Grehe i c c ic Red-shouldered Hawk u u uiu Sooty Shearwater j r u 1 Rough-tecjged Hawk r >r u Wilson's Petrel i jo Bald Eagle - UiU Brown Pelican |r 1 i Marsh Hawk c r cjc Gannet c r c jc Osprey c c cjr Double-crested Cormordnt c c u Peregrine Falcon u uju • Great Blue Hfon c c C jC Pigeon Hawk 0 U 0 • Green Heron c c c io Sparrow Hawk c c c • Little Blue Heron c c c :u • Bobwhite c c c c Cattle Egret u u C : • King Rail u u u r • Common Egret c c c iu Clapper Rail o o o . o • Snowy Egret r c C iU Virginia Rail c c c io u • Louisiana Heron U r !r Sora 0 u oju • Blank-crowned Night Heron c c ; Black Rait u u u! • Yellow-crowned Night Heron u O ! Common Gallinule 0 u oUi tu * Least Bittern u o ; Purple Gallinule o o [ ( • American Bittern c c c u American Coot c ala • Glossy Ibis c c c ir American Oystercatcher 5- 0 r | Whistling Swan ^ £ ,£ Semipalmated Plover c j u j c | u • Canada Gco-,e a r a ja Piping Plover Brant r r Wilson's Plover White-fronied Goose ! r Killdeer Snow Goose a a ia American Golden Plover Btue Goose 0 0 |O Black-bellied Plover • Mallard c r c ic Ruddy Turnstone • Black Duck a u a \a Common Snipe • Gadwall u o u u American Woodcock Pintail a a]a Spotted Sandpiper Green-winged Teal c C 1C Solitary Sandpiper • Blue-winged Teat c r c jo ~Wiii«" European Widgeon r r i r Greater Yellowlegs American Widgeon a a [a Lesser Yellowlegs Shoveler o uju Knot • Wood Duck u u ujo" Pectoral Sandpiper Redhead u cjc White-rumped Sandpipei Ring-necked Duck c c|c Least Sandpiper Canvasback o C !C Dunlin Greater Scaup u u !u Dowitcher (both species?) Lesser Scaup u C I- C_ Stilt Sandpiper Common Go'deneye o o jo Semipalmaled Sandpiper 43 *" ST«>:FJW • 1 s'slFiW --r-.t-f- Western Sandp'per ' 'J_i_cjo • Carolina Chickadee u ; u iu u — h+-i- • Buff-breasted Sandpiper T7T • Tufted Titmouse U ] U :'l 1 U Marbled Godwi; > ,'< • Whiie'-breastsd Nuthatch jr :r r ' r Sanderling a •i;c|r Red breasted Nuthatch I r j !r i r Aine- ii;;.-n Av. r*.t : ' !• • Brown-hsadfd Nuthatch —u h—fu tu —! u ; BUck-f-ec^i H Ring-billed Guii a ^u 1 a ''* Hermit Thrush u 1 jlJ Laughing Gull a a . a ;o Swamson's Thrush ~uT" Bonaparte's Gul! i . o :c Giay-cheeked Thrush c 0 I GuN-bUled Tern c j c ; c j Veery o Forster's Tern u u'ulo Eastern Bluebird ~°-u u u u Common Tern c c|cju Blue ..ray Gnatcatcher |u u Roseate Tern r r i i Golnen crowned Kinglet |u j u u Least Tern u ujui Ruby-crowned Kinglet lul (J jli Royal TPT- u u i u o VVater Pipit :- i o jo Caspian Tom u u j u :o Cedar WDV.V," ,j iu julu Black Tern o ulol Loggerhta • Eastern Wood Pewee u u ' u ; Northern Waterthrush r r I -T - Horned Lark r t r io Louisiana Waterthrush u u U • Tree Swallow c c |a o Kentucky Warbler o o 0 Bank Swallow u |r • Yellowthroat a a a r Rough-winged Swallow u u |r • Yellow-breasted Chat u u u • Barn Swallow a ja ja 'Hooded Warbler u u u • Purple Martin c c ic ! American Redstart u r u • Blue Jay r jr jr jr • House Sparrow u u u [u • Common Crow c :i. c !c Bobolink c "1 • Fish Cro/ jc c ic jc • f astern Meadowlark c c i 44 S s t- -w s s Flw * ?ed-winged Blackbird a * * i rf . • Rufous-sided Towhee c c c| u u * Orchard Oriole u u _| Ipswich Sparrow 01 0 Baltimore Oriole r ' i, Savannah Sparrow jc 0 cic Rusty Biackin'rd Mr • Henslow's Sparrow lu u U] « Boot-tailed Crackle c c c [ u Sharp-tailed Sparrow , ]u III U • Common Gr-jokiS u Uj 0 • Crown-headed Cewbitd c i! c | a Vesper Sparrow tr r SiraHet Tana^r r j Slate-colored Junco jc et' c' • Summer Tanager u u u ! Tree Sparrow ] • r jr • Cardinal c c c c • Chipping Sparrow jc c c i r Hose-breasted Grosbeak r r • Field Sparrow |u u cl u • CiueGrosbeek u u u White-crowned Sparrow ju u{ r • Indigo Bunting c c c i White-thro:iTed Sparrow jc Cj C Dickcissel r j Fox Sparrow u .UL" Purple Finch 0 o [ o Swamp Spartow jc do Pine Siskin o o i o • Song Sparrow !c u c, c • American Goldfinch u 0 u | u Snow Bunting j o| u These additional 34 species have been recorded only once or twice on Back Bay Refuge: Eared Grebe Black-legged Kittiwake Cory's Shearwater Sabine's