Final General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, 

and Environmental Impact Statement 

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Georgia

June 2013
Front cover photo credits, clockwise from top left:National Park Service; Tammy Herrell; David Libman; David Libman
i 

General Management Plan / Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact Statement 

Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Chatham County, Georgia 

SUMMARY 

 

President Calvin Coolidge established Fort 

Pulaski as a national monument by 

proclamation on October 15, 1924, under the 

authority of section 2 of the Antiquities Act 

of 1906. The proclamation declared the 

entire 20-acre area “comprising the site of 

the old fortifications which are clearly 

defined by ditches and embankments” to be 

a national monument. 

By act of Congress on June 26, 1936 (49 Stat. 

1979), the boundaries of Fort Pulaski 

National Monument were expanded to 

include all lands on Cockspur Island, 

Georgia, then or formerly under the 

jurisdiction of the secretary of war. The 

legislation also authorized the Secretary of 

the Interior to accept donated lands, 

easements, and improvements on McQueens 

and Tybee islands in Chatham County, 

Georgia, for addition to the national 

monument. Furthermore, the act directed 

the secretary to construct a bridge or 

causeway across the South Channel 

Savannah River from Cockspur Island to 

McQueens Island as part of the road system 

of Fort Pulaski and provided for land on the 

north end of Cockspur Island for the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers to use for dredge 

spoil and additional land for the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury to use as a 

quarantine station. 

Executive Orders 6166 of June 10, 1933, and 

6228 of July 28, 1933, transferred Fort 

Pulaski and other military parks, battlefields, 

and cemeteries from the War Department to 

the Department of the Interior (National 

Park Service [NPS]). 

A presidential proclamation on August 14, 

1958, transferred two islands from the U.S. 

Coast Guard to the National Park Service. 

One contains the Cockspur Island 

Lighthouse and the other is known as 

Daymark Island. Finally, in 1996, Congress 

passed a law that removed the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers’ reserved right to deposit 

dredge spoil on Cockspur Island. 

This General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement

provides comprehensive guidance for 

perpetuating natural systems, preserving 

cultural resources, and providing 

opportunities for high-quality visitor 

experiences at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. The purpose of the plan is to 

decide how the National Park Service can 

best fulfill the monument’s purpose, 

maintain its significance, and protect its 

resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of 

present and future generations. It describes 

the overall path that the National Park 

Service would follow in managing the 

national monument during the next 20 years 

or more. 

The document examines three alternatives 

for managing the national monument for the 

next 20 or more years and analyzes the 

impacts of implementing each of the 

alternatives. Alternative A is the “no-action” 

alternative, which describes how the national 

monument is managed now, providing a 

basis for comparing the other alternatives. 

Under alternative B, the NPS preferred 

alternative, Fort Pulaski would be managed 

to focus on the April 1862 period of 

significance in terms of the landscape and 

interpretive programs. This alternative 

includes landscape restoration and 

interpretation of the construction village. 

Under alternative C, the national monument 

would be managed with a much broader 

interpretive mandate than in alternative B, to 

include a wider range of themes and historic 

periods as well as natural resource themes. 
SUMMARY

ii 

The key impacts of implementing these 

alternatives are summarized in table 7 and 

detailed in chapter 4. 

This General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement 

includes letters from governmental agencies, 

any substantive comments on the draft 

document, and NPS responses to those 

comments. The final plan also includes 

changes and clarifications made to the 

document in response to comments 

received. Following distribution of the final 

plan and a 30-day no-action period, a 

“Record of Decision” approving a final plan 

will be signed by the NPS regional director. 

The Record of Decision documents the NPS 

selection of an alternative for 

implementation. With the signed record of 

decision, the plan can then be implemented, 

depending on funding and staffing. 

However, a Record of Decision does not 

guarantee funds and staff for implementing 

the approved plan.

AERIAL PHOTO OF FORT PULASKI LOOKING NORTHEAST
iii 

CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 3

INTRODUCTION 3

BACKGROUND 3

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK 3

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 4

NEED FOR THE PLAN 9

Purpose and Need for the Wilderness Study 9

McQueens Island at Lazaretto Creek 10

The Next Steps 11

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 11

FOUNDATION STATEMENT 11

Legislative Foundation 12

Purpose 12

Significance 12

Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments 13

Fundamental Resources and Values 14

Other Important Resources and Values 16

Primary Interpretive Themes 17

SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES 19

The Georgia Department of Transportation’s U.S. Highway 80 Bridges Replacement Study 20

OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS RELATED TO THIS GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 25

The Georgia Ports Authority’s Savannah Harbor Expansion Project 25

The National Park Service Cultural Landscape Report 26

The Georgia State Historic Preservation Plan 2007–2011 (Building a Preservation Ethic) 26

The Regional Plan of Coastal Georgia 2010 26

Coastal Georgia Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 2007 27

Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Management Plan 27

PLANNING ISSUES/CONCERNS 27

DECISION POINTS AND CONSIDERATIONS 28

ISSUES 29

IMPACT TOPICS—RESOURCES AND VALUES AT STAKE IN THE PLANNING PROCESS 30

IMPACT TOPICS TO BE CONSIDERED 30

Cultural Resources 30

Natural Resources 32

Wilderness Resources and Values 33

Visitor Use and Experience 33

Socioeconomic Environment 33

Climate Change 34

Transportation 34
CONTENTS

iv 

Park Operations 34

Energy Requirements, Depletable Resources, and Conservation Potential 34

IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL 34

Air Quality 34

Special Status Species 34

Coastal Zone Management 35

Soundscape 36

Lightscape Management (Dark Night Sky Preservation) 36

Urban Quality and Design of the Built Environment 36

Socially or Economically Disadvantaged Populations 36

Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands 36

Indian Sacred Sites and Indian Trust Resources 37

Public Health and Safety 37

Conformity with Local Land Use Plans 37

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 41

MANAGEMENT ZONES AND ALTERNATIVES 41

FORMULATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES 42

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 42

WILDERNESS STUDY 43

Definition of Wilderness 44

Uses and Management in Wilderness 44

Wilderness Eligibility Assessment 46

Options Analyzed in the Wilderness Study 46

Management of Proposed Wilderness 47

USER (CARRYING) CAPACITY 50

MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT 53

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 57

U.S. Highway 80 Bridges Replacement Study and Project Response 57

Savannah Harbor Response 57

Visitor Center Annex 57

Nonnative Species Management 57

ALTERNATIVE A: THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 58

Concept 58

Wilderness 58

Natural Resources 58

Cultural Resources 58

Visitor Use and Experience 59

Access 59

Boundary Expansion 59

Interpretation 59

Trails 60

Viewshed and Vistas 60
Contents 

v 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 62

Concept 62

Wilderness 62

Natural Resources 62

Cultural Resources 63

Visitor Use and Experience 63

Access 63

Boundary Expansion 64

Interpretation 64

Trails 64

Viewshed and Vistas 64

ALTERNATIVE C 67

Concept 67

Wilderness 67

Natural Resources 67

Cultural Resources 67

Visitor Use and Experience 67

Access 67

Boundary Expansion 67

Interpretation 67

Trails 68

Viewsheds and Vistas 68

DEVELOPMENT OF COST ESTIMATES 74

Range of Annual Costs 74

Implementation 75

MITIGATIVE MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 83

Management Strategies to Address Climate Change 83

Strategy 83

Cultural Resources 85

Natural Resources 86

Visitor Safety and Experience 88

Noise Abatement 88

Scenic Resources 88

FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS NEEDED 88

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 90

ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM DETAILED EVALUATION 91

Combination of Two Alternatives 91

Remove Fort Pulaski and Surrounding Structures from Floodplains 92

Construct an Observation Tower on Tybee Island 92

Permit After-hours Vehicular Access to the Monument 92

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 95

INTRODUCTION 95
CONTENTS

vi 

EARLY HISTORY 95

19TH CENTURY HISTORY 95

POST-CIVIL WAR HISTORY 96

THE NATIONAL MONUMENT AND ITS REGIONAL CONTEXT 99

LAND ACQUISITION 100

CULTURAL RESOURCES 101

Background 101

Colonial Sites 101

Archeological Resources 101

Museum Collections 103

Historic Structures 104

Ethnographic Resources 108

Cultural Landscapes 108

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE MANAGEMENT OF FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT 109

OTHER INFLUENCES ON COCKSPUR ISLAND 110

NATURAL RESOURCES 111

Climate 111

Soils and Geologic Resources 112

Plant Communities and Vegetation 112

Wildlife 116

Aquatic Vegetation 117

Finfish Species 117

Shellfish 118

Reptiles and Amphibians 118

Benthic Invertebrates 118

Marine Mammals 118

Special Status Species 119

Species Listed by the State of Georgia 121

Water Quality 123

Floodplains 125

Shoreline Erosion 125

Wetlands 125

Tidal Influences 126

Wilderness Resources and Values 126

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 128

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 128

TRANSPORTATION 131

Port of Savannah 132

MONUMENT OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT 132

LAND USE 132

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 137

INTRODUCTION 137
Contents 

vii 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS 137

Identification of Impacts 138

IMPACT TOPICS 138

Cultural Resources 138

Natural Resources 140

Wilderness Resources and Values 140

Visitor Use and Experience 140

Socioeconomic Environment 140

Transportation 141

Monument Operations and Management 141

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS 148

Past Actions That Could Contribute to Cumulative Effects 148

Current and Future Actions That Could Contribute to Cumulative Effects 149

DECISION MAKING TO AVOID IMPAIRMENT OR UNACCEPTABLE IMPACTS ON RESOURCES OF FORT 

PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT 150

Impairment 150

Unacceptable Impacts 150

Comparison of Alternatives 151

IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 151

Transportation 151

CLIMATE CHANGE 153

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE A (CONTINUE CURRENT MANAGEMENT) 154

Cultural Resources 154

Natural Resources 156

Wilderness Resources and Values 160

Visitor Use and Experience 161

Socioeconomic Environment 161

Monument Operations 162

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 162

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 162

Irretrievable or Irreversible Commitments of Resources 163

Relationship between Local Short-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance or Enhancement 

of Long-term Productivity 163

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 163

Cultural Resources 163

Natural Resources 167

Wilderness Resources and Values 171

Visitor Use and Experience 172

Socioeconomic Environment 172

Monument Operations 173

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 174

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 174

Irretrievable or Irreversible Commitments of Resources 174
CONTENTS

viii 

Relationship between Local Short-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance or Enhancement 

of Long-term Productivity 174

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE C 174

Cultural Resources 174

Natural Resources 177

Wilderness Resources and Values 179

Visitor Use and Experience 180

Socioeconomic Environment 180

Monument Operations 181

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 181

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 181

Irretrievable or Irreversible Commitments of Resources 181

Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance or Enhancement 

of Long-term Productivity 182

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 185

BRIEF HISTORY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 185

RELEASE OF THE DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS STUDY / ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT 186

CONSULTATIONS WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS 186

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Section 7 Consultation 186

Historic Preservation Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Section 106 

Consultation 187

List of Reviewing Agencies and Recipients 187

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT DRAFT GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS STUDY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 188

Methodology 188

SELECTED REFERENCES 199

APPENDIXES 204

APPENDIX A: LIST OF RELEVANT LEGISLATION 206

APPENDIX B: WILDERNESS ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 211

APPENDIX C: THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 213

APPENDIX D: FLOODPLAIN STATEMENT OF FINDINGS 214

APPENDIX E: CONSULTATION LETTERS 225

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 239

INDEX 241

 
Contents 

ix 

MAPS 

Fort Pulaski National Monument Area Map 6 

Fort Pulaski National Monument Vicinity Map 7 

Fort Pulaski National Monument Site Map 8 

FIGURES 

Figure 1. Wilderness Eligibility Determination 49 

Figure 2. Monument Boundaries 61 

Figure 3. Alternative B Management Zones 66 

Figure 4. Alternative C Management Zones 69 

Figure 5. Earnings by Industry in the Savannah, Georgia Metropolitan Statistical Area 2007 130 

Figure 6. Savannah, Georgia Metropolitan Statistical Area Employment by Industry in 2007 131 

TABLES 

Table 1. Servicewide Mandates and Policies Pertaining to Fort Pulaski National Monument 21 

Table 2. Special Status Species—Chatham, Effingham, and Jasper Counties 35 

Table 3. Indicators and Standards 51 

Table 4. Management Zone Descriptions for Fort Pulaski National Monument 54 

Table 5. Comparison of Alternatives 70 

Table 6. Costs of Alternatives 75 

Table 7. Summary of Impacts 76 

Table 8. Environmentally Preferable Alternative Analysis 91 

Table 9. List of Classified Structures 105 

Table 10. Special Status Species Listed by Federal and State Agencies 123 

Table 11. Visitation at Fort Pulaski National Monument Since 1995 128 

Table 12. Comparative Socioeconomic Statistics for Chatham County, Georgia 130 

Table 13. Impact Threshold Definitions 142 

Table 14. Responses to Public Comments 190 

 

PURPOSE AND 

NEED FOR THE 

PLAN

National Park Service

3 

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

INTRODUCTION 

This General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement

presents and analyzes three alternative future 

directions for the management and use of 

Fort Pulaski National Monument. Alternative 

B is the National Park Service (NPS) 

preferred alternative. The potential 

environmental impacts of all alternatives have 

been identified and assessed. General 

management plans are intended to be longterm documents that establish and articulate 

a management philosophy and framework for 

decision making and problem solving in the 

parks. This general management plan will 

provide guidance for the next 20 years or 

more. 

BACKGROUND 

On April 10, 1862, Union batteries opened 

fire on Fort Pulaski. Within 30 hours the 

southeastern wall had been breached and the 

Confederate garrison surrendered. The 

secret of the siege was the use of rifled 

cannon by the Union artillery. These new 

weapons were able to fire their elongated 

projectiles farther and with more accuracy 

than the smoothbore cannons that Fort 

Pulaski was built to withstand. The Battle of 

Fort Pulaski transformed all the masonry 

forts built as a part of the Third System of 

U.S. coastal defense from impenetrable 

bastions of ingenious engineering to obsolete 

symbols of American military defense (NPS 

2009a). 

Fort Pulaski National Monument was 

established by Presidential Proclamation 

(Calvin Coolidge) No. 1713 (43 Stat. 1968) on 

October 15, 1924. The War Department 

administered the monument until it was 

transferred to the Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, by Executive Order 

6166 issued pursuant to the authority of 

section 16 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (Public 

Law No. 428-47 Stat. 1517). 

An act of Congress (49 Stat. 1979), approved 

on June 26, 1936, expanded the boundaries of 

the national monument to include all of the 

lands on Cockspur Island, Georgia, that were 

then or formerly under the jurisdiction of the 

secretary of war. Furthermore, the legislation 

authorized the Secretary of the Interior to 

accept donated lands on McQueens and 

Tybee islands, in Chatham County, Georgia, 

for addition to the boundary of Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK 

Fort Pulaski National Monument is between 

Savannah and Tybee Island on the Georgia 

coast. The site contains 5,623 acres on 

Cockspur and McQueens islands. Within this 

insular setting, the monument contains a 

broad range of significant historic and natural 

resources. 

Fort Pulaski is a well-preserved, massive, 

brick fortification considered invincible 

when it was built in the first half of the 19th 

century. It was one unit in a protective chain 

of forts planned and built to protect the 

eastern seaboard cities after the British 

burned the city of Washington during the 

War of 1812. The bombardment of Fort 

Pulaski by rifled cannons during the Civil 

War resulted in the breach of its “invincible” 

walls and the surrender of its garrison to 

Union forces. The success of the 

bombardment proved that masonry forts 

could no longer provide an effective 

deterrent to a coastal assault. 

In October 1864, Union troops stationed at 

Fort Pulaski accepted transfer of a group of 

imprisoned Confederate officers who later 

became known as the Immortal Six Hundred. 

During their incarceration at Fort Pulaski, 13 

prisoners died. The dead were buried on-site 

at Cockspur Island. Most died of dehydration 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

4 

due to dysentery. In March 1865, prison 

survivors were sent to Fort Delaware where 

conditions were somewhat better than at Fort 

Pulaski. 

Other historic resources include the John 

Wesley Memorial; dikes, ditches, and tidal 

gates built under the direction of Lt. 

Robert E. Lee; the Cockspur Island 

Lighthouse; Civil War era mortar batteries; 

gun emplacements on the demilune (a 

triangular piece of land designed to protect 

the rear of the fort); Battery Horace 

Hambright, a Spanish-American War era gun 

emplacement; and the artifacts and 

documents in the monument’s collections 

and files. 

DEMILUNE, MOAT, AND FLAGPOLE

The vast majority of the land comprising Fort 

Pulaski National Monument consists of 

nearly 5,000 acres of salt marsh. These tidal 

marshes, which formed in conjunction with 

barrier island development, have delicate 

ecological characteristics including essential 

life support systems for shrimp, oysters, 

juvenile fish, and shellfish. Because its 

appearance has changed little in the last 150 

years, the marsh provides the visitor with a 

historic scene that greatly enhances the 

appreciation of the fort and the significance 

of its location as a coastal defense. 

Annual recreational visitation to the 

monument has averaged approximately 

339,000 since 1995. The typical peak period 

of visitation at Fort Pulaski is April through 

July. The months with the lowest visitation 

levels are November, December, and January. 

Most monument visitors participate in day 

use activities such as viewing exhibits and 

programs in the visitor center, exploring the 

fort, walking, fishing, and participating in 

educational programs. 

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

The approved general management plan will 

be the basic document for managing Fort 

Pulaski National Monument for the next 20 

years or more. The purposes of this general 

management plan are as follows: 

 Confirm the purpose, significance, 

and special mandates of Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. 

 Clearly define resource conditions 

and visitor uses and experiences to be 

achieved in the national monument. 

 Provide a framework for Fort 

Pulaski’s managers to use when 

making decisions about how to best 

protect monument resources, how to 

provide high-quality visitor uses and 

experiences, how to manage visitor 

use, and what kinds of facilities, if 

any, to develop in/near the national 

monument. 

 Ensure that this foundation for 

decision making has been developed 

in consultation with interested 

stakeholders and adopted by the NPS 

leadership after an adequate analysis 

of the benefits, impacts, and 

economic costs of alternative courses 

of action. 

Legislation establishing the National Park 

Service as an agency and governing its 

management provides the fundamental 

direction for the administration of Fort 

Pulaski National Monument (and other units 

and programs of the national park system). 

This general management plan will build on 

these laws and the presidential proclamation 

that established Fort Pulaski National 

Monument to provide a vision for the 

monument’s future. 

The “Servicewide Laws and Policies” section 

calls the reader’s attention to topics that are 
Purpose of the Plan

5 

important to understanding the management 

direction at the national monument. The 

alternatives presented in this general 

management plan comprise a variety of 

strategies intended to attain and maintain a 

set of desired future conditions in the 

monument that have not previously been 

mandated by either law or policy. 

The general management plan does not 

describe how particular programs or projects 

should be prioritized or implemented. Those 

decisions will be addressed in future, more 

detailed planning efforts. All future plans will 

tier from the approved general management 

plan. 

INTERIOR WALKWAY WITH ARCHES
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

6 

FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT AREA MAP
Purpose of the Plan

7 

FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT VICINITY MAP
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

8 

FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT SITE MAP
Need for the Plan 

9 

NEED FOR THE PLAN 

A general management plan is needed to meet 

the requirements of the National Parks and 

Recreation Act of 1978 (PL 95-625) and the 

1978 Redwood Act, which specified that 

management of the national parks “shall be 

conducted in light of the high public value 

and integrity of the National Park System and 

shall not be exercised in derogation of the 

values and purposes for which these various 

areas have been established.” NPS policy 

(NPS Management Policies 2006, section 

2.3.1.1) also mandates development of a 

general management plan for each national 

park system unit. Fort Pulaski has never had a 

general management plan prepared in 

conformance with the requirements of PL 

95-625 and current management policies and 

guidelines. The 1971 Fort Pulaski master plan 

does not address many of the issues facing 

the monument today. Therefore this General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement has been 

prepared to comply with those legal and 

policy requirements. 

This general management plan provides 

broad direction for the monument’s future. It 

is needed to assist monument managers in 

making purposeful decisions based on a 

deliberate vision of the park. Also, because 

the population of the Savannah area and 

Tybee Island has increased dramatically in 

recent decades and because the demand to 

broaden the infrastructure serving this 

population has risen, the integrity of 

monument resources may be compromised. 

General management planning is needed to 

 clarify the levels of resource 

protection and public use that must 

be achieved for the park, based on the 

park-specific purpose and 

significance, plus the body of laws 

and policies directing park 

management 

 determine the best mix of resource 

protection and visitor experiences 

beyond what is prescribed by law and 

policy based on the 

– purposes of the park 

– range of public expectations and 

concerns 

– resources occurring within the 

park 

– effects of alternative management 

plans on existing natural, cultural, 

and social conditions 

– long-term economic costs 

 establish the degree to which the park 

should be managed to 

– preserve and enhance its cultural 

and natural resources. 

– provide appropriate visitor 

experiences and recreation 

opportunities 

Purpose and Need for the Wilderness 

Study 

When Congress passed the Wilderness Act of 

1964, it declared a policy of securing for 

present and future generations the benefits of 

an enduring resource of wilderness. The 

Wilderness Act (16 USC §§ 1131-1136) 

established the national wilderness 

preservation system, a collection of federally 

managed lands formally designated as 

“wilderness areas.” The purpose of 

wilderness designation is to preserve and 

protect the wilderness character and 

wilderness values of wild lands in perpetuity, 

including opportunities for solitude or 

primitive and unconfined recreation. Only 

Congress can designate lands for inclusion in 

the national wilderness preservation system. 

To fulfill its responsibilities under the 

Wilderness Act, the National Park Service 

evaluates all of its lands to determine whether 

they are eligible for inclusion in the national 

wilderness preservation system (see NPS 

Management Policies 2006, section 6.2.1). 

Individual parks with extensive roadless and 

undeveloped areas are responsible for 

preparing a wilderness eligibility assessment, 

which consists of a brief memorandum 

making a managerial determination as to the 

eligibility of park lands for wilderness 

designation. If any lands are found eligible, a 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

10 

formal wilderness study is subsequently 

prepared. Wilderness studies assess the 

wilderness character of eligible lands in more 

detail and develop a recommendation to 

Congress for wilderness designation. 

Wilderness studies can propose that all, 

some, or no eligible lands be designated as 

wilderness. 

McQueens Island at Lazaretto Creek 

During formulation of the management 

alternatives that are described in chapter 2, 

the planning team evaluated the wilderness 

character of the 5,000-acre salt marsh that 

comprises the McQueens Island section of 

the national monument. This evaluation 

constituted the wilderness eligibility 

assessment required by policy. The 

importance of this marsh to the region’s 

natural resources is high and will continue to 

grow as fisheries and bird habitat become 

more threatened. The aesthetic value is also 

high as it provides an unspoiled scenic vista 

that is nearly impossible to obtain in the city 

of Savannah or nearby. 

The planning team found that most of the salt 

marsh area retains its primeval character and 

appears to have been affected primarily by 

the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

humans’ work largely unnoticeable. It is only 

accessible by water and its marshy nature 

makes it nearly impossible for humans to 

walk on its surface. Accordingly, most of the 

salt marsh was found eligible for designation 

as wilderness (see wilderness eligibility 

assessment, appendix B). 

After eligible lands were identified in the 

monument, the National Park Service 

initiated a formal wilderness study, as 

required by NPS Management Policies 2006, 

section 6.2.2. An official announcement of 

intent to prepare a wilderness study was 

published in the Federal Register on July 2, 

2007. As part of this study, the National Park 

Service evaluated various options for 

designating wilderness at Fort Pulaski. Based 

on this evaluation, the National Park Service 

has developed a proposal that Congress 

designate all eligible lands at the monument 

as wilderness. Details of the wilderness 

proposal are included in the wilderness study 

section of chapter 2. The public was invited 

to comment on the draft wilderness proposal 

by providing written comments or by 

speaking at one of the public meetings at 

which court reporters were available to 

record comments. 

FORT PULASKI MOAT
Foundation Statement 

11 

The Next Steps 

The General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement 

included a 60-day public review and 

comment period after which the NPS 

planning team evaluated comments from 

other federal, state, and local governmental 

agencies, tribes, organizations, businesses, 

and individuals regarding the draft plan and 

incorporated appropriate changes into a final 

General Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement. The final 

plan includes letters from governmental 

agencies, any substantive comments on the 

draft document, and NPS responses to those 

comments. Following distribution of the final 

General Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement and a 30-day 

no-action period, a Record of Decision 

approving a final plan will be signed by the 

NPS regional director. The Record of 

Decision documents the National Park 

Service selection of an alternative for 

implementation. With the signing of the 

Record of Decision, the plan can then be 

implemented. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 

The implementation of the approved plan 

will depend on future funding. The approval 

of a plan does not guarantee that the funding 

and staffing needed to implement the plan 

will be forthcoming. Full implementation of 

the approved plan could be many years in the 

future. 

The implementation of the approved plan 

could also be affected by other factors. Once 

the general management plan has been 

approved, additional feasibility studies and 

more detailed planning and environmental 

documentation would be completed, as 

appropriate, before any proposed actions can 

be carried out. For example: 

 Appropriate permits would be 

obtained before implementing 

actions that would impact wetlands. 

 Appropriate federal and state 

agencies would be consulted 

concerning actions that could affect 

threatened and endangered species. 

 The state historic preservation 

division would be consulted. 

 The park will comply with sections 

106 (requires federal agencies to 

consult with the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation) and 110 

(requirements for the preservation 

and use of historic buildings by 

federal agencies) of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 

 Appropriate documentation would 

be prepared under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). 

The general management plan does not 

describe how particular programs or 

projects should be prioritized or 

implemented. Those decisions will be 

addressed during the more detailed 

planning associated with strategic plans, 

implementation plans, etc. All of those 

future, more detailed plans will tier from 

the approved general management plan 

and will be based on the goals, future 

conditions, and appropriate types of 

activities established in the approved 

general management plan. Actions 

directed by general management plans or 

in subsequent implementation plans are 

accomplished over time. Budget 

restrictions, requirements for additional 

data or regulatory compliance, and 

competing national park system priorities 

could prevent immediate implementation 

of many actions. Major or especially 

costly actions could be implemented 10 

or more years into the future. 

FOUNDATION STATEMENT 

Every unit of the national park system is 

required to have a formal statement of its 

core mission that will provide basic guidance 

for planning and management decisions. This 

statement identifies the purpose, significance, 

interpretive themes, fundamental resources 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

12 

and values, and special mandates and 

administrative commitments of a park unit, as 

well as the legal and policy requirements for 

administration and resource protection that 

factor into management decisions. 

Legislative Foundation 

Fort Pulaski National Monument was 

established by Presidential Proclamation No. 

1713 (43 Stat. 1968) on October 15, 1924. The 

War Department administered the 

monument until it was transferred to the 

Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, by Executive Order 6166 issued 

pursuant to the authority of section 16 of the 

act of March 4, 1933 (47 Stat. 1517).

An act of Congress (49 Stat. 1979), approved 

on June 26, 1936, expanded the boundaries of 

the national monument to include all of the 

lands on Cockspur Island, Georgia, that were 

then or formerly under the jurisdiction of the 

Secretary of War. Furthermore, the 

legislation authorized the Secretary of the 

Interior to accept donated lands on 

McQueens and Tybee islands, in Chatham 

County, Georgia, for addition to the 

boundary of Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. 

A presidential proclamation (72 Stat.1) dated 

August 14, 1958, expanded Fort Pulaski 

National Monument to include the Cockspur 

Island Lighthouse and the small island 

(Daymark Island) containing the lighthouse 

near the southeasterly shore of Cockspur 

Island. 

An amendment (110 Stat. 4188, Public Law 

104-333) to 49 Stat. 1979 cancelled the 

reservation of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (the Corps) on the north shore of 

Cockspur Island that allowed for the 

deposition of dredge spoil. 

Purpose 

Purpose statements are based on the 

monument’s legislation and legislative history 

and NPS policies. The statements reaffirm 

the reasons for which the national monument 

was set aside as a unit of the national park 

system and provide the foundation for 

monument management and use. 

The purposes of Fort Pulaski National 

Monument are to preserve and protect 

 the 19th century masonry fort and its 

associated structures, and interpret its 

roles in coastal fortifications, military 

technology, and the Civil War 

 other military structures, other 

government structures, and 

archeological resources associated 

with various military developments 

and fortifications on Cockspur Island 

 approximately 5,000 acres of nearly 

pristine salt marsh on McQueens and 

Cockspur islands that constitute the 

largest portion of the national 

monument and interpret this 

important coastal ecology for the 

education, inspiration, and 

enjoyment of the visitor 

Significance 

Significance statements capture the essence 

of the park’s importance to the nation’s 

natural and cultural heritage. They are 

statements of why, within a national, 

regional, and systemwide context, the park’s 

resources and values are important enough to 

warrant national park designation. 

Significance statements describe the park’s 

distinctiveness and provide direction for park 

managers to make decisions that preserve 

resources and values consistent with the 

monument’s purpose. 

Fort Pulaski National Monument is 

nationally significant because 

 it is the site of Robert E. Lee’s first 

assignment as assistant project 

engineer after receiving his 

commission at West Point 

 Fort Pulaski National Monument is 

the site where an innovative use of 
Foundation Statement 

13 

rifled cannons resulted in the first 

successful breach of masonry 

fortifications at long range, leading to 

the eventual abandonment of brick 

and stone coastal defenses 

 Fort Pulaski illustrates a historical 

continuum of coastal defenses on 

Cockspur Island and reflects many of 

the architectural features of other 

Third System forts 

 this battle led to the closure of the 

Port of Savannah, which lessened the 

ability of the Confederacy to wage 

war and contributed to the ultimate 

preservation of the United States 

 Fort Pulaski is the site of a tragic 

example of inhuman treatment of 

Confederate prisoners of war (often 

referred to as the “Immortal Six 

Hundred”) in retaliation for the 

mistreatment of Union prisoners at 

Andersonville 

 Fort Pulaski is the site where, 

following its capture by the Union 

Army, General David Hunter issued 

General Orders # 7 freeing those 

enslaved on Cockspur Island; 

President Abraham Lincoln later 

rescinded these orders but ultimately 

issued his own emancipation 

proclamation on January 1, 1863 

 the monument preserves nearly 5,000 

acres of virtually undisturbed coastal 

salt marsh, a rich and diverse 

ecosystem that is critically important 

to the health of the coastal 

environment and the coastal 

economy 

Special Mandates and Administrative 

Commitments 

Special mandates are park specific legislative 

or judicial requirements that expand upon or 

modify the park’s basic mission and purpose. 

They may be worthy of discussion and special 

consideration because (1) they are unusual 

(such as a special provision in a park’s 

establishing legislation for grazing); (2) they 

add another dimension to an area’s purpose 

and significance (such as the designation of 

an area in the park as part of the national 

wilderness preservation system, the inclusion 

of a river in the national wild and scenic 

rivers system, a national historic landmark 

designation for part of a park, or a park’s 

designation as a world heritage site or 

biosphere reserve); or (3) they commit park 

managers to specific actions (such as an 

action required by a court order). 

Administrative commitments are generally 

defined as agreements that have been reached 

through formal, documented processes with 

other federal or state agencies that refer to 

the co-management of specific natural or 

cultural resources. 

Fort Pulaski has two long-standing 

administrative commitments: 

 The monument has issued a longterm special use permit to the U.S. 

Coast Guard for a life-saving station 

on Cockspur Island encompassing 

about 6 acres of land with buildings, a 

dock, and communications 

equipment. 

 The monument has also issued to the 

Savannah Pilots Association a special 

use permit for a dock and dormitory 

facility on Cockspur Island a short 

distance east of the Coast Guard 

station. However, based on research 

and a recent Office of Inspector 

General report, the legality of 

continuing to authorize the use by the 

permit is now subject to question. On 

March 9, 2011, the two senators from 

the state of Georgia introduced S.535, 

a bill to authorize Fort Pulaski to 

issue a noncompetitive lease to the 

Savannah Pilots Association in order 

to continue the longstanding 

relationship. This proposed 

legislation became law on 

December 19, 2011, when President 

Barack Obama signed it. The act 

authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to lease no more than 30,000 

square feet of land and improvements 

at the location on Cockspur Island 

that has been used continuously by 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

14 

the Savannah Pilots Association since 

1940. 

Fundamental Resources and Values 

Fundamental resources and values are 

systems, processes, features, visitor 

experiences, stories, and scenes that warrant 

primary consideration during planning and 

management because they are critical to 

achieving the monument’s purpose and 

maintaining its significance. It is these 

resources and values that maintain the park’s 

purpose and significance, and if these 

resources are allowed to deteriorate, the park 

purpose and/or significance could be 

jeopardized. The following list is presented in 

no particular order of importance. 

The military significance of the battle 

 The naval blockade and the series of 

fortifications and batteries, such as 

Battery Hamilton, led to the closure 

of the Port of Savannah and the cutoff 

of Fort Pulaski from resupply. 

 The Union army’s capture of the fort 

and its subsequent use of the fort kept 

the Port of Savannah closed. 

 The geography and other land and 

water features of the area facilitated 

the Union strategy. 

The history of the development and 

evolution of coastal defenses in the United 

States 

 The fort structure is characterized by 

its well-preserved condition and 

unique construction (primarily its 

shape and placement on the site). 

 The fort is in an excellent state of 

preservation, virtually unaltered from 

its original design. 

 The national monument is the site of 

Fort George, a colonial defensive 

structure begun in late 1761. 

 The national monument is the site of 

Fort Greene, a First System fort 

begun in 1794. 

 The 1869–1872 modernizations to 

Fort Pulaski (remodeling of the 

demilune, installation of 

underground magazines and 

passageways, and constructing gun 

emplacements) demonstrate the 

evolution of military strategy and 

technology. 

 The national monument is the site of 

Battery Horace Hambright, a 

Spanish-American War era structure. 

HISTORIC MAP (HENRY MEHLES) OF FEDERAL BATTERIES

The story of military weaponry and tactics 

 The fort structure itself, particularly 

the southeast angle, shows the 

damage clearly. 

 Original rifled cannons, believed to 

have been used by Union troops on 

Tybee Island during the siege and 

reduction of the fort, now silent, 

serve as potent interpretive tools for 

both historian and monument visitor 

alike. 

 The story includes the hasty 

surrender (April 11, 1862) by Colonel 

Charles H. Olmstead within 30 hours 

of the commencement of hostilities, 

as well as the groundbreaking 

application of military technology, 

the use of rifled cannons against 

masonry fortifications. 
Foundation Statement 

15 

 The geography, landscape, and 

landforms of the area favored the 

Union attack strategy and tactics. 

(Lack of trees on Cockspur provided 

a clear view for the Union side while 

trees on Tybee Island provided 

concealment for the Union batteries.) 

 Robert E. Lee visited Fort Pulaski in 

1861 and assessed the defensive 

position of the fort as adequate to 

withstand attack by cannon from 

Tybee Island. 

FREED MEN AND WOMEN AT FORT PULASKI

African American connections to the site 

 Fort Pulaski’s history includes the 

story of one of the earliest efforts to 

free enslaved African Americans 

months before Lincoln’s 

emancipation proclamation. General 

David Hunter’s efforts influenced 

Lincoln and were designed to help 

former slaves achieve full citizenship 

through military service, education, 

and the practice of subsistence 

farming rather than cash crops such 

as cotton. 

Stories about the mistreatment of 

prisoners of war 

 The national monument is the burial 

location for the 13 people who died 

during winter 1864–1865. 

 Records and accounts of the events 

help illuminate those events for 

modern visitors. 

 Archeological evidence of the 

cemetery contributes to interpretive 

programming. 

 The fort was used as a prison. 

Robert E. Lee’s connections and 

contributions to the site 

 Lee designed the dike system and the 

associated drainage ditches and 

canals. 

 The young lieutenant supervised 

construction of the village used by 

workers, the principal wharf, and 

cisterns, some of which survive today. 

 Lee prepared surveys that determined 

the fort’s location. 

 Lee’s connections include stories 

about his experience in surviving the 

intense physical environment. 

 Lee endured emotional stress due to 

isolation from local communities. 

 There are many stories of Lee’s 

interactions with the community of 

Savannah.

The vast virtually undisturbed salt marsh 

that stands in stark contrast to the heavily 

modified environment of Cockspur Island

 The size of the marsh and the fact 

that it exists as a contiguous habitat 

(ecological value of the size and scope 

of the area). 

 Water quality is high enough to 

support recreational oyster 

harvesting. 

 It is a nursery for many juveniles of 

fish and shellfish species. 

 It provides habitat for many 

threatened and endangered species 

and species of concern (e.g., 

diamondback terrapin, manatee, 

wood stork). 

 The calming and rejuvenating 

experience provided by views of the 

vast expanse of uninterrupted marsh. 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

16 

 The marsh offers superb 

opportunities for eco-tourism (e.g., 

canoeing, kayaking). 

 There is an opportunity to compare 

an altered environment with one 

essentially unaltered (Cockspur vs. 

McQueens islands). 

Other Important Resources and 

Values 

Parks may also have other important 

resources and values that may not be 

fundamental to the park’s purpose and 

significance, but are nevertheless determined 

to be particularly important considerations 

for general management planning. 

Identifying other important resources and 

values is primarily done to separate those 

resources or values that are covered by the 

servicewide mandates and policies from 

those that have important considerations to 

be addressed in the general management 

plan. 

Cultural Resources 

 Wesley Monument—John Wesley, 

founder of Methodism, landed on 

Cockspur Island in 1736. Wesley’s 

journal records: 

“...about eight in the morning I first 

set foot on American ground. It was a 

small uninhabited island...over 

against Tybee, called by the English 

Peeper Island. Mr. Oglethorpe led us 

through the moorish land on the 

shore to a rising ground...we chose an 

open place surrounded with myrtles, 

bays, and cedars, which sheltered us 

from the sun and wind, and called our 

little flock together to prayers.” 

The previous quotation is inscribed 

on the Wesley Monument within Fort 

Pulaski National Monument. The 

monument is a simple brick column 

set on a limestone base. 

 Battery Horace Hambright—Between 

1898 and 1899, to provide additional 

harbor protection during the 

Spanish-American War, the War 

Department built Battery Horace 

Hambright on Cockspur Island’s 

north shore (Meader and Binkley 

2003). 

QUARANTINE STATION AND HOSPITAL

 Quarantine Station—On May 8, 1889, 

the War Department issued a 

revocable license to the city of 

Savannah to establish a quarantine 

station on the northwest portion of 

Cockspur Island. A Caribbean-style 

raised cottage, still extant and used as 

the monument administrative 

headquarters today, was completed in 

1891 for a quarantine officer (Meader 

and Binkley 2003). 

 Cockspur Island Lighthouse—

Situated on an islet off the 

southeastern tip of Cockspur Island 

marking the South Channel Savannah 

River, the Cockspur Island 

Lighthouse stands 12 miles east of the 

Port of Savannah. The islet, often 

covered by high tide, is composed of 

oyster shells and marsh grass. 

Documented references suggest the 

first brick tower, used as a 

daymark, was built on Cockspur 

Island between March 1837 and 

November 1839. In 1854, the 

structure was destroyed by a 

hurricane. The tower was rebuilt and 

enlarged on the same foundation the 

next year. 
Foundation Statement 

17 

COCKSPUR LIGHTHOUSE FROM GROUND LEVEL

 Cisterns, brick foundation ruins, 

North Channel Pier—These elements 

are the remains of the construction 

village used by workers who built 

Fort Pulaski. The village consisted of 

small frame buildings, many built on 

stilts. Some of the structures served as 

dormitories for workers, while others 

were reserved for managers. A 

hospital and storage areas were also 

constructed. The remains of a stone 

pier on the north shore of Cockspur 

Island can be seen at the end of a trail 

that begins just northwest of the fort’s 

parking lot. 

Recreation Opportunities 

 wildlife viewing opportunities (deer, 

herons, eagles, alligators, etc.) 

 outdoor recreation opportunities 

(walking, bicycling, etc.) 

 fishing opportunities 

Primary Interpretive Themes 

Interpretive themes are ideas, concepts, or 

stories that are central to the monument’s 

purpose, significance, identity, and visitor 

experience. The primary interpretive themes 

define concepts that every visitor should have 

the opportunity to learn. Primary themes also 

provide the framework for the park’s 

interpretation and educational programs, 

influence the visitor experience, and provide 

direction for planners and designers of the 

park’s exhibits, publications, and audiovisual 

programs. Subsequent interpretive planning 

may elaborate on these primary themes. 

In 1999, Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. (DIL) inserted language in the Fiscal Year 2000 

National Park Service appropriations bill that 

included this statement: “The Secretary of the 

Interior is directed to encourage (emphasis 

added) the National Park Service managers of 

Civil War battle sites to recognize and include 

in all of their public displays and multimedia 

educational presentations, the unique role 

that the institution of slavery played in 

causing the Civil War and its role, if any, at 

the individual battle sites.” 

In general management planning, primary 

interpretive themes may form the basis for 

alternatives and management zones that 

prescribe resource conditions and visitor 

experiences. Identifying primary themes 

leads to recommendations for interpretive 

and educational facilities, media, and services 

that are core to park missions and facilitate 

emotional and intellectual connections with 

park resources and values. The development 

and interpretation of primary themes provide 

a framework for shared perspectives among 

visitors, stakeholders, and the public. 

The more significant themes at Fort Pulaski 

National Monument, extracted from the 

monument’s August 2006 long-range 

interpretive plan are as follows: 

 Fort Pulaski was strategically 

significant during the Civil War to 

both Confederate and Union political 

and military interests. (Shaping the 

Political Landscape—Political 

Theories) 

 The rifle artillery siege of Fort Pulaski 

was a landmark experiment in the 

history of military science and 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

18 

invention. (Expanding Science and 

Technology—Experiment and 

Invention) 

 For more than 250 years, Cockspur 

Island served the colonial, state, and 

national governments as a strategic 

site for protecting economic and 

political interests. (Developing the 

American Economy—Government 

Policies and Practices, Shaping the 

Political Landscape) 

 In October 1864, Union troops 

stationed at Fort Pulaski accepted 

transfer of a group of imprisoned 

Confederate officers who later 

became known as the Immortal Six 

Hundred. The treatment of prisoners 

of war and political prisoners 

continues to be a relevant topic in the 

21st century. (Shaping the Political 

Landscape—Military Institutions) 

 A labor force of skilled workers, both 

free and slave, under the supervision 

of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

built the fort. (Developing the 

American Economy—Workers and 

Work Environments) 

NORTH TIDAL GATE

 The construction village that used the 

northern bank of the Savannah River 

provided living accommodations for 

the skilled workers. A large pier was 

constructed to handle the arrival of 

supplies from ports north and south. 

(Developing the American 

Economy—Workers and Work 

Environments) 

 The design and construction of Fort 

Pulaski was a significant project for 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

(Shaping the Political Landscape—

Military Institutions) 

 King Cotton brought wealth to the 

South and the port city of Savannah. 

(Developing the American 

Economy—Exchange and Trade) 

 The artificial environments on 

Cockspur Island contrast significantly 

with the natural environments on 

adjacent McQueens Island. 

(Transforming the Environment—

Adverse Consequences) 

 The Savannah bar pilots and their 

forbears have served the Port of 

Savannah from Cockspur and 

McQueens islands almost 

continuously since 1762. (Developing 

the American Economy—Exchange 

and Trade) 

 Fort Pulaski and its remnant 

structures on Cockspur Island and 

the vast salt marshes of McQueens 

Island are worthy of protection as a 

unit of the national park system. 

(Transforming the Environment—

Protecting and Preserving) 

 Much of Fort Pulaski National 

Monument’s initial restoration and 

site operations were carried out by 

the Civilian Conservation Corps 

(CCC) as part of the federal 

government’s effort to stimulate 

recovery from the Great Depression. 

(Developing the American 

Economy—Government Policies and 

Practices/Workers and Work 

Environments) 

 Cockspur and McQueens islands 

were laboratories for technical and 

scientific developments in mosquito 

control, particularly during the 

period 1935–80. (Expanding Science 

and Technology—Effects on Lifestyle 

and Health/Transforming the 

Environment—Manipulating the 

Environment and Its Resources) 
Servicewide Laws and Policies 

19 

SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES 

This section (expanded in appendix A) 

identifies what must be done at Fort Pulaski 

National Monument to comply with federal 

laws and policies of the National Park 

Service. Many park management directives 

are specified in laws and policies guiding the 

National Park Service and are therefore not 

subject to alternative approaches. For 

example, there are laws and policies about 

managing environmental quality (such as the 

Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, 

and Executive Order 11990, “Protection of 

Wetlands”); governing the preservation of 

cultural resources (such as the National 

Historic Preservation Act and the Native 

American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act); and providing public 

services (such as the Americans with 

Disabilities Act), to name only a few. In other 

words, a general management plan is not 

needed to decide, for instance, that it is 

appropriate to protect endangered species, 

control nonnative species, protect 

archeological sites, conserve artifacts, or 

provide for universal access. Laws and 

policies have already decided those. Although 

attaining some of the conditions set forth in 

these laws and policies may have been 

temporarily deferred in the park because of 

funding or staffing limitations, the National 

Park Service will continue to strive to 

implement these requirements with or 

without a new general management plan. 

Some of these laws and executive orders are 

applicable solely or primarily to units of the 

national park system. These include the 1916 

Organic Act that created the National Park 

Service, the General Authorities Act of 1970, 

the act of March 27, 1978, relating to the 

management of the national park system, and 

the National Parks Omnibus Management 

Act (1998). Other laws and executive orders 

have much broader application, such as the 

Endangered Species Act, the National 

Historic Preservation Act, and Executive 

Order 11990, that address the protection of 

wetlands (see appendix A). 

The NPS Organic Act (16 USC § 1) provides 

the fundamental management direction for 

all units of the national park system: 

 [P]romote and regulate the use of the 

Federal areas known as national 

parks, monuments, and 

reservations...by such means and 

measure as conform to the 

fundamental purpose of said parks, 

monuments and reservations, which 

purpose is to conserve the scenery 

and the natural and historic objects 

and the wildlife therein and to 

provide for the enjoyment of the 

same in such manner and by such 

means as will leave them unimpaired 

for the enjoyment of future 

generations. 

The National Park System General 

Authorities Act (16 USC § 1a-1 et seq.) 

affirms that while all national park system 

units remain “distinct in character,” they are 

“united through their interrelated purposes 

and resources into one national park system 

as cumulative expressions of a single national 

heritage.” The act makes it clear that the NPS 

Organic Act and other protective mandates 

apply equally to all units of the system. 

Further, amendments state that NPS 

management of park units should not 

“derogat[e]...the purposes and values for 

which these various areas have been 

established.” 

The National Park Service also has 

established policies for all units under its 

stewardship. These are identified and 

explained in a guidance manual entitled NPS 

Management Policies 2006. The “action” 

alternatives (alternatives B and C) considered 

in this document incorporate and comply 

with the provisions of these mandates and 

policies. 

Public Law 95-625, the National Parks and 

Recreation Act, requires the preparation and 

timely revision of general management plans 

for each unit of the national park system. 

Section 604 of that act outlines several 

requirements for general management plans, 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

20 

including measures for the protection of the 

area’s resources and “indications of potential 

modifications to the external boundaries of 

the unit and the reasons therefore.” NPS 

Management Policies 2006 reaffirms this 

legislative directive. 

To truly understand the implications of an 

alternative, it is important to combine the 

servicewide mandates and policies with the 

management actions described in an 

alternative. 

Table 1 shows some of the most pertinent 

servicewide mandates and policy topics 

related to planning and managing Fort 

Pulaski National Monument; each topic has 

desired conditions that NPS staff is striving to 

achieve. Appendix A expands on this 

information by citing the law or policy 

directing these actions and giving examples 

of the types of actions being pursued. The 

alternatives in this general management plan 

address the desired future conditions that are 

not mandated by law and policy and must be 

determined through a planning process. 

The Georgia Department of 

Transportation’s U.S. Highway 80 

Bridges Replacement Study 

This project is an initiative of the Coastal 

Region Metropolitan Planning Organization 

in coordination with the Chatham CountySavannah Metropolitan Planning 

Commission (MPC) to identify feasible 

solutions for safety and access issues on the 

Bull River and Lazaretto Creek bridges, as 

well as for flooding issues on U.S. Highway 

80 between the bridges. In a previous project 

for the same stretch of road between Bull 

River and Lazaretto Creek, the Georgia 

Department of Transportation notified Fort 

Pulaski that some land within the monument 

boundary would be required for the 

expanded right-of-way as well as for 

temporary storage of materials and for 

staging purposes. If this requirement would 

still exist under any of the alternatives under 

consideration for the U.S. Highway 80 

bridges replacement project, then the legal 

opinion described below would apply. 

An opinion issued by the Department of the 

Interior’s regional solicitor in Atlanta dated 

October 13, 2006, concluded that an act of 

Congress would be required to enable a land 

exchange between Fort Pulaski National 

Monument and the Georgia Department of 

Transportation unless the Secretary of the 

Department of the Interior, under section 

4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act 

of 1966, determines that impacts from the 

project on the national monument will be de 

minimis. 

The monument will negotiate with the 

Georgia Department of Transportation to 

provide for mitigation of lands that could be 

lost to the project and for other impacts. The 

highway bisects Fort Pulaski National 

Monument and therefore this project has the 

potential to adversely impact natural and 

cultural resources on the McQueens Island 

side of the park. The National Park Service 

has participated in the planning process and 

will continue to do so as this project moves 

forward. 

 
Servicewide Laws and Policies 

21 

TABLE 1. SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT

Topic Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved 

 at Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Relations with 

Private and Public 

Organizations, 

Owners of 

Adjacent Land, 

and Governmental 

Agencies 

Fort Pulaski National Monument is managed as part of a greater ecological, social, economic, 

and cultural system. 

Good relations are maintained with adjacent landowners, surrounding communities, and private 

and public groups that affect, and are affected by the park. The monument is managed 

proactively to resolve external issues and concerns and ensure that monument values are not 

compromised. 

Because the national monument is an integral part of a larger regional environment, the National 

Park Service works cooperatively with others to anticipate, avoid, and resolve potential conflicts, 

protect national monument resources, and address mutual interests in the quality of life for 

community residents. Regional cooperation involves federal, state, and local agencies, 

neighboring landowners, and all other concerned parties. 

Natural Resources 

Air Quality Air quality in the monument meets national ambient air quality standards for specified 

pollutants. Monument air quality is maintained or enhanced with no significant deterioration. 

Climate Change 

Climate change is expected to affect the park’s weather, resources (e.g., shorelines, vegetation, 

and wildlife), facilities (e.g., docks and roads), and visitors (e.g., seasonal use patterns, fishing, 

and other visitor opportunities such as typical beach activities). These changes will have direct 

implications on resource management and park operations and on the way visitors use and 

experience the park. Although climate change is expected to affect the park during the life of 

this plan, many of the specific effects, the rate of changes, and the severity of impacts are not 

known. 

Desired Condition: Fort Pulaski National Monument is a leader in its efforts to address climate 

change by reducing the contribution of NPS operations and visitor activities to climate change; 

preparing for and adapting to climate change impacts; and increasing its use of renewable 

energy and other sustainable practices. NPS staff proactively monitors and mitigates the climate 

change impacts on cultural and natural resources and visitor amenities. The park provides refugia 

for marine and terrestrial species to increase their resilience to climate change. Education and 

interpretive programs help visitors understand climate change impacts in the park and beyond, 

and how they can respond to climate change. Partnerships with various agencies and institutions 

allow NPS staff to participate in research on climate change impacts. 

Sources: NPS Organic Act; Executive Order 13423 (includes requirements for the reduction of 

greenhouse gases and other energy and water conservation measures); Department of the 

Interior Secretarial Order 3289, Amendment 1, February 10, 2010 (ensures that climate change 

impacts be taken into account in connection with departmental planning and decision making); 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (including sections on environmental leadership [1.8], 

sustainable energy design [9.1.1.6], and energy management [9.1.7]); NPS Environmental Quality 

Division’s “Draft Interim Guidance: Considering Climate Change in NEPA Analysis.” 

Ecosystem 

Management 

The monument is managed holistically, as part of a greater ecological, social, economic, and 

cultural system. 

Nonnative Species 

The management of populations of nonnative plant and animal species, up to and including 

eradication, are undertaken wherever such species threaten monument resources or public 

health and when control is prudent and feasible. 

Fire Management 

Fort Pulaski National Monument fire management programs are designed to meet resource 

management objectives prescribed for the various areas of the monument and to ensure that the 

safety of firefighters and the public are not compromised. 

All wildland fires are effectively managed, considering resource values to be protected and 

firefighter and public safety, using the full range of strategic and tactical operations as described 

in an approved fire management plan. 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

22 

TABLE 1. SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT

Topic Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved 

 at Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Floodplains 

Natural floodplain values are preserved or restored. 

Long-term and short-term environmental effects associated with the occupancy and modification 

of floodplains are avoided. 

When it is not practicable to locate or relocate development or inappropriate human activities to 

a site outside the floodplain or where the floodplain will be affected, the National Park Service 

 prepares and approves a statement of findings in accordance with Director’s Order 77-2 

 uses nonstructural measures as much as practicable to reduce hazards to human life and 

property while minimizing impacts on the natural resources of floodplains 

 ensures that structures and facilities are designed to be consistent with the intent of the 

standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (44 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] 60) 

General Natural 

Resources / 

Restoration 

Native species populations that have been severely reduced in or extirpated from Fort Pulaski 

National Monument are restored where feasible and sustainable. 

Populations of native plant and animal species function in as natural condition as possible except 

where special considerations are warranted. 

Geologic 

Resources 

The National Park Service will preserve and protect geologic resources as integral components of 

monument natural systems. As used here, the term “geologic resources” includes both geologic 

features and geologic processes. 

Land Protection 

Land protection plans are prepared to determine and publicly document what lands or interests 

in land need to be in public ownership, and what means of protection are available to achieve 

the purposes for which the national park system unit was created. 

Native Vegetation 

and Animals 

The National Park Service will maintain as parts of the natural ecosystem all native plants and 

animals in the park. 

Soils 

The National Park Service actively seeks to understand and preserve the soil resources of Fort 

Pulaski National Monument, and to prevent, to the extent possible, the unnatural erosion, 

physical removal, or contamination of the soil, or its contamination of other resources. 

Natural soil resources and processes function in as natural a condition as possible, except where 

special considerations are allowable under policy. 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species and 

Species of 

Concern 

Federal- and state-listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats are protected and 

sustained. 

Native threatened and endangered species populations that have been severely reduced in or 

extirpated from Fort Pulaski National Monument are restored where feasible and sustainable. 

Water Resources 

Surface water and groundwater are protected, and water quality meets or exceeds all applicable 

water quality standards. 

NPS and NPS-permitted programs and facilities are maintained and operated to avoid pollution 

of surface water and groundwater. 

Wetlands 

The natural and beneficial values of wetlands are preserved and enhanced. The National Park 

Service implements a “no net loss of wetlands” policy and strives to achieve a longer-term goal 

of net gain of wetlands across the national park system through the restoration of previously 

degraded wetlands. 

The National Park Service avoids to the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse impacts 

associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and avoids direct or indirect support 

of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. 

The National Park Service compensates for remaining unavoidable adverse impacts on wetlands 

by restoring wetlands that have been previously degraded. 
Servicewide Laws and Policies 

23 

TABLE 1. SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT

Topic Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved 

 at Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Cultural Resources 

Archeological 

Resources 

Archeological sites are identified and inventoried and their National Register of Historic Places 

(national register) significance is determined and documented. Archeological sites are protected 

in an undisturbed condition unless it is determined through formal processes that disturbance or 

natural deterioration is unavoidable. When disturbance or deterioration is unavoidable, the site is 

professionally documented and excavated and the resulting artifacts, materials, and records are 

curated and conserved in consultation with the Historic Preservation Division of the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, American Indian 

tribes, and others as appropriate. Mitigation may include a variety of measures ranging from 

avoidance to data recovery and is generally included in a memorandum of agreement. Artifacts, 

materials, and records resulting from data recovery are curated and conserved as provided for in 

36 CFR 79. Some archeological sites that can be adequately protected may be interpreted to the 

visitor. 

Historic Structures 

Historic structures are inventoried and their significance and integrity are evaluated under 

National Register of Historic Places criteria. The qualities that contribute to the listing or eligibility 

for listing of historic structures on the national register are protected in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation.

However, if it is determined through a formal process that disturbance or natural deterioration is 

unavoidable, mitigation measures and consultation are initiated as previously described for 

archeological resources. 

Ethnographic 

Resources 

Appropriate cultural anthropological research is conducted in cooperation with groups 

associated with Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

All ethnographic resources determined eligible for listing or listed on the national register are 

protected. If disturbance of such resources is unavoidable, formal consultation with the state 

historic preservation division, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and with American 

Indian tribes as appropriate, is conducted. 

Cultural 

Landscapes 

Cultural landscape inventories are conducted to identify landscapes potentially eligible for listing 

in the national register and to assist in future management decisions for landscapes and 

associated resources, both cultural and natural. 

The management of cultural landscapes focuses on preserving the landscape’s physical 

attributes, biotic systems, and uses when those uses contribute to its historical significance. 

Treatments are based on sound preservation practices for the preservation, rehabilitation, 

restoration, or reconstruction of cultural landscapes and is undertaken in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for 

the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 

The National Park Service has prepared a cultural landscape report for Fort Pulaski National 

Monument, which was approved on August 1, 2011. 

Museum 

Collections 

All museum collections (prehistoric and historic objects, artifacts, works of art, archival 

documents, and natural history specimens) are identified and inventoried, catalogued, 

documented, preserved, and protected, and provision is made for access to and use of items in 

the collections for exhibits, research, and interpretation in consultation with traditionally 

associated groups. The qualities that contribute to the significance of collections are protected in 

accordance with established standards. 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

24 

TABLE 1. SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT

Topic Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved 

 at Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Visitor Use and Experience 

Visitor Use and 

Experience and 

Park Use 

Requirements 

Fort Pulaski National Monument resources are conserved “unimpaired” for the enjoyment of 

future generations. Visitors have opportunities for types of enjoyment that are uniquely suited 

and appropriate to the superlative natural and cultural resources found in the park. No activities 

occur that would cause derogation of the values and purposes for which the monument was 

established. 

For all zones, districts, or other logical management divisions within Fort Pulaski National 

Monument, the types and levels of visitor use are consistent with the desired resource and visitor 

experience conditions prescribed for those areas consistent with the unit’s purpose. 

Park visitors will have opportunities to understand and appreciate the significance of the 

monument and its resources, and to develop a personal stewardship ethic by directly relating to 

the resources. 

To the extent feasible, programs, services, and facilities in the monument are accessible to and 

usable by all people, including those with disabilities within an inviting atmosphere accessible to 

every segment of American society. 

Public Health and 

Safety 

Although recognizing that there are limitations on its capability and constraints imposed by the 

Organic Act to not impair resources, the service and its concessioners, contractors, and cooperators will seek to provide a safe and healthful environment for visitors and employees. 

The monument staff will strive to identify recognizable threats to safety and health and protect 

property by applying nationally accepted standards. Consistent with mandates and 

nonimpairment, the monument staff will reduce or remove known hazards and/or apply 

appropriate mitigative measures, such as closures, guarding, gating, education, and other 

actions. 

Other Topics 

Sustainable 

Design/ 

Development 

NPS facilities are harmonious with monument resources, compatible with natural processes, 

aesthetically pleasing, functional, as accessible as possible to all segments of the population, 

energy efficient, and cost effective. 

All decisions regarding monument operations, facilities management, and development in the 

monument—from the initial concept through design and construction—reflect principles of 

resource conservation. Thus, all monument developments and monument operations are 

sustainable to the maximum degree possible and practical. New developments and existing 

facilities are located, built, and modified according to the Guiding Principles of Sustainable 

Design (NPS 1993) or other similar guidelines. 

Management decision making and activities throughout the national park system should use 

value analysis, which is mandatory for all Department of the Interior bureaus, to help achieve this 

goal. Value planning, which may be used interchangeably with value analysis / value engineering 

/ value management, is most often used when value methods are applied on general 

management or similar planning activities. 

Wilderness Values 

The National Park Service preserves the wilderness character of those areas eligible for wilderness 

designation until such time as Congress makes the decision to include or exclude lands in the 

monument from the national wilderness preservation system. 

Transportation To 

and Within the 

Park 

Visitors have reasonable access to the park, and there are connections from the monument to 

regional transportation systems as appropriate. Transportation facilities in the monument provide 

access for the protection, use, and enjoyment of monument resources. They preserve the 

integrity of the surroundings, respect ecological processes, protect monument resources, and 

provide the highest visual quality and a rewarding visitor experience. 

The National Park Service participates in all transportation planning forums (U.S. Highway 80 and 

Savannah Harbor projects) that may result in links to parks or impact monument resources. 

Working with federal, tribal, state, and local agencies on transportation issues, the National Park 

Service seeks reasonable access to parks, and connections to external and alternative 

transportation systems. 

Utilities and 

Communication 

Facilities 

Neither Fort Pulaski National Monument resources nor public enjoyment of the monument are 

denigrated by nonconforming uses. Telecommunication structures are permitted in the 

monument to the extent that they do not jeopardize the monument’s mission and resources. No 

new nonconforming use or rights-of-way are permitted through the monument without specific 

statutory authority and approval by the director of the National Park Service or his representative, 

and are permitted only if there is no practicable alternative to such use of NPS lands. 
Other Planning Efforts Related to This General Management Plan 

25 

OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS RELATED 

TO THIS GENERAL MANAGEMENT 

PLAN 

Fort Pulaski National Monument is located 

on Cockspur and McQueens islands, 

Georgia, between Savannah and Tybee 

Island on the Atlantic Ocean coast. The 

monument is surrounded mostly by waters 

including the North and South Channels 

Savannah River, the Bull River, the Atlantic 

Ocean, and Lazaretto Creek. The Georgia 

Department of Transportation owns Long 

Island and Bird Island, which lie 

immediately to the west of the Cockspur 

Island portion of the national monument 

and consist of land mostly created by dredge 

spoil from the Savannah River. There are no 

private landowners immediately adjoining 

the park; however there is a parcel on Tybee 

Island that is within the authorized 

boundary but is within private ownership. 

The owners of this parcel worked with Fort 

Pulaski to create a small park and exhibit to 

provide visitors with the only on-the-ground 

opportunity for visualizing the perspective 

and line of sight of the federal batteries on 

Tybee Island. 

Several plans have influenced or would be 

influenced by the approved general 

management plan for Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. These include plans by the 

Coastal Region Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (CORE MPO) and the Georgia 

Department of Transportation to replace the 

U.S. Highway 80 bridges over Bull River and 

Lazaretto Creek, construct bicycle and 

pedestrian facilities that link to Tybee Island 

and the McQueens Island Trail, and improve 

conditions in flood-prone areas. A major 

planning effort by the Georgia Port 

Authority in conjunction with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers aims to deepen the 

North Channel Savannah River to 

accommodate larger and faster container 

ships in order to maintain competiveness for 

the Port of Savannah. Both of these projects 

have potentially serious impacts on natural 

and cultural resources within the national 

monument. 

The National Park Service has prepared a 

cultural landscape report for Fort Pulaski 

National Monument which was approved 

on August 1, 2011. The following sections 

highlight those plans most relevant to this 

general management plan. 

The Georgia Ports Authority’s 

Savannah Harbor Expansion Project 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the 

lead federal agency for an evaluation of the 

deepening of the federal navigation project 

at Savannah Harbor, Georgia, in increments 

from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low 

Water to a potential depth of 48 feet, to ease 

current shipping constraints and to 

accommodate anticipated growth in 

commerce and vessel sizes. In the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1999, the 

U.S. Congress authorized deepening the 

navigation channel to a maximum depth of 

48 feet Mean Low Water, subject to further 

studies and approval of those study results 

by four federal agencies. The other three 

federal agenciesthe U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA) (Region IV), the 

Department of Commerce (acting through 

the National Marine Fisheries Service), and 

the Department of the Interior (acting 

through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service)have agreed to participate as 

cooperating agencies in the preparation of 

the Tier II Environmental Impact Statement. 

The Georgia Ports Authority will also serve 

as a cooperator in the environmental impact 

statement development process. 

Wave action from larger, faster container 

ships entering and leaving the Port of 

Savannah has the potential to cause serious 

erosion to the northern shoreline of 

Cockspur Island and the foundation of the 

Cockspur Island Lighthouse just off the 

eastern shore of Cockspur Island. 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

26 

The National Park Service Cultural 

Landscape Report 

The National Park Service has prepared a 

cultural landscape report for Fort Pulaski 

National Monument, which was approved 

on August 1, 2011. The plan sets broad goals 

for future resource conditions and visitor 

experiences. A cultural landscape report 

establishes more specific preservation goals 

for a cultural landscape. The goals must be 

grounded in research, inventory, 

documentation, and analysis and evaluation 

of a landscape’s characteristics and 

associated features. The content of a cultural 

landscape report provides the basis for 

making sound decisions about management, 

treatment, and use. A report may include 

information spanning numerous disciplines 

in order to evaluate a landscape’s historical, 

architectural, archeological, ethnographic, 

horticultural, landscape, architectural, and 

engineering features, along with ecological 

processes and natural systems. Based on this 

information and site management goals, 

such as access, contemporary use, and 

interpretation, a cultural landscape report 

outlines appropriate treatment for a 

landscape consistent with its significance, 

condition, and planned use. 

The Georgia State Historic 

Preservation Plan 2007–2011 

(Building a Preservation Ethic) 

The preparation and implementation of a 

statewide comprehensive plan for historic 

preservation is required by the National 

Park Service for the participation of a state 

historic preservation office in the national 

historic preservation program. In Georgia, 

the Historic Preservation Division, a unit of 

the Department of Natural Resources, 

administers the program. This document is 

the guiding document for the state’s historic 

preservation program. The primary goal in 

the Georgia historic preservation plan is 

naturally to “Preserve Georgia’s Historic 

Resources.” The National Park Service 

assists and partners with the Historic 

Preservation Division in many ways to 

achieve this goal. An important example is 

the Certified Local Governments Program. 

Seventy-five Georgia communities 

(including Savannah and Chatham County) 

participate in the program, choosing to enter 

into a preservation partnership with the 

Historic Preservation Division and the 

National Park Service. By passing a 

preservation ordinance and establishing a 

local commission that complies with the 

Georgia Historic Preservation Act, these 

communities commit to actively protect 

their historic resources. This partnership 

establishes a relationship among these local 

governments and the state and federal 

agencies carrying out historic preservation 

programs. Certified local government 

programs benefit from this status by 

receiving technical assistance and being 

eligible for grant funds passed through the 

Historic Preservation Division from the 

National Park Service. 

The Regional Plan of Coastal Georgia 

2010 

“The Regional Plan of Coastal Georgia has 

been created to provide guidance to regional 

and business leaders, local government, state 

and federal agencies, and citizens as they 

help shape coastal Georgia’s future. It is the 

result of a comprehensive review and 

analysis of coastal Georgia’s 10 counties and 

35 municipalities’ land development trends 

and patterns that identified opportunities 

and challenges facing the region.” Under the 

heading “Intrinsic Resources: Cultural and 

Historical” the Coastal Regional 

Commission expresses a vision of 

protecting, restoring, enhancing, and 

managing these resources for the benefit of 

its citizens, visitors, and future generations. 

This is a similar vision to that expressed in 

the language found in the National Park 

Service Organic Act of 1916: “...to conserve 

the scenery and the natural and historic 

objects and the wildlife therein and to 

provide for the enjoyment of the same in 

such manner and by such means as will leave 

them unimpaired for the enjoyment of 

future generations.” More specifically, a 
Planning Issues/Concerns 

27 

guiding principle in this section of the plan is 

to “Maintain viewsheds of significant 

cultural and historic assets.” Performance 

standards for achieving this principle 

include adopting design guidelines that 

protect viewsheds of significant cultural and 

historic assets and restricting incompatible 

features from encroaching on important 

cultural, archeological, and historical 

viewsheds. These principles and 

performance standards are perfectly in tune 

with a major emphasis of the Fort Pulaski 

National Monument general management 

plan, which is to reestablish and preserve the 

views between the southeast angle of the fort 

and the positions of the Union batteries that 

reduced that face of the structure to rubble 

in April 1862. 

Coastal Georgia Comprehensive 

Economic Development Strategy 

2007 

“The Coastal Georgia Comprehensive 

Economic Development Strategy is designed 

to bring together the public and private 

sectors in the creation of an economic 

roadmap to diversity and strengthen the 

regional economy. By completing this 

strategy, the region is eligible for economic 

development assistance investment from the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic 

Development Administration. The region 

served by the Coastal Georgia Regional 

Development Center is also an Economic 

Development District designated by the 

Economic Development Administration. 

Economic development assistance 

investments from the Economic 

Development Administration can help fund 

local infrastructure projects, technology-led 

economic development projects, and 

strategies to respond to sudden and severe 

economic dislocations (e.g., major lay-offs, 

plant closures).” 

Among the major strategies of this plan are 

the balancing of recreational uses of coastal 

resources with environmental protection, 

and the enhancement of natural, historic, 

and cultural core areas for recreation, public 

education, and tourist attractions to the 

extent such enhancements are appropriate 

within the protection mission. The mission 

and purpose of Fort Pulaski National 

Monument and the general management 

plan alternatives in this document are 

entirely consistent with these strategies. 

Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage 

Corridor Management Plan 

Designated by Congress in 2006, the 

Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 

extends from Wilmington, North Carolina, 

in the north to Jacksonville, Florida, in the 

south. It is home to one of America’s most 

unique cultures, a tradition first shaped by 

captive Africans brought to the southern 

United States from West Africa and 

continued in later generations by their 

descendants. The Gullah/Geechee Cultural 

Heritage Corridor Commission in early 2009 

embarked on a series of 21 public meetings 

for the development of a management plan. 

In June 2009, at a public input meeting in 

Savannah, Georgia, Tammy Herrell, 

Administrative Officer of Fort Pulaski 

National Monument, addressed the meeting 

by noting Fort Pulaski’s involvement with 

the Gullah/Geechee Corridor since the year 

2000 and by expressing the determination of 

the monument superintendent and staff to 

continue educational and interpretive 

programs that blend the Gullah/Geechee 

history and culture with the other stories 

that are part of the Fort Pulaski program. 

PLANNING ISSUES/CONCERNS 

During scoping (early information 

gathering) for this general management plan, 

National Park Service staff, the general 

public, university scientists and historians, 

local, state, and county government 

representatives, and other federal agency 

staff identified various issues and concerns. 

An issue is defined as an opportunity, 

conflict, or problem regarding the use or 

management of public lands. Comments 

were solicited at public meetings, through 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

28 

planning newsletters, and on the Fort 

Pulaski National Monument’s website (see 

chapter 5, “Consultation and 

Coordination”). 

Comments received during scoping revealed 

concerns about access to the Cockspur 

Island Lighthouse, interpretation of African 

American history associated with the site, 

potential expansion of the monument 

boundary to include sites of federal batteries 

on Tybee Island, potential adverse impacts 

on the monument’s natural and cultural 

resources from the proposed U.S. Highway 

80 bridges replacement project and the 

deepening of the North Channel Savannah 

River, and extension of the McQueens 

Island hiker/biker path to Lazaretto Creek 

and ultimately across the creek to Tybee 

Island. The issues and concerns generally 

involve protecting monument resources 

from shoreline erosion, oil and other 

hazardous material spills in the Savannah 

River, and excessive use. The general 

management plan alternatives provide 

strategies for addressing the issues within the 

context of the Fort Pulaski’s purpose, 

significance, and special mandates. 

DECISION POINTS AND 

CONSIDERATIONS 

Many aspects of the desired future 

conditions of Fort Pulaski National 

Monument are defined in the establishing 

presidential proclamation, the monument’s 

purpose and significance statements, and 

established laws and policies. The resolution 

of questions or issues that have not already 

been addressed by legislation or laws and 

policies are the basis for developing different 

alternatives or approaches to managing the 

park into the future, because usually there is 

more than one way an issue could be 

resolved. As with any decision-making 

process, there are key decisions that, once 

made, will dictate the direction of 

subsequent management strategies. Based on 

public and partner comments and NPS 

concerns, the following major decision 

points were identified for Fort Pulaski 

National Monument:

 Should the cultural landscape of 

Cockspur Island be restored to look 

more like it did in 1862, which would 

involve removal of some trees and 

relocating the visitor parking lot to 

an area not visible from the 

terreplein (gun deck) of the fort? 

 What provisions should be made for 

recreational opportunities outside 

the dike system (fishing, canoeing, or 

kayaking in the South Channel 

Savannah River, etc.)? 

 Should the monument boundary be 

expanded to include sites of union 

batteries that are not currently 

protected? 

 Should interpretive programs and 

displays emphasize primarily the 

strategies, people, and technology 

(rifled cannon) associated with the 

siege and capture of Fort Pulaski in 

April 1862 or should equal attention 

be paid to the causes of the Civil 

War, the use of the fort as a refuge 

for escaped or freed slaves, the preCivil War history of the construction 

of the fort, and other historical 

events? 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Finally, the phenomenon of climate change 

has been included in the analysis and has 

resulted in the development of strategies 

common to all alternatives. All national park 

system areas are affected by climate change, 

but coastal units such as Fort Pulaski 

National Monument are perhaps more 

immediately vulnerable to the effects of 

global warming such as sea level rise and 

more violent and frequent storm events than 

parks more distant from the coasts and at 

higher elevations above sea level. 

The National Park Service recognizes that 

the major drivers of climate change are 

outside the control of the agency. However, 
Issues 

29 

climate change is a phenomenon whose 

impacts throughout the national park system 

cannot be discounted. Some of these impacts 

are already occurring or are expected in Fort 

Pulaski National Monument in the life span 

of this management plan. Therefore, climate 

change is included in this document to 

recognize its role in the changing 

environment of the national monument and 

to provide an understanding of its impact; 

other factors driving environmental change 

include population growth in the area 

(subsidence of water table, increased 

visitation, pollution), and major public 

projects around Fort Pulaski such as the 

proposed deepening of the north channel of 

the Savannah River and proposed bridge 

replacements on U.S. Highway 80 within the 

national monument boundary. 

Although climate change is a global 

phenomenon, it manifests differently 

depending on regional and local factors. 

Climate change is expected to result in many 

changes to the Atlantic coast of the eastern 

United States, including warming ocean 

waters, hotter summer temperatures and 

fewer winter freezes, sea level rise, and 

higher storm surges. In addition to these 

likely widespread effects, specific impacts on 

Fort Pulaski National Monument could 

include shifting shorelines due to coastal 

erosion, erosion of archeological sites, 

saltwater intrusion into soils and vegetation, 

flooding of the critical salt marsh 

environment of McQueens Island, and 

threats to the integrity and foundation of the 

Cockspur Island Lighthouse. This dynamic 

environment is expected to affect the natural 

and cultural resources in the national 

monument, as well as visitor use patterns. 

Questions to be addressed are as follows: 

 What is the contribution of the 

proposed project to climate change, 

such as greenhouse gas emissions 

and the “carbon footprint”? 

 What are the anticipated effects of 

climate change on the national 

monument resources and visitors 

that are affected by the management 

alternatives? 

Because the contribution of the proposed 

project to climate change is negligible under 

any alternative, the former issue has been 

dismissed. The latter issue, a discussion of 

the anticipated effects of climate change on 

national monument resources, has been 

carried forward. 

ISSUES 

The NPS planning team completed the initial 

scoping phase of the planning process by 

meeting with other federal agencies, state 

and local agencies, and a variety of partners, 

stakeholders, and other interested parties. 

The result was a wide-ranging list of 

concerns and suggestions for the National 

Park Service to consider in developing the 

general management plan. 

The team received approximately 70 

comments and suggestions during scoping. 

Many of the comments and suggestions fell 

into the following four categories: 

 Interpretation. The team received 

suggestions for including and 

expanding the interpretation of 

African American experiences at 

Fort Pulaski. Other contributors 

noted the growth in ecotourism and 

natural history interpretation and 

recommended increasing programs 

in these areas. The military history of 

the fort and its connection to the 

larger military history of Savannah 

was also a theme recommended for 

the monument’s interpretive 

program. 

 Boundary expansion. The 

protection and possible acquisition 

of federal batteries was a common 

element in this category. 

 U.S. Highway 80 widening. Many 

respondents emphasized both the 

need for participation in project 

planning to protect the monument’s 

resources and realization of 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

30 

opportunities to benefit Fort Pulaski 

through improved access, safety, 

vehicle turnouts, and terrapin 

exclusion devices. 

 Wetlands/Marsh. The vast salt 

marsh on the south side of U.S. 

Highway 80 evoked several 

comments from our partners and 

stakeholders. The identification and 

delineation of wetland boundaries 

was one focus. Another theme was 

the need to protect water quality and 

biodiversity in the salt marsh 

ecosystem. 

IMPACT TOPICS—RESOURCES AND 

VALUES AT STAKE IN THE PLANNING 

PROCESS 

An important part of planning is seeking to 

understand the consequences of making one 

decision over another. To this end, NPS 

general management plans are typically 

accompanied by full environmental impact 

statements. Environmental impact 

statements identify the anticipated impacts 

of possible actions on resources and on park 

visitors and neighbors. 

Impact topics are specific natural, cultural, 

or socioeconomic resources or values 

(including visitor use and experience and 

park operations) that could be affected by 

implementation of any of the alternatives 

described in the general management plan, 

including the no-action alternative. Impacts 

to these resources or values must be 

identified, and the intensity or magnitude, 

duration, and timing of the effect to each 

resource must be disclosed in the 

environmental consequences section of the 

environmental impact statement. 

The impact topics identified for this general 

management plan are outlined in this 

section; they were identified based on 

federal laws and other legal requirements, 

Council on Environmental Quality 

guidelines, NPS management policies, staff 

subject-matter expertise, and issues and 

concerns expressed by the public and other 

agencies early in the planning process. The 

planning team selected the impact topics for 

analysis based on the potential for each topic 

to be affected by the alternatives. Also 

included is a discussion of some impact 

topics that are commonly addressed in 

general management plans, but are dismissed 

from detailed analysis in this plan for the 

reasons given. 

IMPACT TOPICS TO BE CONSIDERED 

Cultural Resources 

The National Historic Preservation Act and 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

require that the effects of any federal 

undertaking on cultural resources be taken 

into account. Also, NPS Management Policies 

2006 and Cultural Resource Management 

Guidelines (Director’s Order 28) call for the 

consideration of cultural resources in 

planning proposals, and taking into account 

the concerns of traditionally associated 

peoples and stakeholders when making 

decisions about the monument’s cultural 

resources. Actions proposed in this plan are 

focused in large part on the historic fort and 

surrounding environs, and thus could affect 

archeological resources, historic structures, 

cultural landscapes, ethnographic resources, 

and museum collections. 

Archeological Resources. Regulations 

implementing the Archeological Resources 

Protection Act define archeological 

resources to be any material remains of 

human life or activities that are at least 100 

years of age and that are of archeological 

interest. Of archeological interest means 

capable of providing scientific or humanistic 

understandings of past human behavior, 

cultural adaptation, and related topics 

through the application of scientific or 

scholarly techniques such as controlled 

observation, contextual measurement, 

controlled collection, analysis, 

interpretation, and explanation. 

Belowground resources associated with the 
Impact Topics to Be Considered 

31 

construction of Fort Pulaski include remains 

of the construction village, roadways, and 

mortar batteries. Dredge spoil deposited on 

the north shore of the island by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers has covered the 

archeological remains associated with the 

northern portion of the construction village. 

Because these and other archeological 

resources could be affected by the proposed 

alternatives, this topic was retained for 

further analysis. 

Historic Structures. Historic structures 

served and may continue to serve some form 

of human activity and are generally 

immovable. They include buildings and 

monuments, canals, bridges, roads, 

defensive works, and ruins of all structural 

types. At Fort Pulaski there are 23 historic 

structures that include the fort, the fort 

moat, dikes, cisterns, various ruins, Battery 

Horace Hambright, and the Cockspur Island 

Lighthouse. These are among the most 

fundamentally important resources of Fort 

Pulaski National Monument and because 

one or more of the alternatives when 

implemented may affect them, this topic is 

retained for further analysis. 

FORT PULASKI ARCHES

Cultural Landscapes. Cultural landscapes 

are complex resources that range from large 

rural tracts covering several thousand acres 

to formal gardens of less than an acre. 

Natural features such as landforms, soils, 

and vegetation are not only part of the 

cultural landscape, they provide the 

framework within which it evolves. In the 

broadest sense, a cultural landscape is a 

reflection of human adaptation and use of 

natural resources and is often expressed in 

the way land is organized and divided, 

patterns of settlement, land use, systems of 

circulation, and the types of structures that 

are built. The character of a cultural 

landscape is defined both by physical 

materials, such as roads, buildings, walls, and 

vegetation, and by use reflecting cultural 

values and traditions. Because some of these 

landscapes will be affected in different ways 

by alternatives in this plan, this topic is 

retained for further analysis. 

Museum Collections. Museum objects are 

material things possessing functional, 

aesthetic, cultural, symbolic, and/or 

scientific value, usually movable by nature or 

design. Museum objects include prehistoric 

and historic objects, artifacts, works of art, 

archival material, and natural history 

specimens that are part of a museum 

collection. Large or immovable properties, 

such as monumental statuary, trains, nautical 

vessels, cairns, and rock paintings, are 

defined as structures or features of sites. Fort 

Pulaski National Monument has an 

extensive museum collection with the 

majority of the collection housed on-site. 

None of the alternatives in this general 

management plan are expected to have 

greater than negligible effects on museum 

collections. However, for purposes of 

consultation pursuant to section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, this 

topic is retained for further analysis. 

ESCAPING TO FORT PULASKI – FORMER AND ESCAPED 

SLAVE MARCH HAYNES STANDING IN BOAT

Ethnographic Resources. Ethnographic 

resources are landscapes, objects, plants and 

animals, or sites and structures that are 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

32 

important to a people’s sense of purpose or 

way of life. In other words, ethnographic 

resources are the kinds of resources 

managed by many other branches of the 

National Park Service, but understood from 

the viewpoint of peoples or groups for 

which they have a special importance 

different from that enjoyed by the public. 

There are several types of studies and 

research that the National Park Service uses 

to determine the extent of ethnographic 

resources in a particular park. The most 

comprehensive background study, the 

ethnographic overview and assessment, 

reviews existing information on park 

resources traditionally valued by 

stakeholders. The information comes mostly 

from archives and publications; interviews 

with community members and other 

constituents—often on trips to specific 

sites—supply missing data. This study also 

identifies the need for further research. Fort 

Pulaski National Monument has not yet 

been the subject of such an assessment and 

therefore the existence (or nonexistence) of 

ethnographic resources is undocumented. 

However, research by Dr. Charles J. Elmore 

(Elmore 2002) and other records 

demonstrate that there are traditional 

attachments and connections between the 

African American community in the 

Savannah, Georgia, area and Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. However, none of the 

alternatives in the draft general management 

plan were expected to have greater than 

negligible impacts on these traditional 

attachments. Nevertheless, for purposes of 

consultation pursuant to section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, the topic 

of ethnographic resources was retained for 

further analysis. Chapter 2 of this General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement

recommends the initiation and completion 

of an ethnographic overview and 

assessment. 

Natural Resources 

Geology and Soils. The geology and soils of 

Cockspur and McQueens islands reflect a 

somewhat varied environment and a 

complex history. The soils can be affected by 

construction, restoration, and visitor use. 

Geologic processes and formations can 

likewise be affected by these factors, as well 

as by off-site activities. Alternatives in this 

plan could have an adverse or beneficial 

impact on geology and soils; thus, this topic 

has been retained for analysis. 

Plant Communities and Vegetation. Fort 

Pulaski National Monument has a variety of 

vegetation typical of the maritime and 

estuarine environment. It also has a 

significant amount of nonnative invasive 

vegetation. Alternatives presented in this 

plan could affect native and invasive 

nonnative vegetation; thus, this topic has 

been retained for analysis. 

Fish and Wildlife. Fort Pulaski National 

Monument is home to a variety of fish, birds, 

and other wildlife. Alternatives presented in 

this plan could affect wildlife and fish 

species or important habitat; thus, this topic 

has been retained for analysis. 

Water Quality. Effects on water quality are 

regulated by NPS policies and the Clean 

Water Act (33 USC 1344). NPS Management 

Policies 2006, section 4.6.3, states that the 

National Park Service will “take all necessary 

actions to maintain or restore the quality of 

surface waters and groundwaters within the 

parks consistent with the Clean Water Act 

and all other applicable federal, state, and 

local laws and regulations.” 

Surface water resources in the Fort Pulaski 

National Monument area of interest include 

the Atlantic Ocean, the Savannah River, 

miscellaneous tidal creeks, and the salt 

marshes of McQueens Island. 

Implementation of any of the action 

alternatives could result in increased 

sedimentation of surface water resources in 

the park. Therefore, this topic has been 

retained for analysis. 
Impact Topics to Be Considered 

33 

Wetlands and Floodplains. Executive 

Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” 

requires federal agencies conducting certain 

activities to avoid, to the extent possible, the 

adverse impacts associated with the 

destruction or loss of wetlands and to avoid 

new construction in wetlands if a practicable 

alternative exists. The National Park Service 

must determine if proposed actions will be 

in or will affect wetlands. If so, the 

responsible official shall prepare a wetlands 

assessment (statement of findings), which 

will be part of this environmental impact 

statement. There are two types of wetlands 

in the monument that could be affected by 

implementation of any of the action 

alternatives—palustrine and estuarine—so 

this topic is retained for analysis. 

Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain 

Management,” requires federal agencies to 

evaluate the potential effects of actions they 

may take in a floodplain to avoid, to the 

extent possible, adverse effects associated 

with direct and indirect development of a 

floodplain. If so, staff will prepare a 

floodplain assessment (statement of 

findings). The assessment will become part 

of the environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. The 

alternatives in this plan propose leaving 

facilities in floodplains or removing them; 

thus this topic has been retained for analysis. 

Wilderness Resources and Values 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 USC §§ 

1131–1136) established the national 

wilderness preservation system, a network of 

federal lands set aside for the permanent 

preservation of their wilderness character. 

Only Congress has the authority to designate 

new wilderness areas. 

 

As required by NPS Management Policies 

2006, section 6.2.1, and Director’s Order 41: 

Wilderness Preservation and Management, 

the National Park Service has prepared a 

wilderness eligibility assessment that 

identifies those areas at Fort Pulaski 

National Monument meeting the criteria for 

future designation as wilderness (please see 

appendix B). This assessment, in turn, has 

served as the basis for a formal wilderness 

study, as required by NPS Management 

Policies 2006, section 6.2.2. The purpose of a 

wilderness study is to develop a proposal to 

Congress regarding the designation of 

wilderness at a particular park unit. 

The wilderness study included in this 

document proposes that Congress designate 

most of the salt marsh of McQueens Island 

as wilderness. The designation of wilderness, 

should it occur, could have impacts on 

monument resources, monument 

operations, and visitor experience. At the 

same time, the draft general management 

plan prescribed management goals and 

activities that have the potential to affect the 

wilderness character of the areas proposed 

for designation. Therefore, this topic was 

retained for analysis. 

Visitor Use and Experience 

The Organic Act and NPS Management 

Policies 2006 direct the National Park Service 

to provide visitors with enjoyment 

opportunities appropriate to the superlative 

resources found in the park. Actions in the 

alternatives could affect the types of facilities 

available to monument visitors, as well as the 

ability of visitors to engage in recreational 

activities. Actions in the plan could also 

affect the degree of visitor understanding 

and appreciation of monument resources. 

Therefore, this topic has been retained for 

analysis. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

requires an examination of social and 

economic impacts caused by federal actions 

as part of a complete analysis of the potential 

impacts of these actions on the “human 

environment.” Chatham County and the 

cities of Savannah and Tybee Island make up 

the affected area for the socioeconomic 

analysis. Private sector businesses, including 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

34 

visitor service facilities and operators (e.g., 

restaurants and motels) could be affected by 

the actions proposed in this management 

plan. Therefore, this topic has been retained 

for analysis. 

Climate Change 

All national park system units are affected by 

climate change, but coastal units such as Fort 

Pulaski National Monument are perhaps 

more immediately vulnerable to the effects 

of global warming such as sea level rise and 

more violent and frequent storm events than 

more terrestrial parks. Therefore, this topic 

has been retained for analysis. 

This impact topic looks at both the impacts 

of climate change on the monument and 

how the monument might have to adapt to 

such change as well as the monument’s 

carbon footprint and how the monument 

can become more carbon neutral. Coastal 

national park system units must consider 

long-term management plans to counteract 

the negative impacts of sea-level rise on 

vulnerable coastal areas. The National Park 

Service and the U.S. Geological Survey have 

developed Coastal Vulnerability Index maps 

for a number of coastal parks. These maps 

identify coastal areas sensitive to sea-level 

rise, and will allow managers to take 

precautions necessary for their protection. 

Transportation 

Providing access to Fort Pulaski National 

Monument is a public and monument 

concern. Alternatives proposed in this plan 

could affect visitor access. In addition, the 

proposed bridges replacement project on 

U.S. Highway 80 could affect both access 

and monument resources. Therefore, this 

topic has been retained for analysis. 

Park Operations 

Staffing, funding needs, and monument 

priorities may change under some of the 

alternatives. Therefore, this topic has been 

retained for analysis. 

Energy Requirements, Depletable 

Resources, and Conservation 

Potential 

The National Park Service strives to use 

sustainable practices and technology and 

reduce its impact on natural or depletable 

resources. Under all of the alternatives, 

ecological principles would be applied to 

ensure that the monument’s natural 

resources were maintained and conserved. 

However, the use and consumption of fuel 

and other nonrenewable resources for NPS 

operations, activities, and development 

would continue and vary among the 

alternatives. Therefore, this topic has been 

retained for analysis. 

IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED BUT 

NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL 

The following topics were considered for 

detailed analysis, but dismissed for the 

reasons indicated. 

Air Quality 

The monument is in an area that has been 

designated class II under the Clean Air Act. 

By policy, the National Park Service seeks to 

perpetuate the best possible air quality in 

parks in order to preserve natural and 

cultural resources, and to sustain visitor 

enjoyment, human health, and scenic vistas 

(see NPS Management Policies 2006, section 

4.7.1). The contribution of pollutants 

resulting from implementing any of the 

alternatives would be negligible compared to 

current levels. Therefore, air quality has 

been dismissed from further consideration. 

Special Status Species 

Analysis of the potential impacts on special 

status species (federal or state endangered, 
Impact Topics Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail 

35 

threatened, candidate, or species of concern) 

is required by the federal Endangered 

Species Act, NPS management policies, the 

National Environmental Policy Act, and 

other laws and regulations. Thirteen special 

status species have been observed at Fort 

Pulaski National Monument (see table 2). 

None of the alternatives presented in this 

document have the potential to substantially 

affect any special status species or habitat. 