Gul! Audubon's Shearwater Razorbill Leach's Petrel Thick-billed Murre Anhinga Common Puffin Wood Ibis Ground Dove White Ibis Great Horned Owl Fulvous Tree Duck Snowy Owl Common Eider Connecticut Warbler King Eider Mourning Warbler Yellow Rail Canada Warbler Upland Plover Yellow-headed Blackbird Purple Sandpiper Common Redpoll Baird's Sandpiper Lark Bunting Hudsonian Godwit Lark Sparrow Lesser Black-backed Gull Clay-colored Sparrow Black-headed Gull Lapland Longspur UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE 45 Summary of Changes Made in Final as a Result of Draft Comments Agency Comment On Page Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Recreational Benefits Summary Page National Park Service Identify Historic Site 18,53 Surveyor 46 V PHESCRIBBD BURNING PLAN BACK BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE I, Justification •MM^jMMMMMMMM The\f^ollowing proposed annual burning plan for Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge is submitted for your approval. This burning plan is proposed as a three-year rotational system beginning during the 1973-1974 burning season. It is self-evident that any marsh burning program must be elastic in nature to allow for the many inherent weather variables which dictate what can be burned each season and how thorough the burn will be. However, this plan is submitted as the optimum method for control burning the marsh areas of Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge and should be followed as closely as possible for six years to properly evauiate its effec- tiveness. The primary purpose of the refuge at the time of acquisition was to provide sanctuary and habitat for migratory birds, particularly waterfowl. Today's objectives have expanded to include management for a full .spectrum of wildlife with special emphasis on waterfowl, shorebirds, and rare and endangered species, and to provide refuge visitors with a degree of wildlife-oriented recreation and environ- mental education. Controlled burning on the refuge is a necessary management tool to meet the above objectives. It sets plant succession back to an earlier, more desirable stage for optimum waterfowl usage. Many areas of the marsh islands and the impoundment system if allowed to proceed into the latter stages of plant succession will become dominated by dense stands of vegetation which is of relatively low value to waterfowl. Black needlerush (Juncus roemarianus) T- and, cattails (Typha spp.), become established in the low wet areas in such dense stands that waterfowl will not utilize associated plants of , relatively high food value such as muskgrasses (Chara spp.), wax myrtles establish themselves along the marsh fringes and shade out more desirable upland species. We have found the best ways to modify areas of dense unbroken stands of undesirable vegetation is to burn and/or disc them during a dry period and then flood the area* 31z)*e discing is so expensive and impractical over most of the ,,4Ureas burning is the only alternative. Winter burns have found to be the most sought after feeding areas by the large geose flock that currently winters at Back Bay Refuge. Generally, \ \. 47 •life: snow geese will immediately move to a freshly burned marsh particularly if it is muddy or lightly flooded. The burning removes the dense, dry top growth and exposes the succulent roots and tubers of the marsh plants. The feeding activities cf the snow geese in turn benefit many other species of waterfowl, marsh, and water birds by creating "eat-outE" which are depressions created by their feeding habits, and normally are the first portions of a dry marsh to fill with water. These eat-outs will normally be colonized by pennywort, 3-squares, duck potatoes, sraartweeds and aquatic sub- raergents such as sago and muskgrasses and are subsequently heavily- utilized by dabbling ducks and wading birds the year following the burn. With the increased usage of winter wheat fields by snow geese and the associated depredation complaints by local farmers, it has become imperative that we provide as much feeding area on the refuge as possible. Burning has been found to be the best method to accom- plish this goal. When farmers are shown what we are doing by burning, they are more willing to accept the fact on occasion some of the birds may visit their fields. They realize that we are doing as much as possible to assist them. II. Cooperation With Other Agencies We realize that pollution is a major issue and must be considered in any burning operation. Under existing state regulations for Virginia burning is kpermitted as a tool in improving habitat for wildlife. We have received no complaints concerning air pollution resulting from our past burning operations. Prior to any burning at Back Bay the following State and Federal agencies will be con- tacted and advised of our burning plans: Environmental Protection Agency (Phila.) DD 215-597-9431 Virginia Beach Fire Department 486-4433 Virginia Air Pollution Control Board 499-6845 Virginia Department of Forestry 488-1921 The following equipment is on hand at the refuge in case of loss of control of a fire: 1 D-6 Caterpillar Tractor, 10.952, w/dozer blade and/or Borne disc, 1 tyTHH 14-28 1 Light Crawler Tractor (Oliver OC-6 M/1960) w/blade 1 Massey-Ferguson 35 wheeled tractor w/John Deere J0WA 8*6" farm disc 1 Portable Pacific pumper 2/300' hose H8 • ?-& '•f,' ':^Je^sK^JKJttitJjseKt^:,^^:,^ ,., i *»,Mr '.v.':'. • i '' -.,,.,«• .,,,*,«*^,,, HI. Inscription of Burn Units The following areas will be exempted from a rotational controlled burn on the refuge and are designated on the accompanying map by the color greeni !• All Hardwood timbered areas including the Green Hills area and timbered sites on Long Island and Ragged Island* Portions of these timbered areas are largely pine with thick accumulations of litter* In the'se areas a slow reduction burn may be necessary occassionally-fco reduce the possible threat of tree kill by a wildfire. 2. The 59-acre green browse area on Long Island. 3» The subheadquarters, residences, and service areas. 4« The small marsh islands as a preventative to excessive erosion as a result of vegetation denudation. 5. The marsh area bordering the 1.2-raile entrance road. 6. The beach-dune area. Following is a schedule of the units and subunits to be burned during the six-year period beginning with the 1973-1974 season: 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 A B C A B C (A.^ A2, A3, A4)(Blf &,, B3)(ClfC2,a3,C4)(AlfA2,A3,A4)(B1,B2tB3)(C1,C2fC3,C4) The A unit scheduled for burning during the 1973-74 season includes the subunlt A, which includes the B-and A impoundments and the area between the east dike and the dune line. The impoundments are our only areas where water levels can be controlled and presently require a burn to reduce the cattail and needlerush, and wax myrtle there. Following the bum; flooding will take place and should provide prime snow goose habitat. The portion of A-l east of the dike has largely reverted to wax myrtle and by burning^ much of this can be killed, succession set back, and a favorable condition for growth of good annual food plants will be provided. Subunits A2, A~f and A, are all found on the larger marsh islands. A complete burn on these areas can not be expected due to the presence of creeks and pot holes present as well as fluctuating water levels. 49 4 / ' ' ' - -' - 1 V< {''; ' :•'... _ .,. ^a^.a,, •;,_: —^^_^-aa l4*-.,,v >•*>,• Unit Bf subunit B., includes the largest in|>oundment (C) and the area cast of the oikes to the dune line* Dense cattail stands have become established there as a result of having maintained high water levels OKI this impoundment for several years during"the growing season* Subunit Bu, the northern portion of Long Island is presently covered by cattail, Spartina patens, and Distichlis sg^c&t* in con- trast with subunit B,, the Landing Cove area which is rUy needleruah. fhe C unit scheduled for the last year in the three—year burning rotation, includes