Land disturbance under all of the action 

alternatives will be relatively minor, and will 

mostly involve removal of nonnative, and 

some native, vegetation to restore selected 

historic sight lines. One alternative would 

involve moving the asphalt parking area to a 

new location, but this new location does not 

provide habitat to special status species. 

In accordance with the Endangered Species 

Act and relevant regulations at 50 CFR 402, 

the National Park Service determined that 

the management plan is not likely to 

adversely affect any federally threatened or 

endangered species and sent a copy of the 

draft general management plan to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service office with a 

request for written concurrence with that 

determination. The National Park Service 

received that concurrence in a letter dated 

October 12, 2012, from the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service field office in Athens, 

Georgia. In addition, the National Park 

Service has committed to consult on future 

actions conducted under the framework 

described in this management plan to ensure 

that such actions are not likely to adversely 

affect threatened or endangered species. 

Coastal Zone Management 

The Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 USC 

§ 1451 et seq., requires that all federal 

activities in coastal areas be consistent with 

approved state coastal zone management 

programs to the maximum extent possible. 

Georgia’s coastal zone management program 

requires a consistency determination for any 

general management plan generated by the 

National Park Service for a monument in the 

Georgia coastal zone. 

The National Park Service does not propose 

any development in any area of Fort Pulaski 

National Monument that would conflict 

TABLE 2. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES—CHATHAM,

EFFINGHAM, AND JASPER COUNTIES

Common Name Scientific Name 

Birds 

American oystercatcher* 

Bachman’s warbler 

Bald eagle* 

Gull-billed tern* 

Least tern* 

Peregrine falcon* 

Piping plover* 

Red-cockaded woodpecker 

Swallow-tailed kite* 

Wilson’s plover * 

Wood stork* 

Haematopus palliates 

Vermivora bachmanii 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Sterna nilotica 

Sterna antillarum 

Falco peregrinus 

Charadrius melodus 

Picoides borealis 

Elanoide s forficatus 

Charadrius wilsonia 

Mycteria Americana

Reptiles 

Eastern indigo snake 

Gopher tortoise 

Spotted turtle 

Green sea turtle 

Hawksbill sea turtle 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle 

Leatherback sea turtle 

Loggerhead sea turtle* 

Drymarchon couperi 

Gopherus polyphemus 

Clemmys guttata 

Chelonia mydas 

Eretmochelys imbricate 

Lepidochelys kempi 

Dermochelys coriacea 

Caretta caretta

Amphibians 

Flatwoods salamander 

Dwarf siren 

Ambystoma cingulatum 

Pseudobranchus striatus

Mammals 

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat 

Humpback whale 

Right (northern) whale 

West Indian manatee* 

Corynorhinus rafinesquii 

Megaptera novaeangliae 

Eubalaena glacialis 

Trichechus manatus 

Plants 

Chaffseed 

Dwarf witch-alder 

Narrowleaf obedient plant 

Pondberry 

Pondspice 

Tidal marsh obedient plant 

Florida privet* 

Swamp dock* 

Schwalbea Americana 

Fothergilla gardenia 

Physostegia leptophylla 

Lindera melissifolia 

Litsea aestivalis 

Physostegia leptophylla 

Forestiera segrata 

Rumex verticillatus 

Fish 

Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum 

Source: Rabolli and Ellington (1999); Govus (1998). 

*Indicates species that have been observed in the park.
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

36 

with the state coastal zone management 

program. A copy of the draft general 

management plan / wilderness study / 

environmental impact statement was 

submitted to the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources, Coastal Resources 

Division, for a consistency review. The 

National Park Service received a positive 

consistency determination from the Coastal 

Resources Division in a letter dated July 19, 

2012. 

Soundscape 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (section 4.9) 

requires national park system unit managers 

to preserve the natural quiet and sounds 

associated with physical and biological 

resources (for example, the sounds of birds 

and flowing water). The natural soundscape 

(i.e., natural quiet) at Fort Pulaski is a special 

resource to park visitors. None of the action 

alternatives in this plan would result in longterm alteration of the soundscapes in the 

park. Efforts to preserve natural 

soundscapes in the monument would 

continue. Some short-term impacts from 

construction projects may occur for brief 

periods in the future, but impacts would be 

negligible. Degradation of the natural 

soundscape could occur as a result of 

activities outside the monument boundary 

(e.g., possible replacement of U.S. Highway 

80 bridges at Bull River and Lazaretto 

Creek), but the impacts at this point are 

largely speculative. Therefore, this topic was 

dismissed from further analysis. 

Lightscape Management (Dark Night 

Sky Preservation) 

Light pollution is pervasive in the park, 

originating primarily from Tybee Island and 

the city of Savannah. The National Park 

Service strives to minimize the intrusion of 

artificial light into the night scene by limiting 

the use of artificial outdoor lighting to basic 

safety requirements, shielding the lights 

when possible, and using minimal impact 

lighting techniques. The level and type of 

new development and lighting proposed in 

this plan is minimal. The effects of the 

actions in this plan on natural lightscapes 

would be negligible. Therefore, lightscapes 

were dismissed from further analysis. 

Urban Quality and Design of the 

Built Environment 

The quality of urban areas is not a concern in 

this planning project. Vernacular 

architecture and park-compatible design 

would be considered for any new structures 

built under the alternatives. Emphasis would 

be placed on designs, materials, and colors 

that blend in and do not detract from the 

natural and built environment. Therefore, 

adverse impacts are anticipated to be 

negligible. No further consideration of this 

topic is necessary. 

Socially or Economically 

Disadvantaged Populations 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations,” 

requires all federal agencies to incorporate 

environmental justice into their missions by 

identifying and addressing 

disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects of their 

programs and policies on minorities and 

low-income populations and communities. 

None of the alternatives considered in this 

document would result in any identifiable 

adverse health effects, and none of the 

impacts on the natural and physical 

environment would significantly and 

adversely affect any minority or low-income 

population or community. Therefore, 

environmental justice was dismissed as an 

impact topic. 

Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands 

Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations require that federal agencies 

assess the effects of their actions on 
Impact Topics Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail 

37 

farmland soils classified by the Natural 

Resource Conservation Service as prime or 

unique. According to the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service, none of the soils in the 

project area are classified as prime or 

unique. Therefore, this topic was dismissed 

from further consideration. 

Indian Sacred Sites and Indian Trust 

Resources 

Executive Order 13007, “Indian Sacred 

Sites,” requires all federal agencies to 

determine whether their proposed actions 

would restrict access to or ceremonial use of 

Indian sacred sites by Indian religious 

practitioners or adversely affect the integrity 

of such sacred sites. Secretarial Order 3175, 

“Departmental Responsibilities for Indian 

Trust Resources,” requires that any 

anticipated impacts on Indian trust 

resources from a proposed action or project 

by a Department of the Interior bureau be 

explicitly addressed in environmental 

compliance documents. 

None of the alternatives considered in this 

document would restrict access to any sites 

sacred to American Indians or limit 

ceremonial use of any such sites. None of the 

alternatives would affect Indian trust 

resources. Components of the plan designed 

to achieve enhanced management of cultural 

resources and a reduction in illegal relic 

hunting would have an overall beneficial 

effect on any Indian sacred sites. Therefore, 

this topic was dismissed from further 

consideration. 

Public Health and Safety 

The proposed developments and actions in 

the alternatives would not result in any 

identifiable impacts on human health or 

safety. Therefore, this topic was dismissed 

from further consideration. 

Conformity with Local Land Use 

Plans 

Land use at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument is consistent with local land use 

plans and regulations. The creation of 

additional visitor use opportunities in the 

monument as proposed in the alternatives 

would be consistent with existing land uses 

or local (non-National Park Service) land 

use plans, policies, or controls for the area. 

Designation of wilderness would not conflict 

with local land use nor would it prevent 

traditional motorboat use of creeks in the 

salt marsh, because NPS management 

policies allow motorboat use to continue 

when (a) this use has already become 

established in an area before its designation 

as wilderness, and (b) the legislation creating 

the wilderness area specifically states that 

motorboat use may continue. Therefore, this 

topic was dismissed from further 

consideration. 

 

ALTERNATIVES, 

INCLUDING THE 

PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE David Libman, National Park Service

41 

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

Many aspects of the desired future condition 

of Fort Pulaski National Monument are 

defined in the establishing legislation, the 

monument’s purpose and significance 

statements, and the servicewide mandates 

and policies that were described earlier. 

Within these parameters, the National Park 

Service solicited input from the public, NPS 

staff, government agencies, and other 

organizations regarding issues and desired 

conditions for the national monument. 

Planning team members gathered 

information about existing visitor use and the 

condition of monument facilities and 

resources. They considered which areas of 

the national monument attract visitors, and 

which areas have sensitive resources. 

Using the previously described information 

the planning team developed a set of 

management prescriptions and two action 

alternatives to reflect the range of ideas 

proposed by NPS staff and the public. 

This chapter describes the management 

zones and the alternatives for managing the 

national monument for the next 20 years. The 

National Park Service planning process 

requires development of action alternatives 

(alternatives B and C) for comparison with no 

change in current monument management 

and trends (no-action, alternative A). The 

chapter includes tables that summarize the 

key differences between the alternatives and 

the key differences in the impacts that are 

expected from implementing each 

alternative. (The summary of impacts table is 

based on the analysis in chapter 4, 

“Environmental Consequences.”) This 

chapter also describes mitigative measures 

that would be used to lessen or avoid impacts, 

future studies that would be needed, and the 

environmentally preferred alternative. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES AND 

ALTERNATIVES 

The building blocks for reaching an approved 

plan for managing a national park system unit 

are the management zones and the 

alternatives. All are developed within the 

scope of the park’s purpose, significance, 

mandates, and legislation. Management 

zones are descriptions of desired conditions 

for monument resources and visitor 

experience in different areas of the park. 

Management zones are determined for each 

national park system unit; however, the 

management zones for one unit will probably 

not be the same for any other national park 

system unit (although some might be similar). 

The management zones identify the widest 

range of potential appropriate resource 

conditions, visitor experiences, and facilities 

for the monument that fall within the scope 

of the park’s purpose, significance, and 

special mandates. Five management zones 

have been identified for Fort Pulaski 

National Monument (see table 4 later in this 

chapter). 

The alternatives in this general management 

plan would create different future directions 

for the monument using management zones. 

Each of the action alternatives has an overall 

management concept and a description of 

how different areas of the monument would 

be managed. The concept for each alternative 

presents the overall picture for the 

monument in the future. For example, 

perhaps one management zone is called 

“natural resource” and another zone is called 

“recreation.” An alternative whose concept is 

to keep most of the monument in an 

undeveloped and natural condition would 

have more of the natural resource zone than 

the recreation zone. Both zones might also be 

larger or smaller and in different locations in 

different alternatives, depending on the 

overall concept for each alternative. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

42 

This General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement 

presents three alternatives, including the NPS 

preferred alternative, for future management 

of Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

Alternative A, the “no-action” or “nochange” alternative, is a continuation of 

existing management direction, and is 

included as a baseline for comparing the 

consequences of implementing each 

alternative. The other “action” alternatives 

are designated B (the NPS preferred 

alternative) and C. The action alternatives are 

different ways of managing resources and 

visitor uses. The two action alternatives 

embody the range of what the public and the 

National Park Service want to see 

accomplished with regard to natural resource 

conditions, cultural resource conditions, 

visitor use and experience, the 

socioeconomic environment, transportation, 

and monument operations at the national 

monument. The National Park Service would 

continue to follow existing agreements and 

servicewide mandates, laws, and policies 

regardless of the alternatives considered in 

this plan. However, actions or desired 

conditions not mandated by policy, law, or 

agreements can differ among the alternatives. 

The National Park Service would continue to 

follow existing agreements and servicewide 

mandates, laws, and policies regardless of the 

alternatives considered in this plan. These 

mandates and policies are not repeated in this 

chapter (see appendix A). However, other 

general management plan proposed actions 

do differ among the alternatives. These 

alternative actions are discussed in this 

chapter. 

FORMULATION OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES 

The alternatives focus on what resource 

conditions and visitor uses and 

experiences/opportunities should be at the 

monument rather than on details of how 

these conditions and uses/experiences 

should be achieved. Thus, the alternatives do 

not include many details on resource or 

visitor use management. 

More detailed plans or studies will be 

required before most conditions proposed in 

the alternatives are achieved. The 

implementation of any alternative also 

depends on future funding and staffing and 

environmental compliance. This plan does 

not guarantee that that funding will be 

forthcoming. The plan establishes a vision of 

the future that will guide day-to-day and 

year-to-year management of the monument, 

but full implementation could take many 

years. 

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

The National Park Service uses a decisionmaking system called Choosing by 

Advantages to select a preferred alternative in 

the general management planning process. 

This decision-making system is based on 

determining the advantages of different 

alternatives for a variety of factors. The 

fundamental rule in this system is that sound 

decisions must be based on the importance of 

advantages. 

One of the greatest strengths of this system is 

its fundamental philosophy: decisions must 

be anchored in relevant facts. This minimizes 

the subjectivity in the decision-making 

process and makes the decision as objective 

as possible. For example, the question “Is it 

more important to protect natural resources 

or cultural resources?” is unanchored; it has 

no relevant facts on which to make a 

decision. Without such facts, it is impossible 

to make a defensible decision. The Choosing 

by Advantages system instead asks us to 

decide which alternative gives the greatest 

advantage in protecting natural resources and 

cultural resources. To answer this question, 

relevant facts would be used to determine the 

advantages that the alternatives provide for 

both kinds of resources. For example, we 

may have facts that show that two alternatives 

disturb or restore equal amounts of 

vegetation, so neither alternative would be 
Wilderness Study 

43 

more advantageous than the other in 

protecting natural resources. On the other 

hand, we may have relevant facts that show 

that one alternative would disturb five known 

archeological sites, while the other alternative 

would disturb only one. This alternative, 

then, would be more advantageous because it 

provides natural resource protection (equal 

to the other alternative) and also provides the 

greatest advantage for cultural resources. 

The planning team used the Choosing by 

Advantages system to select alternative B as 

the preferred alternative and it is the NPS 

proposed action. 

First, the planning team determined the 

factors that would be used in the decision. 

Those factors were based on the mission of 

the National Park Service and the purpose 

and significance of Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. Within the broader categories of 

factors, protection of cultural resources, 

protection of natural resources, and 

provision of visitor services and recreational 

opportunities, the team evaluated more 

specific resources and opportunities such as 

the extent to which each alternative would 

 retain the integrity of the CCC era 

parking lot

 protect cultural resources by 

relocating the parking lot 

 restore the 1862 viewshed 

 restore the salt marsh 

 remove nonnative and invasive 

species 

 interpret the construction village and 

the CCC era 

 provide interpretation opportunities 

through viewshed restoration 

The planning team discussed each alternative 

for each factor and reached a consensus 

regarding how each factor should be 

characterized for each of the three 

alternatives under consideration, including 

the no-action (continue current management 

policies and strategies) alternative. The next 

step was to decide which alternative had the 

greatest advantage over the others for each 

factor and which had no advantage. Finally, 

through discussion and consensus the team 

decided a score for each advantage of 

between 0 and 100. The score of 100 was 

assigned to the advantage judged to be the 

greatest of all the advantages. 

This process resulted in alternative B being 

substantially more advantageous in restoring 

the 1862 viewshed, protecting cultural 

resources such as the cemetery of veterans, 

removing nonnative and invasive species, and 

in providing interpretation opportunities due 

to viewshed restoration than the other 

alternatives. Alternative A, because it 

continues current management practices, 

does not adequately address many of the 

issues that emerged during the early scoping 

process and therefore scored lowest in terms 

of total advantage. 

Finally the scores were totaled for each 

alternative and compared with the estimated 

cost of each alternative. Because alternative B 

was only slightly higher in cost than 

alternative C while providing significantly 

more advantages, alternative B was selected 

as the NPS preferred alternative for this 

General Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement.

WILDERNESS STUDY 

Congress established the national wilderness 

preservation system to ensure that an 

increasing population, accompanied by 

expanding settlement and growing 

mechanization, does not occupy and modify 

all areas within the United States. Wilderness 

designation is intended to preserve and 

protect certain federally managed lands in 

their natural state and provide for compatible 

recreational opportunities, education, and 

scientific study. Wilderness areas are 

intended to contrast with lands where human 

activities dominate the landscape. Only 

Congress may designate lands for inclusion in 

the national wilderness preservation system. 

Section 6.2.2 of NPS Management Policies

2006 requires the National Park Service to 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

44 

conduct a formal wilderness study of any 

lands previously found eligible for wilderness 

designation. As noted in chapter 1, 

approximately 4,500 acres of salt marsh at 

Fort Pulaski have been found eligible for 

designation as wilderness (see “Appendix B: 

Wilderness Eligibility Assessment”). The 

purpose of a wilderness study is to evaluate 

options for designating wilderness and to 

develop a formal wilderness proposal. Each 

wilderness study must consider a range of 

alternatives for wilderness designation, 

including a “no wilderness” alternative. The 

resulting proposal will serve as the basis for 

any wilderness recommendation that the 

president may submit to Congress, should he 

choose to do so. 

This wilderness study has been guided by the 

Wilderness Act of 1964, where wilderness is 

defined and its values are articulated. An 

important consideration for this analysis has 

been the traditional use of motorboats in the 

tidal creeks of McQueens Island. Designation 

of wilderness, on the terms proposed herein, 

would not conflict with local land use nor 

would it prevent traditional motorboat use of 

creeks in the salt marsh, because NPS policies 

allow motorboat use to continue when (a) 

this use has already become established in an 

area before its designation as wilderness, and 

(b) the legislation creating the wilderness area 

specifically states that motorboat use may 

continue (16 USC § 1133 (d)(1)). 

Definition of Wilderness 

The Wilderness Act (16 USC § 1132) defines 

wilderness in the following manner: 

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas 

where man and his own works dominate the 

landscape, is hereby recognized as an area 

where the earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a 

visitor who does not remain. An area of 

wilderness is further defined to mean . . . an 

area of undeveloped Federal land retaining 

its primeval character and influence, without 

permanent improvements or human 

habitation, which is protected and managed 

so as to preserve its natural conditions and 

which (1) generally appears to have been 

affected primarily by the forces of nature, 

with the imprint of man’s work substantially 

unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least 

five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient 

size as to make practicable its preservation 

and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) 

may also contain ecological, geological, or 

other features of scientific, educational, 

scenic, or historical value.” 

Uses and Management in Wilderness 

Section 4 of the Wilderness Act (16 USC § 

1134) provides that designated wilderness 

areas are generally to be devoted to the public 

purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, 

educational, conservation, and historical use. 

This section of the act specifically directs 

federal agencies to protect the wilderness 

character of designated wilderness areas and 

prohibits certain uses deemed antithetical to 

the preservation of wilderness character. 

Permitted and prohibited uses in wilderness 

are summarized on the following page. 
Wilderness Study 

45 

USES AND MANAGEMENT IN WILDERNESS

Although this study is not examining use or management of wilderness, the Wilderness Act and NPS policies permit 

and prohibit various uses, developments, and actions. These directions need to be considered in evaluating the 

impacts of the wilderness proposal. 

Various recreational uses, management actions, and facilities are permitted in wilderness areas under the Wilderness 

Act and NPS policies. Among the uses, management actions, and facilities permitted in wilderness areas in national 

monuments are: 

 nonmotorized recreational uses (e.g., hiking, backpacking, picnicking, camping) 

 use of motorboats where established use predates wilderness designation 

 fishing 

 American Indian religious activities and other actions recognized under treaty-reserved rights 

 guided interpretive walks and on-site talks and presentations 

 use of wheelchairs, service animals, and reasonable accommodations for the disabled that are not in conflict with 

the Wilderness Act (e.g., barrier-free trails, accessible campsites) 

 scientific activities/research 

 monitoring programs 

 management actions taken to correct past mistakes or impacts of human use, including restoration of extirpated 

species, controlling invasive alien species, endangered species management, and protection of air and water 

quality 

 fire management activities (including fire suppression) 

 protection and maintenance of historic properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 

 trails 

 campsites 

 certain administrative facilities if necessary to carry out wilderness management objectives (e.g., storage or 

support structures, ranger station) 

 signs necessary for visitor safety or to protect wilderness resources 

 uses and facilities permitted for landowners with valid property rights in a wilderness area 

The Wilderness Act also specifically prohibits certain uses and developments. Under sections 2I and 4I of the act, the 

following uses are not permitted in a wilderness: 

 permanent improvements or human habitation 

 structures or installations 

 permanent roads 

 temporary roads 

 use of motor vehicles (except motorboats, where specifically authorized by law) 

 use of motorized equipment 

 landing of aircraft (except for emergency purposes) 

 other forms of mechanical transport (e.g., bicycles) 

 commercial enterprises (except for commercial services that are necessary for realizing the recreational or other 

wilderness purposes of the area, such as guiding and outfitting) 

 With the exception of permanent roads, the act does recognize that the above uses may be permitted if 

necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of the area as wilderness or for emergency 

purposes. 

In addition to the above prohibitions, NPS policies also prohibit some developments: 

 new utility lines 

 permanent equipment caches 

 site markings or improvements for nonemergency use 

 borrow pits (except for small quantity use of borrow material for trails) 

 new shelters for public use 

 picnic tables 

 interpretive signs and trails and waysides (unless necessary for visitor safety or to protect wilderness resources) 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

46 

Wilderness Eligibility Assessment 

In keeping with the requirements of NPS 

Management Policies 2006, an 

interdisciplinary NPS team consisting of the 

monument and Southeast Regional Office 

staff conducted an evaluation of the 

monument to determine those areas meeting 

the criteria for wilderness described in the 

Wilderness Act. The study area included 

lands and waters owned by both federal and 

state governments; however, only federal 

lands were evaluated for wilderness 

eligibility. To be eligible for wilderness 

designation, an area of federal land in the 

monument had to 

 generally appear to have been 

affected primarily by the forces of 

nature, with the imprint of man’s 

work substantially unnoticeable 

 be undeveloped and retain its 

primeval character and influence, 

without permanent improvements or 

human habitation 

 be untrammeled by man, where man 

himself is a visitor who does not 

remain 

 offer outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation 

 be protected and managed so as to 

preserve its natural conditions 

The team first examined data to exclude 

from wilderness consideration lands clearly 

not meeting one or more of the previously 

described criteria, such as lands containing 

permanent improvements, (e.g., buildings, 

roads, and canals). The remaining lands 

were evaluated against the criteria and 

visited as necessary. All lands meeting the 

criteria and of such size that they could be 

managed as wilderness were determined to 

be eligible; all other lands were excluded 

from further wilderness consideration. 

The wilderness eligibility assessment 

identified about 4,500 acres—approximately 

84% of monument total acreage—as meeting 

wilderness criteria outlined previously and 

being eligible for wilderness designation (see 

“Figure 1. Wilderness Eligibility 

Determination”). Per NPS Management 

Policies 2006, section 6.3.1, the National Park 

Service will manage these lands to preserve 

their wilderness character until such time as 

Congress takes final action either to include 

or exclude them from the national 

wilderness preservation system. 

Areas that were determined not to be eligible 

(approximately 865 acres) did not meet 

wilderness criteria. For more information 

regarding how the eligibility determination 

was made, please refer to “Appendix B: 

Wilderness Eligibility Assessment.” 

Options Analyzed in the Wilderness 

Study 

All lands found eligible for wilderness 

designation were subsequently evaluated to 

determine whether, and if so where, 

wilderness should be designated within the 

monument, given the best available 

information about wilderness character, 

practical considerations, and public review 

and comment. As used in this document, the 

term proposed wilderness means an area that 

has wilderness characteristics and is 

proposed for wilderness designation by 

Congress. 

Using the overall vision for each action 

alternative, the planning team investigated a 

range of possibilities for proposed 

wilderness. Ultimately, the study team 

concluded that an identical wilderness 

proposal, consisting of all lands eligible for 

designation, should be included in both 

action alternatives. This determination was 

based largely on the fact that the salt marsh 

environment on McQueens Island is more 

or less uniform throughout and thus any 

line-drawing to establish alternatives would 

be essentially arbitrary. Furthermore, none 

of the eligible land in the salt marsh lends 

itself to future uses inconsistent with 

wilderness designation. 
Wilderness Study 

47 

Accordingly, this wilderness study proposes 

that Congress designate as wilderness 

approximately 4,500 acres of salt marsh on 

McQueens Island. The area proposed for 

designation includes all lands previously 

found eligible for wilderness designation at 

Fort Pulaski National Monument, except for 

those lands within 100 feet of the edge of the 

right-of-way of U.S. Highway 80. This 

environmental impact statement analyzes 

the environmental consequences of this 

proposal. 

This wilderness proposal, if finalized, will be 

forwarded to the president via the director 

of the National Park Service and the 

Secretary of the Interior. Both the director 

and the secretary will review the proposal 

and make adjustments, as appropriate. The 

Secretary of the Interior will then be 

responsible for recommending to the 

president those lands that are suitable or not 

suitable for inclusion in the national 

wilderness preservation system. After 

receiving the secretary’s recommendation, 

the president will transmit his final 

recommendations with respect to wilderness 

designation to both houses of Congress. 

Until Congress acts on the president’s 

recommendations, the National Park Service 

will manage all eligible lands—whether 

recommended for designation or not—in 

such a way as to protect their wilderness 

character and preserve their eligibility for 

future designation. 

Management of Proposed 

Wilderness 

Planning. NPS policies governing 

wilderness management apply equally to 

proposed and designated wilderness (see 

NPS Management Policies 2006, section 

6.3.1). In order to guide the preservation, 

management, and use of NPS wilderness 

areas, including proposed wilderness, a 

wilderness or backcountry management plan 

is typically developed. Such a plan would be 

developed for Fort Pulaski with public 

involvement and would contain measurable 

objectives for preservation of wilderness 

values as specified in the Wilderness Act and 

NPS management policies. Wilderness 

management plans articulate management 

actions such as regulations, monitoring, and 

permit systems. 

Management decisions affecting proposed 

wilderness will be consistent with the 

“minimum requirements” determination 

process. This is a documented process used 

to determine whether administrative 

activities affecting wilderness character 

visitor experiences are necessary in 

wilderness, and if so, how the impacts from 

such activities can be minimized. The 

process requires managers to consider 

alternative approaches for accomplishing 

necessary tasks in wilderness, and provides a 

mechanism for determining the “minimum 

requirement” or “minimum tool” for 

accomplishing those tasks. 

Recreational Use. Recreational uses of NPS 

wilderness are to be of a type and nature that 

enable areas to retain their undeveloped 

character and influence, protect and 

preserve natural conditions, leave the 

imprint of humans’ work substantially 

unnoticeable, ensure that other visitors have 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or 

primitive and unconfined types of 

recreation, and preserve wilderness in an 

unimpaired condition. Canoeing, kayaking, 

and fishing are appropriate uses of 

wilderness at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. Under the wilderness proposal 

described herein, motor boating would also 

be an appropriate and allowed recreational 

activity in those areas where it is already an 

established use (see 16 USC § 1133 (d)(1)). 

However, this use would have to be 

specifically authorized by Congress at the 

time it is designated wilderness at Fort 

Pulaski National Monument. 

Emergency Services. In emergency 

situations involving human health and safety 

the use of aircraft, motorboats, and other 

motorized or mechanical equipment is 

allowed in wilderness. Wildfires will be 

controlled as necessary to prevent loss of 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

48 

life, damage to property, the spread of 

wildfire to lands outside wilderness, or 

unacceptable loss of wilderness values. The 

use of tool caches, aircraft, motorboats, and 

motorized firefighting equipment may be 

permitted for such control. Prescribed fire 

and hazard fuel reduction programs may be 

implemented according to approved plans. 

The minimum requirement determination 

process will be followed for all fire activities 

in wilderness. 

Resource Management and Research. 

Wilderness designation does not prevent the 

National Park Service from protecting and 

maintaining historic and other cultural 

resources located within wilderness areas. 

Using the minimum requirement process, 

these resources will be protected and 

maintained according to the pertinent laws, 

policies, and plans governing cultural 

resources. Natural resource management 

activities may be carried out in a similar 

fashion, and will generally be undertaken 

only to address the impacts of past or 

current uses or influences originating 

outside wilderness boundaries. Natural 

processes will be allowed, insofar as 

possible, to shape and control wilderness 

ecosystems. 

Scientific activities are appropriate in 

wilderness. Even activities that involve a 

potential impact to wilderness resources or 

values (such as inventory, monitoring, and 

research) are allowed when the benefits of 

what can be learned outweigh the impacts 

on wilderness resources or values. However, 

all such activities must be evaluated using the 

minimum requirement determination 

process. 

MCQUEENS ISLAND MARSHES
Wilderness Study 

49 

FIGURE 1. WILDERNESS ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

50 

USER (CARRYING) CAPACITY 

General management plans for national park 

system units must address user capacity 

management. The National Park Service 

defines user capacity as the type and extent of 

use that can be accommodated while 

sustaining the quality of a park unit’s 

resources and visitor experiences consistent 

with the park unit’s purpose. 

User capacity management involves 

establishing desired conditions, monitoring, 

and taking actions to ensure the park unit’s 

values are protected. The premise is that with 

any visitor use comes some level of impact 

that must be accepted; therefore, it is the 

responsibility of the National Park Service to 

decide what level of impact is acceptable and 

what management actions are needed to keep 

impacts within acceptable limits. 

Instead of just tracking and controlling the 

number of visitors, NPS staff manages the 

levels, types, and patterns of visitor use as 

needed to preserve the condition of the 

resources and quality of the visitor 

experience. The monitoring component of 

this process helps NPS staff evaluate the 

effectiveness of management actions and 

provides a basis for informed management of 

visitor use. 

The foundation for user capacity decision 

making is the qualitative description of 

desired resource conditions, visitor 

experience opportunities, and general levels 

of development and management described 

in the management zones. Based on these 

desired conditions, indicators and standards 

are identified. An indicator is a measurable 

variable that can be used to track changes in 

resource and social conditions related to 

human activity, so that existing conditions 

can be compared to desired conditions. A 

standard is the minimum acceptable 

condition for an indicator. 

 

User capacity decision making is a 

continuous process; decisions are adjusted 

based on monitoring the indicators and 

standards. Management actions are taken to 

minimize impacts when needed. The 

indicators and standards included in this 

management plan would generally not 

change in the future. However, as monitoring 

of the park’s conditions continues, managers 

may decide to modify, add, or delete 

indicators if better ways are found to measure 

important changes in resource and social 

conditions. Information on NPS monitoring 

efforts, related visitor use management 

actions, and any changes to the indicators 

and standards would be available to the 

public. 

This General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement 

addresses user capacity in the following 

manner: 

 The management zones described 

earlier in this chapter provide the 

basis for managing user capacity. 

Each zone prescribes desired 

resource conditions, visitor 

experiences, and recreational 

opportunities for different areas of 

the monument. The zones also 

prescribe the types and levels of 

development necessary to support 

these conditions, experiences, and 

opportunities. This element of the 

framework is the most important to 

long-term user capacity management 

in that it directs the National Park 

Service on how to best protect 

resources and visitor experiences 

while offering a diversity of visitor 

opportunities. 

 The general management plan 

describes the monument’s most 

pressing use-related resource and 

visitor experience concerns, existing 

and potential, given the monument’s 

purpose, related desired conditions, 

and the vulnerability of specific 

resources and values. This helps NPS 

managers focus limited resources on 

the most significant indicators. 

 Table 3 identifies indicators and 

standards that will be monitored to 

determine if desired conditions are 

not being met due to unacceptable 
User (Carrying) Capacity 

51 

impacts from visitor use and also 

provides representative examples of 

management strategies that might be 

used to avoid or minimize 

unacceptable impacts from visitor 

use. 

 The user capacity analysis establishes 

priorities for monitoring attention, if 

appropriate. 

TABLE 3. INDICATORS AND STANDARDS

Indicator Applicable 

Zone 

Standard Management Strategies 

Indicator Topic: Vehicle safety and congestion at the entrance road (e.g., wait times for visitors to turn into the 

monument, back-ups onto U.S. Highway 80 from the entrance gate, accidents as a result of having no turn lanes, no 

acceleration/deceleration lanes, and limited sight distance) 

Number of cars waiting at 

the monument entrance 

Visitor Services 

Zone 

No more than two 

tour buses or five to 

six personal vehicles 

lined up in a lane* 

*based on current 

entry configuration 

Pretrip planning information to encourage 

voluntary redistribution of use to off-peak 

days and times 

Real- time information about the wait 

time at the monument entrance 

Increased staff to attend to vehicles 

within the monument to aid queuing and 

fee collection at the entrance 

Additional temporary entrance lanes 

Increased coordination with the 

Department of Transportation and other 

partners to redesign the entry and 

manage traffic and speeds on U.S. 

Highway 80 

Incidences of accidents 

associated with the entrance 

to the monument 

Visitor Services 

Zone 

No more than one 

accident per year 

Pretrip planning information to encourage 

voluntary redistribution of use to off-peak 

days and times 

Site management (e.g., vegetation 

clearing) 

Increased staff to attend to vehicles 

within the monument to aid queuing and 

fee collection at the entrance 

Increased coordination with Department 

of Transportation and other partners to 

redesign the entry and manage traffic and 

speeds on U.S. Highway 80 

Indicator Topic: Organized group conflicts in the fort (e.g., if two or more groups overlap, impacts such as noise and 

crowding can result, so groups need to remain dispersed throughout the fort), including impacts from unmanaged 

behavior in organized groups (e.g., noise, depreciative behavior) 

Number of organized groups 

in any area of the fort at one 

time 

Historic Setting 

Zone 

One organized 

group per 

designated area 

Pretrip planning information, including 

targeted contact with organized groups 

Coordinate the arrival (day and time) and 

distribution of organized groups within 

the monument via a reservation system 

On-site contact with individual visitors 

and groups to provide information and 

direct use in order to avoid conflicts 

Roving staff for orientation and 

information 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

52 

TABLE 3. INDICATORS AND STANDARDS

Indicator Applicable 

Zone 

Standard Management Strategies 

Number of chaperones to 

minors in organized groups 

Historic Setting 

Zone 

One chaperone per 

ten minors in 

organized groups 

Pretrip planning information, including 

targeted contact with organized groups 

Continue to require advanced 

reservations and contact with monument 

staff 

Provide chaperone support, if available 

Number of groups showing 

up without a reservation 

Historic Setting 

Zone 

No more than two 

unannounced 

groups per day 

Pretrip planning information, including 

targeted contact with organized groups 

Continue to require advanced 

reservations 

Increased staffing and coordination to 

distribute groups throughout the 

monument to avoid crowding and 

conflicts 

People at one time at the 

visitor center 

Visitor Services 

Zone 

No more than 100 

people at one time 

at the visitor center* 

*based on current 

building 

configuration 

Pretrip planning information to encourage 

voluntary redistribution of use to off-peak 

days and times 

Advanced reservations and coordination 

of organized groups 

Increased staffing and coordination to 

distribute visitor use on-site 

Incidences of unauthorized 

parking of buses 

Visitor Services 

Zone 

No unauthorized bus 

parking allowed 

Education on regulations 

Enforcement of regulations 

Indicator Topic: Impacts associated with the lighthouse as a result of improved access to the site (e.g., damage, wear, 

crowding, safety incidences) 

Degree of wear or incidences 

of damage to the lighthouse 

structure (stairs, walls, 

guardrail, etc.) 

Historic Setting 

Zone 

No noticeable / 

significant wear* or 

damage to the 

lighthouse structure 

*as evaluated by 

regular cultural 

resource evaluations 

of trained personnel 

Education on safety concerns and 

appropriate behaviors 

Site management to enhance durability 

and prevent damage that is consistent 

with maintaining the site’s integrity 

Regulating access (e.g., limiting the 

amount of use, guided only access) 

Temporary or permanent closure 

Incidences of reported visitor 

accidents associated with 

accessing the lighthouse, 

within NPS jurisdiction 

Historic Setting 

Zone 

No more than five 

reported accidents 

per year associated 

with accessing the 

lighthouse 

Education on safety concerns and 

appropriate behaviors 

Site management to enhance safety that 

is consistent with maintaining site 

integrity 

Regulating access (e.g., limiting the 

amount of use, guided only access) 

Temporary or permanent closure 

Indicator Topic: Incidences of unsafe and depreciative behavior (e.g., sitting/climbing on cannons, fort walls, earth 

mounds), including incidences of graffiti (e.g., adding current names/dates to historic graffiti wall) 

Incidences of observed unsafe 

and depreciative behavior 

(graffiti, theft, sitting/climbing 

on cannons, fort walls, earth 

mounds) 

Historic Setting 

Zone 

No incidences of 

observed unsafe 

and depreciative 

behavior 

Education on appropriate behaviors 

(signage kept to a minimum, with an 

emphasis on direct contact and 

publications) 

Regulations 

Temporary or permanent physical barriers 

Temporary or permanent closures 
Management Zones for Fort Pulaski National Monument 

53 

MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR FORT 

PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT 

Management zones are descriptions of 

desired conditions for monument resources 

and visitor experiences in different areas of 

the monument. Management zones are 

determined for each national park system 

unit; however, the management zones for one 

unit will probably not be the same for any 

other national park system unit (although 

some might be similar). The management 

zones identify the widest range of potential 

appropriate resource conditions, visitor 

experiences, and facilities for the monument 

that fall within the scope of the monument’s 

purpose, significance, and special mandates. 

Five management zones have been developed 

for Fort Pulaski National Monument. It is 

important to note that the names of the zones 

are only general indications of their 

character. For example, the name Historic 

Setting Zone should not be interpreted to 

mean that there are no natural resources 

within the zone, nor does the name Natural 

Resource Preservation Zone imply that 

cultural resources either do not exist or will 

not be preserved within the zone. The details 

of how the zones will be managed and the 

conditions to be achieved are spelled out in 

table 4, which follows. 

In formulating the action alternatives 

(alternatives B and C), management zones 

were placed in different locations or 

configurations on a map of the monument 

according to the overall intent (concept) of 

each of the alternatives. (Because alternative 

A represents existing conditions, and there 

are no existing management zones, the 

alternative A map does not show the 

management zones.) Please note that 

privately owned properties are not zoned, 

even if they are within the authorized 

national monument boundary. 

AERIAL PHOTO OF FORT PULASKI
CHAPTER 2:

ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE 

PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE

54 

TABLE 4.

MANAGEMENT 

ZONE 

DESCRIPTIONS FOR FORT 

PULASKI 

NATIONAL 

MONUMENT

Visitor Services Zone Administrative Services Zone Historic Setting Zone Natural Resource Preservation Zone Recreation Zone 

Desired Resource Conditions 

 Necessary visitor facilities in 

this zone would be placed as unobtrusively as possible in an appropriate setting. 

 The area would be 

modified for visitor access and monument operations in a way that aesthetically blends with the natural and cultural environment. 

 Nonhistoric elements such 

as maintenance facilities, administrative offices, and facilities of cooperating partners would predominate in this type of zone. 

 Minimizing the impacts of 

these facilities on the natural and cultural resources of the national monument would be a high priority. 

 A moderate level of native, 

noninvasive landscape plantings such as grass, shrubs, small trees, flowers, and ground covers could be introduced and maintained to improve the visual appeal of the structures. 

 Cultural resources in this 

zone could accommodate expanded visitor use while maintaining historic resource integrity and while representing the period of significance to the greatest degree feasible. 

 Some resources would be 

stabilized at the existing condition. 

 Restoration and 

maintenance of the historic scene could occur while screening for modern intrusions. 

 There would be minimum 

tolerance for adverse visitor impact. 

 This zone would remain an 

undisturbed, nearly pristine natural environment. 

 It would be carefully 

protected from resource degradation. 

 Some modification could 

occur to prevent resource degradation. 

 Generally, the area would 

exhibit the free play of natural forces and natural ecosystem succession. 

 This area would provide 

opportunities for visitors to recreate, yet resources would remain largely intact. 

 The environment might be 

adapted for access and human use. 

 Sounds and sights of 

human activity might be apparent. 

 There would be tolerance 

for minor resource impacts. 

Desired Visitor Experience 

 This area would provide for 

a high level of visitor activity and administrative operations. 

 In this zone visitors would 

enter the national monument and they would have opportunities to receive orientation and information, interact with monument staff and other visitors, and experience and learn about the monument’s physical resources and interpretive themes. 

 Visitors would not typically 

enter this zone. 

 Should they enter, either 

unintentionally or to obtain information or assistance, they might encounter maintenance or administrative buildings, equipment, machinery in operation, loud sounds, and monument staff. 

 Observation, education, 

reflection, and learning would be the primary visitor experiences desired.

 Living history 

demonstrations and interpretive programs could occur in this zone. 

 Visitors could also find the 

opportunity for solitary, individual exploration and discovery, quiet, and reflective experiences. 

 Appropriate recreational 

activities would be permitted. 

 The visitor would perceive 

the area to be undisturbed and essentially natural. 

 Visitors would appreciate 

the beauty of the area and gain new understanding of the forces of nature in the coastal environment. 

 Access would be limited to 

waterways and designated trails. 

 The probability of seeing or 

encountering other visitors or monument staff would be low most of the time. 

 Visitors would have a 

variety of opportunities to participate in recreational activities and interpretive programs. 

 Providing opportunities for 

people to interact with the resources in this area would be important. 

 The probability of seeing or 

encountering other visitors or monument staff would range from low to moderate most of the time. 
Management Zones for Fort Pulaski National Monument 

55 

TABLE 4. MANAGEMENT ZONE DESCRIPTIONS FOR FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT

Visitor Services Zone Administrative Services Zone Historic Setting Zone Natural Resource Preservation Zone Recreation Zone 

Appropriate Kinds and Levels of Development 

 A visitor center with 

restrooms, drinking water fountains, museum, feecollection facility, roads, parking, and walkways are the types of facilities found in this zone. 

 The facilities found in this 

zone could include maintenance buildings, vehicle storage facilities, monument offices, roads, parking areas, utilities, and artifact storage buildings as well as facilities, monument housing, and equipment storage structures of cooperating partners. 

 The minimum 

development necessary for visitor access, safety, resource protection, and interpretive purposes would occur in this zone. 

 Development could include 

signage, trails, pathways, benches, or other appropriate facilities. 

 There would be no 

buildings, comfort stations,or other structures in this zone. 

 Some trails or interpretive 

markers would be possible in less environmentally sensitive areas. 

 There would be specialized 

facilities or structures dedicated for recreational uses in this zone. 

 There could be trails, 

campgrounds, parking areas, or comfort stations in this zone. 

 Additions to the landscape, 

including signs, markers, fishing piers, boat ramps, and accessibility features, might be used to enhance visitor experience and public safety and to protect resources. 

Appropriate Kinds and Levels of Management Activities 

 Management activities 

could include regular maintenance of both the structural and landscape elements in the zone, fee collection, interpretive services, and law enforcement. 

 Moderate to intensive 

management in this zone would be directed toward maintenance of its buildings and grounds as well as staging and preparation for maintenance and resource protection activities in other zones. 

 Management activities that 

could occur in this zone include interpretation, grounds maintenance, preservation, restoration, stabilization, visitor protection and law enforcement, and archeological investigations. 

 Adaptive use of some 

cultural resources would also be permitted in this zone. 

 Management activity in 

this zone would be minimal, only as necessary to maintain natural appearance and/or protect resources from degradation, protect areas from negative visitor impact, and occasionally remove nonnative species to promote the health of the natural ecology. 

 Cooperation with other 

entities having jurisdiction over natural resources would be an important aspect of management in this zone. 

 Management actions 

would focus on enhancing visitor experience and safety, protecting resources, and minimizing impacts from visitor use. 

 Appropriate management 

actions could include the following: 

− determining types and 

levels of use (carrying capacity) 

− managing access 

based on the determined carrying capacity 

− conducting research 

and restoring and stabilizing resources 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

56 

TABLE 4. MANAGEMENT ZONE DESCRIPTIONS FOR FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT

Visitor Services Zone Administrative Services Zone Historic Setting Zone Natural Resource Preservation Zone Recreation Zone 

Appropriate Kinds and Levels of Visitor Activities 

 Visitor activities could 

include entering the national monument grounds, paying fees, and receiving orientation to the resources and programs of the national monument. 

 Visitors would not typically 

enter this zone except to obtain information or assistance. 

 Typical visitor activities in 

this zone could include participating in interpretive programs, viewing resources and interpretive displays, photography, and appropriate recreational pursuits. 

 Visitor activities would be 

limited to low-impact activities such as kayaking/canoeing, bird watching, photography, and recreational fishing and shellfish harvesting. 

 Use levels would probably 

remain low and would be monitored to assure achievement of zone objectives. 

 Appropriate visitor 

activities could include sightseeing, picnicking, camping, boat launching, fishing, hiking, etc. 

 Visitor activities might be 

self directed or they might use interpretive services to plan their activities. 

FORT PULASKI AREA MARSH
Actions Common to All Alternatives 

57 

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

U.S. Highway 80 Bridges 

Replacement Study and Project 

Response 

The National Park Service will continue to 

participate in the planning and 

environmental analysis for this proposed 

project with the goal of minimizing and 

mitigating any impacts that would result. 

Savannah Harbor Response 

The National Park Service will continue to 

participate in the planning and 

environmental analysis for this proposed 

project with the goal of minimizing and 

mitigating any impacts that would result, 

especially impacts on the northern shoreline 

of Cockspur Island and the impacts on the 

foundation of the Cockspur Island 

Lighthouse. 

Visitor Center Annex 

Fort Pulaski management proposes to 

construct a visitor center annex designed for 

monument visitors, school groups, and staff. 