fringes of the bay coves west of the impoundments, the center portions of Ragged Island, and the marshland on the eastern aide of Great Narrows. Subunit C,, consists primarily of needlerush and cattail, while C2, C~, and C, are dominated by cattail but will probably produce a relatively poor burn due to the interspersed creeks and pot holes. Following is a list of all subunits scheduled for three-year rotation burn and the winds and precautions necessary to produce a successful burn. Subunit Approx. Acreage Wind Special Precautions 425 W The east dike and road should serve as *i a brake to prevent fire from entering Green Hills, but a backfire along the eastern edge of the west dike would be advisable. A brake should be either disced or burned along the southern refuge boundary to prevent entrance of the fire onto the state area. 135 Water surrounds the subunit. 320 NE Optimum wind to prevent intrusion of fire *s onto timbered areas. A 200 Water surrounds the subunit. 400 W Fire break should be established around * service area by discing and back fire. 275 E Optimal wind to prevent intrusion of fire % onto timbered area. 350 W Caution must be followed as private lands *3 adjoin the lower unit. A backfire should be established far enough from the boundary to prevent fire from entering private land. M 50 tf£ £ 200 E Dike and road serve as bratic* Small backfire along west edge. 350, 220 Subunit surrounded by water* Sf°3 50 Prevent intrusion of fire into timbered areas* The three large impoundments all contain permanent vegetative transect lines which are monitored each year, and will aid in evaluation of the effects of burning on these areas. Transects as well as qualitative examination of the other burn units will also be carried out on an annual basis. IV. Equipment Needs 1. 2 - drip torches—must be purchased - $45.00 @ 2. 2 - Propane torches—on hand 3. 1 - outboard motor boat—on hand 4. 1 - 4-wheel drive vehicle—on hand 5. Tractor and disc—on hand V. Fund and Manpower Requirements Purchase of 2 - drip torches - $45.00 • 90.00 60 miles in truck at $.10 C mile 6.00 3 hours of operation of tractor and disc $50 ® hour 150.00 40 man hours of field work by 2 men GS-5 level 320.00 12 man hours planning and evaluation by 1 man GS-9 level 73.00 Total cost for 3 years plan $644.00 Average yearly cost $215.00 Prepared byt s£sss,™^u /'7,S?'?3 -A*^^ ^A^^, Date Franklin Smith Biological Technician Subnitted byt S&ez<*J*i*> ^^//>M je Muftger ( t>3&7? ^ P4& ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR 51 BACK BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE UNITED STATES CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF THE INUPIOR •URCAU OF SPOUT FISNCRH-S AND WILDLIFE TV 00' TVS*' 7S'5«T 75'SV «'W X'M' — 34* M' M'OOf TS-J4' COMPILED M THE BRANCH OF REALTY FROU SURVEVS BT U SOS ! HCAN | DECLINATION * l»»4 BOSTON, MASS. . FEi. I97S 55^, 3e& 'INVENTORY FORM OF HISTORIC AND ARCKEOLOGIC PLACES Agency: Bureau of Sport Fisheries end Wildlife ' Date: 2/22/72 1. Name of Property: Long Island 2. Location of Property: • City A. State and Soaxty: Virginia, Virginia Beach i • B. Latitude and Longitude: . Lat. 3,6° 40' Long. 75° 56' C. TpwnshiD. Range & Section: ... • ' •* * ' » -'. .' ... D. Other legal description: - E. Map Reference: North Bay Quandrangle, Virginia-Princess Anne Co. 7!.5 minute series (topographic) nv/4 Back Bay 15s qnr.clrangl? geological survyy iflap. . 3. Nature of Property: . ' . . A, District ( ) Site ( X) Building ( ) Object (X) B. Description, present condition and use: 770 acres, 6^2 acres icarsh, 70 acres woodland, 58 aares peri^nent goose browse pasture, occupation by archaic indiar.s, circa 3000 BC \ 4. Importance of Property: Inclian campground, artifacts include-arrovhsads, pottery ana' stone axes tentatively dated at. ;?UO~0 HC" belonging to archaic Indians. V%<- . 5, Nanies and addresses of persons preparing this inventory: Dennis 51, Holland, Hofu^e .^r.ar-cr Back Bay National Wildlife Refvige P. 0. Box 6128 . . Virginia Bc.-ech, Virginia 23456 AC 703-427-1!>50 "53 OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WASHINGTON, D. C. 2O3O1 HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 2 9 JUL1974 Mr. R. K. Robinson Ref: FSF/RF Chief, Office of Environmental * Coordination U. S. Dept of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife Washington, D. C. 20240 Dear Mr. Robinson: This is in response to your letter dated May 6, 1974 on the subject of the proposed Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Virginia Beach, Virginia. This office has reviewed your proposal, and we have no comments to submit. Sincerely, ^/^b ohn P. Meade S Lt Colonel, USAF BSC ^Supervisor Director for Asst. Supvr Categorical Programs Biologist "Planrfer I!;?."".' -."TtT "Clerk 3 Recept. M* ^ Public Use & ^ Route Out 5^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION HI 6TH AND WALNUT STREETS PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19106 June 25, 1974 Mr. R.K. Robinson Chief, Office of Environmental Coordination Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Washington, D.C. 20240 Attn: FSF/RF Dear Mr. Robinson: We have completed our review of the draft environmental impact statement concerning the proposal recommending that 1950 acres of the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge be included in the National Wilderness Preservation System. We have no objections to the proposal and would place the report in EPA Reporting Category LO-1. This signifies our lack of objec- tions and our approval concerning the adequacy of the impact statement. The classification and the date of EPA's comments will be published in the Federal Register in accordance with our responsibility to inform the public of our reviews on proposed actions under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Sincerely yours, VVJt^-^TpJL^ Nicholas M. Ruha Chief, EIS and Wetlands Review Section Environmental Impact Branch cc: Leo Leonhart, OFA 55 2 2,Y£ United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 IN REPLY REFER TO: L7619-MQ *W 2 9 1974 Memorandum To: Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Through: Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. „ ^ Associate - ' ^e5" From: Director HT Subject: Proposed Back Bay Wilderness Area, Virginia (DBS 74/48) Subject statement has been reviewed and the following comment is made: On page 18, it is stated that, "the refuge is in the process of completing a survey in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Executive Order 11593." However, the surveyor is not mentioned. We appreciate the opportunity to review this material and we hope this information will be helpful to you. ^ A< <5*&& Let's Clean Up America For Our 200th Birthday 56 Response to Memorandum from the National Park Service Comment: The surveyor of Historic sites is not mentioned on page 18. Response: Remarks on page 18 have been rewritten to reflect the present status of a nomination on Long Island as an archeological site, A copy of the inventory form has been appended to the Final (page 53). The State Historic Commission and State Archeologist were asked to comment on any other possible his- toric or archeological sites not known to the refuge manager. No comments were received. 57 IN REPLY REFER TO United States Department of the Interior 1792(930) BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT EASTERN STATES OFFICE 7981 Eastern Avenue KWUGEDWr»rr"rv Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 JU'-3 1974 JUN251974 K£G.5 ER-7UA8 Memorandum To: Chief, Office of Environmental Coordination U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service From: , Director,. Eastern States Office Subject: Review and Comment on Proposed Back Bay Wilderness Area, Virginia We have reviewed the subject statement and find that the nature of the proposed action, description of the environment, and resultant impacts are beyond our scope of special expertise. We, therefore, do not offer any comments for consideration. .CONSERVE ,»•' ftERICA'S ENERGY 58. Save Energy and You Serve America! United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION WASHINGTON, B.C. 20240 IN REPLY REFER TO: 07223-General JUN i 41974 DES-74/48 Memorandum To: Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife From: Director, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation sub]ect: ££ST=r%£r^sr- ^ We have reviewed the subject statement in accordance vlth your May 6, 1974, reouest. m our oplnlon ^ pMpoMl.