This structure would be designed to be 

technologically current and environmentally 

friendly and sustainable. In addition to 

having telecommunications network 

capabilities, it would provide connections for 

computers, technical, and audio/visual 

equipment. This, in addition to the space 

itself, would make the building ideal for both 

educational and interpretive programs, 

lectures, public presentations, staff meetings, 

staff training, and video conferencing. The 

existing visitor center is inadequate in size for 

the current annual monument visitation, 

which has increased by about 60% since it 

was built, and inadequate for the types of 

presentations, exhibits, and programs that 

today’s visitors expect. 

The specific dimensions, building footprint, 

and other design parameters will be 

determined in a future planning project. The 

location will be in close proximity to the 

existing visitor center in order to facilitate a 

complete experience including touring the 

fort, enjoying programs and demonstrations 

in the fort, and viewing exhibits and 

educational/interpretive programs in the 

expanded visitor center, a short walk from 

the fort. 

Nonnative Species Management 

National monument staff members actively 

manage and document nonnative species 

through an internal monument natural 

resources program and with assistance from 

the Southeast Coast Exotic Plant 

Management Team (SEC-EPMT) and the 

Southeast Coast Network Inventory and 

Monitoring Program (SECN I&M). 

The main nonnative species populations 

currently being managed through eradication 

treatments are lantana (Lantana camera), 

Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), Chinese 

tallow (Triadica sebifera), and Japanese 

honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Past 

treatments also included Chinese privet 

(Ligustrum sinese) and crapemyrtle 

(Lagerstroemia indica). 

The monument management will consider 

reporting occurrences of invasive species to 

the Early Detection and Distribution 

Mapping System developed by the Center for 

Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health at the 

University of Georgia. Fort Pulaski National 

Monument management understands that 

early detection and rapid response are crucial 

in keeping nonnative species from displacing 

natural resources and/or natural processes, 

impacting cultural resources and landscapes, 

etc. 

 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

58 

ALTERNATIVE A: THE NO-ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE 

Concept 

The primary purpose of the no-action 

alternative, required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act, is to serve as a 

baseline for comparing the effects of the 

action alternatives to the effects of the status 

quo. The no-action alternative is the 

continuation of current management actions 

and direction into the future, i.e., continuing 

with the present course of action until that 

action is changed. “No action” does not mean 

that the monument does nothing. Rather, the 

no-action alternative presents how 

monument staff would continue to manage 

natural resources, cultural resources, and 

visitor use and experience if a new general 

management plan was not approved and 

implemented. 

The no-action alternative is a viable course of 

action and must be presented as an objective 

and realistic representation of continuing the 

current monument management direction; 

otherwise, it will not be an accurate baseline 

against which to compare action alternatives 

and their potential impacts. 

The monument’s enabling legislation and 

NPS management policies would provide 

guidance for all of the alternatives. The 

monument would continue to be managed as 

it is today, with no major change in 

management direction (see alternative A 

map). 

Wilderness 

A wilderness eligibility assessment has been 

conducted to evaluate the McQueens Island 

marshes for eligibility to be included within 

the national wilderness preservation system. 

The assessment identified approximately 

4,500 acres of eligible land; however, under 

the no-action alternative, no lands are 

proposed for wilderness designation by 

Congress. Per NPS Management Policies 

2006, the National Park Service will manage 

these lands to preserve their wilderness 

character. 

Natural Resources 

 Vegetation would be maintained in its 

present condition with the exception 

of removal of dead, diseased, or 

hazardous trees, and invasive 

nonnatives and fuel removal in 

accord with the approved fire 

management plan. 

 Tidal salt marshes: natural processes 

would continue except for shoreline 

erosion control measures and 

mitigation for U.S. Highway 80 and 

Savannah Harbor projects. 

 Other wetlands: natural processes 

would continue; mosquito control 

would be managed through biological 

controls. 

 Uplands: biological mosquito control 

and grounds maintenance would 

continue as currently practiced. 

 Wildlife: the monument would 

request a deer management plan or 

study. 

 Nonnatives: the monument would 

continue nonnative plant 

management with volunteers and 

staff as resources become available. 

Cultural Resources 

 Current management of cultural 

resources would continue. This 

includes the use of a fee 

demonstration project involving a 

partnership between monument 

maintenance staff and graduate and 

undergraduate students majoring in 

historic preservation from the 

Savannah College of Art and Design 

to form a preservation team. 

 Under an approved curatorial 

facilities plan, Fort Pulaski’s museum 

collections would be collocated with 
Alternative A: the No-action Alternative 

59 

the collections of Fort Frederica and 

Ocmulgee national monuments in 

Macon, Georgia, in a facility 

associated with these monuments 

(new, rented, or revamped existing 

facility—the details of the facility and 

the operations have not been 

finalized). This would allow the Bally 

building to be removed from the fort 

and to get the stored collections away 

from the coast to mitigate potential 

natural disasters such as hurricanes. 

 As a result of the U.S. Highway 80 

bridges replacement project, federal 

legislation might become necessary to 

authorize a potential boundary 

adjustment and/or land exchange 

with the Georgia Department of 

Transportation. As mitigation for the 

impact on the monument the 

National Park Service would seek to 

obtain state land adjacent to the 

monument boundary that contains 

seven World War II historic 

structures and Battery Hamilton. 

 A fee management program would 

provide opportunities for deferred 

maintenance projects, such as: 

– repointing masonry structures 

– repairing and maintaining historic 

structures 

– implementing the long-range 

interpretive plan to include 

updating of furnishing plan and 

furnishings in casemates 

Visitor Use and Experience 

Current programs and opportunities would 

be continued. 

 Visitors would enter the visitor center 

to obtain basic information and view 

an orientation film, then walk to the 

fort and explore on their own. 

 Living history demonstrations and 

other interpretive programs would 

continue on a scheduled basis. 

 Access for fishing, walking, biking, 

and other appropriate activities 

would remain as currently available. 

Access 

Current access to the monument via the 

bridge over the South Channel Savannah 

River would be maintained. Repairs to 

correct deteriorating structural conditions 

are currently in the preliminary design stage. 

These repairs would be expected to extend 

the usable life of the bridge for another 30 to 

35 years. 

Boundary Expansion 

As a result of the proposed U.S. Highway 80 

bridges replacement project, the national 

monument boundary may be expanded to 

include Bird Island/Long Island as well as the 

west end of Cockspur Island. (The Georgia 

Department of Transportation has proposed 

mitigating use of monument land for the U.S. 

Highway 80 project by transferring the west 

end of Cockspur Island and Bird Island/Long 

Island to the National Park Service. 

Congressional legislation would be required 

to authorize this boundary expansion). 

Battery Halleck, on Tybee Island, is the only 

known remaining undisturbed federal battery 

site. The acquisition of this site would help 

complete the ability of the national 

monument to interpret the entire story of the 

siege and reduction of Fort Pulaski. 

However, the land is currently in private 

ownership. Fort Pulaski National Monument 

has no authority to acquire any land on 

Tybee Island except by donation, so a third 

party, such as a land conservation trust, 

would have to acquire the property from the 

owner, assuming a willing seller, and then 

donate the land to the monument. 

Interpretation 

The monument would continue 

implementation of the approved long-range 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

60 

interpretive plan. Specifics include the 

following: 

 adaptive use of some fort casemates, 

such as converting the ranger office 

to a sales outlet “sutlery,” where 

visitors could purchase period 

reproductions, reprints, and other 

interpretive items directly related to 

the fort and its themes 

 restored interpretive personal 

services program (talks, 

demonstrations, special events) in the 

fort 

 improvements to the parking lot and 

visitors’ approach to the visitor center 

and the fort interior 

Trails 

The existing trail system would be 

maintained and work with the Georgia 

Department of Transportation, Chatham 

County, the city of Savannah, and the city of 

Tybee Island to extend the McQueens Island 

bike trail from its current end at the entrance 

to Fort Pulaski across the Lazaretto Creek 

Bridge to Battery Park on Tybee Island would 

be continued. 

Viewshed and Vistas 

A viewshed is an area of land, water, and/or 

other environmental or cultural elements that 

is visible from a fixed vantage point. 

Viewsheds tend to be areas of particular 

scenic or historic value that are deemed 

worthy of preservation against development 

or other change. 

At Fort Pulaski the principal viewshed of 

historical interest would be the view from the 

fort to the location of the federal batteries on 

Tybee Island and vice versa. Under the noaction alternative, Fort Pulaski would 

maintain current viewsheds, none of which 

are historically accurate. Because there would 

be no change from current conditions and 

the zones that have been developed for 

alternatives B and C would not be applied to 

the landscape, the monument boundary map 

(figure 2) is essentially the map for the noaction alternative. 

FORT PULASKI SOUTHWEST CORNER GUN DECK, 1863
Alternative A: the No-action Alternative 

61 

FIGURE 2. MONUMENT BOUNDARIES
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

62 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Concept 

Fort Pulaski would be managed to focus on 

the April 1862 period of significance in terms 

of the landscape and interpretive programs. 

The federal siege and reduction of the fort 

using rifled cannon, the hasty surrender of 

the Confederate forces, and the story of the 

“Immortal Six Hundred” would be 

paramount. 

 Selected vegetation would be 

removed to facilitate understanding 

of Fort Pulaski’s field of fire as a 

defensive coastal fort and to better 

understand the sight lines during the 

historic battle. 

 This alternative would emphasize to a 

high degree the restoration, 

preservation, and interpretation of 

historic landscapes and viewsheds of 

the site for the purpose of providing 

visitors a greater understanding of the 

siege and reduction of Fort Pulaski in 

1862. There would be mitigation for 

tree loss. 

 The visitor center parking lot would 

be removed and the site returned to 

the approximate landscape condition 

that existed during the principal 

period of significance (April 1862). 

 The visitor center parking lot would 

be relocated to a site near the visitor 

center but outside the viewshed from 

the top of the fort. The relocated 

parking lot would be just as near to 

the visitor center and just as 

accessible as the current one. There 

would be mitigation for tree loss. 

 The current facilities and 

opportunities would be maintained 

for recreation. Future facilities and 

opportunities would facilitate a 

greater understanding of the siege 

and reduction of the fort. 

Wilderness 

As part of the general management plan 

process, the National Park Service conducted 

a wilderness eligibility assessment to 

determine whether any lands at Fort Pulaski 

National Monument are eligible for inclusion 

in the national wilderness preservation 

system. This assessment identified 

approximately 4,500 acres of eligible land 

within the monument boundary (see figure 2 

and appendix B). All eligible lands at Fort 

Pulaski are located on McQueens Island and 

consist of salt marsh. The National Park 

Service subsequently initiated a formal 

wilderness study to analyze these eligible 

lands in depth and to determine which lands 

should be proposed for wilderness 

designation. This study, summarized 

previously, found that all eligible lands in the 

monument should be proposed as 

wilderness, except for those lands within 100 

feet of the right-of-way of U.S. Highway 80. 

Under alternative B, all lands identified as 

eligible in the wilderness eligibility 

assessment are proposed for designation as 

wilderness, except for those lands within 100 

feet of the edge of the right-of-way of U.S. 

Highway 80. If finalized and approved by 

Congress, this proposal would result in 

approximately 4,500 acres of salt marsh 

receiving permanent protection as 

wilderness. Per NPS Management Policies 

2006, the National Park Service will manage 

these lands to preserve their wilderness 

character until the legislative process has 

been completed. 

Natural Resources 

 Tidal salt marshes: Same as 

alternative A. 

 Other wetlands: Same as 

alternative A. 

 Uplands: In accordance with the 

recommendations of an approved 

cultural landscape report, selected 

vegetation would be removed to 
Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative) 

63 

facilitate understanding of Fort 

Pulaski’s field of fire as a defensive 

coastal fort and to better understand 

the sight lines during the historic 

battle. 

 To mitigate the loss of selected 

mature trees and other vegetation 

from the cultural landscape inside the 

dike system, the National Park 

Service would 

– replace mature trees outside the 

dike system on Cockspur Island 

on a two for one basis 

– remove mature red cedars only as 

they succumb to disease, 

lightning damage, etc. 

– remove trees, using a certified 

arborist, after they are marked by 

a surveyor and forester, in 

consultation with a cultural 

landscape specialist, to ensure 

that no more trees are removed 

than necessary to achieve the 

desired sightlines 

– prepare a mitigation plan that 

would include a young tree 

maintenance plan that involves 

weekly watering for the first 2 

years 

 Screening would remain to block the 

view of the Lazaretto Creek Bridge 

and modern development on Tybee 

and Cockspur islands within view of 

Fort Pulaski. 

 Wildlife: Same as alternative A. 

 Nonnatives: Same as alternative A 

Cultural Resources 

Same as alternative A plus: 

 The larger Historic Setting Zone in 

this alternative would permit 

restoration of some cultural 

landscapes in accord with an 

approved cultural landscape report to 

be completed following the 

completion and final approval of the 

general management plan. 

Visitor Use and Experience 

Visitor understanding and appreciation of 

the monument’s significance would be 

enhanced by restoring most historic site 

conditions and views. 

 In accordance with the 

recommendations of the approved 

cultural landscape report, selected 

vegetation would be removed to 

facilitate understanding of Fort 

Pulaski’s field of fire as a defensive 

coastal fort and to better understand 

the sight lines during the historic 

battle. 

 To mitigate the loss of selected 

mature trees and other vegetation 

from the cultural landscape inside the 

dike system the National Park Service 

would 

– replace mature trees outside the 

dike system on Cockspur Island 

on a two for one basis 

– remove mature red cedars only as 

they succumb to disease, 

lightning damage, etc. 

– remove trees, using a certified 

arborist, after they are marked by 

a surveyor and forester, in 

consultation with a cultural 

landscape specialist, to ensure 

that no more trees are removed 

than necessary to achieve the 

desired sightlines 

– prepare a mitigation plan that 

includes a young tree 

maintenance plan that involves 

weekly watering for the first 2 

years 

 Screening would remain to block the 

view of the Lazaretto Creek Bridge 

and modern development on Tybee 

and Cockspur islands within view of 

Fort Pulaski. 

Access 

Same as alternative A. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

64 

Boundary Expansion 

 Same as alternative A. 

Interpretation 

Same as alternative A with the following 

additions: 

 Improved sight lines to the Union 

batteries would enable interpreters to 

more effectively convey aspects of the 

strategy of the siege and reduction 

than can be explained under current 

conditions. 

 Improved sight lines to the Savannah 

River (both north and south 

channels) would enable interpreters 

to more effectively describe the 

strategic location of the fort and how 

it defended the Port of Savannah. 

 Increased research on American 

Indian habitation, construction of the 

fort, and the role of Fort Pulaski in 

the Underground Railroad would 

enhance the interpretation of these 

important stories. 

Trails 

Same as alternative A. 

Viewshed and Vistas 

 In accordance with the 

recommendations of the approved 

cultural landscape report, selected 

vegetation would be removed to 

facilitate understanding of Fort 

Pulaski’s field of fire as a defensive 

coastal fort and to better understand 

the sight lines during the historic 

battle. 

FORT PULASKI INTERIOR ARCHES

 To mitigate the loss of selected 

mature trees and other vegetation 

from the cultural landscape inside the 

dike system, the National Park 

Service would 

– replace mature trees outside the 

dike system on Cockspur Island 

on a two for one basis 

– remove mature red cedars only as 

they succumb to disease, 

lightning damage, etc. 

– remove trees, using a certified 

arborist, after they are marked by 

a surveyor and forester, in 

consultation with a cultural 

landscape specialist, to ensure 

that no more trees are removed 

than necessary to achieve the 

desired sightlines 

– prepare a mitigation plan that 

includes a young tree 

maintenance plan that involves 
Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative) 

65 

weekly watering for the first 2 

years 

 Screening would remain to block the 

view of the Lazaretto Creek Bridge

 and modern development on Tybee 

and Cockspur islands within view of 

Fort Pulaski. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

66 

FIGURE 3. ALTERNATIVE B MANAGEMENT ZONES
Alternative C 

67 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Concept 

Fort Pulaski would be managed with a much 

broader interpretive mandate than in 

alternative B. This would include a wider 

range of themes and historic periods as well 

as natural resource themes. 

 Only minor changes from existing 

conditions would be made to restore 

historic views. There would be 

mitigation for tree loss. 

 Appropriate recreational activities 

and facilities within the monument 

would be allowed to expand. 

Wilderness 

Same as alternative B. 

Natural Resources 

 Tidal salt marshes: Same as 

alternative A. 

 Other wetlands: Same as alternative 

A. 

 Uplands: In accordance with 

recommendations of the cultural 

landscape report, vegetation would 

be removed to better understand the 

sight lines during the historic battle 

(from the Union batteries at Goat 

Point to Fort Pulaski). This 

alternative removes less vegetation 

than alternative B. Mitigation 

measures would be the same as in 

alternative B. 

 Wildlife: Same as alternative A. 

 Nonnatives: Same as alternative A. 

Cultural Resources 

Same as alternative B with the following 

additions: 

 Tybee Knoll Lighthouse oil shed 

would be stabilized. 

 Access to Cockspur Island 

Lighthouse would be provided. 

 The smaller Historic Setting Zone in 

this alternative would permit 

restoration of cultural landscapes, in 

accord with an approved cultural 

landscape report, within the historic 

dike system and some vista clearing 

between the southeastern wall of the 

fort and the federal battery exhibit on 

Tybee Island to enhance 

interpretation of the siege and 

reduction of Fort Pulaski. 

Visitor Use and Experience 

Visitor understanding of the siege and 

reduction of the fort and appreciation of the 

monument’s significance would be enhanced 

by restoring some historic site conditions and 

views. 

Expand recreational access by 

 expanding the trail system on 

Cockspur Island (for example, a trail 

to the Tybee Knoll Lighthouse oil 

shed) 

 expanding launching facilities for 

canoes and kayaks at Lazaretto Creek 

Access 

Same as alternative A with the addition of 

expanded canoe and kayak launching 

facilities at Lazaretto Creek. 

Boundary Expansion 

Same as alternative A. 

Interpretation 

Same as alternative A with the following 

additions: 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

68 

 Interpretation of the siege and 

reduction of the fort would be 

improved because vegetation would 

be removed to better understand the 

sight lines during the historic battle 

(from the batteries at Goat Point to 

Fort Pulaski). 

 Expanded recreational opportunities 

would create additional opportunities 

for interpreting the natural resources 

of Fort Pulaski, particularly the tidal 

salt marshes. 

Trails 

Same as alternative A with the addition of an 

expansion of the trail system at the west end 

of Cockspur Island. A boardwalk would be 

developed through the marsh on Cockspur 

Island. 

Viewsheds and Vistas 

 In accordance with 

recommendations of the approved 

cultural landscape report, vegetation 

would be removed to enhance 

understanding of the sight lines 

during the siege and reduction of the 

fort (from the batteries at Goat Point 

to Fort Pulaski). This would be the 

same mitigation strategy as alternative 

B but less mitigation would be 

needed. 

 This alternative removes less 

vegetation than alternative B. 

PAVED TRAIL
Alternative C 

69 

FIGURE 4. ALTERNATIVE C MANAGEMENT ZONES
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

70 

TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Differences 

Overall Concept 

Alternative A would continue current management practices and policies. 

Fort Pulaski would be managed to focus on the April 1862 period of significance both in terms of the landscape and interpretive programs; this includes landscape restoration and interpretation of the construction village. 

Fort Pulaski would be managed with a much broader interpretive mandate than in alternative B to include a wider range of themes and historic periods as well as natural resource themes. 

Alternative A would continue current management with no restoration of historic landscapes or views. Alternative B would emphasize restoration of cultural landscapes and viewsheds. Alternative B would also relocate the visitor parking lot to a site outside the view from the top of the fort. Alternative C would place less emphasis on the restoration of historic landscapes and viewsheds and more emphasis on expanding interpretive efforts to include a broader range of historic periods and natural resources themes. 

Wilderness 

No land within the monument would be proposed for wilderness designation by Congress. 

Approximately 4,500 acres of salt marsh at McQueens Islandwould be proposed for wilderness designation by Congress. 

Same as alternative B. Alternatives B and C are identical with respect to 

the amount of proposed wilderness under the wilderness study. 

Natural Resources 

Vegetation would be maintained in its present condition with the exception of removal of dead, diseased, or hazardous trees, and invasive nonnatives and fuel removal in accord with the approved fire management plan. Tidal salt marshes: natural processes would continue except for shoreline erosion control measures and mitigationfor U.S. Highway 80 and Savannah Harbor projects. Other wetlands: natural processes would continue; mosquito control would be managed through biological controls. Uplands: mosquito control would be managed through biological controls and grounds maintenance would continue. Wildlife: monument staff would request a deer management 

Tidal salt marshes: same as alternative A. Other wetlands: same as alternative A. Uplands: selected vegetation would be removed to facilitate understanding and interpretation of the historic events. Any loss of trees due to vista clearing would be mitigated. Wildlife: same as alternative A. Nonnatives: same as alternative A. 

Tidal salt marshes: same as alternative A. Other wetlands: same as alternative A. Uplands: In accordance with recommendations of the cultural landscape report, vegetation would be removed to better understand the sight lines during the historic battle.This alternative removes less vegetation than alternative B. Mitigation measures would be the same as in alternative B. Wildlife: same as alternative A. Nonnatives: same as alternative A. 

The larger Historic Setting Zone in alternative B would provide for more restoration of historic views and landscapes than in alternative C. This would mean potentially more vegetative clearing than in alternative C, which would clear vegetation in a narrow, cone-shaped band, from the southeast wall of the fort to the shoreline in the direction of the Battery Park site on Tybee Island. Management of tidal salt marshes, other wetlands, and other natural resources would be identical across all alternatives. 
Alternative C 

71 

TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Differences plan or study. Nonnatives: nonnative plant management would continue with volunteers and staff as resources become available. 

Cultural Resources 

Current management of cultural resources would continue. Fort Pulaski’s museum collections would be collocated with the collections of Fort Frederica and Ocmulgee national monuments in Macon, Georgia. A fee management program would provide opportunities for deferred maintenance projects, such as re-pointing masonry structures and repairing and maintaining historic structures. 

Same as alternative A plus: Larger Historic Setting Zone would permit restoration of some cultural landscapes in accord with an approved cultural landscape report. 

Same as alternative B plus: Tybee Knoll Lighthouse oil shed would be stabilized. Access to Cockspur Island Lighthouse would be provided. Smaller Historic Setting Zone in this alternative would permit restoration of cultural landscapes within the historic dike system and some vista clearing between the southeastern wall of the fort and the federal battery exhibit on Tybee Island. 

The larger Historic Setting Zone in alternative B would provide for more restoration of historic views and landscapes than in alternative C. Alternative A would maintain existing conditions. Management of historic structures including the fort and demilune, dikes and drainage structures, monuments, World War II era structures, archeological resources, and collections, would be identical under all alternatives. 

Visitor Use and Experience 

Current programs and opportunities would continue. Visitors would continue to enter the visitor center to obtain basic information and view an orientation film, then walk to the fort and explore on their own. Living history demonstrations and other interpretive programs would continue on a scheduled basis. Access for fishing, walking, biking, and other appropriate activities would remain as currently available. 

Same as alternative A plus: Visitor understanding and appreciation of the monument’s significance would be enhanced by restoring most historic site conditions and views. 

Same as alternative A plus: Visitor understanding of the siege and reduction of the fort and appreciation of the monument’s significance would be enhanced by restoring some historic site conditions and views. Recreational access would be increased by expanding the trail system on Cockspur Island and expanding launching facilities for canoes and kayaks at Lazaretto Creek. 

Under alternative B the visitor experience would be focused on the views and structural elements of the national monument that tell the story of the siege and reduction and hasty surrender of Fort Pulaski in April 1862. Alternative C would immerse the visitor in a broader range of interpretive themes including natural resource themes. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

72 

TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Differences 

Access 

Current access to the monument via the bridge over the South Channel Savannah River would be maintained. Repairs to correct deteriorating structural conditions are currently in the preliminary design stage. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A plus: 

Canoe and kayak launching facilities at Lazaretto Creek would be expanded. 

All alternatives are the same with respect to maintaining access to Cockspur Island over the existing bridge. Alternative C adds canoe and kayak launching facilities at Lazaretto Creek. Access to the tidal creeks that meander among the salt marshes of McQueens Island would remain the same under all alternatives. 

Boundary Expansion 

With the U.S. Highway 80 project, the boundary might be expanded to include Bird Island/Long Island as well as the west end of Cockspur Island. Authorizing legislation would be required. Battery Halleck, on Tybee Island, is the only known remaining undisturbed federal battery site. The acquisition of this site would help complete the ability of the national monument to interpret the entire story of the siege and reduction of Fort Pulaski. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. 

Potential boundary expansion under all alternatives would be identical. 

Interpretation 

Implementation of the monument’s approved longrange interpretive plan would continue. 

Same as alternative A plus: Sight lines to the Union batteries would be improved to enable interpreters to more effectively convey aspects of the strategy of the siege and reduction of the fort. Sight lines to the Savannah River would be improved to enable interpreters to more effectively describe the strategic location of the fort and how it defended the Port of Savannah. 

Same as alternative A plus: Interpretation of the siege and reduction of the fort would be improved because vegetation would be removed to better understand the sight lines during the historic battle. Recreational opportunities would be expanded to create additional opportunities for interpreting the natural resources of Fort Pulaski, particularly the tidal salt marshes. 

Alternative A would continue current interpretive programs, themes, and emphases. Alternative B would focus more on the siege and reduction of Fort Pulaski during April 1862 both in terms of interpretive themes, methods, exhibits, and in managing the cultural landscape and views to support that strategy. Alternative C would expand the range of interpretive themes and historical periods beyond the siege and reduction period and would include more programs, exhibits, and brochures to address natural resource themes, especially the vast salt marshes of McQueens Island. 
Alternative C 

73 

TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Differences 

Trails 

The existing trail system would be maintained. With help from partners, the McQueens Island bike trail would be extended from its current end at the entrance to Fort Pulaski across the Lazaretto Creek Bridge to Battery Park on Tybee Island. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A plus: 

The trail system at the west end of Cockspur Island would be expanded and a boardwalk would be developed through the marsh on Cockspur Island.

All alternatives would expand the McQueens Island bike trail beyond the current end at the Fort Pulaski entrance to Lazaretto Creek and ultimately to Tybee Island. 

U.S. Highway 80 Project 

The National Park Service would continue to participate in the planning and environmental analysis for this proposed project with the goal of minimizing and mitigating any impacts that would result. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. All alternatives are the same. 

Savannah Harbor Project 

The National Park Service would continue to participate in the planning and environmental analysis for this proposed project with the goal of minimizing and mitigating any impacts that would result, especially impacts on the northern shoreline of Cockspur Island and the impacts on the foundation of the Cockspur Island Lighthouse. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. All alternatives are the same. 

Viewshed and Vistas 

Current viewsheds, none of which are historically accurate, would be maintained. 

Selected vegetation would be removed to facilitate understanding of Fort Pulaski’s field of fire as a defensive coastal fort and to better understand the sight lines during the historic battle.Any loss of trees due to vista clearing would be mitigated. 

In accordance with recommendations of the cultural landscape report, vegetation would be removed to facilitate understanding of the sight lines during the siege and reduction of the fort. The mitigation strategy would be the same as alternative B; less mitigation would be needed because less vegetation would be removed. 

Alternative A would maintain current landscapes, viewsheds, and vistas. Alternative B would potentially restore historic landscapes, especially through the relocation of the visitor parking lot to a location outside the view from the top of the fort. Alternative C would reestablish the direct line of sight between the southeastern wall of the fort and the approximate location of some of the federal batteries on Tybee Island. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

74 

DEVELOPMENT OF COST ESTIMATES 

National Park Service decision makers and 

the public must consider an overall picture of 

the complete costs and advantages of various 

alternatives, including the no-action 

alternative, to make wise planning and 

management decisions for the monument. 

Such consideration can shed light on the cost 

of the no-action alternative and make 

possible a more legitimate comparison to the 

action alternatives. 

The actual cost of implementing the 

approved general management plan will 

ultimately depend on future funding and 

servicewide priorities over the life of the plan, 

as well as the ability to partner with other 

agencies or groups. The approval of a general 

management plan does not guarantee that 

funding and staffing needed to implement the 

plan will be forthcoming. Funding for capital 

construction improvements is not currently 

shown in NPS construction programs. It is 

not likely that all capital improvements will 

be totally implemented during the life of the 

plan. Larger capital improvements may be 

phased over several years. 

Cost estimates were developed through an 

evaluation of capital and annual operating 

costs for each of the alternatives. The 

estimates in this section regarding the general 

costs of implementing the alternatives were 

originally developed based on fiscal year 2006 

dollars and the Cost Estimating Guideline with 

Class “C” Cost Data: New Construction (NPS 

2001). The cost table has been adjusted 

upward from those numbers by an inflation 

factor of 9.3% representing the period 

January 2006 through February 2010. This 

inflation factor was obtained using a 

calculator on the website InflationData.com, 

published by Financial Trend Forecasters®. 

The National Park Service uses a broad range 

of costing techniques including Class “A,” 

Class “B,” and Class “C” levels of cost 

estimating. Class “A” and “B” estimates are 

based on more detailed information, and 

represent design and construction finances at 

the time of actual development activities. The 

capital costs estimates calculated for this 

general management plan are in the form of 

Class “C” estimates, which are general orderof-magnitude estimates. The accepted 

industry range of Class “C” estimates is minus 

30 percent to plus 50 percent. Therefore, a 

$1,000,000 estimate has an actual range of 

between $700,000 and $1,500,000. 

Range of Annual Costs 

Annual operating costs are the total costs per 

year for maintenance and operations 

associated with each alternative, including 

utilities, supplies, staff salaries and benefits, 

leasing, and other materials. Cost and staffing 

estimates assume that the alternative is fully 

implemented as described in the narrative. 

The total number of full-time equivalent 

employees is the number of person-years of 

staff required to maintain the assets of the 

monument at a good level, provide 

acceptable visitor services, protect resources, 

and generally support monument operations. 

The full-time equivalent number indicates 

staff funded by the operation of the National 

Park System only, not volunteer positions or 

positions funded by partners. Full-time 

equivalent salaries and benefits are included 

in the annual operating costs. 

One-time facility costs include those for the 

design, construction, rehabilitation, or 

adaptive reuse of visitor centers, roads, 

parking areas, administrative facilities, 

comfort stations, educational facilities, 

entrance stations, fire stations, maintenance 

facilities, museum collection facilities, and 

other visitor facilities. 

One-time nonfacility costs include actions for 

the preservation of cultural or natural 

resources not related to facilities, the 

development of visitor use tools not related 

to facilities, and other monument 

management activities that would require 

substantial funding above monument annual 

operating costs. Examples include preparing 

historic structures reports and an historic 

resource study. 
Development of Cost Estimates 

75 

Implementation 

Actions directed by general management 

plans or in subsequent implementation plans 

are accomplished over time. Budget 

restrictions, requirements for additional data 

or regulatory compliance, and competing 

national park system priorities could prevent 

immediate implementation of many actions. 

Major or especially costly actions could be 

implemented 10 or more years into the 

future. 

TABLE 6. COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES

Item 

Alternatives 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Annual Operating Costs (ONPS) (1) $1,396,627 $1,517,374 $1,507,143

Staffing—Full-time Equivalent (FTE) (2) 23 23 23

Total One-time Costs $488,890 $1,468,770 $1,212,978

One-time Facility Costs (3) $445,389 $683,786 $427,994

Visitor Center Annex $445,389 $445,389 $445,389

One-time Nonfacility Costs (4) $43,501 $339,595 $339,595

(1) Annual operating costs are the total costs per year for maintenance and operations associated with each 

alternative, including utilities, supplies, staff salaries and benefits, leasing, and other materials. Cost and staffing 

estimates assume that the alternative is fully implemented as described in the narrative. 

(2) The total number of FTEs is the number of person-years of staff required to maintain the assets of the monument at 

a good level, provide acceptable visitor services, protect resources, and generally support monument operations. The 

FTE number indicates ONPS-funded NPS staff only, not volunteer positions or positions funded by partners. FTE salaries 

and benefits are included in the annual operating costs. 

(3) One-time facility costs include those for the design, construction, rehabilitation, or adaptive reuse of visitor centers, 

roads, parking areas, administrative facilities, comfort stations, educational facilities, entrance stations, fire stations, 

maintenance facilities, museum collection facilities, and other visitor facilities. 

(4) One-time nonfacility costs include actions for the preservation of cultural or natural resources not related to 

facilities, the development of visitor use tools not related to facilities, and other monument management activities that 

would require substantial funding above monument annual operating costs. Examples include preparing historic 

structures reports and an historic resource study. 

The following applies to costs presented throughout this general management plan: 

 The costs are presented as estimates and are not appropriate for budgeting purposes. 

 The costs presented have been developed using NPS and industry standards to the extent available. 

 Specific costs will be determined at a later date, considering the design of facilities, identification of detailed 

resource protection needs and changing visitor expectations. 

 Actual costs to the National Park Service will vary depending on if and when the actions are implemented, and on 

contributions by partners and volunteers. 

 Approval of the general management plan does not guarantee that funding or staffing for proposed actions will 

be available. 

 The implementation of the approved plan, no matter which alternative, will depend on future NPS funding levels 

and servicewide priorities, and on partnership funds, time, and effort. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

76 

TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Topic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Transportation Impacts to transportation under all alternatives 

would be negligible to minor, long term, direct, and adverse. Moderate to major impacts on a number of monument natural resources could ensue from deepening the Savannah River ship channel and constructing the proposed Jasper Port, both of which would take place outside the monument boundary. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.

Climate Direct impacts on climate under all alternatives 

would be negligible, long term, direct and indirect, and adverse. Major, long-term, and adverse impacts on monument resources could ensue from global climate change. The alternatives in this plan would contribute a negligible increment to this adverse impact. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. 

Archeological Resources 

Impacts on archeological resources would continue to result from visitor use and administrative activities. Impacts would be permanent, negligible, and adverse. 

Impacts similar to alternative A, except that landscape restoration activities (i.e., removing and replanting trees) could result in some soil disturbance and attendant impacts on archeological resources. Similar impacts may result from relocating the parking area and removing the old lot. On the other hand, funding would also be sought for archeological studies to provide information about the construction village that was necessary to recreate part of the cultural landscape. Funding would also be sought to prepare exhibits. Overall, impacts on archeological resources would be permanent, negligible, and adverse. 

Impacts similar to alternative A, except that landscape restoration activities (i.e., removing and replanting trees) could result in some soil disturbance and attendant impacts on archeological resources. Impacts from restoration would be less under this alternative than under alternative B because the amount of land to be restored is smaller and because the parking lot would not be relocated. Impacts on archeological resources would be permanent, negligible, and adverse. 

Museum Collections Moving museum collections to a safer location 

would result in permanent, beneficial impacts. Cumulative impacts on museum collections would be permanent and beneficial. The actions under alternative A would contribute a significant increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts similar to alternative A. However, funding would also be sought for archeological studies to provide information about the construction village that was necessary to recreate part of the cultural landscape. In addition, funding would be sought to prepare exhibits. The proposed studies would expand the monument’s museum collections. Impacts to museum collections would be local, long term, and beneficial. Cumulative impacts would be 

Same as alternative A.
Development of Cost Estimates 

77 

TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Topic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

permanent and beneficial. The actions under alternative B would contribute a significant increment to this cumulative beneficial impact. 

Historic Structures Impacts to historic structures would continue 

to occur due to aging of the historic fabric, normal wear and tear, and vandalism. Impacts would be short term, negligible, and adverse, mostly due to normal wear and tear. Cumulative impacts would be moderate to major and adverse due to continued development in the local and regional area. The actions under alternative A would constitute a negligible increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts to historic structures would for the most part be local, long term, direct and indirect, and beneficial due to partial restoration of the historic scene from the principal period of significance. However, removal of the parking area of the Mission 66 visitor center would result in long-term, direct, major, and adverse impacts on a historic structure. In addition, some short-term, direct, negligible, and adverse impacts would occur to historic structures, mostly due to normal wear and tear. Cumulative impacts would be moderate to major and adverse due to continued development in the local and regional area. The actions under alternative B would contribute to these adverse cumulative impacts on a negligible to minor degree. 

Same as alternative A, plus impacts from stabilizing the Tybee Knoll Lighthouse oil shed and providing access to Cockspur Island Lighthouse. Impacts to historic structures would for the most part be local, long term, direct and indirect, and beneficial. Some shortterm, direct, negligible, and adverse impacts would occur, mostly due to normal wear and tear. Cumulative impacts would be moderate to major and adverse. The beneficial actions under alternative C would offset these cumulative adverse impacts on a negligible degree.

Cultural Landscape Impacts to the cultural landscape would be 

long term and beneficial due to a gradual reduction in nonnative vegetation. Cumulative impacts would be long term, minor to moderate, and both beneficial and adverse. Alternative A would contribute a negligible to minor increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts to the cultural landscape would be long term, moderate to major, and both beneficial and adverse. Restoration of historic site conditions and views would result in an overall beneficial impact on the cultural landscape; however, movement of the visitor center parking lot from its original location would result in an adverse effect to a historic property. Cumulative impacts would be long term and beneficial. Alternative B would contribute a moderate increment to this cumulative impact. 

There would be less restoration of cultural landscapes under this alternative than under alternative B. Beneficial impacts of restoring historic site conditions and views would be correspondingly less. Unlike alternative B, there would be no impacts on the cultural landscape (beneficial or adverse) resulting from relocation of the existing visitor center parking lot. Overall impacts on the cultural landscape would be long term and beneficial due to restoration of historic site conditions and views. Cumulative impacts would be long term, minor to moderate, and both beneficial and adverse. Alternative C would contribute a moderate, beneficial increment to this cumulative impact.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

78 

TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Topic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Ethnographic Resources 

Alternative A would have few if any impacts on ethnographic resources at Fort Pulaski because it would continue to provide longterm protection to the fort and its historic context. Impacts to ethnographic resources would therefore probably be negligible, long term, and neutral. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. 

Soils and Geologic Resources 

Geological, physiographical, and soil resources would continue be subject to current management practices and policies. Impacts on soils and geologic resources would be long term, negligible to minor, adverse, and local. There would be a long-term, moderate to major, adverse cumulative impact on soils and geologic resources. The actions under alternative A would contribute a negligible increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts would include those from alternative A, plus impacts from restoration of historic site conditions and views in selected locations. There would be additional impacts from moving the visitor parking lot. Soils under the old parking area would be restored as much as possible in order to recover a semblance of the historic scene. Soils under the new parking area would be compacted and covered by paving material. Overall impacts on soils would be local, long term, direct, minor to moderate, and adverse. There would be a long-term, moderate to major, adverse cumulative impact on soils and geologic resources. The actions under alternative B would contribute a very small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts would include those from alternative A, together with additional erosion from construction and use of new trails and other recreational facilities. Some removal of vegetation would occur to restore historic sight lines, but not as much as under alternative B. Impacts to soils would be local, short and long term, minor, and adverse. There would be a long-term, moderate to major, adverse cumulative impact on soils and geologic resources. The actions under alternative C would contribute a negligible increment to this cumulative impact. 

Plant Communities and Vegetation 

Current impacts on plant communities and vegetation would continue and would be due primarily to removal of dead, diseased, or hazardous trees, as well as fuel removal in accordance with the approved fire management plan. Impacts would be long term, adverse, negligible to minor, and local. There could be long-term, moderate to major, adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation and plant communities in the surrounding region. The actions under alternative A would contribute a negligible increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts would include those from alternative A, plus impacts from restoration of historic site conditions and views in selected locations including moving the visitor parking lot. Vegetation in the vicinity of the old parking area would be restored as much as possible in order to recover a semblance of the historic scene. Vegetation in the area of the new parking lot would be removed. Overall impacts on plant communities and vegetation would be local, long term, direct, minor to moderate, and adverse. There would be a long-term, moderate to major, adverse cumulative impact on plant communities and vegetation. The actions under alternative B would contribute a small increment to this adverse cumulative impact. 

Impacts would include those from alternative A, plus impacts from restoration of historic views and installation of some new recreational facilities. Impacts to plants and plant communities from vista clearing would be less under alternative C than under alternative B because less clearing would take place under alternative C. Impacts on plant communities and vegetation would be local, short and long term, direct, minor, and adverse. There would be long-term, moderate to major, adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation and plant communities in the surrounding region. The actions under alternative C would contribute a very small increment to this cumulative impact. 
Development of Cost Estimates 

79 

TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Topic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Exotic/Nonnative Plants 

Impacts from continuing encroachment of nonnative plants and nonnative vegetation would be long term, adverse, and moderate to major, and would be concentrated on Cockspur Island. There could be a long-term, moderate to major, adverse cumulative impacts on native natural processes. The actions under alternative A would contribute a very small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Site restoration activities would produce some reductions in nonnative vegetation, but nonnative vegetation would continue to displace native vegetation in large portions of Cockspur Island. In addition, relocation of the parking lot would result in disturbed ground where nonnatives could generate. Site restoration in the former parking area would entail control of nonnatives. Nevertheless, despite these and other efforts, nonnative vegetation would continue to displace native vegetation in large portions of Cockspur Island. Overall, impacts from nonnative plants and nonnative vegetation would be long term, adverse, and moderate to major. There could be long-term, moderate to major, adverse cumulative impacts on native natural processes. The actions under alternative B would offset these cumulative adverse impacts to a negligible degree. 

Impacts would generally be the same as under alternative B, except that a less extensive sightline restoration effort would mean less removal of nonnatives. Impacts from nonnative plants and nonnative vegetation would be long term, adverse, and moderate to major, and would be concentrated on Cockspur Island. There could be long-term, moderate to major, adverse cumulative impacts on native natural processes. The actions under alternative C would offset these cumulative adverse impacts to a negligible degree. 

Fish and Wildlife Existing impacts on fish and wildlife would 

continue, primarily as a result of disturbance to soils and vegetation caused by ongoing visitor use and NPS management activities. Impacts would be long term, minor, and both beneficial and adverse. Impacts would be concentrated at Cockspur Island. Minor adverse impacts on soil, water quality, and vegetation would result in minor adverse effects on some fish and wildlife species. In contrast, the removal of nonnatives would result in minor beneficial effects on some wildlife species. There would be long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative impacts on fish and wildlife. The actions under alternative A would contribute a very small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts on fish and wildlife would be local, short and long term, direct and indirect, minor, and both beneficial and adverse. Impacts would be concentrated at Cockspur Island and would result from restoration of historic site conditions and views in selected locations, as well as movement of the principal parking area to a new location. Minor adverse impacts on soil, water quality, and vegetation would result in minor adverse effects on some fish and wildlife species. In contrast, the removal of nonnatives would result in minor beneficial effects on some wildlife species. There would be long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative impacts on fish and wildlife. The actions under alternative B would contribute a very small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts on fish and wildlife would be local, short and long term, direct and indirect, minor, and both beneficial and adverse. Impacts would be concentrated at Cockspur Island and would result primarily from restoration of historic site conditions and views in selected locations, as well as the construction of new recreational facilities. Minor adverse impacts on soil, water quality, and vegetation would result in minor adverse effects on some fish and wildlife species. In contrast, the removal of nonnatives would result in minor beneficial effects on some wildlife species. There would be long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative impacts on fish and wildlife. The actions under alternative C would contribute a very small increment to this cumulative impact. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

80 

TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Topic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Water Quality Impacts on water quality would be due to 

sedimentation from existing roads and trails, as well as from oil and grease discharges at parking areas and road crossings over waterways. Additional impacts could occur from the use of herbicides to control nonnative vegetation. Impacts would be long term, negligible to minor, adverse, and local. There would be a long-term, adverse cumulative impact on water quality in the watershed. The intensity of the impact is unknown. The actions under alternative A would contribute a very small adverse increment to this cumulative impact. 

Overall, impacts on water quality under alternative B would be local, short and long term, direct and indirect, minor, and adverse. There would be a long-term, adverse cumulative impact on water quality in the watershed. The intensity of the impact is unknown. The actions under alternative B would contribute a very small increment to this cumulative impact. Impacts would be partially mitigated by use of best management practices during clearing and site recovery. 

There would be slightly more runoff and impacts on water quality under alternative C than under alternative A, but less than under alternative B. Impacts on water quality would be local, short and long term, minor, and adverse. There would be a long-term, adverse cumulative impact on water quality in the watershed. The intensity of the impact is unknown. The actions under alternative C would contribute a very small increment to this cumulative impact. Impacts would be partially mitigated by use of best management practices during clearing and site recovery. 

Floodplains Impacts from actions under this alternative 

would not result in impairment of floodplain functions because no new structures would be built that would impede the flow of floodwaters, and impacts from existing structures would be negligible to minor. Nothing in this alternative would increase the risk posed by flooding to the historic fort or other key monument resources. Cumulative impacts would be long term, minor to major, and adverse. The actions under alternative A would contribute a very small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Same as alternative A. Impacts would generally be the same as under 

alternatives A and B. Some new trails and other recreational facilities would be constructed, with minimal additional impacts on floodplain functioning. Impacts to floodplain functions would be negligible to minor, local, direct and indirect, and adverse. Impacts to infrastructure in the event of flooding would be moderate to major, short and long term, and adverse. Cumulative impacts would generally be the same as under alternative A. The actions under alternative C would contribute a very small increment to this adverse cumulative impact. 

Wetlands Past impacts on wetlands would continue and 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and local. There would be a long-term, minor to major, adverse cumulative impact on wetlands. The actions under alternative A would not contribute any new impacts on this cumulative impact. 

Impacts would generally be the same as those from alternative A. The site of the new visitor parking area under alternative B is located in an area of former (pre-1847) wetlands. Final siting of the parking area will be done in such a way as to avoid or minimize any wetland impacts. Such impacts, if they occur, are likely to be local, long term, negligible to moderate, and adverse. Cumulative Impacts would be the same as under alternative A. The actions under alternative B would contribute a very small increment to this cumulative impact. 