> MUt- impact, to outdoor recreation have been adequately addressed However, »e wouid record that the Su^ry Sheet (Section 3 - "Su^ of Environs Lpact and Adverse Environmental Ef£ects", be revised to include the poestble bene£lclal ^^ ^ ^ proposed wilderness designation. XZ- Supervisor Asst. Supvr Biologist Pl^:- _Mgt;/-\-:i-Vi._ cYeric hecept, u^Tublic Use Route Out Tile 59 Response to Memorandum From Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Comment Suggest that the possible beneficial effects of wilderness designation be included in the Summary section. Response: A sentence has been added to the Summary of Environmental Impact section. 60 oFFidk OF TKE'DIRECTOR United States Department of the Interior June 19, 1974 DES 74-48 Memorandum To: Chief, Office of Environmental Coordination, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife l3r Througiiwjfcssistan^v_ t Secretary—Energy and Minerals/X* * (/^0>^^ <• ~1ft1^^ <4' && From: Director, Bureau of Mines Subject: Draft environmental impact statement, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, proposed Back Bay Wilderness Area, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Our Eastern Field Operation Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has reviewed the draft environmental statement on the proposed Back Bay Wilderness Area prepared by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. The proposal recommends that approximately 1,950 acres of the existing Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge be designated a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The proposal area, located within the city limits of Virginia Beach, Virginia, extends for 4.2 miles along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline. The environmental statement discusses the local geology and indicates a potential for oil and gas, clay, and possibly for peat and various heavy minerals. Sand and gravel are currently produced from the Virginia Beach area; no mineral production is reported from within the refuge area and no mineral leases are outstanding. The statement is considered adequate regarding the proposal's impact on mineral resources. Acting Director 61 United States Department of the Interior GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DBS 74-48 JUN 1 8 1974 Memorandum To: Chief, Office of Environmental Quality Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife x-v:.*" Throug^fcsAssistant Secretary—Energy and Minerals ^_j otift From: Director, Geological Survey ^ Subject: Proposed Back Bay Wilderness Area, Virginia We have reviewed the subject draft environmental statement as you re- quested in a memorandum of May 6, and we offer the following comments. The environmental statement indicates that the proposed wilderness has a potential for oil and gas (p. 15). The statement also points out that drilling could take place in the Bay, which is excluded from the proposed wilderness (p. 24). However, there are presently no oil and gas leases in effect in the eastern half of the State of Virginia and prospecting for oil and gas at some future date appears to be limited. This proposal does not provide for sanitary facilities or drinking water for visitors on the refuge. Shallow wells (less than 100 feet) may be able to provide water for drinking and sanitary purposes. Should such facilities be needed, properly planned sites for wells and toilets will avoid problems of pollution. Acting Lrector #J 62 p-"> SOUTHEAST VIRGINIA PL ANN IN (KDI^tRHC OMMISSION HAROLD S. ATKINSON - CHAIRMAN 110 W. PLUME STREET. NORFOLK. VA. 2351O V. H. NUSBAUM, JR. - VlCE-CHRM. TELEPHONE: AREA CODE BOA — 622-53O1 DURWOOD 8. CURLING - SECY.-TREAS. ROBERT F. FOELLER — EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR May 31, 1974 Mr. R. K. Robinson, Chief Office of Environmental Coordination Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife U. S. Department of the Interior Washington, D. C. 20240 Re: Proposed Back Bay - Draft EIS (DBS 74-48) (OSP:42) Dear Mr. Robinson: Pursuant to OMB Circular A-95 and your request of May 6, 1974, the staff of the Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Back Bay Wilderness Area, Virginia. As part of its review, the SVPDC staff has conferred with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. The SVPDC staff feels that the proposed wilderness designation for part of the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge is consistent with local and regional plans and that no significant adverse environmental impacts are anticipated if the proposed wilderness designation is implemented. The SVPDC staff feels that two issues noted in the Draft EIS need further clarification. p. 25 The Draft EIS notes a potential conflict between the proposed wilderness area and the use of motor boats, etc. on the surrounding waters of the Bay. It is unclear from the narrative whether this use is compatible with the ucoadless area" concept of the Wilderness Act of 1964. It would appear that control of such use would be appropriate and alternatives for such control should be discussed. p. 27 . Further documentation on natural gas and oil development potentials would be appropriate. Alternatives for such development in the context of the wilderness designation should be addressed. As noted earlier in this letter, the SVPDC staff feels that the proposal is consistent with local and regional plans. The above-noted issues are raised only for clarification and should not be construed as objections to the proposal itself. 63 CITIES OF CHESAPEAKE • FRANKLIN • NANSEMOND NORFOLK • PORTSMOUTH • SUFFOLK a VIRGINIA BEACH AND COUNTIES OF ISLE OF WIGHT & SOUTHAMPTON COMMISSIONERS LISTED ON REVERSE j-i. y^^j^pRt-- jl^; • ;;^:§^'-••'•'•" Mr. R. K. Robinson —2— May 31, 1974 The SVPDC staff recommends that the designation of the marsh islands as a wilderness area, with such designation to include the continued management of the three pasture areas, as recommended in the Draft EIS for the Proposed Back Bay Wilderness Area. Virginia, be approved* If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ,^O^5M Robert F. Foeller Executive Director JMCrfh ccs Mr. Roger M. Scott Mr. C. C. Carrington Mr. Dennis Holland 61* - :-i- - ;gs>vs?jv *%&' '• Response to Letter from Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission Comment: Control of motor boat use on the waters surrounding the proposed wilderness would seem to be appropriate, and alternatives with such control should be discussed. Response; Other than closure by Presidential Proclamation of waters within the bounds of the refuge to hunting, control of navigation and other uses is the responsibility of the State of Virginia. It seems it would be within reason to prohibit airboat use within the refuge boundary. Restricting other motor boat use would interfere with refuge management functions and nutria trapping programs. Comment: Further documentation and alternatives on natural gas and oil development potentials should be addressed. Response: Comment from the U.S. Geological Survey further documents the oil and gas potential by stating - "There .are presently no oil and gas leases in effect in the eastern half of the State of Virginia and prospecting for oil and gas at some future date appears to be limited." As stated on page 2*4- of the final, drilling could take place within the excluded bay portion. This would present a temporary visual impact to the wilderness user and extreme measures would be required to prevent any damage to the adjoining wilderness resource. 