Same as alternative A. 
Development of Cost Estimates 

81 

TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Topic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Wilderness Resources and Values 

Resources would continue to be protected and opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation would continue to be available. Impacts on wilderness resources and values from the continuation of current management would be long-term, minor, beneficial, and local. There would be a longterm, minor to moderate, adverse cumulative impact on wilderness resources and values in the region. The actions under alternative A would not contribute to this cumulative impact. 

Formal designation of wilderness would afford the highest level of protection available to federally managed public lands and allow permanent protection of the wilderness resource. Impacts on wilderness resources and values would be long term, moderate to major, and beneficial. There would be a longterm, minor to moderate, adverse cumulative impact on wilderness resources and values in the region. The actions under alternative B would offset these impacts somewhat by granting most of the salt marsh in the monument permanent protection as wilderness. 

Same as alternative B. 

Visitor Use and Experience 

Access to historic resources and the availability of varied recreational opportunities would continue. Impacts on visitor use and experience would be long term, moderate, and neutral. The cumulative impact on visitor use and experience in the monument would be long term, negligible to minor, and beneficial. The actions under the no-action alternative would not contribute an appreciable increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts to visitor use and experience would stem primarily from targeted restoration of historic views, including enhanced historic views west from the fort gun deck resulting from relocation of the visitor parking lot. The area of the former parking area would be restored as much as possible to its historic appearance, thereby enhancing the experience of many visitors. The impacts would be local, short and long term, moderate, and both beneficial and adverse, depending on a given visitor’s individual preferences. Some visitors would appreciate the enhanced opportunity to experience historic views, while others would experience the removal of vegetative cover as a loss. The cumulative impact on visitor use and experience in the monument would be long term and beneficial. The actions under alternative B would contribute substantially to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts to visitor use and experience under alternative C would stem both from targeted restoration of historic views and authorization of additional recreational facilities. Impacts would be local, short and long term, moderate, and both beneficial and adverse, depending on a given visitor’s individual preferences. Less clearing would take place under this alternative than under alternative B, and impacts on visitor use and experience would vary accordingly. The cumulative impact on visitor use and experience in the monument would be long term and beneficial. The actions under alternative C would contribute a substantial increment to this cumulative impact. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

82 

TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Topic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Socioeconomic Environment 

There would be no changes to visitor spending or construction activity within Chatham County under alternative A. Longterm and short-term impacts on the socioeconomic environment would be local, negligible, and neutral. As a result, county employment, housing, and sales would remain constant. In terms of cumulative impacts, long-term and short-term impacts would be local, moderate, and beneficial. Alternative A would contribute a negligible increment to this total cumulative effect. 

This alternative would produce only slight increases to visitor spending or monument expenditures within Chatham County. Longterm and short-term impacts on the socioeconomic environment would be local, negligible, and beneficial. As a result, county employment, housing, and sales would not be measurably affected. In terms of cumulative impacts, long-term and short-term impacts would be local, moderate, and beneficial. Alternative B would contribute a negligible increment to this total cumulative effect. 

Same as alternative B. 

Monument Operations 

Operation of existing visitor and administrative facilities in the monument would result in continuing minor, long-term, neutral impacts on NPS operations. The cumulative impacts of the no-action alternative and other reasonably foreseeable future actions required of monument staff would be minor to moderate, long term, and neutral. 

Impacts would include those of alternative A, plus the additional costs and effort needed to restore and maintain targeted historic views. The restoration would impose additional maintenance and interpretation responsibilities on monument staff. However, no addition of permanent staff is necessary to implement alternative B. Thus, alternative B would result in minor, long-term, neutral impacts on monument operations. 

Same as alternative B. 
Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 

83 

MITIGATIVE MEASURES COMMON 

TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

Congress charged the National Park Service 

with managing the lands under its 

stewardship “in such manner and by such 

means as will leave them unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations” (NPS 

Organic Act, 16 USC 1). As a result, the 

National Park Service routinely evaluates and 

implements mitigation whenever conditions 

occur that could adversely affect the 

sustainability of national park system 

resources. 

To ensure that implementation of the action 

alternatives protects natural and cultural 

resources and the quality of the visitor 

experience, a consistent set of mitigative 

measures would be applied to actions 

proposed in this plan. The National Park 

Service would conduct appropriate 

environmental review (e.g., that required by 

the National Environmental Policy Act, 

National Historic Preservation Act, and other 

relevant legislation) for these future actions. 

As part of the environmental review, the 

National Park Service would avoid, reduce, 

or minimize adverse impacts when 

practicable. The implementation of a 

compliance-monitoring program would be 

considered to stay within the parameters of 

NEPA and NHPA compliance documents, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers section 404 

permits, etc. Compliance with section 106 

and 36 CFR 800 will be guided by the 2008 

Programmatic Agreement between the 

National Park Service, the Advisory Council 

for Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation 

Officers. The compliance-monitoring 

program would oversee these mitigative 

measures and would include reporting 

protocols. 

The following mitigative measures and best 

management practices would be applied to 

avoid or minimize potential impacts from 

implementation of the alternatives. These 

measures would apply to all alternatives. 

Management Strategies to Address 

Climate Change 

Climate change has very high potential to 

adversely affect the future conditions of 

coastal resources such as Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. As global and regional 

climates continue to change, a management 

approach that enhances the protection and 

resilience of climate-sensitive resources is 

becoming increasingly important. The 

following outlines such a strategy that adapts 

to our growing understanding of climate 

change influences and the effectiveness of 

management to contend with them. 

Climate change science is a rapidly advancing 

field and new information is continually 

being collected and released, yet the full 

extent of climate change impacts on resource 

conditions is unknown. As such, monument 

managers and policy makers have not 

determined the most effective response 

mechanisms for minimizing impacts and 

adapting to change. Because of this, this 

proposed management strategy does not 

provide definitive solutions or directions; 

rather it provides science-based and 

scholarship-based management principles to 

consider when implementing the broader 

management direction of the national 

monument. 

Strategy 

The NPS Climate Change Response Program 

aims to prepare the agency and its parks for 

the anticipated management needs that result 

from climate change. To help parks cope with 

the uncertainty in future climate conditions, 

this Climate Change Response Program 

serves to help park managers determine the 

extent to which they can and should act to 

protect the parks’ current resources while 

allowing the parks’ ecosystems to adapt to 

new conditions. Efforts of the NPS Climate 

Change Response Program focus on the 

following strategies: 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

84 

Science 

 Conduct scientific research and 

vulnerability assessments necessary to 

support NPS adaptation, mitigation, 

and communication efforts. 

 Collaborate with scientific agencies 

and institutions to meet the specific 

needs of management as it confronts 

the challenges of climate change. 

 Learn from and apply the best 

available climate change science. 

Mitigation 

 Reduce NPS carbon footprint. 

 Promote energy efficient practices, 

such as alternative transportation. 

 Enhance carbon sequestration as one 

of many ecosystem services. 

 Integrate mitigation into all business 

practices, planning, and the NPS 

culture. 

Adaptation 

 Develop the adaptive capacity for 

managing natural and cultural 

resources and infrastructure under a 

changing climate. 

 Inventory resources at risk and 

conduct vulnerability assessments. 

 Prioritize and implement actions and 

monitor the results. 

 Explore scenarios, associated risks, 

and possible management options. 

 Integrate climate change impacts into 

facilities management. 

Communication 

 Provide effective communication 

about climate change and impacts to 

the public. 

 Train monument staff and managers 

in the science of climate change and 

decision tools for coping with change. 

 Lead by example. 

With the guidance of the above strategies, 

Fort Pulaski National Monument will use the 

following management approach to address 

climate change throughout the 

implementation of this general management 

plan. Further elaboration and adaption of 

these approaches is anticipated as 

implementation of the general management 

plan proceeds. 

 Identify key natural and cultural 

resources and processes that are at 

risk from climate change. Establish 

baseline conditions for these 

resources, identify their thresholds, 

and monitor for change. Increase 

reliance on adaptive management to 

minimize risks. 

 Restore key ecosystem features and 

processes and protect cultural 

resources to increase their resilience 

to climate change. 

 Use best management practices to 

reduce human-caused stresses (e.g., 

monument infrastructure and visitorrelated disturbances) that hinder the 

ability of species or ecosystems to 

withstand climatic events. 

 Form partnerships with other 

resource management entities to 

maintain regional habitat connectivity 

and refugia that allow species 

dependent on national monument 

resources to better adapt to changing 

conditions. 

 Reduce or mitigate greenhouse gas 

emissions associated with national 

monument operations and visitor use, 

such as alternative transportation 

options (e.g., shuttles and lowemission vehicles for the monument’s 

fleet) and biofuels and other 
Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 

85 

renewable energy sources for the 

visitor center and administrative 

buildings. 

 Use the fragile environments of Fort 

Pulaski National Monument such as 

the salt marshes of McQueens Island 

as an opportunity to educate visitors 

about the effects of climate change on 

the resources they are enjoying. 

Inspire visitors to take action through 

leadership and education. 

 Manage national monument facilities 

and infrastructure (structures, trails, 

roads, docks, drainage systems, etc.) 

in a way that prepares for and adapts 

to the effects of climate change. 

Cultural Resources 

The National Park Service would preserve 

and protect, to the greatest extent possible, 

resources that reflect the history, events, and 

people associated with Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. Specific mitigative measures 

include the following: 

 Continue to develop inventories for 

and oversee research about 

archeological, historic, and 

ethnographic resources to better 

understand and manage the 

resources. Conduct any needed 

archeological or other resource 

specific surveys and national register 

evaluations, and identify 

recommended treatments. 

Incorporate the results of these 

efforts into site-specific planning and 

compliance documents. 

 Continue to manage cultural 

resources and collections following 

federal regulations and NPS 

guidelines. Inventory the 

monument’s collection and maintain 

it in a manner that would meet NPS 

curatorial standards. 

 Subject projects to site-specific 

planning and compliance procedures. 

For archeological resources, by 

locating projects and designing 

facilities in previously disturbed 

(which may represent historical 

developments requiring treatment as 

cultural resources) or existing 

developed areas, make efforts to 

avoid resources and thus adverse 

impacts through use of The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation. 

 Use screening and/or sensitive design 

that would be compatible with 

historic resources and cultural 

landscapes and not adjacent to 

ethnographic resources. If adverse 

impacts could not be avoided, a 

consultation process with all 

interested parties would be employed 

to determine the appropriate impact 

mitigation measure(s). 

 Conduct archeological site 

monitoring and routine protection. 

Conduct data recovery excavations at 

archeological sites threatened with 

destruction, where protection or site 

avoidance during design and 

construction is infeasible. Strictly 

adhere to NPS standards and 

guidelines on the display and care of 

artifacts. This would include artifacts 

used in exhibits in the visitor center. 

 In addition, for structures and 

cultural landscapes, mitigative 

measures include documentation 

according to standards of the Historic 

American Buildings Survey / Historic 

American Engineering Record / 

Historic American Landscape Survey. 

The level of this documentation, 

which includes photography, 

archeological data recovery, and/or a 

narrative history, would depend on 

significance (national, state, or local) 

and individual attributes (an 

individually significant structure, 

individual elements of a cultural 

landscape, etc.) and be determined in 

consultation with the Historic 

Preservation Division, Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

86 

Natural Resources 

Nonnative Plant Species. Implement a 

nonnative plants control program during 

construction activities. Standard measures 

could include the following elements: ensure 

construction-related equipment arrives onsite free of mud or seed-bearing material, 

certify all seeds and straw material as weedfree, identify areas of noxious weeds 

preconstruction, treat noxious weeds or 

noxious weed topsoil before construction 

(e.g., topsoil segregation, storage, herbicide 

treatment), and revegetate with appropriate 

native species. 

Soundscape. Cockspur Island, the site of the 

principal cultural resource of the national 

monument, is between U.S. Highway 80 to 

the south and the Savannah River, the major 

waterway for large container ships serving 

the Port of Savannah, to the north. Despite 

these land and water thoroughfares, the 

relative quiet and serenity of Cockspur Island 

is an important feature of the site to visitors. 

The National Park Service will restore to the 

natural condition wherever possible those 

monument soundscapes that have become 

degraded by unnatural sounds (noise) and 

will protect natural soundscapes from 

unacceptable impacts. Using appropriate 

management planning, superintendents will 

identify what levels and types of unnatural 

sound constitute acceptable impacts on 

monument natural soundscapes. The 

frequencies, magnitudes, and durations of 

acceptable levels of unnatural sound will vary 

throughout a park, being generally greater in 

developed areas. Within and adjacent to 

parks, the National Park Service will monitor 

human activities that generate noise that 

adversely affects monument soundscapes, 

including noise caused by mechanical or 

electronic devices. The National Park Service 

will take action to prevent or minimize all 

noise that through frequency, magnitude, or 

duration adversely affects the natural 

soundscape or other monument resources or 

values, or that exceeds levels that have been 

identified through monitoring as being 

acceptable to or appropriate for visitor uses 

at the sites being monitored. 

Soils. Build new facilities on soils suitable for 

development. Minimize soil erosion by 

limiting the time that soil is left exposed and 

by applying erosion control measures, such as 

erosion matting, silt fencing, and 

sedimentation basins in construction areas to 

reduce erosion, surface scouring, and 

discharge to water bodies. Once work is 

completed, revegetate construction areas 

with native plants in a timely manner. Place 

construction equipment in previously 

disturbed areas. Locate trails on soils with 

low erosion hazards and small changes in 

slope and develop proper signs to minimize 

social trails. Ensure proper drainage of 

parking areas. 

Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Species of Concern. Mitigative actions 

would occur during normal monument 

operations as well as before, during, and after 

construction to minimize immediate and 

long-term impacts on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species. These actions would 

vary by specific project and area of the 

national monument affected, and additional 

mitigations will be added depending on the 

specific action and location. Mitigative 

actions specific to rare, threatened, and 

endangered species would include the 

following: 

 Conduct surveys for rare, threatened, 

and endangered species as warranted. 

 Locate and design facilities/actions to 

avoid adverse effects on rare, 

threatened, and endangered species. 

If avoidance is infeasible, minimize 

and compensate for adverse effects 

on rare, threatened, and endangered 

species as appropriate and in 

consultation with the appropriate 

resource agencies. Conduct work 

outside of critical periods for the 

specific species. 

 Develop and implement restoration 

and/or monitoring plans as 

warranted. Plans should include 

methods for implementation, 
Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 

87 

performance standards, monitoring 

criteria, and adaptive management 

techniques. 

 Implement measures to reduce 

adverse effects of nonnative plants 

and wildlife on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species. 

Many of these measures would also benefit 

rare, threatened, and endangered species by 

helping to preserve habitat. 

Vegetation. Monitor areas used by visitors 

(e.g., trails) for signs of native vegetation 

disturbance. Use public education, 

revegetation of disturbed areas with native 

plants, erosion control measures, and barriers 

to control potential impacts on plants from 

trail erosion or social trailing. Use barriers 

and closures when necessary to prevent 

trampling and loss of riparian vegetation. 

Develop revegetation plans for areas 

disturbed by construction or unauthorized 

visitor use and require the use of native 

species. Revegetation plans should specify 

seed/plant source, seed/plant mixes, soil 

preparation, etc. Salvage vegetation from 

construction activities should be used to the 

extent possible. 

Water Resources. Contractors for 

construction projects would be required to 

develop and implement a storm water 

pollution prevention plan. Standard best 

management practices to limit erosion and 

control sediment release would be employed. 

Such measures include use of silt fencing, 

limiting the area of vegetative disturbance, 

use of erosion mats, and covering banked 

soils to protect them until they are reused. To 

avoid introduction of nonnative plant 

species, no hay bales would be used to 

control soil erosion. 

Wildlife. The National Park Service will 

adopt monument resource preservation, 

development, and use management strategies 

that are intended to maintain the natural 

population fluctuations and processes that 

influence the dynamics of individual plant 

and animal populations, groups of plant and 

animal populations, and migratory animal 

populations in parks. 

In addition to maintaining all native plant and 

animal species and their habitats inside parks, 

the National Park Service will work with 

other land managers to encourage the 

conservation of the populations and habitats 

of these species outside parks whenever 

possible. To meet its commitments for 

maintaining native species in the national 

monument, the National Park Service will 

cooperate with states, tribal governments, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, as appropriate, to 

 participate in local and regional 

scientific and planning efforts, 

identify ranges of populations of 

native plants and animals, and 

develop cooperative strategies for 

maintaining or restoring these 

populations in the parks 

 employ techniques to reduce impacts 

on wildlife, including visitor 

education programs, restrictions on 

visitor activities, and park ranger 

patrols 

 prevent the introduction of nonnative 

species into the national monument 

 remove, when possible, or otherwise 

contain individuals or populations of 

species that have already become 

established in the unit 

Endangered and Threatened Species. Prior 

to the implementation of any action that is 

part of the final approved general 

management plan, the National Park Service 

will initiate and complete the appropriate 

level of compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (including 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service), and the National Historic 

Preservation Act (especially sections 106 and 

110). 

Wetlands. Delineate wetlands and apply 

protection measures during construction. 

Wetlands would be delineated by qualified 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

88 

NPS staff or certified wetland specialists and 

clearly marked before construction work. 

Construction activities would be performed 

in a cautious manner to prevent damage 

caused by equipment, erosion, siltation, etc. 

Visitor Safety and Experience 

Although there are limitations on its 

capability to totally eliminate all hazards, Fort 

Pulaski staff and concessioners, contractors, 

and cooperators will seek to provide a safe 

and healthful environment for visitors and 

employees. The monument staff will work 

cooperatively with other federal, tribal, state, 

and local agencies; organizations; and 

individuals to carry out this responsibility. 

Fort Pulaski National Monument staff will 

strive to identify and prevent injuries from 

recognizable threats to the safety and health 

of persons and to the protection of property 

by applying nationally accepted codes, 

standards, engineering principles, and the 

guidance contained in Director’s Orders 50B: 

Occupational Safety and Health Program, 

52C: Park Signs, 58: Structural Fire 

Management, and 83: Public Health and their 

associated reference manuals. 

The national monument management 

recognizes that the natural and cultural 

resources it protects are not only visitor 

attractions, but that some may also be 

potentially hazardous. Therefore, when 

practicable and consistent with 

congressionally designated purposes and 

mandates, Fort Pulaski staff will reduce or 

remove known hazards and apply other 

appropriate measures, including closures, 

guarding, signing, or other forms of 

education. In doing so, the preferred actions 

will be those that have the least impact on 

monument resources and values. 

Noise Abatement 

Mitigative measures would be applied to 

protect the natural sounds in the national 

monument. Specific mitigative measures 

include the following: 

 Implement standard noise abatement 

measures during typical maintenance 

(grass cutting and use of other types 

of power equipment) and 

construction activities. Standard 

noise abatement measures could 

include the following elements: 

– a schedule that minimizes 

impacts to visitor experiences 

– the use of the best available noise 

control techniques wherever 

feasible 

– the location of stationary noise 

sources as far from sensitive uses 

as possible 

Scenic Resources 

Mitigative measures are designed to minimize 

visual intrusions. These include the 

following: 

 Where appropriate, use facilities such 

as fences to route people away from 

sensitive natural and cultural 

resources, while still permitting 

access to important viewpoints. 

 Provide vegetative screening, where 

appropriate. 

FUTURE STUDIES AND 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS NEEDED 

After completion and approval of a general 

management plan for managing the national 

monument, other more detailed studies and 

plans would be needed for implementation of 

specific actions. As required, additional 

environmental compliance (National 

Environmental Policy Act, National Historic 

Preservation Act, and other relevant laws and 

policies), and public involvement, would be 

conducted. Those additional studies include 

but would not be limited to the following: 

 Cultural landscape report. A 

cultural landscape report is the 

primary guide to treatment and use of 

a cultural landscape. Based on the 

historic context provided in a historic 
Future Studies and Implementation Plans Needed 

89 

resource study, a cultural landscape 

report documents the characteristics, 

features, materials, and qualities that 

make a landscape eligible for the 

national register. 

 Comprehensive interpretive plan. 

The comprehensive interpretive plan 

process is the basic planning 

component for interpretation and 

education in a park. The plan is a tool 

to help parks decide priorities for 

their objectives, determine what 

stories to tell, identify their audiences, 

and describe the most effective mix of 

media and personal services to use. 

 Resource stewardship strategy. As a 

program planning document, the 

resource stewardship strategy serves 

as a link between the monument’s 

general management plan and its 

strategic planning, wherein 

monument personnel and financial 

resources are allocated to implement 

resource stewardship actions. The 

resource stewardship strategy 

identifies specific components of the 

monument resources to target for 

management during the next 20 years, 

establishes methods to evaluate the 

status of these components, 

determines measurable targets for 

resources, and evaluates whether the 

resources are currently meeting 

targets. Resource stewardship 

strategy documents are reviewed by 

subject matter experts before 

finalization; however, they are not 

publicly reviewed compliance 

documents. 

 Climate change scenario planning.

This is a process that informs the park 

management of the plausible climate 

futures projected for the region and 

associated impacts, based on the 

latest climate models. Managers can 

then test management 

strategies/actions under the range of 

plausible climate futures to help 

validate future park investments, 

which includes identifying “no 

regrets” actions or “no gainer” 

actions. 

 Vulnerability assessments. Conduct 

vulnerability assessments of park 

natural and cultural resources to sea 

level rise and increased storm 

frequency and intensity. Storms are 

the primary drivers of change along 

the coast. The National Park Service, 

in cooperation with various 

universities and government agencies, 

is undertaking a series of 

investigations to assess the 

vulnerability of natural and cultural 

resources to storms and sea level rise 

in coastal parks. These projects will 

allow managers to better understand 

the level of vulnerability, improve the 

park’s pre-storm preparedness and 

post-storm response, and increase the 

safety of park visitors and employees. 

 Data collection and research.

Initiate data collection and research 

projects that address climate change 

effects on the park’s natural and 

cultural resources, as well as on 

visitors’ experiences, health, safety, 

and overall enjoyment of Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. These efforts 

could include scenario planning via 

the assistance of the NPS Climate 

Change Response Program and 

partnership research efforts with 

other agencies/institutions. 

 Ethnographic overview and 

assessment. The most 

comprehensive background study, 

this document reviews existing 

information on monument resources 

traditionally valued by stakeholders. 

This study also documents the need 

for further research on cultural 

affiliations, important events and 

associated places in the park, and 

traditional uses and ways of life. 

 Additional research. Additional 

research is needed on the history of 

Fort Pulaski and Cockspur Island 

beyond the Civil War to expand 

understanding of park resources and 

add to interpretive programs and 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

90 

media. Research topics in need of 

further study include American 

Indian habitation, the construction of 

Fort Pulaski (including the role of 

enslaved people) and the fort’s role in 

the Underground Railroad. 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE 

ALTERNATIVE 

The environmentally preferable alternative is 

defined as the alternative that would promote 

the national environmental policy as 

expressed in section 101 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. That section 

indicates that it is the continuing 

responsibility of the federal government to 

do the following: 

 Fulfill the responsibilities of each 

generation as trustee of the 

environment for succeeding 

generations. 

 Ensure safe, healthful, productive, 

and esthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings for all 

Americans. 

 Attain the widest range of beneficial 

uses of the environment without 

degradation, risk of health or safety, 

or other undesirable and unintended 

consequences. 

 Preserve important historic, cultural, 

and natural aspects of our national 

heritage and maintain, wherever 

possible, an environment that 

supports diversity and a variety of 

individual choices. 

 Achieve a balance between 

population and resource use that will 

permit high standards of living and a 

wide sharing of life’s amenities. 

 Enhance the quality of renewable 

resources and approach the 

maximum attainable recycling of 

depletable resources. 

A description of how each alternative would 

or would not achieve the requirements of 

sections 101 and 102(1) of the NEPA criteria 

is provided below and illustrated through a 

rating system in table 8. 

Criterion 1. Fort Pulaski National 

Monument is a unit of the national park 

system and as the trustee of this area the 

National Park Service would continue to 

fulfill its obligation to protect this area for 

future generations. The no-action alternative 

would provide less direction on important 

issues needed to successfully manage the 

monument; consequently it was ranked lower 

than the action alternatives. Alternatives B 

and C would provide a roughly equal level of 

protection for the monument over time. 

Criterion 2. All the alternatives would ensure 

safe, healthful, productive, and culturally 

pleasing surroundings for all Americans. 

Alternative B would provide the most 

pleasing surroundings by moving the existing 

parking area to a less visible location. 

Criterion 3. Alternative C would provide 

more opportunities for recreational use of 

monument resources than the other action 

alternatives, while still ensuring their future 

protection. Therefore, alternative C scores 

the highest under criteria 3.

Criterion 4. Alternative B provides the 

greatest opportunities for learning because it 

would restore more of the monument’s 

landscape to its historic condition than 

would the other alternatives. These 

restoration activities would also provide the 

greatest protection and enhancement of the 

monument’s cultural landscape. 

Criterion 5. All of the alternatives offer 

environmental protection benefits to society, 

but alternatives B and C would do so to a 

greater extent than alternative A. 

Criterion 6. All of the alternatives would 

result in enhancing the quality of the 

renewable resources through NPS 

management, but alternatives B and C would 

do so to a greater extent than alternative A. 
Alternatives and Actions Considered But Dismissed From Detailed Evaluation 

91 

The environmentally preferable alternative 

for the monument’s general management 

plan is alternative B (the preferred 

alternative). According to the ratings 

included in table 8, this alternative would 

surpass the other alternatives in realizing the 

full range of national environmental policy 

goals in section 101. In particular, the 

preferred alternative best responds to criteria 

2 (“ensure ... aesthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings for all Americans”) by 

moving the existing parking area to a less 

visible location and improving the views from 

the historic fort. 

TABLE 8. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

Criteria 

Alternatives 

A B C 

1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as 

trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations. 

4 5 5 

2. Ensure safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically 

and culturally pleasing surroundings for all Americans. 

3 5 4 

3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the 

environment without degradation, risk of health or 

safety, or other undesirable and unintended 

consequences. 

4 4 5 

4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural 

aspects of our national heritage and maintain, 

wherever possible, an environment that supports 

diversity and a variety of individual choices. 

3 5 4 

5. Achieve a balance between population and 

resource use that will permit high standards of living 

and a wide sharing of life’s amenities. 

4 5 5 

6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and 

approach the maximum attainable recycling of 

depletable resources. 

4 5 5 

Total Points* 22 29 28 

* Five points were given to the alternative if it fully meets the criterion; four points if it meets nearly all of 

the elements of the criterion; three points if it meets more than one element of the criterion; two points if 

it meets only one element of the criterion; and one point if the alternative does not meet the criterion. 

ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS 

CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM 

DETAILED EVALUATION 

During the planning process for Fort Pulaski 

National Monument, other alternative 

concepts and elements of concepts were 

presented and then dismissed from further 

consideration. 

Combination of Two Alternatives 

The planning team initially proposed two 

alternatives whose only difference was that in

one, the visitor parking lot would be removed 

from its current location and relocated to a 

location outside the view from the top of the 

fort. The resulting area would be restored 

partially to the conditions that existed during 

April 1862 in order to establish a more 

accurate representation of that scene. During 

the internal reviews of the Draft General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement the decision 

was made to combine these two alternatives 

into one because of their similarity. The 

resulting alternative is alternative B in the 

document. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

92 

Remove Fort Pulaski and 

Surrounding Structures from 

Floodplains 

Fort Pulaski National Monument is located 

within a 100-year floodplain, Zone VE, which 

has been mapped by the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency on a flood insurance 

rate map issued in 2004. Zone VE is described 

as having a 1% chance of flooding per year 

with an additional high wind velocity 

potential (FEMA 2004). No new structures 

were proposed to be constructed in the 100-

year floodplain under either of the action 

alternatives in the draft plan. However, the 

National Park Service proposes to retain in 

place all existing structures in the floodplain 

because it is not practicable to relocate them 

to a point outside the 100-year floodplain. In 

accordance with NPS policy, a floodplain 

statement of findings has been prepared that 

outlines in more detail the reasons for 

retaining these structures in place (see NPS

Management Policies2006, section 4.6.4). The 

floodplain statement of findings is attached 

to this document as appendix D. 

 

Construct an Observation Tower on 

Tybee Island 

The planning team considered construction 

of an observation tower on Tybee Island as 

an alternative to clearing a small section of 

trees on Cockspur Island to provide a view of 

the fort from Tybee Island that would give 

visitors to the exhibits at Battery Park some 

idea of the scene that federal troops manning 

the batteries on Tybee Island would have had 

in April 1862. This idea was dismissed as too 

controversial, costly, impractical, and 

potentially dangerous. 

Permit After-hours Vehicular Access 

to the Monument 

Early consideration was given to providing 

more after-hours access to the monument for 

bird watching, fishing, stargazing, nature 

study, etc. Fishing is now allowed along the 

banks of the Savannah River on and around 

Cockspur Island, including the use of the 

Cockspur Island Bridge after hours (the 

bridge is closed to vehicles). However, the 

team determined that to allow vehicles onto 

the island after hours would put both visitors 

and resources at risk due to lack of staff 

available on-site to respond to emergencies. 

SOUTH CHANNEL BRIDGE
AFFECTED 

ENVIRONMENT ©Rick Woods, Earthlight Photography

95 

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the existing 

environment of Fort Pulaski National 

Monument and the surrounding region. It 

focuses on the cultural and natural resources 

of the monument, visitor activities and 

experiences, facilities, and socioeconomic 

characteristics that have the potential to be 

affected if any of the alternatives were 

implemented. 

EARLY HISTORY 

Little archeological evidence provides insight 

into the early history of Cockspur Island, the 

site of Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

Nearby islands had American Indian 

residents during the Middle Woodland (500 

BC to AD 500) and Late Woodland (AD 500 

to 1100) periods. Not until the 1580s, when 

Spanish missions began to appear along the 

Georgia coast, does more specific 

documented history of Cockspur Island 

begin (Meader and Binkley 2003). 

By 1680, the Spanish had been pushed deeper 

into present-day Florida through raids by 

American Indians allied with English settlers 

to the north. This left the Georgia coast open 

to English colonization, which occurred with 

General James Oglethorpe’s landing in 1733. 

Originally called Peeper Island, Oglethorpe’s 

small fleet anchored on Cockspur Island 

before sailing to the future site of Savannah, 

Georgia, a set of bluffs overlooking the 

Savannah River 15 miles west (Meader and 

Binkley 2003). 

With the founding of Savannah, Cockspur 

Island was used by rum runners, shipping 

merchants, and blessed by John Wesley in 

1736. By 1761, construction of a timber fort 

had begun on Cockspur Island to protect 

Savannah from Spanish attacks out of St. 

Augustine, Florida, to the south. Fort George 

was built to guard against the Spanish, but 

became more useful for regulating shipping 

and pirates and for quarantining the 

infectious arrivals at the Port of Savannah. 

Fort George consisted of a 100-foot square 

palisade enclosing a 40-foot square 

blockhouse. The structure was in disrepair by 

the 1770s (Meader and Binkley 2003). 

The United States, as a new nation by 1794, 

authorized the construction of the “First 

American System of Fortifications.” As part 

of this program, construction began on 

Cockspur Island at an undocumented site to 

build a new defensive fort, named Fort 

Green. Fort Green was constructed of earth 

and timber and was used primarily as a 

quarantine station. Fort Green was 

demolished in a storm in 1804, killing half the 

inhabitants (Meader and Binkley 2003). 

19TH CENTURY HISTORY 

Congress authorized the “Second American 

System of Fortifications” in 1807 and with the 

guidance of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers began to design a new, stronger 

system of fortifications. The War of 1812 

provided an impetus to redesign the defense 

system further. The Third System of U.S. 

coastal defense was planned to provide 

greater coastal defense and use modern 

defensive technology. The defense plans 

would span four decades and erect masonry 

forts to defend strategic coastal locations 

throughout the United States. Cockspur 

Island was selected as the site for Fort Pulaski 

in 1828 (Meader and Binkley 2003). 

Construction of the red brick walls of Fort 

Pulaski officially began in 1833, but the years 

1829–1831 were notable for young Robert E. 

Lee’s assignment to Cockspur Island as an 

assistant engineer to Major Samuel Babcock. 

Lee performed excavation and foundation 

direction for 3 years before being transferred 

to Virginia (Meader and Binkley 2003). 

The construction phase of Fort Pulaski is 

marked by the creation of additional 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

96 

structures on Cockspur Island including the 

construction village on the north end of the 

island and a system of dikes and trenches to 

control the water over the low-lying island. A 

moat with a drawbridge and other strategic 

earthworks were also constructed around 

Fort Pulaski (Meader and Binkley 2003). 

The masonry fort used 25 million bricks. It 

was built with 32-foot-high walls, interior 

rooms, a large gun deck, and a demilune 

complete with a drawbridge over the moat. 

By 1847, Fort Pulaski was essentially 

completed (Meader and Binkley 2003). 

In 1848, the Cockspur Island Lighthouse was 

built on the southeast corner of the island on 

a strip of oyster shells and mud. The 

lighthouse was destroyed by a hurricane in 

1854 and a replacement lighthouse was built 

on the same foundation (Meader and Binkley 

2003). This lighthouse still stands in 2013. 

Soon after South Carolina’s secession from 

the Union in late 1860, Georgia Governor 

Joseph Brown garrisoned Fort Pulaski with 

the Georgia Volunteer Militia. Robert E. Lee 

returned to Fort Pulaski in November of 1861 

to oversee the strengthening of Confederate 

coastal defenses in Georgia, South Carolina, 

and Florida. Upon Lee’s return to Fort 

Pulaski, defensive improvements were made 

and arms were brought from Tybee Island in 

preparation for war. Federal troops took 

possession of nearby Tybee Island in 

response (Meader and Binkley 2003). 

On April 10, 1862, Fort Pulaski was 

bombarded by Union batteries on Tybee 

Island. The bombardment lasted only 30 

hours and brought about the surrender of 

Fort Pulaski to Union General Quincy Adams 

Gillmore. Gillmore’s rifled cannons breached 

Fort Pulaski’s southeast corner, and 

subsequently made the use of masonry forts 

obsolete as defense to modern weaponry 

(Meader and Binkley 2003). 

BREECH IN FORT PULASKI WALL APRIL 1862 

Under federal occupation Fort Pulaski was 

used as a prison camp and blockade station 

for the Savannah River. Another result of the 

federal occupation of Fort Pulaski was an 

influx of escaped slaves to the island seeking 

federal protection. Many of these former 

slaves became soldiers in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd

South Carolina Volunteers (Meader and 

Binkley 2003). 

 

POST-CIVIL WAR HISTORY 

After the Civil War, Fort Pulaski continued to 

serve as a prison for former Confederate 

officials and Union deserters. The fort’s 

damaged sections were repaired and 

upgrades to the demilune included 

earthwork mounds over gun emplacements 

and underground passageways. Despite the 

repairs, Fort Pulaski was almost deserted and 

placed on reserve in 1873 as attention was put 

toward the construction of Fort Screven on 

Tybee Island. An army caretaker was left to 

oversee Fort Pulaski until 1914 (Meader and 

Binkley 2003).
Post-Civil War History 

97 

By the turn of the 20th century, the North 

Channel Savannah River had become the 

primary shipping channel due to dredging 

and Fort Pulaski had been supplanted by Fort 

Screven on Tybee Island. Fort Pulaski was 

used as a control station for mining the North 

Channel Savannah River in 1895 at the 

outbreak of war in Cuba. Battery Horace 

Hambright was later built in 1898–1899 on 

the north shoreline of Cockspur Island for 

harbor protection during the SpanishAmerican War. Neither the mines nor the 

battery saw any military action (Meader and 

Binkley 2003). 

 

The Cockspur Island Lighthouse continued 

to operate, but most of the other structures 

on the island, including the construction 

village, were destroyed in a hurricane in 1881. 

The dike system was damaged as well during 

this storm prompting the construction of a 

lighthouse keeper’s cottage on the upper 

level, gorge terreplein, in 1906. A jetty was 

constructed on the northeast end of 

Cockspur Island attracting sediment and 

building up the island on the northeast side. 

In 1889, a wood frame elevated quarantine 

station was built on the northwest portion of 

Cockspur Island. This station continued to 

expand in buildings and acreage until after 

World War I when it was closed and the 

quarantine station moved to Savannah 

(Meader and Binkley 2003). The quarantine 

station attendant’s cottage was eventually 

adapted for a monument residence and in 

1999 was converted into the monument’s 

administrative headquarters. 

In 1933, the National Park Service acquired 

Fort Pulaski National Monument from the 

War Department, but years of prior neglect 

ensured that years of further effort were 

required to rehabilitate the fort and its 

grounds. The first steps in this process 

centered on monument development. 

Fortunately, several New Deal agencies, 

especially the Civil Works Administration, 

the Civilian Conservation Corps, and the 

Public Works Administration, were able to 

help Fort Pulaski achieve many of its early 

development goals (Meader and Binkley 

2003). 

In May 1934, the Department of the Treasury 

authorized the National Park Service to 

establish CCC Camp 460 on the northwest 

shore of Cockspur Island directly east of the 

old U.S. Public Health Service quarantine 

station. This location proved to be ideal 

because of its access to a first-class ship’s 

dock and short 15-minute walk to the fort. 

Extra buildings at the quarantine station, 

built at the end of World War I, provided 

quarters for enrollees (Meader and Binkley 

2003). 

In late 1941, the U.S. Navy established a 

section base on Cockspur Island for use by 

small coastal patrol ships. The Navy’s 

occupation of Fort Pulaski National 

Monument lasted the duration of World War 

II and ended in 1947. Moreover, when the 

Navy finally vacated Cockspur Island, it left 

behind many ramshackle buildings that NPS 

planners had to consider. By 1949, the 

National Park Service had drafted a plan that 

proposed to remove 57 buildings, many of 

them from the Navy occupation. However, to 

redevelop the residence and utility area as 

specified in the 1942 master plan, 8 buildings 

were to be retained and used for monument 

purposes: 3 residences, the fire pump house 

and firehouse, a transformer house, a small 

magazine, and a lumber shed. 

WORLD WAR II BUNKER FORT PULASKI

Official interaction between the U.S. Coast 

Guard and Fort Pulaski National Monument 

began in 1938 when the former obtained NPS 

permission to establish a wharf on Lazaretto 

Creek within the monument’s boundary. The 

wharf is between McQueens Island and 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

98 

Tybee Island, near the creek’s confluence 

with the South Channel Savannah River. The 

next major activity of the U.S. Coast Guard 

on Cockspur Island began on June 20, 1945, 

when the U.S. Navy transferred its Naval 

Receiving Station to the agency. The end of 

World War II created a sudden demand for 

the U.S. Coast Guard to obtain facilities to 

discharge demobilized personnel. The 

discharge center operated only until June 17, 

1946, at which time the U.S. Coast Guard 

vacated its Navy buildings (Meader and 

Binkley 2003). 

Although the U.S. Coast Guard discharge 

center closed and the Navy returned Fort 

Pulaski to the National Park Service in 1948, 

the U.S. Coast Guard sought to continue 

activities at the monument. In 1949, 

Superintendent Ralston Lattimore agreed to 

allow the U.S. Coast Guard to use the wharf 

built by the Navy on the north shore of 

Cockspur Island. The following year, the 

National Park Service issued a permit to the 

U.S. Coast Guard to use and maintain 350 

feet of the deep-water dock, followed by a 

long-term special use permit on September 

25, 1952. By January 1954, the U.S. Coast 

Guard further proposed to claim a large 

section of Cockspur Island’s residence and 

utility area to establish barracks and 

recreational facilities. The proposal lacked a 

strong defense purpose, however, and the 

National Park Service was thus successful in 

rejecting the application. A few years later, 

the U.S. Coast Guard renewed its attempt to 

expand operations on Cockspur Island. On 

November 17, 1965, the agency succeeded in 

establishing a search and rescue station. The 

National Park Service issued a special longterm use permit that allowed the U.S. Coast 

Guard to occupy a 400-foot by 450-foot tract 

of land on which permanent buildings, 

concrete-moorings, and communication 

equipment and antennas were constructed. 

In 1980, an interagency agreement between 

the National Park Service and the U.S. Coast 

Guard authorized administrative jurisdiction 

over an additional 1.85 acres of land for the 

search and rescue station as long as it did not 

jeopardize or interfere with the area’s natural 

and historic resources. In 1993, the U.S. 

Coast Guard reconstructed a 75-foot-tall 

steel aid-to-navigation structure destroyed in 

a recent storm and originally built in 1978. 

The U.S. Coast Guard continues these 

operations at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument to this day. Generally, the 

National Park Service views U.S. Coast 

Guard activities as compatible with 

monument policy (Meader and Binkley 

2003). 

The Savannah bar pilots and their collective, 

the Savannah Pilots Association, have roots 

that trace to the early days of the Colony of 

Georgia. Reportedly, William Lyford 

established a pilot house near Fort George on 

Cockspur Island in 1768. The State Board of 

Commissioners of Pilotage at the Port of 

Savannah currently regulates the bar pilots, 

who earn their keep by facilitating safe 

passage to and from the port through the 

difficult-to-navigate waters of the Savannah 

River. Individual ships or shipping companies 

pay the pilots for these services. Cockspur 

Island provides a convenient location for the 

Savannah Pilots Association dock and 

facilities because every commercial vessel 

entering or leaving the Savannah River must 

have a pilot on board (Meader and Binkley 

2003). 

In 1940, the Savannah Pilots Association 

moved their operations from Lazaretto Creek 

to the west end of Cockspur Island. At first, 

the group requested the use of quarters and 

the dock on the north channel of the island, 

but the NPS coordinating superintendent 

opposed their presence. He felt that they had 

no historical association with the monument. 

Superintendent Holland disagreed due to the 

relevance of the operation of the Savannah 

Harbor. The NPS acting director concurred 

with Holland and approved the proposal in 

October 1940. This decision was taken in 

light of the public service that would benefit 

the monument during weather emergencies 

and because it would receive immediate 

notice of advancing storms. Annual rent for 

the Savannah Pilots Association was set at $70 

(Meader and Binkley 2003). 
The National Monument and its Regional Context 

99 

The Savannah Pilots Association soon moved 

into a dormitory and two small buildings and 

occupied this facility under a special use 

permit that was renewed annually. This 

arrangement worked until the early 1970s, by 

which time the bar pilots’ buildings had 

deteriorated. In 1973, the National Park 

Service issued a 20-year special use permit to 

the Savannah Pilots Association to construct, 

maintain, and use living quarters, a dock, and 

fuel supply system, and a parking area on its 

.67-acre lot. With a long-term lease in place, 

the bar pilots completed renovations. The 

new dormitory they built stands at the 

location of the previous Savannah Pilots 

Association building. The National Park 

Service renewed the association’s special use 

permit in 1993 and again in 1998 (Meader 

and Binkley 2003). 

The Savannah bar pilots have had exclusive 

use of NPS land and improvements at Fort 

Pulaski National Monument since 1940 to 

operate a vessel piloting business. The 

National Park Service authorized the use by 

special use permit in 1940 and has issued, 

through Fort Pulaski, a series of permit 

renewals since that time. The last permit 

renewal expired on December 8, 2008. Based 

on research and a recent Office of Inspector 

General report, the legality of continuing to 

authorize the use by special use permit was 

then subject to question. The Savannah Pilots 

Association wished to continue operating 

their business out of Fort Pulaski. There were 

not at that time, and are not now, any other 

known locations that would allow the 

Savannah bar pilots to operate more 

efficiently because of the deep water 

accessibility and the distance to embarking 

and disembarking ships that enter and leave 

the Savannah Harbor. The bar pilots have 

been operating at the current location for 

more than 70 years with virtually no adverse 

impact on monument resources, visitor 

experience, or monument operations. On 

December 19, 2011, President Barack Obama 

approved Public Law 112-69 which 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

lease no more than 30,000 square feet of land 

and improvements at the location on 

Cockspur Island that has been used 

continuously by the Savannah Pilots 

Association since 1940. 

THE NATIONAL MONUMENT AND ITS 

REGIONAL CONTEXT 

Fort Pulaski National Monument 

encompasses large portions of Cockspur and 

McQueens islands in Chatham County, 

Georgia, approximately 13 miles east of 

Savannah. Cockspur Island sits at the mouth 

of the Savannah River, splitting the river into 

north and south channels that enter the 

Atlantic Ocean at the island’s eastern end. 

The city of Tybee Island and its popular 

beaches are about 5 miles east via U.S. 

Highway 80. 

Tybee Island, the location of federal batteries 

during the Battle of Fort Pulaski, is southeast 

of Cockspur Island across the South Channel 

Savannah River. McQueens Island, 5,000 

acres of salt marsh and part of Fort Pulaski 

National Monument, is south of Cockspur 

Island and connected by the South Channel 

Bridge. Lazaretto Creek separates McQueens 

Island from Tybee Island to the east. 

Fort Pulaski National Monument is 

regionally located adjacent to a state line, the 

North Channel Savannah River, politically 

separating Georgia and South Carolina near 

the mouth of the Savannah River on the 

Atlantic Coast. This location is easily 

accessible by Interstate 95 connecting Florida 

to Maine along the Atlantic Seaboard. 

Interstate 16 runs east-west and connects 

Savannah, Georgia, to Interstate 75 and 

Atlanta, Georgia, where major air, freight, 

and other interstate highways converge. Fort 

Pulaski National Monument is a day’s drive 

from central Florida, Alabama, Georgia, 

South Carolina, North Carolina, and parts of 

Virginia. Population centers in this region 

include Savannah, Macon, Atlanta, and 

Augusta in Georgia; Jacksonville, Orlando, 

Tampa, and Miami in Florida; Birmingham 

and Montgomery in Alabama; Charleston, 

Columbia, and Greenville in South Carolina; 

and Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Wilmington, 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

100 

Winston-Salem, and Greensboro in North 

Carolina. 