65 COUNTY OF CURRITUCK Currituck, North Carolina 27929 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OFFICE OF THE H. D. NEWBERN, Jr., Chairman, Poplar Branch Twp. COUNTY MANAGER H. 0. CAPPS, Fruitville Twp. R. H. FERRELL, Moyock Twp. MARVIN SNOWDEN, At Large June 10, 1974 JAMES M. VOLIVA, Crawford Twp. Mr. Thomas J. Bond, Acting Chief Office of Environmental Coordination Bureau of Sport Fisherie and Wildlife U.S. Department of Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 Ref: FSF/RF Dear Mr. Bond: Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft enviro- mental statement for the proposed Back Bay Wilderness area, Virginia. Currituck County has no comments on the statement. Sincerely, •«f. «4*fe?4i«*r.- W fjoMHfl^^y*^-' ; ;:> : ^ y w., /f |i^3^^^ ' -.- .: .;,.;,,.,. .v_^, Bf'V i; TV.K '.A *'. I'^k/^i^'&'^^^J^S • "' ' ; - ' ' --"•• fiBO\K B.BOYNTON' h v \ • • "~ "' '"""^"•* •'^^*t1^«f%-'*-* 'V' "^^ti*1 '*£••'** ' ..-"•. C*»lr«»* #,, ,-.•••/..r ;•• —• -•' - ;. •. '...,. /«' .-?• V ,? -A-v l-f-:- . . •••:• .. - .. . .; PAUt R. WILKINS ,'7> ^ Li~ fiet Chfirmii fy STATE AiH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD T*itt»>. Hatnfion R'jacs Regional Office F ; > <> "-5»^r.' _ \, Pombrokf 1, /8; IndepcocJcuce Boulevard UAKO.I L. HRAi'N^R.^^.^AI'N^V,..,r^ ,TV.!V7 1j lUnitonbui); , Virginia Ucach, Vlrginis 2i7')2 Telephpne (804) 400^45 fioNAto S. DANIKL./'"'-.•K^.> * } . • • ^ /5* • Kicheio,, -t •November 264 1973. ROBERT I:. DFI.ANO-/ VKMW Serial: 2211•7J ( Rfc-G. t.5r Jl- •V^, .f- '&^ " Mr. Dennis i'. iiullar.d, Re-fugc; Kcnagor •" U. S. ncpartment. of Interior .; Fir.h and V/ilclifr- Services Bureau oi Sport Fisheries, and Wildlife Back Bay, Fisherman Island and Maclcay Island National Wildlife l&ffuge P.O. Box 0123 • Virginia Bench, Virv.ir.ia 23456 Dear Mr. Holland: Thif wiJ. 1 confirm the t;t: .-phone1 converi-aLion s.'ith ,\Lr Follutio-i Control Officer, F. M. Adjunson, Jr, of uiy .si.cift .-jnc' reply to your lectcr of November 13, 1973, in regard to written ai:t].ori;;atjLt-n conctrrMin i planned open burning in. marshes an the Back Bay National Wildlife jtc£;f.i;c to improve habitat for Snow Geose. ~-~* The Commonwealth of Virginia Regulat i crs fc'V the ConV-roI ;...id and Abatemc-nt of Air^Polj.ution, Rule 1 - Ql',21 J-URN'INC, rcccnt'l';'.-cu^ricndcd and effective October 5, 1973, provides authority foi open burning, in the bona fide exercise of fore&t r.:,;nageracnt. Accordingly tht- j>.iornc:d. opel^ burning on the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, as considered appropriate by your departnwii: to i-v.prove habitat for snow geese, f:; authorized under Section A. 01.02 (g) for forest nuinngeracat in .;ccor- dance with the guidelines contained in the rule:. Your cooperation in the control and abatement of arir pollution in the State of Virginia is greatly appreciated. Please feel free to 67 .^... .Jiii^iiiB*.... .-aiiifc. •;%;.;,• ••;-:•.. Mr. Holland Pag* 2 1|«|M|||a>er 26, 1973 call this office for any assistance you mayneed. Sincerely, y/^y,,r^ .McDonald Director, Region VI PMAjr/pt Copy to: (With copy of reference letter) Executive Director- State Mr Pollution Control Board Richmond, Virginia 23219 Chief H. T. Holland Chief Fire Inspector Virginia Beach Fire Department Building No. 25, Court House Drive Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Mr. E. R. Cockrell, Jr. VPI Extension Service Agriculture Department 300 Cedar Road. ..."".^|-^t^--- -vf Virginia Beach, Vl^iftia 23456 Mr. R. H. Woodling District Forester, Eighth District Virginia Division of Forestry Post Office Box 3036 Portsmouth, Virginia 23701 ;^«%fc SS&jjas •->; 6.8 -.., .w>.«-»s'}! BACK BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE UNITED STATES CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE 76-00' 75'M' TST s* 75*54' ==\ 3F«' - JG-4Z' 1 JF401 36-40 »*M' J6-J6' T6'0ff 75'5«' 75-56' 75-54' COMPILED IN THE BRANCH OF REALTY FROM SURVEYS BY U.S.9.S. MEAN DECLINATION l»«4 BOSTON, MASS. FEB. 1973 Scale