Fort Pulaski is sited at the eastern end of 

Cockspur Island and faces due east. The 

fort’s footprint encompasses 3.25 acres, 

surrounded on three sides by the broad 

waters of the Savannah River. The historic 2-

mile system of dikes and ditches encircles the 

fort and demilune. The boundaries of Fort 

Pulaski National Monument encompass 

5,623 acres of Cockspur Island and the 

majority of McQueens Island across the 

South Channel Savannah River. 

Cockspur Island is a low, marshy island. 

Much of it was formerly salt marsh, but 

centuries of draining, dredging, and filling 

have created dry land. Still, elevations seldom 

reach more than 6 or 7 feet above sea level 

and about half the island is inundated at high 

tide. Most of the high ground is located 

within the historic 2-mile dike system and in 

the area to the west of the fort and north of 

the service road, extending as far as the 

World War II bunkers. Much of the area 

south of the service road has never been filled 

and stays wet most of the time. There is a 

retention pond in this area.

Long Island, to the immediate west of 

Cockspur Island, has had a similar history of 

draining, dredging, and filling. Over the years, 

the two islands had become joined through 

this process. Late in 2007, a breach opened 

this connector between Cockspur and Long 

islands and has since widened, recreating two 

separate islands. 

The Cockspur Island Lighthouse was built in 

1854 and sits on an islet at the mouth of the 

South Channel Savannah River. The use of 

the lighthouse as a shoreline navigational 

guide was discontinued in 1949 with 

increased use of the North Channel 

Savannah River for shipping. It was 

transferred to National Park Service 

ownership from the U.S. Coast Guard in 

1959. Periodic attempts to organize a 

reconstruction effort after NPS ownership of 

the lighthouse have resulted in piecemeal 

maintenance. The Cockspur Island 

Lighthouse underwent major repairs and 

replication of its iron cap in 1999, but it 

continues to have maintenance problems due 

to its location on a periodically submerged 

island (Meader and Binkley 2003). 

The lighthouse foundation is threatened by 

years of erosion from storms and the active 

shipping channel that have lowered the 

height of the island and removed previous 

revetment, causing the island to be 

underwater at all times except low tide. 

A revetment is a facing of masonry or the like, 

especially for protecting an embankment. 

River or coastal revetments are usually built 

to preserve the existing uses of the shoreline 

(in this case, the foundation of the 

lighthouse) and to protect the slope, as 

defense against erosion. Removal of the 

revetment exposes the wooden platform that 

supports the masonry foundation to 

shipworm infestation that can compromise 

and eventually destroy the platform. 

This threat is current and loss could occur 

within a matter of years. An environmental 

assessment to evaluate the replacement of the 

historic revetment around the lighthouse was 

completed with the signing of the “Finding of 

No Significant Impact” on November 18, 

2009. The project is nearing completion and 

is expected to be completed by late winter 

2013. 

LAND ACQUISITION 

In 1935, the state of Georgia donated 297.39 

acres to Fort Pulaski National Monument, 

including the east end of Cockspur Island 

and portions of the abandoned right-of-way 

of the Central Georgia Railroad on 

McQueens Island. In 1936, Congress 

authorized a western boundary expansion to 

the U.S. Public Health Service quarantine 

station, currently adapted for monument 

administrative offices, and also authorized 

the Secretary of the Interior to accept 

donated land on McQueen and Tybee 

islands. This legislation permitted the 

construction of the South Channel Bridge 
Cultural Resources 

101 

and created a special reservation along the 

north shore of the island for the deposit of 

dredging materials by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. In 1939, the state of Georgia 

deeded to Fort Pulaski National Monument 

5,000 acres of marshland on McQueens 

Island from Lazaretto Creek to the Tybee 

River to St. Augustine Creek, increasing 

monument acreage to 5,623 acres. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Background 

This section describes the cultural resources 

within Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

Cultural resources include archeological 

resources, historic structures, cultural 

landscapes, and museum collections. Several 

archeological surveys and investigations have 

taken place at Fort Pulaski since the 1960s. 

These surveys have provided coverage of the 

monument, indicated the potential locations 

of archeological sites, and provided 

information on the range of cultural 

resources and the likelihood of finding any 

additional archeological or historical sites. 

Colonial Sites 

A comparison of the 1766 map of Cockspur 

Island to those prepared by Robert E. Lee in 

1830 and 1831 shows an island that had been 

reshaped considerably. The small hammock 

on which Fort George was built in 1761 had 

been reduced to a mud flat by 1830. It is still 

possible, however, that remains of the fort 

may be buried in the mud at the southeastern 

end of Cockspur Island now that the island 

has regained some of its former shape (NPS 

2006b). 

Although previous studies stated that Fort 

Greene, constructed from 1794 to 1795, was 

on or near the same location as Fort George, 

a letter recently found at the National 

Archives dated July 26, 1842, indicates that 

the location was near the North Channel Pier 

(NPS 2006b). 

If Fort Greene was in fact located in the 

northeastern portion of the construction 

village, remnants may remain buried beneath 

the ground surface between Battery Horace 

Hambright and the North Channel Pier (NPS 

2006b). 

Efforts in 1999 to locate the Lyford Pilot 

House on the easternmost hardwood 

hammock of Cockspur Island were 

unsuccessful. This site was probably washed 

away by the hurricane that destroyed Fort 

Greene in 1804. Comparing the 1758 and 

1766 maps prepared by Henry Yonge and 

William De Brahm with Lee’s 1830s maps 

shows that much of the southeastern portion 

of Cockspur Island was reduced to a mud flat 

(NPS 2006b). 

Archeological Resources 

Belowground Archeological Resources. 

Belowground resources associated with the 

construction of Fort Pulaski include remains 

of the construction village, roadways, and 

mortar batteries. Dredge spoil deposited on 

the north shore of the island by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers has covered the 

archeological remains associated with the 

northern portion of the construction village. 

Additionally, by comparing the route of the 

dike system as it appeared on the 1843 

Mansfield map with the route of the dike 

system today, it is likely that repairs to the 

dike system in the 1930s altered the original 

route in the area where the Laborers’ 

Quarters and the Blacksmith Shop stood and 

covered their remains (NPS 2006b). 

Linear arrangements of brick and stone that, 

judging from their placement and alignment, 

correspond with the original South Channel 

Pier built during the fort’s construction are 

visible on the island’s marsh flats. Thus, 

although the South Channel Pier was washed 

away long ago, archeological remains are still 

preserved in place and are considered to be in 

good condition (NPS 2006b). 

In August 2004, ground-penetrating radar 

scoping was performed in an open area west 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

102 

of the visitor center parking lot. It appears 

that remnants of the Storm House, a kitchen, 

and one of the Mechanics’ Quarters may be 

present below the ground surface (NPS 

2006b). 

In 1999, limited archeological investigations 

were conducted in the vicinity of the 

brickwork thought to be associated with the 

residence occupied by the ordnance sergeant 

in the 1880s. This area was labeled as an oven 

on a 1936 CCC map. Artifacts observed 

during the excavation seem to corroborate 

that a building was located here, but 

additional archeological investigations will be 

needed to confirm these findings (NPS 

2006b). 

Archeological Investigations. In October 

1994, the Southeast Archeological Center 

conducted a noninvasive remote sensing 

survey to search for the graves of the 

Confederate prisoners of war interred at Fort 

Pulaski. The most probable location for the 

cemetery based on historic records is north 

of the demilune and moat near the visitor 

parking area. However, the results of the 

survey were inconclusive. None of the 

anomalies recorded and subsequently 

excavated revealed evidence of the graves 

(NPS 2006b). 

During repairs to the northern portion of the 

main ditch for mosquito control by Chatham 

County’s maintenance staff in 1995, a Civil 

War refuse area was exposed. A team from 

the Southeast Archeological Center 

examined the exposed refuse area, which was 

interpreted as a dump used by Union forces 

while making repairs to the fort in 1862. This 

interpretation was based on the location of 

the refuse area and the presence of complete 

bottles rather than bottle fragments. The 

presence of whole Civil War bottles helped 

rule out the possibility that the refuse area 

was the result of CCC activities from the 

1930s (NPS 2006b). 

In 1997, the Southeast Archeological Center 

conducted a survey of the dikes prior to 

rehabilitation to determine the original size, 

shape, and methods employed during 

construction of the dike in the 1830s. Two 

locations were chosen based on historic 

documentation that indicated they may not 

have been repaired over the years. Clearly 

visible in all profiles was a thin layer of oyster 

shell probably added to the top of the original 

dike during the CCC reconstruction. The soil 

used in the original construction and the 

original ground surface were found below 

this layer of oyster shell. The second location 

also showed evidence of repairs made by Fort 

Pulaski maintenance crews in the past 50 

years (NPS 2006b). 

Extensive excavations of the cemetery 

occurred in 1999, leading to the complete 

delineation of its boundaries. Thirty-seven 

separate burials were identified. Of these, 19 

to 21 lie in the general area of the 

documented Confederate section. Based on 

archival research and the 1999 excavations, it 

is felt that most of the Union troops who died 

during the Civil War were exhumed, and 

their cemetery plots were reused by civilians 

and post-Civil War military personnel (NPS 

2006b). In addition to the 37 burials, 5 areas 

of disturbance were identified. These 

disturbances probably had an impact on 

surrounding burials (NPS 2006b). 

In 1999, 80 shovel tests in the assumed 

vicinity of Fort George, Fort Greene, and the 

Lyford Pilot House failed to yield any 

positive proof of their location. Historic 

documentation indicates that the search for 

these particular sites should focus on the mud 

flats at the southeastern end of Cockspur 

Island for Fort George and the area around 

the North Channel Pier for Fort Greene. It 

seems unlikely that enough remains of the 

Lyford Pilot House to warrant further 

archeological investigation (NPS 2006b). 

In June 2008 an archeological assessment of 

the foundation of the Cockspur Island 

Lighthouse was performed by archeologist R. 

Steven Kidd of the Southeast Archeological 

Center of the National Park Service. The 

assessment was performed prior to an 

emergency stabilization project on the 

foundation of the lighthouse due to severe 

infestation by marine borers and resulting 
Cultural Resources 

103 

damage to the wooden timbers that comprise 

the base of the lighthouse foundation. 

Desired results of the assessment included 

recording the construction methods and 

materials used in the lighthouse foundation 

and the collection and preservation of any 

artifacts located during the project. The 

assessment successfully documented the 

foundational supports for the lighthouse and 

recorded the effects of marine borer damage 

on the supports. Very few artifacts were 

observed or recovered during the project. 

However there were a few glass and metal 

items (including a largely intact brass key) 

recovered that were associated with the 

operation of the lighthouse (NPS 2008a). 

Other Archeological Resources. In addition 

to Fort Pulaski’s list of classified structures, 

NPS Archeologist Guy Prentice in 2005 

identified a number of sites that should 

receive investigation. Potentially, remains of 

Fort Greene could be located under mud 

near Battery Horace Hambright along the 

north shore of Cockspur Island. An 

additional unidentified structure, possibly a 

barge, has been located protruding from the 

mud on the eastern end of Cockspur Island. 

Though not currently on NPS property, 

Prentice emphasizes the various World War 

II era military structures on the western end 

of Cockspur Island as archeologically or 

historically valuable should the National Park 

Service gain control of the property. 

The Tybee Knoll Lighthouse was built in 

1879 on the western side of the island 

overlooking the South Channel Savannah 

River. Later, a boat house and keeper’s house 

were constructed on the southwestern face of 

the island near the lighthouse, followed by a 

wharf in 1888 and an oil storage shed in 1893. 

The lighthouse was operated in conjunction 

with the Cockspur Island Lighthouse by the 

U.S. Lighthouse Service until the early 20th 

century (Meader and Binkley 2003). The only 

extant structure is the brick oil storage shed. 

The keeper’s house chimney foundation 

remains above ground. The site is not open to 

the public and is overgrown (NPS 2009a). 

Climate change may impact archeological 

sites in Fort Pulaski National Monument if 

more erosion occurs because of increased 

storm frequency and intensity or sea level 

rise. As archeological and historic resources 

become submerged or compromised because 

of climate change, they become unavailable 

for archeological research, artifact recovery, 

and visitor enjoyment. 

Museum Collections 

Fort Pulaski National Monument has an 

extensive museum collection with the 

majority of the collection housed on-site. A 

modern super insulated storage facility 

consisting of a “Bally” building built into one 

of Fort Pulaski’s casemates with an attached 

heat pump is used to regulate the temperature 

and humidity of stored museum pieces. 

TYBEE KNOLL OIL SHED SIDE VIEW

Dehumidifiers and ceiling fans are 

additionally used to regulate humidity in 

areas of Fort Pulaski containing artifacts not 

stored in the Bally building. The current 

Collection Management Plan for Fort Pulaski 

National Monument was completed in 1995 

and provides details on more extensive 

collection management measures (NPS 

1995a). 

Currently the museum collection at Fort 

Pulaski National Monument includes 35,979 

archeological, historical, and archival objects. 

The archeology collection includes 1,791 

objects. A history section comprises 580 

objects. The archival collection contains 

33,600 items. The Southeast Archeological 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

104 

Center manages 1 archeological item and 10 

archival items for Fort Pulaski National 

Monument (NPD 1995). 

Under the approved Southeast Region 

Museum Collection Curatorial Facility Plan – 

May 2006, Fort Pulaski’s museum collections 

will be collocated with the collections of Fort 

Frederica and Ocmulgee national 

monuments in Macon, Georgia, in a facility 

associated with Ocmulgee (new, rented, or 

revamped existing facility—the details of the 

facility and the operations have not been 

developed). This will allow the Bally building 

to be removed from the fort and the 

collections stored away from the coast to 

mitigate damage from sea level rise and other 

effects of climate change, including potential 

natural disasters such as hurricanes. 

Historic Structures 

This evaluation of historic structures is taken 

from Fort Pulaski’s list of classified 

structures. The list is an evaluated inventory 

of all historic and prehistoric structures 

within the monument boundary that have 

historical, architectural, and/or engineering 

significance. The list is evaluated or 

“classified” by the National Register of 

Historic Places criteria. Structures are 

constructed works that serve some form of 

human activity and are generally immovable. 

They include buildings and monuments, 

dams, millraces and canals, nautical vessels, 

bridges, tunnels and roads, railroad 

locomotives, rolling stock and track, 

stockades and fences, defensive works, 

temple mounds and kivas (ceremonial 

structures that are usually round and partially 

underground), ruins of all structural types 

that still have integrity as structures, and 

outdoor sculpture. Table 9, sorted by 

significance level, lists the various structures.

FORT PULASKI SOUTHWEST ANGLE
Cultural Resources 

105 

TABLE 9. LIST OF CLASSIFIED STRUCTURES

Catalog Number Name Significance Level 

HS-09 Dike Contributing 

HS-10 Canal Lock Contributing 

HS-11 Feeder Canal Contributing 

HS-2A1 Cistern No. 5 (Ruin) Contributing 

HS-2A2 Cistern No. 4 Contributing 

HS-2A4 Cistern No. 1 Contributing 

HS-2A6 Cistern No. 2 Contributing 

HS-2A7 Cistern No. 3 Contributing 

HS2B3 Cistern No. 6 Contributing 

HS2B5 Stones from Cistern (ruin) Contributing 

HS-03 North Channel Pier (Ruin) Local 

HS-06 Residence Local 

HS-2A3 Brick Foundation Ruin at Cistern No. 4 Local 

HS-2A5 Brick Foundation Ruin at Cistern No. 3 Local 

HS2B4 Cistern No. 7 Local 

HS-01 Fort Pulaski National 

HS-07 Moat National 

HS-08 Demilune National 

CS-01 John Wesley Memorial Not Significant 

HS-13 Lieutenant Robert Rowan Grave Stone Not Significant 

HS-14 Sellmer, Charles Howard, Grave Marker Not Significant 

HS-04 Cockspur Island Lighthouse State 

HS-05 Battery Horace Hambright State 

Dike. The dike, which allowed the island to 

be drained, was essential to the construction 

of Fort Pulaski. This historic engineering 

structure is directly associated with Robert E. 

Lee, who designed it. The dike is an earthen 

structure approximately 4–5 feet above grade 

with an irregular circumference of 2 miles. 

Canal Lock. The canal lock controls water 

flow between the moat and the feeder canal 

and kept tidal flooding out. This is also part 

of the water control system designed by 

Robert E. Lee. Water from the canal enters 

this arched brick tunnel, containing a tide 

gate, just before it enters the moat. The 

tunnel is flanked by brick retaining walls; the 

dimensions are 51 feet by 77 feet. A metal 

valve handle that controls the gate lies just 

north. 

Feeder Canal. The feeder canal is an 

engineering structure that provides water to 

the fort’s moat and is part of the water 

control system designed by Robert E. Lee. 

The canal is approximately 2,000 feet long 

and runs south from the moat to the South 

Channel Savannah River. The canal banks are 

earthen except near the moat, where there 

are brick retaining walls. 

Cistern No. 5 (Ruin). This cistern, one of 

several that supplied water to laborers living 

on-site during the construction of Fort 

Pulaski, is significant as an example of early 

19th century utilitarian structure. These are 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

106 

the remains of a 15-foot-diameter round 

cistern. Visible on the ground surface are 

pieces of the stone cistern cover. 

Cistern No. 4. This cistern, associated with 

the post-construction history of Fort Pulaski, 

is significant as a 19th century utilitarian 

structure. The 14.67-foot-diameter brick 

cistern has been filled with sand. No trace of 

cistern cover is visible. 

Cistern No. 1. This cistern, one of several 

that supplied water to laborers living on-site 

during the construction of Fort Pulaski, is 

significant as an example of early 19th 

century utilitarian structure. The structure is 

a 9-foot-diameter circular brick cistern with a 

cement coating on the brick and a sandstone 

cap. The cistern rises approximately 4 feet 

above grade. 

Cistern No. 2. This cistern, one of several 

that supplied water to laborers living on-site 

during the construction of Fort Pulaski, is 

significant as an example of early 19th 

century utilitarian structure. The structure is 

a circular brick cistern 9 feet in diameter with 

a sandstone cap. The cistern rises 

approximately 3 feet above grade, is filled 

with sand, and exhibits the remains of a 

cement coating over the brick. 

Cistern No. 3. This cistern, one of several 

that supplied water to laborers living on-site 

during the construction of Fort Pulaski, is 

significant as an example of early 19th 

century utilitarian structure. The structure is 

a circular brick cistern, 13 feet in diameter, 

with a smaller, square opening set into the 

top. Portions of the stone cap remain along 

with remnants of a cement coating on the 

brick. 

Cistern No. 6. This cistern, one of several 

that supplied water to laborers living on-site 

during the construction of Fort Pulaski, is 

locally significant as an example of early 19th 

century utility structure. The structure is a 

large brick, stone, and mortar cistern 

approximately 12 feet in diameter and 2 feet 

high. The cistern head is a rectangular brick 

box (5 feet by 5 feet) with a 3-foot square 

opening. 

Stones from Cistern (Ruin). Apparently 

pieces of the cover of a cistern. 

North Channel Pier (Ruin). This was the 

first structure built in association with Fort 

Pulaski and was the receiving point for 

materials used in the fort’s construction. The 

ruins consist of approximately 20 feet by 10 

feet of a 200-foot-long, L-shaped granite pier. 

Portions of the side walls, with some iron 

hardware, end in the remains of a tabby end 

wall. Granite pavers that once supported iron 

tracks for cannon carriages at the fort have 

been relocated to the end of the pier. 

Residence. The residence is locally 

significant for architecture and its association 

with the U.S. Public Health Service 

quarantine station on Cockspur Island. 

Remodeled and used by the Navy as officer’s 

quarters during World War II, the interior 

contains many historic features and materials 

from that period. In 1998, the building 

underwent numerous alterations that 

together gave the building a new appearance. 

These included the addition of double-hung 

windows to part of the porch and 

construction of a wide, straight flight of stairs 

to the east porch that never existed during 

the historic period. In addition, the exterior 

siding and porthole windows installed by the 

Navy to enclose the elevated foundation were 

removed and replaced with plywood and 

lattice, another feature that was never present 

during the historic period. The structure has 

been adapted for monument headquarters 

offices, which is its current use. 

Brick Foundation Ruin at Cistern No. 4. 

This ruin, associated with a cistern for 

workers on Fort Pulaski, is significant as an 

example of an early 19th century utilitarian 

structure. The ruin is a rectangular brick 

platform 51 inches by 63 inches and rising 

approximately 12 inches above grade. 

Brick Foundation Ruin at Cistern No. 3. 

This ruin, which is associated with a cistern 

that supplied water to the construction 
Cultural Resources 

107 

village during the construction of Fort 

Pulaski, is significant as an early 19th century 

example of a utilitarian structure. The 

structure is a rectangular brick platform (85 

inches by 76 inches) rising 24 inches above 

grade at its highest point and filled with sand. 

It may have supported a pump or other 

equipment associated with the cistern. 

Cistern No. 7. This cistern, one of several 

that supplied water to the laborers who lived 

on-site during the construction of Fort 

Pulaski, is locally significant as an intact 

example of a 19th century utility structure. 

The structure is a large stone, brick, and 

mortar cistern with pedestal and head. The 

pedestal is composed of large stones and is 

approximately 5 feet by 10 feet. The cistern 

head is an open, rectangular box made of 

mortared brick and measures approximately 

4 feet by 3 feet and 1 foot high. 

Fort Pulaski. Fort Pulaski was a pivotal link 

in the Third System of U.S. coastal defense. 

The fort’s reduction by new rifled artillery 

during the Civil War in April 1862 ended the 

era of impregnable masonry forts. The 

completed two tier structure is an irregular 

pentagon that faces east. The circumference 

of the fort is 1,508 feet with sides of 

approximately 350 feet surrounded by a wet 

moat. The walls are 32 feet high and 7 feet to 

11 feet thick. The fort contains 64 vaulted 

casemates and 54 gun mounts on the 

terreplein. The fort includes two powder 

magazines and a parade ground about the size 

of a football field. Local brownish “Savannah 

Gray” brick is found in the lower walls. The 

rose red brick is from Baltimore, Maryland, 

and Alexandria, Virginia. The latter is harder 

than the “Savannah Grays” so is used in the 

arches and embrasures. 

Moat. The wet moat was part of the original 

system of fortifications at Fort Pulaski. The 

moat is 32 feet to 48 feet wide and 7 feet deep 

surrounding Fort Pulaski and its demilune. 

The moat walls are brick. 

Demilune. Part of the original system of 

fortifications at Fort Pulaski, the demilune 

was substantially redesigned in 1872 from a 

flat walled ground to a system of earthen 

mounds containing magazines. The triangular 

demilune consists of a network of four 

magazines, gun emplacements, and 

connecting passages with oyster shellimbedded concrete walls protected by the 

earthen mounds. 

John Wesley Memorial. The memorial 

marks the traditional site of the first 

American religious service conducted by 

John Wesley, founder of Methodism. It was 

erected by the National Society of the 

Colonial Dames of America in the State of 

Georgia, an important historic preservation 

group. The memorial is a 15-foot-high square 

column with a limestone base, a brick shaft in 

Flemish bond, and a limestone cap 

surmounted by a limestone cross, all set on a 

square of slate tiles. The base, cap, and a 

limestone plaque on the shaft carry 

inscriptions. 

Lieutenant Robert Rowan Grave Stone. 

This is the grave of an officer stationed at 

Fort Greene, an early 19th century fort on an 

island that is no longer extant. The marker 

was moved from the site of Fort Greene to its 

present location. The marker consists of a 

marble monument (18 inches wide by 26 

inches high) with an inscription and a cut top. 

Sellmer, Charles Howard, Grave Marker. 

This is the grave of the infant son of 

Lieutenant Charles Sellmer and Marion 

Sellmer, stationed at Fort Pulaski in 1872. 

The grave has no significant association with 

the history of Fort Pulaski. The marker 

consists of a marble monument (10 inches 

wide by 2 inches deep by 24 inches high) with 

an inscription. 

Cockspur Island Lighthouse. The Cockspur 

Island Lighthouse sits on an islet at the mouth 

of the South Channel Savannah River. It is 

significant for its association with an era of 

coastal navigation and its embodiment of a 

specialized architectural type. The structure 

originally housed a whale oil lamp; it was 

converted to a harbor beacon in 1909. Its use 

was discontinued in 1949. The lighthouse is a 

tapered brick tube, 16 feet in diameter and 46 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

108 

feet high, with corbelled brick cornice. There 

is an exterior brick stair fanlight door at the 

first landing. An interior spiral brick stair 

leads to the second landing. A wooden stair 

leads to the third landing, which supports the 

iron lantern house. The lighthouse 

foundation is threatened by years of erosion 

from storms and the active shipping channel 

that have lowered the height of the island and 

removed previous revetment causing the 

island to be underwater at all times except 

low tide. This exposes the wooden platform 

that supports the masonry foundation to 

shipworm infestation that can compromise 

and eventually destroy the platform. This 

threat is current and loss could occur within a 

matter of years. 

Battery Horace Hambright. This 1895 

battery was part of the Endicott or Fourth 

Seacoast Defense System and was manned 

during the Spanish-American War. Named 

for Lt. Horace Hambright, it is representative 

of U.S. defensive architecture of the period. 

The battery is a steel-reinforced concrete 

structure with overall dimensions of 100 feet 

by 50 feet by 15 feet high. At ground level are 

three magazines with two gun emplacements 

above. The battery’s north face is covered by 

a grassed earth berm. 

Fort Pulaski itself and other historic 

structures on Cockspur Island at Fort Pulaski 

National Monument may be vulnerable to 

increased severe weather that is anticipated 

in the future due to climate change (Loehman 

and Anderson 2009). Sea level rise and an 

expected increase in severe weather and 

precipitation may increase the rate of erosion 

around the Cockspur Island Lighthouse and 

may threaten the historic cottage which has 

served as a quarantine station, 

superintendent’s residence, and the current 

monument headquarters. Coastal 

fortifications may also be vulnerable to 

damage from changes in the freeze/thaw 

cycle that can affect the fabric of the 

structures and their foundations. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Although no formal ethnographic overview 

and assessment or other major 

ethnographical research has been 

accomplished for Fort Pulaski National 

Monument, research by Dr. Charles J. 

Elmore (Elmore 2002) and other records 

demonstrate that there are traditional 

attachments and connections between the 

African American community in the 

Savannah, Georgia, area and Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. These connections 

include the use of slaves in the construction 

of the fort, General David Hunter’s 

emancipation proclamation, the use of the 

fort as a stop on the Underground Railroad, 

and the use of the fort as a haven for freed 

and escaped slaves subsequent to the capture 

of Fort Pulaski by Union forces in April 1862. 

Many black men were employed as boatmen, 

carpenters, and general laborers at Fort 

Pulaski in the years immediately after the 

Confederate surrender of the fort. Finally, 

the story of the “Immortal Six Hundred” 

resonates today among those whose 

ancestors fought on the side of the 

Confederacy and those who continue to 

study and work in the area of prisoners of 

war. 

Cultural Landscapes 

The area defined by the Cockspur Island 

Historic District is the site of Fort Pulaski, 

whose massive brick walls, backed by heavy 

piers, and casemated rooms reflected the 

continuing search for security against 

increasingly large caliber smoothbore cannon 

of the period. The best military engineering 

principles and the finest joinery and masonry 

techniques of the day were used in its 

construction (NPS 2009a). 

The overarching treatment associated with 

the historic landscape is preservation of all 

identified resources. Restoration has been 

applied to a select number of features, 

primarily the restoration of the open 

character of the landscape to more accurately 

reflect the conditions at the time of the April 
National Park Service Management of Fort Pulaski National Monument 

109 

1862 battle and to provide the visitor with a 

greater understanding of the siege and 

reduction of Fort Pulaski (NPS 2009a). 

Specific aspects of the cultural landscape 

described in the 2009 Fort Pulaski National 

Monument Cultural Landscape Report include 

the following: 

 views to the North and South 

Channels Savannah River and Battery 

Park 

 Fort Pulaski and the demilune 

 open character of the fort parade 

ground 

 mature fig and pecan trees in the 

parade ground 

 mature trees growing up around the 

fort 

 restored elevation of the historic dike 

and ditch system 

 historic configuration of the dike and 

ditch system 

 brick-faced tide gates 

 historic ditches containing 18 inches 

of water at all times 

 Spanish-American War Battery 

Horace Hambright 

 Cockspur Island Lighthouse 

 archeological remains of the 

construction village 

 cisterns, the only intact aboveground 

resources remaining of the 

construction village 

 Quarantine Attendant’s Quarters 

 stabilized North Channel Pier 

 1938 South Channel Bridge 

 current configuration of the 1938 

parking area 

 cemetery headstones 

 cemetery’s boundaries as delineated 

in 1999 archeological investigations 

 North Channel Pier Trail 

 CCC era maintenance building 

 World War II batteries 

 John Wesley Memorial 

 brick oil storage shed at the Tybee 

Knoll Lighthouse complex 

 undetermined site of Fort Greene 

 undetermined site of Fort George 

Climate change, especially sea level rise and 

increased numbers and intensity of storms, 

may affect any or all of the previously listed 

cultural landscape elements within the 

boundaries of Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. These elements represent 

connections between people and the land. 

Sea level rise, increased storm intensity or 

frequency, and increased air and water 

temperature may damage natural or cultural 

resources in these locations, compromising 

the cultural landscapes as a whole. Resilience 

of these landscapes may depend on their 

ability to withstand both gradual and extreme 

weather variations. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

MANAGEMENT OF FORT PULASKI 

NATIONAL MONUMENT 

The first effort to convert Fort Pulaski from a 

surplus military property to a monument 

occurred in 1917 with the allocation of $500 

from the United States War Department. 

Colonel John Millis, District Engineer of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Savannah, 

conferred with Thomas Purse, the Savannah 

Board of Trade secretary, about making the 

old fort more visible to visitors coming to the 

fort by boat. Fort Pulaski was under the 

management of a single unpaid caretaker 

until 1921 and little maintenance or grounds 

clearing had been attempted for many years. 

Views of Fort Pulaski from the river channels 

were difficult and Colonel Millis wished to 

give visitors a better view. With the $500, 

vegetation was cut back along the ridge 

surrounding the fort. Better views of the fort 

prompted more interest in the site as a 

monument. By 1918, Fort Pulaski was 

featured in Town and Country magazine and 

Colonel Millis asked for a complete 

restoration of the fort and grounds. 

Continued interest and funding brought 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

110 

about the creation of Fort Pulaski National 

Monument in 1924 with the support of the 

City of Savannah and Representative Charles 

Edwards of the 1st District of Georgia 

(Meader and Binkley 2003). 

Rep. Edwards pursued additional funding for 

the complete restoration of Fort Pulaski and 

the surrounding grounds without success. 

The new national monument was minimally 

maintained and under jurisdiction of the War 

Department until 1932 with President 

Franklin Roosevelt’s signing of Executive 

Order 6166. Like other War and Agriculture 

department parks and monuments, Fort 

Pulaski was placed under the jurisdiction of 

the National Park Service (Meader and 

Binkley 2003). 

Restoration work on Fort Pulaski began in 

1933 with a Civil Works Administration crew 

of 212 men. These men cleared vegetation 

from around the fort, conducted an 

engineering survey, and constructed a small 

ferry landing on the South Channel Savannah 

River. In 1934, both CCC Camp 460 and 

Public Works Administration assistance 

began service at Fort Pulaski. Throughout the 

remainder of the 1930s large-scale 

restoration work was performed to prepare 

Fort Pulaski for greater and more accessible 

visitation. The dike and moat system were 

restored, woodwork and roofing were 

repaired, trails were carved out of the brush, 

restrooms were built into the casemates, 

electricity was connected, and the South 

Channel Bridge was built connecting Fort 

Pulaski to McQueens Island and the 

mainland (Meader and Binkley 2003). 

Fort Pulaski was ignored during World War 

II while under supervision of the U.S. Navy. 

During this period little maintenance was 

done and the fort and grounds began to look 

neglected. A strong hurricane additionally 

damaged the dike system in 1947. Not until 

the 1960s with the opening of a modern 

visitor center did Fort Pulaski again receive 

attention. The visitor center opened after 

several delays in 1964 and included 

additional grounds maintenance around the 

fort to welcome visitors. Under this period of 

NPS Mission 66 guidance the dikes and 

drainage system were repaired and various 

aspects of Fort Pulaski’s masonry structure 

were repointed and restored. Modern 

upgrades such as asphalt roads and air 

conditioning were installed around the fort 

for visitor comfort (Meader and Binkley 

2003). 

After the 1960s, attention at Fort Pulaski 

focused on smaller maintenance and historic 

enhancement projects. The asphalt roads 

were replaced with a pebble aggregate, power 

lines were removed from the sight lines along 

U.S. Highway 80, and a museum storage 

facility was constructed inside one of Fort 

Pulaski’s casemates. The South Channel 

Bridge has also undergone repair for safety 

and visitor access several times since its 

construction (Meader and Binkley 2003). In 

2008 additional repairs to the bridge supports 

and surface were made to increase its life and 

improve safety. 

 

OTHER INFLUENCES ON COCKSPUR 

ISLAND 

Cockspur Island has been used by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, United States 

Navy, Savannah Pilots Association, and the 

U.S. Coast Guard at various times throughout 

the modern history of Cockspur Island. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has 

performed dredging operations in the 

Savannah River since the 19th century. 

Dredge spoils have been deposited on the 

northwest shore of Cockspur Island 

enlarging the island and filling the salt marsh. 

Dredge spoils and the addition of a jetty to 

the north shoreline of Cockspur Island have 

caused extensive buildup of land along the 

north side of Cockspur Island. The buildup 

was so extensive after the jetty’s construction 

that Cockspur Island connected with Long 

Island to the west (Meader and Binkley 

2003). 

In 1936, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

received legal access to dump dredge spoil 

and use 200 feet of the north shoreline of 
Natural Resources 

111 

Cockspur Island under the Boundary 

Extension Act of 1936. Deposition of dredge 

spoil damaged wetlands, the historic dike 

system, and historic structures, forming a rift 

between the National Park Service and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. By 1967, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agreed to 

deposit dredge spoil on Oyster Bed Island 

across the North Channel Savannah River 

from Cockspur Island, but did not give up 

official rights to use Cockspur Island 

(Meader and Binkley 2003). 

In the 1970s, the Georgia Ports Authority 

attempted to use Cockspur Island to access a 

floating transfer dock for oceangoing vessels. 

The project was not completed due to storm 

damage but shoreline stabilization was 

performed and an opportunity to remove the 

Savannah Pilots Association buildings from 

Cockspur Island did not materialize (Meader 

and Binkley 2003). 

The Savannah Pilots Association has 

occupied a site on the north shoreline of 

Cockspur Island since 1940. The special use 

permit, under which this occupation had 

been continuing, was determined to be 

lacking in legal foundation by department 

attorneys. To resolve the situation the 

Georgia congressional delegation introduced 

legislation to authorize a noncompetitive 

lease between the National Park Service and 

the Savannah Pilots Association. This 

proposed legislation became law on 

December 19, 2011, when President Barack 

Obama signed it. The act authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to lease no more 

than 30,000 square feet of land and 

improvements at the location on Cockspur 

Island that has been used continuously by the 

Savannah Bar Pilots Association since 1940. 

In 1996, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

formally lost its right to use the north 

shoreline of Cockspur Island to dump dredge 

spoil and other activities. However, 

continued dredging and other provisions for 

the access of larger ships into the Port of 

Savannah present environmental concerns to 

Cockspur Island and Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. Dredging can have potentially 

degrading resource effects on Cockspur 

Island by altering Savannah River flow and 

unpredictably impacting shorelines and flood 

zones (Meader and Binkley 2003). 

The U.S. Coast Guard maintains Station 

Tybee on the northwestern end of Cockspur 

Island. This site was previously used by the 

U.S. Navy during World War II and remained 

vacant until a military use was found. The 

U.S. Coast Guard employs 28 personnel at 

Station Tybee along with a wharf for docking 

a U.S. Coast Guard Cutter. Station Tybee is 

closed to the public. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Climate 

Fort Pulaski National Monument is located 

in U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Climate Zone 8 in the Georgia coastal plain. 

The Zone 8 climate forms a belt along the 

coastal plain of the southeastern United 

States. This belt stretches from Virginia south 

into Georgia and west into Texas. Coastal 

plain temperatures range from the high 90s to 

the low 20s degrees Fahrenheit (Florida State 

University 2009). 

Fort Pulaski, located on an island and 

separated from the Atlantic Ocean by other 

barrier islands, has less range in temperature 

than inland parts of the Georgia coastal plain. 

Typical summer temperatures have highs in 

the 90s and lows in the 70s in degrees 

Fahrenheit. Normal winter temperatures 

range from the 40s to the 60s in degrees 

Fahrenheit. Freezing temperatures in winter 

are uncommon, but do occur. The USDA 

rates the temperature of Cockspur Island in 

terms of plant hardiness in the 8b category. 

The 8b category describes winter lows no 

lower than 15 degrees Fahrenheit (Cathey 

1990). Fall and spring temperatures range 

greatly between the summer and winter 

ranges. 

The geographic location of Fort Pulaski on 

Cockspur and McQueens Island is 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

112 

susceptible to severe storms and hurricanes 

coming off the Atlantic Ocean. Hurricanes 

are not a frequent occurrence, but 

approximately every 4 years hurricanes 

significantly affect the weather conditions 

and approximately every 10 years a more 

direct hurricane hit is not uncommon. 

Intense wind and rain storms are frequent 

and sudden, occurring throughout the year 

(HurricaneCity.com 2009). 

Precipitation is spread relatively evenly 

throughout the year at Fort Pulaski with an 

average total of 49.58 inches. The heaviest 

precipitation in the form of rain occurs in the 

late summer months with an average of 7.20 

inches in the month of August. 

Soils and Geologic Resources 

All the soils identified within Fort Pulaski 

National Monument are dominated by sandy 

soils of the Capers series and the Tidal 

Marsh, Salty category. These soils occur in 

very poorly drained tidal marshes that have a 

clay-rich underlying layer. A third soil type 

on Cockspur Island, Made Land, is primarily 

the result of dredging and filling. 

The Capers series soils consist of very poorly 

drained soils of the tidal marsh flats. The soils 

are flooded when tides are higher than 

normal. 

Tidal Marsh, Salty series soils are covered 

daily by normal high tides and support 

indigenous salt-tolerant grasses. Within the 

estuaries, many tidal streams of varying size 

often dissect the marshland. Soils may be 

redistributed and/or relocated by strong tidal 

currents and shifting stream channels. Some 

areas are very unstable and do not support 

the weight of large animals. 

Made Land consists of built-up areas that 

were formerly marshland. Generally, dredged 

materials from the coastal streams were 

added to low-lying areas. This occurred 

mainly along the Savannah River shipping 

channel. On Cockspur Island, some of the 

dredged materials are confined by dikes. 

Climate change may impact geological 

resources and soils in the national monument 

as a result of increased storm intensity and 

duration. These predicted changes are 

expected to result in shoreline erosion, 

flooding, and inundation (Loehman and 

Anderson 2009). 

Plant Communities and Vegetation 

Cockspur Island, the location of Fort Pulaski, 

was originally grassland subject to periodic 

burning before the 20th century. As a result 

of dredge spoilage from the Savannah River, 

Cockspur Island has enlarged its land area, 

and in 2009 includes maritime forest, 

grassland, and woody shrub thicket (Govus 

1998). 

Much of the vegetation that had grown up 

immediately around the fort was removed in 

the 1970s and the monument has been 

managed as grasslands since. A number of red 

cedars, palmettos, and sugarberry trees 

remain in the diked area surrounding the 

fort. Around the visitor center, junipers and 

palmettos have been planted in mulched beds 

(Govus 1998). 

Much of the area surrounding the fort, large 

areas to the east and south of the fort, and the 

central portion of Cockspur Island is 

managed as maintained grass. This habitat 

occupies more than 140 acres on Cockspur 

Island and behind salt marsh communities is 

the second most abundant habitat present. 

Cultivated grass species such as Bermuda 

grass (Cynodon dactylon), Dallis grass 

(Paspalum dilatatum), vasey grass (Paspalum 

urvillei), and Bahai grass (Paspalum notatum) 

dominate but a number of native species and 

a few nonnative grass species are also present. 

Broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), bushy 

beardgrass (Andropogon glomeratus), rescue 

grass (Bromus catharticus), rabbitsfoot grass 

(Polypogon monspielensis) and Mediterranean 

beardgrass (Polypogon maritimus) are 

examples of other grass species that can be 

found in these areas. A number of herbaceous 

species, mostly introduced, are also 

associated with these lawn type habitats. 
Natural Resources 

113 

Commonly found species include false 

dandelion (Pyrrhopappus carolinianus), 

richardia (Richardia brasiliensis), evening 

primrose (Oenothera laciniata), wood sorrel 

(Oxalis stricta), centella (Centella asiactica), 

pennywort (Hydrocotyle bonariensis) and 

verbena (Verbena brasiliensis). The proximity 

of Savannah, with a history of maritime trade 

and potential for new species from old ballast 

piles, makes this habitat a good site for newly 

introduced nonnatives. Grassy areas inside 

the fort have a manicured lawn appearance 

(Govus 1998). 

Over the decades, spoil deposits from the 

dredging of the North Channel Savannah 

River and mosquito ditch dredging have been 

dumped on various islands, including 

Cockspur, creating artificial hummocks. On 

these hummocks, woody vegetation has 

taken hold. Because the majority of the spoil 

banks are located near the shores of the 

islands, rings of woody vegetation surround 

Cockspur Island (Govus 1998). 

The following plant communities were 

identified on Cockspur Island in a 1998 

vascular plant inventory (Govus 1998). 

Lowland Temperate Seasonal Evergreen 

Forest. 

Live Oak—Cabbage palm forest alliance. This 

maritime forest community is located on 

central Cockspur Island within the dike 

system, to the northwest of the fort. It 

represents the most well-developed and 

diverse forest community for this site. It is 

located on the highest elevation and most 

protected portion of the island. It differs 

significantly from other examples of this 

association along the south Atlantic Coast in 

that live oak is absent from both the canopy 

and understory layers of the community. The 

fact that Cockspur Island has been largely a 

product of spoil deposits in an area primarily 

of salt marsh has probably caused this 

anomaly. This forest, although now reaching 

maturity, has only developed since the early 

1920s. The canopy is diverse and welldeveloped, including an even mixture of 

cabbage palm, coastal red cedar (Juniperus 

virginiana var. silicicola), sugarberry (Celtis 

laevigata), and a scattering of large American 

elms (Ulmus americana). The understory 

includes redbay (Persea borbonia) and 

Carolina cherry laurel. The shrub layer varies 

from dense thickets of yaupon to more open 

situations with sparse Carolina cherry laurel, 

wax myrtle (Myra cerifera) and beauty berry 

(Callicarpa americana). This is a densely 

shaded habitat with few herbaceous species 

present. Vines are an important component 

of this forest and Virginia creeper 

(Parthenocissus quinquefolius), pepper vine 

(Ampelopsis arborea), smilax (Smilax 

auriculata), and muscadine vine (Vitis 

rotundifolia) represent the most common 

species found (Govus 1998). 

Coastal Red Cedar Forest—This is the most 

widespread forest type on Cockspur Island 

and occurs largely on the older spoil deposits 

to the west of the dike system and along the 

southwestern edge of the island within the 

dike system. The canopy typically is an even 

mixture of coastal red cedar, cabbage palm, 

and sugarberry, but variation does occur and 

the nonnative species Chinese tallow (Sapium 

sebiferum) and Chinaberry (Melia azederach) 

are occasionally present. In some cases, the 

shrub layer is absent or sparsely developed. 

Hercules’ club (Zanthoxulum clava-herculis), 

winged sumac (Rhus coppalina), and wax 

myrtle are common members of a sparse 

shrub layer. In other instances, there is a 

dense yaupon shrub layer. Herbaceous 

species are generally absent, but vines such as 

pepper vine, muscadine, and smilax are 

present. The groundcover layer is typically 

composed of a dense cover of old cabbage 

palm leaves (Govus 1998). 

Portions of this association occur in lowlying areas within the dike system on the 

southern part of Cockspur Island. The 

canopy here includes a significant amount of 

Chinese tallow. In some small areas near the 

mosquito control pond tallow may actually 

dominate. Sugarberry is also a significant part 

of the canopy. In these wetter situations, the 

shrub layer is dominated by dense, tree-like 

stand of yaupon, with wax myrtle present to a 

much lesser extent. Few to no herbaceous 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

114 

species are present. Smilax and pepper vine 

are the most common vines (Govus 1998). 

Planted/Cultivated Temperate or Subpolar 

Needle-leaved Evergreen Forest. 

Slash Pine Planted Forest Alliance—This forest 

on south central Cockspur Island was 

planted by the National Park Service, and is 

the site of the picnic area. The canopy and 

subcanopy are composed solely of slash pine 

(Pinus elliotii). There are a few widely 

scattered shrubs or understory species 

including cabbage palm and Carolina cherry 

laurel. The groundcover is maintained grass 

and is regularly mowed. A few herbaceous 

species are mixed in with the grasses, 

including seaside pennywort (Hydrocotyle 

bonariensis) and frog fruits (Phyla nodiflora). 

This pine-dominated community is 

significant for nesting birds on Cockspur 

Island (Govus 1998). 

Temperate Broad-Leaved Evergreen 

Woodland. 

Cabbage Palm Woodland Alliance—This 

alliance consists of nearly pure stands of 

cabbage palm along the north edge of 

Cockspur Island, adjacent to the high marsh 

communities, in an area of high exposure to 

storm tides and salt spray. Coastal red cedar 

is occasionally a very minor component of 

the subcanopy layer. The shrub layer is 

usually very open but includes yaupon, wax 

myrtle, winged sumac, and Spanish bayonet 

(Yucca aloifolia). The groundcover layer is 

devoid of herbaceous species and largely 

consists of a dense carpet of palmetto leaves. 

Vine species include pepper vine and smilax 

(Govus 1998). 

Saturated Temperate Broad-leaved 

Evergreen Shrubland. 

Wax Myrtle Saturated Shrubland Alliance—

These tree-like stands of nearly pure wax 

myrtle or yaupon (or a mixture of both) 

occur along the southern edge of Cockspur 

Island. They are located just above the tidal 

shrublands and salt pan communities of 

central Cockspur Island or occur within the 

dike system near the southeastern part of the 

island in very low lying areas. Occasionally, 

these associations include widely scattered 

coastal red cedars and cabbage palms. In the 

eastern portion (within the dike system), a 

substantial amount of Chinese tallow also 

occurs. There is not enough light to support 

an herbaceous layer (Govus 1998). 

Tidal Cold-deciduous Shrublands. 

Groundsel Tree—Maritime marsh elder tidal 

shrubland alliance. This community is 

widespread on Cockspur Island and occurs 

as a fringed shrubland between either salt pan 

communities and upland forests or high 

marsh communities and upland communities. 

It is especially well developed along the 

southern edge of Cockspur Island where 

extensive salt flats grade gently into the 

adjacent upland communities. In addition to 

groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia) and 

marsh elder (Iva frutenscens), false willow 

(Baccharis angustifolia), sea lavender 

(Limnobium carolinianum), and fimbristylis 

(Fimbristylis castanea) are present (Govus 

1998). 

Seaside Oxeye Tidal Shrubland Alliance—This 

community occurs on tidal flats adjacent to 

the extensive salt marsh communities of 

eastern Cockspur Island. Typically, this 

community is monospecific, being made up 

almost exclusively of seaside oxeye (Govus 

1998). 

Tidal Needle Leaved or Microphyllous 

Evergreen Dwarf Shrubland. 

Saltwort Tidal Dwarf Shrubland Alliance—

Two large examples of this association occur 

on hypersaline flats that grade into other salt 

pan communities along eastern and 

southeastern Cockspur Island. Saltwort (Batis 

maritima) is by far the most dominant 

species, but other halophytes found here 

include woody glasswort (Sarcocornia 

perennis), sea blite (Sueda linearis), sea 

purslane (Sesuvium portulacastrum), and sea 

lavender (Govus 1998). 
Natural Resources 

115 

Woody Glasswort Tidal Dwarf Shrubland 

Alliance—This association is particularly well 

developed on the broad gentle flats that lie 

along the south side of Cockspur Island. This 

is a hypersaline environment caused by the 

repeated evaporation of tidal water from 

these expansive shallow areas. Vegetative 

cover varies from a total absence of vascular 

plants to a dense concentration of halophytic 

herbs, particularly woody glasswort. Saltwort 

and salt grass (Distichlis spicata) are also 

abundant and usually interspersed with 

dwarf saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina 

alterniflora). Additional species include sea 

lavender, sea blite, and sea purslane (Govus 

1998). 

Tidal Temperate or Subpolar Grassland. 

Salt Marsh Cord Grass Tidal Herbaceous 

Alliance—This community is the largest 

present on Cockspur Island, covering more 

than 340 acres. It is best developed in areas 

between mean high and low tides that are 

regularly flooded. It is largely monospecific 

but is occasionally interspersed with patches 

of the needlerush (Juncus roemarianus) 

community (Govus 1998). 

Salt Meadow Cord Grass Tidal Herbaceous 

Alliance—This “high marsh” community 

occurs primarily along the steep terraces of 

north-central Cockspur Island, which receive 

infrequent tidal flooding. In addition to 

saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens), 

saltgrass, and seaside oxeye, other species 

found here include seaside goldenrod 

(Solidago sempervirens), sea lavender, sand 

vine (Cynanchium angustifolium), knotgrass 

(Paspalum distichum), fimbristylis, and sea 

beach atriplex (Atriplex arenaria Nutt) 

(Govus 1998). 

Anthropogenic Habitats. 

Sandy Spoil Deposits—Spoil deposits 

composed of nearly pure sand have been 

placed along the north-central and 

southwestern portion of Cockspur Island 

until 1972, resulting in young successional 

communities. Currently, the existing 

vegetation consists of widely scattered trees 

with large areas of exposed open sand, 

sparsely inhabited by a number of 

herbaceous species and vines. Coastal red 

cedar, sugarberry, cabbage palm, chinaberry, 

and white mulberry (Morus alba) are the 

principal trees found in this habitat. Along 

the north central area (east of the Savannah 

Pilots Association facility) the canopy is pure 

coastal red cedar. Shrubs scattered in these 

areas include wax myrtle, groundsel tree, 

yaupon, winged sumac, and lantana (Lantana 

camara), along with a diverse herbaceous 

layer (Govus 1998). 

Nonnatives. 

Cockspur Island is home to a number of 

nonnative species that tend to be invasive to 

natural communities. A 1998 plant inventory 

identified 18 such nonnatives, including 

sweet acacia, camphor tree (Cinnamomum 

camphora), lantana, Chinese privet 

(Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle 

(Lonicera japonica), chinaberry (Melia 

azedarach), and Chinese tallow tree (Sapium 

sebiferum) (Govus 1998). 

Changes in climate may significantly affect 

vegetation phenology (periodic plant and 

animal life cycle events and how these are 

influenced by seasonal and interannual 

variations in climate), morphology (the form 

and structure of organisms), distribution, 

growth, and reproduction. Most observed 

changes are linked with temperature change 

either directly or indirectly (e.g., altered 

moisture availability) (Root et al. 2003). Many 

plant species have experienced a shift in the 

timing of phenological events such as 

blooming, in response to seasonal changes 

linked to climate change. For example, lilac 

budburst has occurred on average three days 

earlier for every 1oC increase in spring 

temperature (Hughes 2000, Marra et al. 

2005). 

The spread of invasive species has been on 

the rise over the past 50 years due to a 

number of factors including climatic 

conditions. For example, the Chinese tallow 

tree has been invading coastal prairies from 

the Carolinas to south Texas, where periods 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

116 

of flooding have decreased (Twilley et al. 

2001). Harmful algal blooms (red tides) have 

become more extensive in recent years. 

Warmer coastal waters, especially in 

combination with nutrient pollution, can 

increase the intensity, duration, and extent of 

blooms of harmful algae and cyanobacteria 

(Harvell et al. 1999). Dramatic increases in 

Southern red cedar and palmetto palm 

mortality observed during 2000–2005 are 

probably due to the combined effects of a 

major drought and ongoing sea level rise 

(Desantis et al. 2007). 

Invasive species are likely to expand their 

ranges northward due to shifts in 

temperature and precipitation patterns. 

Invasions may result in altered species 

compositions, ecosystem function, and native 

population declines or extinctions (McCarty 

2001). 

The salt marshes of McQueens Island may be 

able to survive rates of sea-level rise as high as 

50 centimeters in 50 years, an estimate that is 

lower than the expected rise in sea level for 

much of the coastal U.S. over the next 100 

years. Local subsidence or hydrologic 

changes, however, could increase the rate of 

relative sea level rise experienced by 

individual marshes, potentially exceeding the 

local threshold of some salt marshes to adapt 

(Boesch et al. 2000). 

In general, coastal wetlands will survive if 

increase in sediment surface elevation equals 

the rate of relative sea level rise or if they are 

able to migrate inland or to areas of higher 

elevation. However, if soil accumulation does 

not keep pace with sea level rise, or if bluffs, 

coastal development, or shoreline protective 

structures (e.g., dikes, sea walls, and jetties) 

block wetland migration, wetlands may be 

excessively inundated or reduced in area 

(Scavia et al. 2002, Gilman et al. 2008). 

Freshwater and brackish wetlands, common 

to the mid- and south-Atlantic coasts, are 

particularly sensitive to sustained or pulsed 

salinity penetration; such pulses are expected 

to increase in magnitude and frequency with 

climate change and will probably result in a 

transition to more salt tolerant species 

(Boesch et al. 2000). 

Wildlife 

The estuarine marshes and upland areas of 

Fort Pulaski National Monument support 

many species of wildlife. Large populations of 

both resident and migrant birds are present. 

Mammals are abundant and include marsh 

rabbit, raccoons, opossums, mink, otter, and 

deer. Cormorants, seagulls, mergansers, 

hawks, herons, egrets, ibis, rails, and terns 

can be found nesting and feeding in many of 

these areas. There are many species of 

reptiles, of which the eastern diamondback 

rattlesnake is poisonous. The tidal waters 

surrounding the fort contain a great variety of 

fish typical of southern coastal estuaries. The 

following federally listed or state listed rare, 

threatened, or endangered species have been 

documented at Fort Pulaski: American 

oystercatcher, bald eagle, gull-billed tern, 

loggerhead sea turtle, West Indian manatee, 

peregrine falcon, piping plover, swallowtailed kite, Wilson’s plover, and wood stork. 

Point count surveys were conducted at Fort 

Pulaski during January, May, July, and 

October in 1998. A total of 7,891 birds 

consisting of 82 species were observed and/or 

heard during 13 days of surveying. Two 

species protected by the state of Georgia 

were observed, the least tern (Sterna 

antillarum) and the swallow-tailed kite 

(Elanoides forficatus). Three species that were 

observed during the surveys that are 

considered to be rare or accidental to the 

monument included: cliff swallow 

(Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), hooded warbler 

(Wilsonia citrina), and LeConte’s sparrow 

(Ammodramus leconteii) (Rabolli and 

Ellington 1999). 

Cockspur Island is surrounded by vast salt 

marshes interspersed by rivers and tidal 

estuaries. These tidal marshes, which are 

formed in conjunction with barrier island 

development, have delicate ecological 

characteristics including essential life support 

systems for shrimp, oysters, clams, mussels, 
Natural Resources 

117 

and the usual variety of fish found in 

southern coastal estuaries. 

Wildlife may be affected by climate change, 

especially by increasing average temperatures 

and sea level rise. In a study of the first arrival 

dates of migrant birds, birds wintering in the 

southeastern United States arrived on 

average 13 days earlier (Backlund et al. 2008). 

Behavioral and genetic responses to climate 

change have been documented across 

multiple studies in marine, freshwater, and 

terrestrial ecosystems, in both plant and 

animal communities (Parmesan 2006). Birds 

have exhibited a variety of responses to 

warming trends including earlier breeding 

dates, range expansions, and asynchronous 

life history events (Marra et al. 2005). 

In very shallow water such as bays, lagoons, 

or reservoirs, high surface temperatures can 

lead to hypoxia or anoxia (low dissolved 

oxygen conditions), causing massive die-offs 

of fish and invertebrate species. (Ebi et al. 

2007). Sea-level rise could reduce essential 

habitat for many important marine species, 

such as shrimp, crabs, and smaller fish; many 

of these species provide an important forage 

base for other fishes, marine mammals, and 

sea birds and may therefore cause significant 

disturbance across taxa (groups of 

populations of organisms, which taxonomists 

adjudge to be units) and throughout food 

webs (Scavia et al. 2002). 

Higher air temperatures may result in a shift 

in sex ratio of sea turtles, with more female 

offspring produced at higher temperatures 

(Booth 2006, Hawkes et al. 2007). 

Populations of turtles in southern parts of the 

United States are currently highly female 

biased and are likely to become ultra-biased 

with as little as 1oC of warming, and 

experience extreme levels of mortality if 

warming exceeds 3oC. For example, at 

modeled temperature increases of 7.5oC, 

loggerhead turtles show 100% female 

hatchling production and lethally high 

incubation temperatures, causing reduction 

in hatchling production (Hawkes et al. 2007). 

Aquatic Vegetation 

No true “rooted” aquatic or floating 

vegetation exists in or around Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. However, during the 

2008 site visit, the macroalgae known as sea 

lettuce (Ulva lactuca) was observed in tidal 

pools during low tide. Sea lettuce is not 

classified as true aquatic vegetation. 

Finfish Species 

The Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources’ Wildlife Resources Division 

manages Georgia’s fish and wildlife 

resources. The Savannah River supports 

commercial and recreational fishing. Several 

species of marine fish are found in the 

nearshore environment, in the vicinity of the 

project area. Observations from studies 

conducted indicate that the most abundant 

finfish species include the following: Atlantic 

spot (Leistomus xanthurus), croaker 

(Micropogonias undulatus), spotted seatrout 

(Cynoscion nebulosus), silver seatrout 

(Cynoscion nothus), weakfish (Cynoscion 

regalis), southern kingfish (Menticirrhus 

americanus), various drum species, Atlantic 

menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), hog choker 

(Trinectes maculatus), and bay anchovy 

(Anchoa mitchelli) (GPA 1998). 

Five aquatic sites were sampled in May 1998 

to identify fish using the area surrounding the 

monument. Site F3 was located in the South 

Channel Savannah River adjacent to the 

monument and the Cockspur Island 

Lighthouse. The site had significant tidal 

influence and was similar to much of the 

open water areas surrounding Cockspur 

Island. The fish collected during the survey at 

this Site F3 included the following: alewife 

(Alosa pseudoharengus), Atlantic croaker 

(Micropogonias undulatus), Atlantic 

needlefish (Strongylura marina), bay anchovy 

(Anchoa mitchelli), longnose gar (Lepisosteus 

osseus), mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), 

striped killifish (Fundulus majalis), and 

striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) (Rabolli and 

Ellington 1999). 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

118 

Each spring and fall, the main Savannah 

River, Back River, Middle River, and 

numerous interconnecting tidal streams 

support the migration of three members of 

the herring family and include American shad 

(Alosa saoidissima), hickory shad (Alosa 

mediocris), and blueback herring (Alosa 

aestivals) as well as the striped bass (Morone 

saxatilis). Each of these species are very 

important game and/or commercial fish 

species. The American shad is the most 

valuable commercial anadromous fish in the 

Southeast (GPA 1998). 

Shellfish 

Shellfish thrive in estuaries and include 

oysters, clams, and mussels. Shellfish are filter 

feeders, meaning they intake large quantities 

of water across their gills for food and 

oxygen. During this process, shellfish take in 

bacteria, viruses, and chemical contaminants 

that can be stored in their digestive systems. 

Oyster Creek, which is within the monument 

on McQueens Island, is the only area in 

Chatham County that is open for recreational 

oyster harvesting. Oyster Creek meets the 

high water-quality standards that are 

necessary to allow this activity to continue 

(NPCA 2007). Currently, the island on which 

the lighthouse stands is almost completely 

composed of common oyster shells, portions 

of which are live reefs and other portions of 

which are dead shell. Other shellfish 

observed on the island include Atlantic 

ribbed mussel. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Reptile species observed or captured during 

the 1998 through 1999 survey of the 

monument that could potentially use the 

habitat on the island include the American 

alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) and the 

diamond back terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) 

(Rabolli and Ellington 1999). The American 

alligator currently has a status of “threatened 

due to similarity of appearance” because of 

its likeness to other crocodilians worldwide 

that still receive protection. The removal 

from total protection status allows Georgia 

and other Southeastern states greater 

flexibility in managing alligator populations. 

Amphibians were also captured or observed 

during the 1998 through 1999 survey, but 

those captured were primarily terrestrial and 

would most probably not use the habitat on 

the island that houses the lighthouse. 

Benthic Invertebrates 

In October of 2002 a benthic study was 

conducted in the Savannah Harbor entrance 

in the shallow waters east of Fort Pulaski 

National Monument and the Cockspur 

Island Lighthouse (USACE 2003). The results 

of 30 stations indicated that the benthic 

assemblages in this area were typical of 

assemblages found at other estuaries within 

the region and contained typical 

opportunistic and colonizing estuarine fauna; 

there were no hard bottom assemblages or 

sensitive biological taxa or taxa groups 

collected (USACE 2003). The station located 

in closest proximity to the lighthouse (station 

39, approximately 1,300 feet away), was 

composed of the following taxa (and 

percentages): Annelida (88%), Mollusca (5%), 

Arthropoda (2.5%), Echinodermata (1%), and 

Other (3%). The following dominant taxa 

were collected at station 39: Tubificidae, 

Mediomastus, and Streblospio benedicti. At 

station 39, a total of 16 taxa and 157 

individuals were collected, corresponding to 

an average station density of 3,925 organisms 

per square meter (USACE 2003). Compared 

to the other 30 stations sampled in the 

vicinity of the Savannah Harbor entrance, 

station 39 had the second highest total 

number of individuals and the second highest 

density (organisms per square meter). 

Marine Mammals 

Two marine mammals, the federally 

endangered West Indian manatee (Trichechus 

manatus) and the bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus), are found in the 

Savannah River in the vicinity of the project 
Natural Resources 

119 

area. These marine mammals are offered 

federal protection under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act of 1972, which is 

enforced by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The act established a moratorium on the 

taking or harassment of marine mammal 

species. The West Indian manatee is further 

protected as a depleted stock under the act. 

Special Status Species 

The near-shore federally listed species that 

could potentially be found within the project 

area are the West Indian manatee, five species 

of sea turtles, and the shortnose sturgeon, for 

which detailed descriptions are provided 

below. It has been determined that the 

remaining species of whales, with the 

exception of the Northern Atlantic right 

whale, would not specifically be found within 

the project area. 

West Indian Manatee. The West Indian 

manatees (federal threatened and state 

endangered) are most frequently sighted in 

Georgia waters from April through October 

in the waters of Camden, Glynn, and 

McIntosh counties during which time 

wildlife biologists with the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources’ 

Nongame-Endangered Wildlife Program 

monitor their activities (GADNR 2008). This 

species is an uncommon summer visitor to 

the creeks and rivers around the monument. 

In recent years, manatees have been 

documented in the Savannah River, and 

probably occur in Oyster Creek (Rabolli and 

Ellington 1999) as well as within the 

Savannah National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 

2008). In a letter response dated March 21, 

2008, the Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources’ Natural Heritage Database 

documents the manatee as using tidal waters; 

no records of manatee occurrences have 

been recorded within 3 miles of the 

monument. 

Northern Atlantic Right Whale. Northern 

right whales (federal endangered and state 

endangered) are now considered one of the 

most endangered large mammals in the world 

due to overhunting, which ended in 1935. 

Today there are only around 300 right whales 

in existence, making them close to extinction. 

In a letter response dated March 21, 2008, the 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources’ 

Natural Heritage Database documents one 

occurrence of the right whale, approximately 

2 miles east of the monument. These whales 

grow to around 55 feet long and are black 

with a broad, flat back and no dorsal fin. The 

waters of the southern U.S. are the only know 

calving ground for this species. This area, 

known as critical right whale habitat is a small 

strip of water extending only 5–15 miles 

offshore from the Altamaha River in Georgia 

(south of the monument) south to the 

Sebastian Inlet in Florida. Unfortunately, 

these waters contain numerous shipping 

lanes and collisions with ships result in 30–

50% of whale deaths annually. 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle. The loggerhead sea 

turtle (federal threatened and state 

threatened) is listed as threatened at both the 

state and federal level. Loggerheads live in 

marine coastal and oceanic waters. The 

loggerhead is the only species to nest in 

Georgia regularly on islands such as Jekyll 

Island, Sea Island, Sapelo Island, Ossabaw 

Island, and other barrier islands (GADNR 

2008). In a letter response dated March 21, 

2008, the Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources’ Natural Heritage Database 

documents two occurrences of the 

loggerhead sea turtle; approximately 2 miles 

east of the monument and 2.5 miles southeast 

of the monument. Therefore, the loggerhead 

is an uncommon visitor to the creeks and 

rivers surrounding the monument (Rabolli 

and Ellington 1999). Although this species 

has not been observed using the spoils and 

beaches of the monument, it has been 

observed in Lazaretto Creek and Oyster 

Creek in recent years (Rabolli and Ellington 

1999). The females nest on the upper beach 

or in the dunes in Georgia from late May to 

mid-August. Loggerheads nest from 1 to 7 

times within a nesting season (mean is 

approximately 4.1 nests per season) at 

intervals of approximately 14 days. 

Hatchlings emerge at night approximately 50 

to 60 days later and find their way to the sea 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

120 

(July through November). Juveniles frequent 

coastal bays, inlets, and lagoons (GADNR 

2008). 

Green Sea Turtle. Green turtles (federal 

endangered and state endangered) live in 

estuarine and marine coastal and oceanic 

waters. They are generally found in fairly 

shallow waters inside reefs, bays, and inlets. 

Green turtles come ashore at beaches from 

June to July to nest. Nesting occurs at night 

on the upper beach and sand dunes, similar 

to the loggerhead sea turtle. Hatchlings 

emerge and head toward sea approximately 

60 days later from August through 

November. Green turtles are considered 

infrequent nesters in Georgia (GADNR 

2008). Large juveniles and adults feed on sea 

grasses and algae. Juveniles can be found in 

coastal bays, inlets, lagoons, and offshore 

warm reefs. 

Leatherback Sea Turtle. Leatherback sea 

turtles (federal endangered and state 

endangered) are the largest of the three sea 

turtles occurring on the beaches in coastal 

Georgia. They live in oceanic waters and 

come ashore to nest on the beaches during 

the summer months. Fewer than 10 

leatherback nests are recorded in Georgia 

each year (GADNR 2008). Hatchlings emerge 

and head toward sea mid-summer to early 

fall. They feed primarily on jellyfish (GADNR 

2008). 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle. The Hawksbill sea 

turtle (federal endangered and state 

endangered) is one of the smallest species of 

sea turtles. The Hawksbill grows up to 3 feet 

in carapace length and can weigh up to 180 

pounds. The turtle prefers subtropical 

environments, and is particularly fond of 

clear water coral reefs and ecosystems, 

although they can also be found residing in 

rocky inland waters, mangrove-edged inlets, 

and bays. Hawksbill turtles do not nest in 

Georgia and are rarely found in Georgia’s 

coastal waters (GADNR 2008). It is unlikely 

that these turtles would use the habitat 

surrounding the monument. These reptiles 

have an unusual diet consisting of fish, snails, 

jellyfish, starfish, sea urchins, bryozoans, and 

sponges. Females nest every 3 to 5 years and 

demonstrate a fair degree of near site fidelity. 

They prefer to nest on warm, smaller beaches 

and generally deposit their eggs in a nest 

excavated within the beach-side vegetation 

zone. The turtles can lay anywhere between 

100 to 200 small eggs the size of a ping pong 

ball (NOAA 2008). 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle. The Kemp’s 

Ridley sea turtle (federal endangered and 

state endangered) is the rarest and smallest of 

all sea turtles. It feeds in the coastal waters of 

Georgia on blue crabs and other crabs and 

shrimp. All Kemp’s Ridley turtles nest on a 

single stretch of beach on the Gulf Coast of 

Mexico (GADNR 2008). 

Shortnose Sturgeon. The sturgeon family is 

among the most primitive of the bony fishes; 

the shortnose sturgeon (federal endangered 

and state endangered) is the smallest of the 

three sturgeon species that occur in eastern 

North America, having a maximum known 

total length of 4.7 feet and weight of about 50 

pounds. The shortnose sturgeon is 

anadromous, living mainly in the slower 

moving riverine waters or nearshore marine 

waters, and migrating periodically into faster 

moving fresh water areas to spawn (NOAA 

2008). Shortnose sturgeon occur in most 

major river systems along the eastern 

seaboard of the United States and in Georgia 

they occur in the Savannah River (NOAA 

2008) and within the Savannah River 

National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 2008). 

Shortnose sturgeon spawning occurs in early 

February to mid-March in the Savannah 

River (NMFS 1998). 

Smalltooth Sawfish. The USFWS placed the 

smalltooth sawfish (federal endangered and 

state endangered) on the endangered species 

list in April 2003. The species occurs in 

estuarine and coastal habitats, such as bays, 

lagoons, and rivers. Habitat destruction and 

overfishing has contributed to the declining 

population. The last remaining population of 

the smalltooth sawfish in U.S. waters is 

located off the coast of southern Florida 

(Passarelli and Curtis 2010). 
Natural Resources 

121 

Species Listed by the State of 

Georgia 

The Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources identifies 69 Special Concern 

Animals as potentially occurring in Chatham 

County, Georgia. These species are believed 

to be sufficiently rare as to warrant the 

collecting of occurrence information to 

better determine their status. In a letter 

response dated March 21, 2008, the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources’ Natural 

Heritage Database documented listed species 

that occur in the vicinity of Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. The listed terrestrial 

species included on the Georgia Department 

of Natural Resources’ natural heritage list 

were Florida wild privet (Forestiera R. 

Fothergilla gardenii) and the Northern yellow 

bat (Lasiurus intermedius). Aquaticdependent species on this list include the 

following: false killer whale (Pseudorca 

crassidens), sited approximately 1.5 miles east 

of the monument; black-crowned night 

heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), sited 

approximately 1.5 miles east of the 

monument; black skimmer (Rynchops niger), 

sited approximately 1.5 miles northwest of 

the monument; and least tern (Sterna 

antillarum), sited approximately 2.5 miles 

northwest of site. 

An examination of the habitats found at the 

monument in 1998 identified 11 listed species 

that probably use the habitats of the 

monument at some time (Rabolli and 

Ellington 1999). Of the 11 listed species—

American oystercatcher, bald eagle, gullbilled tern, least tern, loggerhead sea turtle, 

manatee, peregrine falcon, piping plover, 

swallow-tailed kite, Wilson’s plover, and 

wood stork—only the least tern and the 

swallow-tailed kite were observed at the 

monument during the 1998 survey. However, 

monument staff reported observing all 11 of 

these species, except for the gull-billed tern 

(Rabolli and Ellington 1999). Descriptions of 

the mobile and protected aquatic-dependent 

species listed by the state of Georgia (of the 

11 species discussed previously) potentially 

found in the project area are as follows: 

American Oystercatcher. (State listed as 

rare.) This species breeds along the Georgia 

coast, primarily on barrier island beaches. It 

is reported to be an uncommon winter visitor 

to the monument, but it is possible that this 

species could nest at the monument. Almost 

any bare area above high tide is suitable 

nesting habitat. 

Bald Eagle. (State listed as endangered.) The 

bald eagle is an uncommon winter visitor to 

the area in and around the monument. The 

number of eagles nesting in Georgia 

continues to grow, and in 1998, 30 eagle nests 

were recorded throughout Georgia. 

Gull-billed Tern. (State listed as threatened.) 

This species is an uncommon summer 

resident along Georgia’s coast. The Georgia 

Ornithological Society (1986) reported that 

nesting has occurred at Tybee Island in the 

past. Gull-billed Tern numbers are very low 

in Georgia, and it is doubtful that nesting has 

occurred at the monument for many years. 

Least Tern. (State listed as rare.) This species 

is a summer resident along the Georgia Coast, 

and may breed at the monument. The largest 

colonies in Georgia are found at spoil sites 

along the Savannah River; areas with no 

vegetation are good locations for nesting least 

terns, as well as gull-billed terns. 

Peregrine Falcon. (State listed as 

threatened.) This species is an uncommon 

winter visitor to the Georgia coast, and has 

been observed by the monument staff in 

recent years. 

Piping Plover. (Federally listed as 

endangered and state listed as endangered.) 

The piping plover is a winter visitor to the 

shores and spoil areas at the monument. As 

coastal development reduces wintering 

habitat, these spoil habitats will grow in 

importance. It is recommended that these 

spoil areas be protected from disturbance. 

Swallow-tailed Kite. (State listed as rare.) A 

single kite was observed at the monument on 

May 6, 1998; the kite had not previously been 

reported at the monument. It is a rare 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

122 

summer resident in river bottoms of the 

coastal plain. In Georgia, breeding is 

probably limited to remote areas of the 

Savannah and Altamaha river bottoms and 

the Okefenokee Swamp; the monument does 

not provide breeding habitat and provides 

limited foraging habitat. 

Wilson’s Plover. (State listed as rare.) The 

Wilson’s plover is an uncommon summer 

resident of the shores and spoil areas at the 

monument and this species possibly breeds 

on the monument spoil mounds. 

Woodstork. (Federally listed as endangered 

and state listed as endangered.) This species 

is a regular summer visitor to the monument. 

It has been observed feeding in the marshes 

surrounding the monument by monument 

staff. 

Special status species are listed according to 

federal and state listed species in Chatham 

County, Georgia. The range of individual 

species varies, but Cockspur and McQueens 

islands have the potential to be within the 

range of the listed species in table 10. 

ALLIGATOR ON MOAT WALL
Natural Resources 

123 

TABLE 10. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LISTED BY FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES

Species Scientific Name Federal Status State Status 

Mammal 

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae E E 

Right whale Eubalaena glacialis E E 

West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E E 

Bird 

Bachman’s warbler Vermivora bachmanii E E 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T E 

Gull-billed tern Sterna nilotica No Federal Status T 

Piping plover Charadrius melodus T T 

Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E E 

Wood stork Mycteria americana E E 

Reptile 

Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi T T 

Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus No Federal Status T 

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas T T 

Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E E 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempi E E 

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E E 

Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T T 

Amphibian 

Flatwoods salamander Ambystoma cingulatum T T 

Fish 

Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E E 

Plant 

Climbing buckthorn Sageretia minutiflora No Federal Status T 

Narrowleaf obedient plant Physostegia leptophylla No Federal Status T 

Pondberry Lindera melissifolia E E 

Water Quality 

The water quality of the Savannah River 

around Cockspur Island is variable in relation 

to tidal flows, runoff, and inflow from feeder 

waterways. The Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources, Environmental 

Protection Division tests tributaries and 

water bodies upstream specifically for 

drinking water quality. Most cities and towns 

upstream of Cockspur Island do not pull 

drinking water from the Savannah River, 

directly limiting composite data in regard to 

water quality at the mouth of the river. 

However, two mainstem water-quality testing 

sites, in the Savannah Harbor and upstream 

of Savannah, can relate water quality around 

Cockspur and McQueens islands. The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, in 

coordination with the state Environmental 

Protection Division, tests coastal waters 

along Tybee Island. Water quality off Tybee 

Island in connection with water quality data 

in the mainstem of the Savannah River near 

Savannah create a water quality profile for 

Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

Between 2000 and 2009, beach closings on 

Tybee Island’s north beach, the closest 

testing location to Fort Pulaski National 

Monument, have numbered three: one 

closing in 2007 and two closings in 2004. 

Water quality during these periods of closure 

exceeded levels of organics established by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the 

form of fecal coliform counts. Fecal coliform 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

124 

counts that exceed USEPA standards for 

recreational waters at north Tybee Island are 

a result of nonpoint runoff from septic 

systems and stormwater discharge. Higher 

turbitity from silt entering stormwater runoff 

after heavy rains generally accompanies 

higher than standard fecal coliform counts. 

Below standard levels of fecal coliform are 

emitted from point source outlets into the 

Savannah River (USEPA 2009). 

The Savannah River Basin Plan published by 

the state Environmental Protection Division 

outlines the basic water quality of the entire 

Savannah River Basin. Water quality tests 

revealed that several water quality indicators 

exceeded recommended use levels for 

fishing, drinking water, and coastal fishing on 

the mainstem of the lower Savannah River. 

This segment of the river is closest in 

proximity to Cockspur and McQueens Island 

and correlates with the Savannah and Tybee 

Island. Freshwater and coastal fishing was 

not recommended due to levels of mercury in 

largemouth bass and channel catfish. Fecal 

coliform counts in the lower Savannah River 

Basin were high enough to discourage use of 

Savannah River mainstem water for fishing, 

drinking water, and recreation (Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources 

Environmental Protection Division 2001). 

 

Water quality near the mouth of the 

Savannah River, adjacent to Tybee Island, is 

relatively predictable and is dependent on the 

tidal conditions within the Savannah River 

(GPA 1998). Water quality parameters such 

as temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen 

(DO) vary uniformly with depth and with 

flood and ebb conditions of the river. Salinity 

midway in the water column ranges from 22 

to 31 parts per thousand (ppt); temperatures 

range from seasonal highs of 28oC (82oF) 

while seasonal lows can be less than 11oC 

(52oF); typical values of DO in the mid-water 

column range from 5 to 7 milligrams per liter 

(GPA 1998). 

In October 2002, water quality was collected 

as part of a benthic and sediment study in the 

Savannah Harbor entrance in the shallow 

waters east of the monument and the 

Cockspur Island Lighthouse (USACE 2003). 

The results of 30 stations indicated that the 

water quality in this area was typical of 

shallow estuaries within the region. At depths 

of 0.6 to 3.6 meters, temperature ranged from 

21.9oC (71.42oF) to 23.9oC (75.02oF); salinity 

ranged from 14.8 to 19.4 ppt; DO ranged 

from 5.9 to 6.7 milligrams per liter; turbidity 

ranged from 8.2 to 79.4 nephelometric 

turbidity units. For the station located in 

closest proximity to the lighthouse (station 

39, approximately 1,300 feet away), at 1.2 

meters deep, the temperature was 22.0oC 

(71.6oF), salinity was 17.1 parts per trillion, 

DO was 6.3 milligrams per liter, and turbidity 

was 25.0 nephelometric turbidity units 

(USACE 2003). 

The Clean Water Act requires that surface 

waters for each state be classified according 

to the state’s designated uses. The state of 

Georgia, through its Rules and Regulations for 

Water Quality Control, chapter 391-3-6, 

revised May 29, 1994, has classified the 

Savannah River from mile 0 at Fort Pulaski to 

the open sea (including the littoral waters of 

Tybee Island) as recreation waters. From 

Fort Pulaski to mile 27.4 (Seaboard Coastline 

Railroad Bridge) the river is classified as 

coastal fishing (GPA 1998). 

The Georgia Water Quality Control Act 

(O.C.G.A. 12-5-20) grants the state 

Environmental Protection Division authority 

to ensure that water uses in the state of 

Georgia are used prudently, are maintained 

or restored to a reasonable degree of purity, 

and are maintained in adequate supply. 

Through a memorandum of agreement 

between the Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources’ Environmental Protection 

Division and the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources’ Coastal Resources 

Division, the rules and permits of the 

Environmental Protection Division are 

administered in a manner consistent with the 

enforceable policies of the Coastal 

Management Program. The act makes it 

unlawful for any person to dispose of sewage, 

industrial wastes, or other wastes, or to 

withdraw, divert, or impound any surface 

waters of the state without a permit. 
Natural Resources 

125 

Floodplains 

Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain 

Management,” issued May 24, 1977, directs 

all federal agencies to avoid both long- and 

short-term adverse effects associated with 

occupancy, modification, and development 

in the 100-year floodplain, when possible. 

Floodplains are defined in this order as “the 

lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining 

inland and coastal waters including floodprone areas of offshore islands, including at a 

minimum, that area subject to a one percent 

greater chance of flooding in any given year.” 

Flooding in the 100-year zone is expected to 

occur once every 100 years, on average. In 

addition, NPS proposed actions that may 

adversely affect floodplains must comply 

with Director’s Order 77-2: Floodplain 

Management. 

All federal agencies are required to avoid 

building in a 100-year floodplain unless no 

other practical alternative exists. The 

National Park Service has adopted guidelines 

pursuant to Executive Order 11998 stating 

that NPS policy is to restore and preserve 

natural floodplain values and avoid 

environmental impacts associated with the 

occupation and modification of floodplains. 

The guidelines also require that, where 

practicable alternatives exist, class I action be 

avoided within a 100-year floodplain. Class I 

actions include the location or construction 

of administration, residential, warehouse, 

and maintenance buildings, nonexcepted 

parking lots, or other manmade features that 

by their nature entice or require individuals 

to occupy the site. 

Fort Pulaski National Monument is located 

within a 100-year floodplain, Zone VE, which 

has been mapped by the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency on a flood insurance 

rate map issued in 2004. Zone VE is described 

as having a 1% chance of flooding per year 

with an additional high wind velocity 

potential (FEMA 2004). 

Shoreline Erosion 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recently 

conducted a bank erosion study for Fort 

Pulaski National Monument and North 

Tybee Island for the Savannah Harbor 

Expansion Study (USACE undated). 

Unprotected portions of the monument are 

subject to shoreline erosion measurable from 

1.6 to 3.1 feet per year, depending on specific 

location. The majority of erosion is due to 

tide, flows, river mechanics, shape and other 

causes unrelated to ship traffic through the 

channel. Ship traffic is estimated to have a 

minimal but measurable impact to shoreline 

erosion at the monument based on the 

predicted fleet mix and volume (USACE 

undated). It is estimated that 0.36 inch (about 

3/8 inch maximum) of erosion could be 

attributed to all ship wakes during the year 

2003. Using the maximum estimated erosion 

rate, predicting erosion for the years 2030 

and 2050 is a function of ship numbers and 

size. If 1,258 ship calls were responsible for 

0.36 inch of erosion at Fort Pulaski, then in 

the year 2030, 4,030 ship calls could be 

responsible for 1.15 inches of erosion. 

Similarly, in the year 2050, ship calls could be 

responsible for 2.23 inches of erosion, 

assuming the shoreline remains unprotected 

(USACE undated). It is probable that the 

small island experiences similar amounts of 

annual erosion described previously for the 

shoreline of Fort Pulaski. Other sources of 

erosion to the island other than shipping 

traffic include severe nor’easter storms, 

hurricanes, and rising sea level. 

Wetlands 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and a 

number of state laws and provisions regulate 

activities in wetlands. Executive Order 11990, 

“Protection of Wetlands,” directs all federal 

agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the 

long- and short-term adverse impacts 

associated with the destruction or 

modification of wetlands and to avoid direct 

or indirect support of new construction in 

wetlands wherever there is a practicable 

alternative. In the absence of such 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

126 

alternatives, parks must modify actions to 

preserve and enhance wetland values and 

minimize degradation. Consistent with 

Executive Order 11990 and Director’s Order 

77-1: Wetland Protection, the National Park 

Service adopted a goal of “no net loss of 

wetlands.” Director’s Order 77-1 states that 

for new actions where impacts on wetlands 

cannot be avoided, proposals must include 

plans for compensatory mitigation that 

restores wetlands on NPS lands, where 

possible, at a minimum acreage ratio of 1:1. 

The National Park Service defines wetlands 

as vegetated areas that are flooded or 

saturated for duration sufficient to allow 

development of at least one of the three 

wetland indicators described in the 1987 

Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation 

Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). 

The three wetland indicators used include 

wetland hydrology, hydric soil, or 

hydrophytic vegetation. This definition 

differs from that used by the Corps to 

delineate jurisdictional wetlands. The Corps’ 

definition requires the presence of all three 

wetland indicators for an area to be classified 

as a wetland. This document presents 

wetlands as defined by the one-parameter 

approach adopted by the National Park 

Service. 

Wetlands are characterized by soil type and a 

diversity of vegetation, including trees, 

shrubs, and herbaceous ground covers. 

Wetlands provide a variety of beneficial 

functions from supplying habitat for a variety 

of wildlife, storage and attenuation of 

floodwaters, trapping silts and other 

sediments during floods, and biologically 

filtering contaminants from surface waters. 

The National Wetlands Inventory of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service produces 

information on the characteristics, extent, 

and status of the nation’s wetlands and 

deepwater habitats. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service definition of wetlands is 

similar to the NPS definition of wetlands in 

that only one of three parameters (hydric 

soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology) 

is required to characterize an area as a 

wetland, based on the Cowardin 

Classification of Wetlands (Cowardin 1979). 

National Wetlands Inventory maps are 

prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service from the analysis of high altitude 

imagery and wetlands are identified based on 

vegetation, visible hydrology, and geography. 

Based on the National Wetlands Inventory 

maps at the site from the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and NPS definition of 

wetlands, 90% of Fort Pulaski National 

Monument is wetlands. Of the approximately 

5,600 acres that compose Fort Pulaski 

National Monument, 4,800 acres is salt 

marsh. The remaining dry acreage is isolated 

to the built-up landscape around Fort Pulaski 

and 500 acres of dredge spoil deposited on 

both McQueens and Cockspur Island. In 

addition, tidal flows partially submerge 

Cockspur Island twice every 24 hour period. 

Tidal Influences 

The main water body that surrounds the 

lighthouse is the South Channel Savannah 

River. The coastline in the Savannah area is 

classified as a mesotidal region (tidal ranges 

between 6 and 12 feet) (GPA 1998). Tidal 

fluctuations near the project site are 

semidiurnal, averaging 6.8 feet at the mouth 

of the Savannah Harbor and 7.9 feet at the 

upstream limit of the Harbor. The shorelines 

of Cockspur Island and McQueens Island are 

constantly affected by tidal flows, which 

change four times daily with maximum tidal 

currents in excess of 5 knots and a tidal 

amplitude of 3 to 3.5 feet. Bathymetry was 

recorded in the immediate Cockspur Island 

area in 2008 and these data show that shallow 

waters surround the island and gradually 

slope from -1 to -12 feet below mean sea level 

(MSL). 

Wilderness Resources and Values 

Approximately 90% of Fort Pulaski National 

Monument is classified as wetland. With 

more than 4,800 acres of salt marsh that are 

covered twice daily with nutrient-rich marine 

waters, the monument preserves and protects 
Natural Resources 

127 

a sizeable portion of one of the most 

productive and prolific ecosystems known to 

man. Located only a few miles from the 

Atlantic Ocean, the waters within monument 

boundaries are teeming with shrimp, oysters, 

clams, mussels, and the usual variety of fish 

found in southern coastal estuaries. The 

monument protects some of the most pristine 

resources in the area, as indicated by the 

presence of Class 1 waters for recreational 

harvest of shellfish. 

Approximately 4,500 acres of undeveloped 

salt marsh on McQueens Island meet the 

criteria established by law and therefore are 

eligible for wilderness designation. These 

lands generally appear to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature with 

minimal evidence of human activity. These 

areas of Fort Pulaski National Monument 

offer outstanding opportunities for solitude 

or for primitive and unconfined recreation. 

Although development is visible when 

looking out into the surrounding uplands, 

inside the marsh there are no structures or 

other permanent improvements, i.e., the 

imprint of humans’ work is substantially 

unnoticeable. Furthermore, the National 

Park Service has, and will continue to, protect 

and manage these areas so as to preserve their 

natural conditions. Finally, some limited 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation exist inside 

these areas. Opportunities are limited not by 

a lack of primitive conditions, but by the 

nature of the salt marsh itself. 

MCQUEENS ISLAND MARSH
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

128 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Visitation at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument has been monitored since 1995. 

As of 2008, the mean number of recreation 

visitors per year since 1995 was 

approximately 218,000 with a median 

around 257,000. Recreation visits in 2008 

totaled 352,636. Recreational visitation has 

continually been elevated in the summer 

months with the lowest visitation in the 

winter months (NPS Public Use Statistics 

Office 2008). The visitation season roughly 

corresponds to beach based tourism along 

nearby Tybee Island. 

TABLE 11. VISITATION AT FORT PULASKI NATIONAL 

MONUMENT SINCE 1995 

Fiscal 

Year Recreational 

NonRecreational Total 

Visits 

Percentage 

Change 

2009 435,661 28,800 464,461 21.77%

2008 352,636 28,800 381,436 9.44%

2007 319,734 28,800 348,534 -1.85%

2006 326,301 28,800 355,101 8.99%

2005 297,017 28,800 325,817 -8.29%

2004 326,475 28,800 355,275 -0.40%

2003 327,915 28,800 356,715 -8.52%

2002 361,129 28,800 389,929 1.28%

2001 356,209 28,800 385,009 -0.72%

2000 359,018 28,800 387,818 -0.09%

1999 359,373 28,800 388,173 0.21%

1998 358,567 28,800 387,367 3.66%

1997 344,880 28,800 373,680 3.00%

1996 333,992 28,800 362,792 5.12%

1995 316,321 28,800 345,121 

The national monument maintains an 

extensive museum collection that is rotated 

for display as previously described. In 

addition to museum items, living history 

presentations and group tours are available 

throughout the year. A legacy of living 

history demonstrations is present at Fort 

Pulaski National Monument with current 

emphasis on maintaining Fort Pulaski 

resources and visitor safety. 

Recreational activities at Fort Pulaski 

include picnicking and nature viewing as 

well as touring the historic site and 

structures. A nature trail less than 1 mile long 

allows visitors to view the subtropical 

vegetation and animal life of Cockspur 

Island in addition to viewing the lighthouse. 

A boat ramp and fishing pier are located on 

McQueens Island just off U.S. Highway 80 at 

Lazaretto Creek. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Fort Pulaski National Monument is 17 miles 

east of the central business district of 

Savannah, Georgia, on Cockspur Island in 

the Savannah River near the Atlantic Coast. 

Chatham County contains all of Fort Pulaski 

National Monument, the city of Savannah, 

and several smaller municipalities including 

Tybee Island to the east and Thunderbolt to 

the west. The metropolitan statistical area of 

Savannah stretches south into Bryan and 

Effingham counties and had an estimated 

population of 334,353 in 2007. Shipping, 

manufacturing, military, and tourism are the 

Savannah metropolitan area’s four major 

industries. 

Two busy ports, both owned and operated 

by Georgia Ports Authority, operate on the 

Savannah River in and near Savannah, 

Georgia. Ocean Terminal is immediately 

northwest of downtown Savannah and 

handles a variety of cargo from containers to 

bulk agricultural products with 10 berths. 

Garden City Terminal is approximately 3 

miles northwest of Savannah in Garden City, 

Georgia, along the Savannah River. Garden 

City Terminal is the fourth largest port in the 

United States with 50 deep-water berths. 

Containers are the primary cargo moving in 

and out of Garden City Terminal. Trucking 

and rail services are linked to both ports and 

add significantly to the economic impact of 

the port facilities in the Savannah 

metropolitan statistical area. 

The city of Tybee Island is 7 miles from Fort 

Pulaski National Monument and is primarily 

a tourism based city. Vacation rentals, 

condominiums, boating, fishing, and other 

beach activities are dominant. Tybee Island 

is a seasonal destination and tourism is 

greatest in the summer months, although 
Socioeconomic Environment 

129 

year-round residents are common. Tybee 

Island is part of the Savannah metropolitan 

statistical area. 

Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield are 

both within the Savannah metropolitan 

statistical area and contribute significantly to 

the local economy. According the Savannah 

Area Chamber of Commerce, the combined 

military facilities employ 42,000 people and 

generate an annual direct federal 

expenditure of $1.4 billion dollars (Savannah 

Area Chamber of Commerce 2009). 

Manufacturing and related manufacturing 

support industries contribute to the 

Savannah metropolitan statistical area 

economy. In 2005, approximately 14,498 

workers were employed in manufacturing 

directly and another 21,352 jobs were 

created through manufacturing support. 

Manufacturing workers earned an average 

salary of $56,300 per year. Manufacturing 

and support industries accounted for 17% of 

Savannah metropolitan statistical area 

employment and contributed 22% of 

regional labor income (Toma and Bice 2006). 

Tourism as an industry in Chatham County, 

Georgia, and the Savannah metropolitan 

area is expressed through maritime 

attractions including beaches, wildlife 

refuges, historic sites, boating, and fishing. 

The city of Savannah attracts more than 6 

million tourists a year to its historic 

downtown waterfront on the Savannah 

River. The historic squares of Savannah and 

other cultural attractions are supplemented 

by a variety of shopping areas, art galleries, 

restaurants, and festivals. Lodging, dining, 

entertainment, and visitor-related 

transportation account for more than 

$2 billion in visitors’ spending per year and 

employ more than 17,000 (Savannah Area 

Chamber of Commerce 2009). 

Population and land value trends for 

Savannah and Chatham County are listed in 

table 12. The city of Savannah population 

decreased from 2000 to 2008, although 

Chatham County’s population increased by 

more than 8% during the same time period. 

Other statistics describe Chatham County as 

a less racially diverse, younger, and 

considerably wealthier area compared to its 

county seat and regional hub of Savannah. 

Persons below the poverty level in Savannah 

accounted for 22.7% of the population in 

2007 compared to 16.3% in Chatham 

County. 

Employment characteristics for the 

Savannah metropolitan statistical area 

include the highest rates of employment 

respectively in the retail trade, 

accommodations and food services, health 

care and social assistance, and state and local 

government sectors. Each of these sectors 

exceeded 18,000 jobs per sector (see figure 

5). However, by examining employment and 

earnings together, the retail trade and 

accommodations and food services sectors 

account for approximately half the earnings 

compared to the sectors of manufacturing 

and health care and social assistance, which 

employ fewer people (see table 12). 

Comparing earnings and employment places 

the health care and social services sector as 

the most important employment sector in 

terms of number jobs and total earnings in 

the Savannah metropolitan statistical area in 

which Fort Pulaski National Monument is 

located. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

130 

TABLE 12. COMPARATIVE SOCIOECONOMIC STATISTICS FOR CHATHAM COUNTY, GEORGIA

Data courtesy of U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 

FIGURE 5. EARNINGS BY INDUSTRY IN THE SAVANNAH, GEORGIA METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA 2007 

Data courtesy U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2009

Savannah, GA MSA Earnings by Sector

532572

1187682

457471

566467

540578

130087

277186

157440

400323

103648

391705

162036

985549

55786

361862

270617

581671

927825

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

 Construction

 Manufacturing

 Wholesale trade

 Retail trade

 Transportation and w arehousing

 Information

 Finance and insurance

 Real estate and rental and leasing

 Professional, scientific, and technical services

 Management of companies and enterprises

 Administrative and w aste services

 Educational services

 Health care and social assistance

 Arts, entertainment, and recreation

 Accommodation and food services

 Federal, civilian

 Military

 State and local

Employment Sector

Earnings in Dollars

Location 

City of 

Savannah 

Chatham 

County Georgia 

United 

States 

Population estimate 2008 130,331 251,120 9,685,744 304,059,724 

Population % change 2000–2008 -0.9% 8.1% 18.3% 8.0% 

White persons not Hispanic % 2007 38.1% 53.2% 58.5% 66.0% 

Persons under 18 years old % 2007 25.6% 25.5% 26.5% 24.5% 

Persons 65 years old and over % 2007 13.2% 12.4% 9.9% 12.6% 

Housing Units 2007 60,162 113,250 3,961,474 127,901,934 

Home Ownership Rate 2000 49.2% 60.4% 67.5% 66.2% 

Median value of owner-occupied housing units 2000 $125,200 $95,000 $111,200 $119,600 

Median household income 2007 $32,616 $45,124 $49,080 $50,740 

Persons below poverty % 2007 22.7% 16.3% 14.3% 13.0% 

Persons per square mile 2000 1,759.5 529.8 141.4 79.6 
Transportation 

131 

FIGURE 6. SAVANNAH, GEORGIA METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY IN 2007 

Data courtesy U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2009 

TRANSPORTATION 

Fort Pulaski National Monument is 

accessible via U.S. Highway 80 

approximately 15 miles east of Savannah, 

and about 4 miles west of Tybee Island, at 

the mouth of the Savannah River. The 

monument is about 265 miles southeast of 

Atlanta (via Interstates 75 and 16 and U.S. 

Highway 80), 156 miles north of 

Jacksonville, Florida (via Interstates 95 and 

16 and U.S. Highway 80), and 125 miles 

south of Charleston, South Carolina (via U.S. 

Highway 17, Interstates 95 and 16, and U.S. 

Highway 80). 

The area is also served by the 

Savannah/Hilton Head International 

Airport, about 14 miles northwest of central 

Savannah and 30 miles from Fort Pulaski. 

The airport is located strategically near the 

junction of Interstates 95 and 16, and the 

Savannah ports, while being only minutes 

from the historic downtown Savannah 

tourism destinations. 

Interstate 95 bisects the region from the 

South Carolina border in the north to the 

Florida border in the south. This interstate is 

the primary north/south corridor between 

New York City, New York, and Miami, 

Florida. 

Savannah, GA MSA Employment by Sector

428

14720

15410

6966

22976

12549

2473

6053

9766

8567

1855

16270

4938

19649

3709

20339

12601

2877

6763

19475

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

 Farm employment

 Construction

 Manufacturing

 Wholesale trade

 Retail trade

 Transportation and w arehousing

 Information

 Finance and insurance

 Real estate and rental and leasing

 Professional, scientific, and technical services

 Management of companies and enterprises

 Administrative and w aste services

 Educational services

 Health care and social assistance

 Arts, entertainment, and recreation

 Accommodation and food services

 Other services, except public administration

 Federal, civilian

 Military

 State and local

Employment Sector

Number of Jobs
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

132 

Interstate 16 is the primary east/west 

connector for central Georgia, connecting 

Savannah in the east with Macon and access 

to Interstate 75 (access to Atlanta) in the 

west. Interstate 16 crosses Interstate 95 in 

Pooler, near the Savannah port facilities, 

making the northern part of the region a 

prime location for industrial development 

dependent on access to multimodal 

transportation and infrastructure. 

Port of Savannah 

The Port of Savannah specializes in the 

handling of container, refrigerated, 

breakbulk, and roll-on, roll-off cargoes. The 

port includes the Garden City Terminal, 

Savannah’s dedicated container terminal, 

and the 208-acre Ocean Terminal, a 

combination breakbulk and roll-on, roll-off 

facility handling forest and solid wood 

products, steel, automotive and heavy 

equipment, project shipments, and heavy-lift 

cargoes. 

The North Channel Savannah River and the 

Savannah Harbor serve the Port of 

Savannah. This shipping corridor requires 

extensive dredging in order to maintain the 

depths required to accommodate 

oceangoing vessels. The millions of cubic 

yards of material removed in these 

operations are placed in “spoil areas” 

approved by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. Conditions for carrying out 

dredge operations and for disposing of 

dredge material are permitted and 

monitored by the regulatory branch of the 

Corps. Over the years, dredging and 

depositing discarded dredge material have 

raised concerns because of various 

environmental consequences. Until 1996, 

when Public Law 104-333 (110 Stat. 4188) 

was enacted, dredge spoil was deposited on 

Cockspur Island and Long Island. Other 

concerns include the effects of significantly 

deepened channels on conditions in 

adjacent shore and water-bottom areas, rates 

of erosion, and changes in the hydraulics of 

water movement created by dredging 

(Coastal Georgia Regional Development 

Center 2007). 

MONUMENT OPERATIONS AND 

MANAGEMENT 

Fort Pulaski National Monument is accessed 

from the southwest by crossing onto 

Cockspur Island from the South Channel 

Bridge via U.S. Highway 80 on McQueens 

Island. An entrance station greets visitors 

upon making the turn towards the South 

Channel Bridge from the highway. Crossing 

onto Cockspur Island, the road passes over 

the dike work and enters elevated land built 

up to support Fort Pulaski. The monument 

road proceeds to the visitor center directly 

west of Fort Pulaski’s demilune. A parking 

lot has been built on the north side of the 

visitor center, northwest of the fort and 

visible from Fort Pulaski’s gun deck. A spur 

road leads to a picnic area and the Savannah 

Pilots Association structures to the 

northwest of Fort Pulaski. 

Fort Pulaski National Monument 

maintained 14 full-time equivalent staff 

positions in 2006 and up to 21 staff including 

temporary and part time in 2009. Full-time 

staff numbers have decreased from 19 to 14 

since 1996. The total operating budget as of 

2006 was $991,000. Since 1996, Fort 

Pulaski’s total budget has ranged from a low 

in 1996 of $626,000 to a high in 2005 of 

$1,072, 000. The mean budget from 1996 to 

2006 was $844,364 and the median budget 

value was $883,000. 

LAND USE 

Fort Pulaski National Monument’s 

Cockspur Island location uses the Savannah 

River as a legal boundary. The whole of 

Cockspur Island is federally owned and used 

by the National Park Service with special use 

permits for the Savannah bar pilots and the 

U.S. Coast Guard. Because the special use 

permit for the bar pilots was found to be 

lacking in legal authority, legislation to 

authorize a non-competitive lease was 
Land Use 

133 

introduced into the 112th Congress. On 

December 19, 2011, President Barack 

Obama approved Public Law 112-69, which 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

lease no more than 30,000 square feet of land 

and improvements at the location on 

Cockspur Island that has been used 

continuously by the Savannah Pilots 

Association since 1940. A western portion of 

Cockspur Island was formerly used by the 

U.S. Navy and is off limits to visitors, having 

been a munitions site. The U.S. Coast Guard 

currently occupies this site. 

Across the South Channel Savannah River, 

near Goat Point, on the east shore of 

Lazaretto Creek, was the location of the 

federal batteries that bombarded Fort 

Pulaski during the Civil War. This site is 

being developed as a luxury waterfront 

community known as Battery Row. The 

developer granted the monument an 

easement for the permanent creation of an 

interpretive site on the island’s northern 

shore that allows visitors to view the damage 

inflicted on the southeastern angle of the 

fort by the rifled cannons used during the 

siege and reduction of Fort Pulaski on April 

10–11, 1862. This viewpoint is very near the 

actual sites used by federal batteries to carry 

out the bombardment. The aerial 

photograph below shows the location of the 

Battery Park interpretive site and the line of 

sight to the fort. Current land uses within the 

Cockspur Island Historic District include 

recreation, interpretation, administration, 

law enforcement, and burial. Across the 

South Channel Bridge on McQueens Island, 

Chatham County maintains a multiuse path 

along a former railroad corridor. Other land 

uses on McQueens Island include U.S. 

Highway 80 and its right-of-way. U.S. 

Highway 80 connects Savannah to Tybee 

Island and it is along this corridor that 

development is most likely to proceed. The 

surrounding landscape is predominantly salt 

marsh and floodplain, but residential 

development is pressing onto Goat Point 

along U.S. Highway 80, the location of the 

Civil War era federal batteries that 

bombarded Fort Pulaski. Damage to 

documented but unidentified archeological 

sites are a concern at Goat Point. 

BATTERY PARK SITE ON TYBEE ISLAND, SHOWING LINE OF FIRE FROM FEDERAL BATTERIES 

TO FORT’S SOUTHEASTERN ANGLE

 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

134 
ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES Tammy Herrell, National Park Service

137 

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

requires that federal agencies discuss the 

environmental impacts of a proposed federal 

action, feasible alternatives to that action, 

and any adverse environmental effects that 

cannot be avoided if the proposed action is 

implemented. In this case the proposed 

federal action would be the adoption of a 

general management plan for Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. The following portion 

of this document analyzes the environmental 

impacts of implementing each of the three 

alternatives on natural resources, cultural 

resources, transportation, the visitor 

experience, the socioeconomic 

environment, and monument operations. 

The analysis is the basis for comparing the 

beneficial and adverse effects of 

implementing the three alternatives. By 

examining the environmental consequences 

of all alternatives on an equivalent basis, 

decision makers can evaluate which approach 

would provide the greatest beneficial results 

with the fewest adverse effects on the 

monument. 

Because of the general, conceptual nature of 

the actions described in the alternatives, the 

impacts of these actions are analyzed in 

general qualitative terms. Thus, this 

environmental impact statement should be 

considered a programmatic analysis. If and 

when site-specific developments or other 

actions are proposed for implementation 

subsequent to this general management plan, 

appropriate detailed environmental and 

cultural compliance documentation will be 

prepared in accordance with requirements 

of the National Environmental Policy Act 

and the National Historic Preservation Act. 

This chapter begins with a description of the 

methods and assumptions used for analyzing 

impacts. The impact analyses follow next, 

organized by alternative and then by impact 

topic under each alternative. All of the 

impact topics are assessed for each 

alternative. The existing conditions for each 

impact topic are described in chapter 3 

(“Affected Environment”). For each impact 

topic, there is an analysis of the beneficial 

and adverse effects of implementing the 

alternative, a description of cumulative 

impacts (in which this plan is considered in 

conjunction with other actions occurring in 

the region), and a conclusion. At the end of 

each alternative there is also a brief 

discussion of unavoidable adverse impacts, 

irreversible and irretrievable commitments 

of resources, and the relationship of shortterm uses of the environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity. The impacts of each alternative 

are briefly summarized in table 7, near the 

end of chapter 2 (“Alternatives, Including 

the Preferred Alternative”). 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR 

ANALYZING IMPACTS 

The planning team based the impact analysis 

and the conclusions in this chapter largely 

on a review of existing literature and studies, 

information provided by experts in the 

National Park Service and other agencies, 

and monument staff insights and 

professional judgment. It is important to 

remember that all the impacts have been 

assessed assuming mitigation measures have 

been implemented to minimize or avoid 

impacts (under the National Environmental 

Policy Act only, not for impacts on cultural 

resources governed by section 106 of the 

Historic Preservation Act—see the 

discussion under “Cultural Resources” 

below). If mitigation measures described in 

chapter 2 were not applied, the potential for 

resource impacts and the magnitude of those 

impacts would increase. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

138 

Identification of Impacts 

Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision-making and the accompanying DO12 Handbook present an approach to 

identifying the impacts of a particular 

alternative. The analysis considers the 

duration (short-or long-term), type (adverse 

or beneficial), context (the setting within 

which an effect would occur), and intensity 

or magnitude (e.g., negligible, minor, 

moderate, or major) of impacts. This is the 

approach that has been used in this 

document. Where quantitative data were not 

available, best professional judgment was 

used to identify impacts. 

Unless otherwise described under a specific 

impact topic, the duration of an impact is 

defined as follows: 

Short-term—Impacts that would last less 

than 1 year and could be temporary in 

nature. 

Long-term—Impacts that would last 1 year 

or longer and could be permanent. 

Impacts are evaluated by type, i.e., whether 

the impacts would be beneficial or adverse. 

Beneficial impacts would improve 

monument resources, the visitor experience, 

or monument operations. Adverse impacts 

would negatively affect monument 

resources, the visitor experience, or 

monument operations. 

Direct and indirect impacts caused by an 

action are considered in the analysis. 

Direct impacts are caused by an action and 

occur at the same time and place as the 

action. Indirect impacts are caused by the 

action and occur later in time or farther 

removed from the place, but are still 

reasonably foreseeable. 

The analysis also considers the setting of 

impacts for each impact topic. Unless 

otherwise indicated, the setting for each 

impact topic is Cockspur and McQueens 

islands, together with surrounding waters. 

In this document, the definition of impact 

intensity varies by impact topic. Individual 

intensity definitions can be found in table 13 

below. 

IMPACT TOPICS 

The following impact topics are addressed in 

this environmental impact statement. 

Cultural Resources 

Method for Assessing Effects on Cultural 

Resources. This environmental impact 

assessment addresses the effects of the three 

plan alternatives on cultural resources—

archeological sites, cultural landscapes, 

ethnographic resources, historic and 

prehistoric structures, and museum 

collections—that are proposed by actions in 

this general management plan. The method 

for assessing effects on cultural resources is 

designed to comply with the requirements of 

both the National Environmental Policy Act 

and section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and with implementing 

regulations 40 CFR 1500 and 36 CFR 800, 

respectively, while considering the 

differences in language between the two acts 

and recognizing that compliance with one 

does not automatically mean compliance 

with the other. Accordingly, the assessment 

of effects discusses the following 

characteristics of effects: 

 direct and indirect effects 

 duration of the effect (short-term, 

long-term) 

 context of the effect (site-specific, 

local, regional) 

 intensity of the effect (negligible, 

minor, moderate, major, both 

adverse and beneficial) 

 cumulative nature of the effect 

In accordance with 36 CFR 800, the 

regulations implementing section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, effects 
Impact Topics 

139 

on cultural resources are identified and 

evaluated in the following manner: 

 Determining the area of potential 

effect (APE) [800.4(a)] 

 Identifying historic properties in the 

APE that are listed in or eligible for 

listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places [800.4(b)-(c)]. The 

results are either: 

– No historic properties affected—

either there are no historic 

properties present or there are 

historic properties present but 

the undertaking will have no 

effect on them [800.4(d)(1)]; or 

– Historic properties affected—

there are historic properties that 

may be affected by the 

undertaking [800.4(d)(2)] 

 Applying the criteria of adverse 

effect to affected historic properties 

in the area of APE [800.5.(a)(1)], as 

follows: 

– An adverse effect is found when 

an undertaking may alter, 

directly or indirectly, any of the 

characteristics of a historic 

property that qualify the 

property for inclusion in the 

national register in a manner that 

would diminish the integrity of 

the property’s location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, 

feeling, or association. 

Consideration shall be given to 

all qualifying characteristics of a 

historic property, including 

those that may have been 

identified subsequent to the 

original evaluation of the 

property’s eligibility for the 

national register. Adverse effects 

may include reasonably 

foreseeable effects caused by the 

undertaking that may occur later 

in time, be farther removed in 

distance, or be cumulative. 

Examples of adverse effects are 

provided in 800.5(a)(2). 

– A finding of no adverse effect is 

found when the undertaking’s 

effects do not meet the criteria of 

800.5(a)(1) [800.5.(b)]. 

 Considering ways to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate or otherwise 

resolve adverse effects. The 

following are considered: 

– Consultation with the Georgia 

Department of Natural 

Resources, Historic Preservation 

Division / tribal historic 

preservation officer and others 

to develop and evaluate 

strategies to mitigate adverse 

effects [800.6]. 

– Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations and 

Director’s Order 12 call for the 

discussion of mitigating impacts 

and an analysis of how effective 

the mitigation would be in 

reducing the intensity of an 

impact, such as reducing it from 

moderate to minor intensity. Any 

resultant reduction in impact 

intensity is, however, an estimate 

of the effectiveness of mitigation 

under NEPA procedures only. 

– Such reduction in impact 

intensity does not suggest that 

the level of effect as defined by 

section 106 and 36 CFR 800 is 

similarly reduced. Cultural 

resources are nonrenewable 

resources and adverse effects 

generally consume, diminish, or 

destroy the original historic 

materials or form, resulting in a 

loss of integrity that can never be 

recovered. Therefore, although 

actions determined to have an 

adverse effect under section 106 

and 36 CFR 800 may be 

mitigated, the effect remains 

adverse. 

A section 106 summary is included in the 

impact analysis sections. The section 106 

summary provides an assessment of effect of 

the undertaking (implementation of the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

140 

alternative), on historic properties, based on 

the section 106 regulations cited previously. 

Definitions for impact intensity for 

archeological resources, cultural landscapes, 

ethnographic resources, historic and 

prehistoric structures, and museum 

collections are provided in table 13 below. 

Natural Resources 

The natural resource impact topics analyzed 

in this document are climate, soils and 

geologic resources, plant communities and 

vegetation, fish and wildlife, water quality, 

floodplains, and wetlands. Information 

about known resources was compiled and 

compared with the locations of proposed 

developments and other actions. The impact 

analysis was based on the knowledge and 

best professional judgment of planners and 

biologists; data from monument records; 

and studies of similar actions and effects, 

when applicable. The planning team 

qualitatively evaluated the intensities of 

effects on all the natural resource impact 

topics. 

Definitions of impact intensity as regards 

climate, soils/geologic resources, plant 

communities/vegetation, fish and wildlife, 

water quality, floodplains, and wetlands are 

presented in table 13. 

Wilderness Resources and Values 

The National Park Service compared the 

management actions of each alternative with 

the wilderness eligibility criteria identified in 

the Wilderness Act to determine how those 

values might be affected. Impacts were 

classified as adverse if they would adversely 

affect wilderness values or integrity. 

Conversely, impacts were classified as 

beneficial if they would enhance wilderness 

values or integrity. 

Definitions of impact intensity as regards 

wilderness resources and values are 

presented in table 13. 

Visitor Use and Experience 

This impact analysis considers various 

aspects of visitor use and experience at Fort 

Pulaski National Monument, including the 

effects on: the range of recreational 

opportunities; opportunities for solitude and 

getting in touch with nature; visitor access 

including access for visitors with disabilities; 

opportunities for orientation, education, and 

interpretation; and visitor safety. The 

analysis is primarily qualitative rather than 

quantitative due to the conceptual nature of 

the alternatives. Impacts on visitor use and 

experience were determined considering the 

best available information regarding visitor 

use and experience. Information on visitor 

use and visitor opinions was taken from data 

in monument files. This information was 

supplemented by data gathered during the 

planning process for this management plan, 

including opinions from national monument 

visitors and neighbors and information 

provided by national monument staff. 

Primarily, visitors expressed interest in 

preserving the natural and cultural resources 

of the monument, continuing to provide 

high-quality interpretive activities, 

expanding the themes interpreted by 

monument staff, protecting and expanding 

recreational opportunities, especially along 

the bike path and at the boat-launch facility 

on Lazaretto Creek, and educating visitors 

and neighbors about the monument’s unique 

resources and values. 

Definitions of impact intensity as regards 

visitor use and experience are presented in 

table 13. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

Fort Pulaski National Monument primarily 

operates within the local social and 

economic environment of the surrounding 

communities and regionally within Chatham 

County. As a result, actions proposed in the 

alternatives could have a direct effect on 

some parts of the social and economic 

environment of the region. In the 
Impact Topics 

141 

socioeconomic analysis, the duration of 

effects is considered to be either short-term 

(lasting less than 1 year), or long-term 

(lasting more than 1 year). Long-term effects 

could be considered as a permanent change 

in conditions. 

Definition of impact intensity as regards the 

socioeconomic environment is presented in 

table 13. 

Transportation 

None of the alternatives addressed in this 

general management plan would change 

transportation patterns inside the 

monument to any significant degree. 

However, the proposed U.S. Highway 80 

bridges replacement project could adversely 

impact the monument’s natural resources, as 

could the proposed deepening of the 

Savannah River to accommodate larger 

container ships. Thus, the primary intent of 

this impact topic is to analyze impacts on 

monument resources caused by 

transportation projects outside of 

monument boundaries. The analysis is based 

in large part on studies the monument has 

commissioned in recent years to identify the 

effects of past transportation projects on 

monument resources. 

Definitions of impact intensity as regards 

transportation projects are presented in 

table 13. 

Monument Operations and 

Management 

The impacts of the alternatives on 

monument operations and facilities were 

determined by examining the effects and 

changes on staffing, infrastructure, visitor 

facilities, and services. 

Definitions of impact intensity as regards 

monument operations and management 

are presented in table 13. 

FORT PULASKI MAINTENANCE BUILDING
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

142 

TABLE 13. IMPACT THRESHOLD DEFINITIONS

 Impact Topic Negligible Minor Moderate Major Cultural Resources Archeological Resources 

The effect would be at the lowest levels of detection, barely measurable, with no perceptible consequences, either adverse or beneficial, to the resources. The section 106 determination would be no adverse effect. 

The effect is measurable or perceptible, but it is slight and affects a limited area of a site or group of sites. Slight alteration(s) to any of the characteristics that qualify the site(s) for inclusion in the national register may diminish the integrity of the site(s). For purposes of section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. 

The effect is measurable and perceptible. The effect changes one or more of the characteristics that qualify the site(s) for inclusion in the national register and diminishes the integrity of the site(s), but does not jeopardize the national register eligibility of the site(s). For purposes of section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. 

The effect on the archeological site or group of sites is substantial, noticeable, and permanent. The action severely changes one or more characteristics that qualify the site(s) for inclusion in the national register, diminishing the integrity of the site(s) to such an extent that it is no longer eligible for listing in the national register. For purposes of section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. 

Museum Collections 

The effect would be at the lowest levels of detection, barely perceptible, with no measurable consequences, either adverse or beneficial, to the collections. The section 106 determination would be no adverse effect. 

The effect is measurable or perceptible, but it is slight and affects the integrity of a few items in the museum collection, but would not degrade the usefulness of the collection for future research and interpretation. Slight alteration to any of the characteristics of the collection that qualify its related resource for inclusion in the national register may diminish the integrity of the resource and its related collection. For purposes of section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. 

The effect is measurable and perceptible, and would affect the integrity of many items in the collection and diminish the usefulness of the collection for future research and interpretation. The effect changes one or more of the characteristics of the collection that qualify its related resource for inclusion in the national register and diminishes the integrity of the resource and its related collection, but does not jeopardize the national register eligibility of the resource related to the collection. For purposes of section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. 

The effect on the collection is substantial, noticeable, and permanent, and would affect the integrity of most items in the collection and destroy the usefulness of the collection for future research and interpretation. The action severely changes one or more characteristics of the collection that qualify its related resource for inclusion in the national register, diminishing the integrity of the resource and its related collection to such an extent that the resource is no longer eligible for listing in the national register. For purposes of section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. 
Impact Topics 

143 

TABLE 13. IMPACT THRESHOLD DEFINITIONS

 Impact Topic Negligible Minor Moderate Major Historic Structures The effect would be at the lowest 

levels of detection, barely measurable, with no perceptible consequences, either adverse or beneficial, to the resources. The section 106 determination would be no adverse effect. 

The effect is measurable or perceptible, but it is slight and affects a limited area of a structure or group of structures. Slight alteration(s) to any of the characteristics that qualify the structure(s) for inclusion in the national register may diminish the integrity of the structure(s). For purposes of section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. 

The effect is measurable and perceptible. The effect changes one or more of the characteristics that qualify the structure(s) for inclusion in the national register and diminishes the integrity of the structure(s), but does not jeopardize the national register eligibility of the structure(s). For purposes of section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. 

The effect on the structure or group of structures is substantial, noticeable, and permanent. The action severely changes one or more characteristics that qualify the structure(s) for inclusion in the national register, diminishing the integrity of the structure(s) to such an extent that it is no longer eligible for listing in the national register. For purposes of section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. 

Cultural Landscapes 

The effect would be at the lowest levels of detection, barely measurable, with no perceptible consequences, either adverse or beneficial, to the resources. The section 106 determination would be no adverse effect. 

The effect is measurable or perceptible, but it is slight and affects a limited area of the landscape or few of its patterns or features. Slight alteration(s) to any of the characteristics that qualify the landscape for inclusion in the national register may diminish the integrity of the landscape. For purposes of section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. 

The effect on the patterns and features of the landscape is measurable and perceptible. The effect changes one or more of the characteristics that qualify the landscape for inclusion in the national register and diminishes the integrity of the landscape, but does not jeopardize the landscape’s national register eligibility. For purposes of section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. 

The effect on the cultural landscape, its patterns and features, is substantial, noticeable, and permanent. The action severely changes one or more characteristics that qualify the landscape for inclusion in the national register, diminishing the landscape’s integrity to such an extent that it is no longer eligible for listing in the national register. For purposes of section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

144 

TABLE 13. IMPACT THRESHOLD DEFINITIONS

 Impact Topic Negligible Minor Moderate Major Ethnographic Resources 

The effect would be at the lowest levels of detection, barely measurable, with no perceptible consequences, either adverse or beneficial, to the resources. The section 106 determination would be no adverse effect. 

The effect is slight but noticeable, and it may result in limited changes in traditional resource access or use, or the relationship between the resource and the affiliated group’s body of beliefs or practices. Slight alteration(s) to any of the characteristics that qualify the resource for inclusion in the national register may diminish the integrity of the site. For purposes of section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. 

The effect is readily apparent and would interfere with traditional resource access or use, or the relationship between the resource and the affiliated group’s beliefs and practices, even though the group’s beliefs and practices would survive. The effect changes one or more of the characteristics that qualify the resource for inclusion in the national register and diminishes the resource’s integrity, but does not jeopardize the resource’s national register eligibility. For purposes of section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. 

The effect is substantial, noticeable, and permanent, and results in significant changes in traditional resource access or use, or in the relationship between the resource and the affiliated group’s beliefs and practices, to such a degree that the survival of the group’s beliefs and practices is jeopardized. The action severely changes one or more characteristics that qualify the resource for inclusion in the national register, diminishing the resource’s integrity to such an extent that it is no longer eligible for listing in the national register. For purposes of section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. 

Natural Resources Climate The impact on climate would be 

barely perceptible, not measurable. 

The impact on climate would be perceptible and measurable. 

The impact on climate would be clearly detectable and could have an appreciable effect. 

The impact on climate would have a substantial, highly noticeable influence on a regional scale. 

Geology and Soils The action would result in a change 

in soils or a geologic feature but the change would be at the lowest level of detection, or not measurable. 

The action would result in a detectable change, but the change would be slight and local. Soils or geologic resources might be slightly altered in a way that would be noticeable. There could be changes in a soil’s profile in a relatively small area, but the change would not appreciably increase the potential for erosion. 

The action would result in a clearly detectable change in soils or geologic processes—soils would be obviously altered, or a few features would show changes. There could be a loss or alteration of the topsoil in a small area, or the potential for erosion to remove small quantities of additional soil would increase. 

The action would result in the permanent loss of an important soil or geologic resource or there would be highly noticeable, widespread changes in many soils or features. There would be a permanent loss or alteration of soils or geologic resources in a relatively large area, or there would be a strong likelihood for erosion to remove large quantities of additional soil as a result of the action. 
Impact Topics 

145 

TABLE 13. IMPACT THRESHOLD DEFINITIONS

 Impact Topic Negligible Minor Moderate Major Plant Communities and Vegetation (including Exotic/Nonnative Plants) 

The action might result in a change in vegetation, but the change would not be measurable or would be at the lowest level of detection. 

The action might result in a detectable change, but the change would be slight. This could include changes in the abundance, distribution, or composition of individual species in a local area, but would not include changes that would affect the viability of vegetation communities. Changes to local ecological processes would be minimal. 

The action would result in a clearly detectable change in a vegetation community and could have an appreciable effect. This could include changes in the abundance, distribution, or composition of nearby vegetation communities, but would not include changes that would affect the viability of plant populations in the monument. Changes to local ecological processes would be of limited extent. 

The action would be severely adverse to a vegetation community. The impacts would be substantial and highly noticeable, and they could result in widespread change. This could include changes in the abundance, distribution, or composition of a nearby vegetation community or plant populations in the monument to the extent that the population would not be likely to recover. Key ecological processes would be altered, and “landscapelevel” (regional) changes would be expected. 

Fish and Wildlife The action might result in a change, 

but the change would not be measurable or would be at the lowest level of detection. 

The action might result in a detectable change, but the change would be slight and have a local effect on population. This could include changes in the abundance or distribution of individual in a local area, but not changes that would affect the viability of local populations. Changes to local ecological processes would be minimal. 

The action would result in a clearly detectable change in a population and could have an appreciable effect. This could include changes in the abundance or distribution of local populations, but not changes that would affect the viability of regional populations. Changes to local ecological processes would be of limited extent. 

The action would be severely adverse to a population. The effects would be substantial and highly noticeable, and they could result in widespread change and be permanent. This could include changes in the abundance of or distribution of a local or regional population to the extent that the population would not be likely to recover. Important ecological processes would be altered, and “landscape-level” (regional) changes would be expected. 

Water Quality The action would have no 

measurable or detectable effect on water quality or the timing and intensity of flows. 

The action would have measurable effects on water quality or the timing or intensity of flows. Water quality effects could include increased or decreased loads of sediment, debris, chemical or toxic substances, or pathogenic organisms. 

The action would have clearly detectable effects on water quality or the timing or intensity of surface water flows and potentially would affect organisms or natural ecological processes. The impact would be visible to visitors. 

The action would have substantial effects on water quality or the timing or intensity of surface water flows and potentially would affect organisms or natural ecological processes. The impact would be easily visible to visitors. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

146 

TABLE 13. IMPACT THRESHOLD DEFINITIONS

 Impact Topic Negligible Minor Moderate Major Floodplains Impacts would occur outside the 

regulatory floodplain as defined by the floodplain management guideline (100-year or 500-year floodplain, depending on the type of action), or no measurable or perceptible change in natural hydrologic processes or aquatic habitat would occur. 

Actions in the regulatory floodplain would potentially interfere with or improve natural hydrologic processes or aquatic habitat in a limited way or in a local area. Levee maintenance that would protect development areas from flooding and road and trail construction that would alter natural sheet flow are example actions that would have minor adverse impacts. 

Actions within the regulatory floodplain would interfere with or enhance river processes or aquatic habitat in a substantial way or in a large area. Examples of moderate adverse impacts would include modification of natural watercourses or canals in multiple locations or development of smallscale recreational facilities in the floodplain. 

An action would greatly alter or improve a floodplain, natural hydrologic process, or aquatic habitat. Examples of major adverse impacts would include substantial modification of natural watercourses or canals in multiple locations or development of facilities in the floodplain. 

Wetlands No measurable or perceptible 

changes in wetland size, integrity, or continuity would occur. 

The impact would be measurable or perceptible, but slight. A small change in size, integrity or continuity could occur due to indirect effects such as storm water related runoff. However, the overall viability of the resource would not be affected. 

The impact would be sufficient to cause a measurable change in the size, integrity or continuity of the wetland or would result in a small, but permanent, loss or gain in wetland acreage. 

The action would result in a measurable change in all three parameters (size, integrity, and continuity) or a permanent loss of large wetland areas. The impact would be substantial and highly noticeable. 

Wilderness Resources and Values 

An action would have no discernible effects on wilderness resources and values. 

An action would have detectable effects on wilderness resources and values, affecting the ability for a small area to meet wilderness eligibility criteria or improving and protecting its wilderness characteristics. 

An action would have clearly detectable effects on wilderness resources and values, affecting the ability of an area to meet wilderness eligibility criteria or improving and protecting its wilderness characteristics. The impact would be visible to visitors. 

An action would have substantial effects on wilderness resources and values, eliminating the characteristics that make substantial areas eligible as wilderness or improving and protecting its wilderness characteristics. The impact would be easily visible to visitors. 
Impact Topics 

147 

TABLE 13. IMPACT THRESHOLD DEFINITIONS

 Impact Topic Negligible Minor Moderate Major Visitor Use and Experience Visitation of Historic Sites / Recreational Activities 

Visitors would probably be unaware of any effects associated with implementation of the alternative. There would be no noticeable changes in visitor use and/or experience or in any defined indicators of visitor satisfaction or behavior. 

Changes in visitor use and/or experience would be slight but detectable, but would not appreciably diminish or enhance critical characteristics of the visitor experience. Visitor satisfaction would remain stable. 

Few critical characteristics of the desired visitor experience would change and/or the number of participants engaging in an activity would be altered. The visitor would be aware of the effects associated with implementation of the alternative and would probably be able to express an opinion on the changes. Visitor satisfaction would begin to either decline or increase as a direct result of the effect. 

Multiple critical characteristics of the desired visitor experience would change and/or the number of participants engaging in an activity would be greatly reduced or increased. The visitor would be aware of the effects associated with implementation of the alternative and would probably express a strong opinion about the change. Visitor satisfaction would markedly 

decline or increase. 

Socioeconomic Environment Local Economy The effect would be below detectable levels or detectable only 

through direct means, with no discernible effect on the character of the social and economic environment. Effects identified as neutral would be actions that do not produce any changes at all to the social and economic environment. 

The effect would be detectable but limited in geographic extent or size of population affected and not expected to alter the character of the established social and economic environment. 

The effect would be readily detectable across a broad geographic area or segment of the community and could have an appreciable effect on the social and economic environment. 

The effect would be readily apparent, affect a large segment of the population across the entire community and region, and would have substantial effect on the social and economic environment. 

NPS Operations and Management NPS Operations and Management 

The effect would be at or below the level of detection, and would not have an appreciable effect on monument operations and management. 

The effects would be detectable, but would be of a magnitude that would not have an appreciable effect on monument operations and management. 

The effects would result in a change in monument operations and management in a manner readily apparent to staff and possibly to the public. 

The effects would result in a substantial and widespread change in monument operations and management in a manner readily apparent to staff and the public. 

Transportation The impact on transportation 

patterns would be barely perceptible, not measurable. 

The impact on transportation patterns would be perceptible and measurable. 

The impact on transportation patterns would be clearly detectable and could have an appreciable effect. 

The impact on transportation patterns would have a substantial, highly noticeable influence on a regional scale. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

148 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS 

A cumulative impact is described in the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulation 1508.7 as follows: 

Cumulative impacts are incremental impacts 

of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (federal or 

nonfederal) or person undertakes such other 

action. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor, but collectively 

significant, actions taking place over a period 

of time. 

Likewise, 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1) similarly 

defines (and requires consideration of) 

cumulative effects: 

Adverse effects may include reasonably 

foreseeable effects caused by the 

undertaking that may occur later in time, be 

farther removed in distance or be 

cumulative. 

To determine potential cumulative impacts, 

other projects within and surrounding Fort 

Pulaski National Monument were identified. 

The area included Chatham County and the 

city of Savannah. Projects were identified via 

discussions with monument staff and 

representatives of county and city 

governments. Potential projects identified as 

cumulative actions included any past 

activities and any planning or development 

activity that was currently being 

implemented, or that would be implemented 

in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

These past, current, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions are evaluated in 

conjunction with the impacts of each 

alternative to determine if they have any 

cumulative effects on a particular natural, 

cultural, or socioeconomic resource or 

visitor use. Because most of these cumulative 

actions are in the early planning stages, the 

qualitative evaluation of cumulative impacts 

was based on a general description of the 

project. 

Past Actions That Could Contribute 

to Cumulative Effects 

As detailed in Alexander (2008), Cockspur 

Island was originally a series of small upland 

islands, or hammocks, surrounded by salt 

marsh. Fort George, the first fort on 

Cockspur Island, was constructed along the 

southeastern portion of the island during 

1761. In 1829, construction of Fort Pulaski 

began under the direction of engineer 

Robert E. Lee for the purpose of guarding 

the river approaches to Savannah. 

Throughout the Civil War, the military kept 

island vegetation closely cut to maintain a 

clear field of view. 

The first known maintenance harbor 

dredging around Fort Pulaski occurred in 

1867. Additional dredging occurred as the 

harbor and port developed. At present, 

maintenance dredging occurs annually. 

Major channel deepening events and depths 

of the river channel are 

 In 1929–1930, deepened from 26 feet 

to 30 feet (4-foot increase) 

 In 1950–1951, deepened from 30 feet 

to 36 feet (6-foot increase) 

 In 1955–1966, deepened from 36 feet 

to 40 feet (4-foot increase) 

 In 1993–1994, deepened from 40 feet 

to 44 feet (4-foot increase) 

Cockspur Island is a dynamic habitat and has 

undergone many physical changes 

throughout its history. At first frequently 

inundated by storms, the island has been 

physically altered over time by the 

accumulation of upland habitat. This habitat 

has developed primarily as a result of dredge 

spoil deposition, structural modifications 

associated with the construction of 

fortifications, and natural processes, 

including storm events. 

Deposition of dredge spoil material along 

the island edge has increased the area of 

upland habitat, providing protection from 

storm wash-over and allowing for the 

establishment of forests. The island is 
Cumulative Impact Analysis 

149 

approximately 45% dry land today, with 260 

acres of upland supporting successional 

phases of maritime forest habitat. 

Beacons, lighthouses, and quarantine 

stations have existed on Cockspur since the 

18th century. The North Channel Pier was 

constructed around 1828 to facilitate the 

unloading of building supplies, and channel 

ditches and embankments were constructed 

to control flooding. Cockspur Island 

Lighthouse was originally completed in 

1848, damaged during an 1854 storm, and 

rebuilt in 1856. The lighthouse remained in 

continuous operation until June 1909, after 

which it served as a harbor beacon. From 

1869 to 1872, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers remodeled the demilune, a work 

constructed beyond the main ditch of the 

fort. It also installed underground magazines 

and passageways. Much of the land mass 

along the north and west shores was built up 

with dredge spoil during the 1880s. A series 

of jetties were constructed around the 

mouth of the Savannah River from 1884 to 

1896, establishing a channel depth of 19 feet 

below mean low water. A quarantine station 

was built atop sand and ballast deposits 

along the North Channel Savannah River 

during 1891. Multiple requests for additional 

dredge material around the station followed 

due to its position one foot above spring 

tides. Additionally, hydraulic fill was placed 

between Jones Island and Oyster Bed Island 

between 1929 and 1930. 

The act of June 26, 1936, (49 Stat. 1979) 

reserved for the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers a strip of land along the north 

shore of Cockspur Island extending 

shoreward 200 feet from the then existing 

high water line for the deposition of dredge 

materials and for “other purposes.” This 

authority was last exercised in 1943, and 

resulted in obliteration of the marsh 

vegetation and drainage system. After 

dredging west of the quarantine station in 

1939, the Corps reconstructed the shoreline 

adjacent to the station with dredge spoil. 

The Corps also rebuilt a small dock and 

placed riprap along the new shoreline to 

prevent erosion. Additionally, the wharf was 

removed to mitigate obstruction to the 

channel’s current. 

Workers for the National Park Service 

resided on Cockspur Island from 1960 to 

1963, their efforts directed toward 

renovating the nonfunctional islandwide 

drainage system. During this same time 

period, the Chatham County Mosquito 

Control Commission excavated canals and 

filled low areas on the island for mosquito 

control. In 1972, the Corps constructed 

revetments and restraining walls to reduce 

shoaling in the North Channel Savannah 

River and to protect the facilities of the 

Savannah Pilots Association. 

Current and Future Actions That 

Could Contribute to Cumulative 

Effects 

It can be anticipated that Fort Pulaski 

National Monument will continue to be 

affected by regional population growth, with 

attendant impacts from increased visitation, 

continued development of adjacent lands, 

increased storm water runoff, increased 

upstream discharges of air and water 

pollutants, and the like. In addition the 

following future projects outside the 

monument could contribute to cumulative 

impacts: 

 Proposed U.S. Highway 80 bridges 

replacement project—This project 

would replace or modify the bridges 

over Bull River and Lazaretto Creek, 

construct bicycle and pedestrian 

facilities that link to Tybee Island 

and McQeens Island Trail, provide 

additional capacity at specific 

locations to provide congestion or 

incident relief, and improve 

conditions in flood-prone areas. 

 Savannah Harbor Deepening 

Project—The Georgia Ports 

Authority proposes to deepen the 

main channel of the Savannah River 

all the way from the river’s mouth to 

the Garden City Terminal. The 

channel would be deepened from 42 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

150 

to 48 feet in order to accommodate 

larger vessels coming through the 

Panama Canal. 

 Georgia-South Carolina Joint 

Terminal Project—This proposed 

port facility would be built in 

addition to, or in lieu of, the 

Savannah Harbor deepening project. 

It would be located in Jasper County, 

South Carolina, just upstream from 

the monument. 

DECISION MAKING TO AVOID 

IMPAIRMENT OR UNACCEPTABLE 

IMPACTS ON RESOURCES OF FORT 

PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT 

Impairment 

In addition to determining the 

environmental consequences of 

implementing the preferred and other 

alternatives, NPS Management Policies 2006

(section 1.4) requires analysis of potential 

effects to determine whether or not 

proposed actions would impair monument 

resources and values. 

The fundamental purpose of the National 

Park System, established by the Organic Act 

and reaffirmed by the General Authorities 

Act, as amended, begins with a mandate to 

conserve monument resources and values. 

NPS managers must always seek ways to 

avoid, or to minimize to the greatest degree 

practicable, adverse impacts on monument 

resources and values. However, the laws do 

give the National Park Service the 

management discretion to allow impacts on 

monument resources and values when 

necessary and appropriate to fulfill the 

purposes of the monument, as long as the 

impact does not constitute impairment of 

the affected resources and values. Although 

Congress has given NPS management 

discretion to allow certain impacts within a 

national monument, that discretion is 

limited by the statutory requirement that the 

National Park Service must leave resources 

and values unimpaired unless a particular 

law directly and specifically provides 

otherwise. 

The prohibited impairment is an impact that, 

in the professional judgment of the 

responsible NPS manager, would harm the 

integrity of monument resources and values, 

including opportunities that otherwise 

would be present for the enjoyment of those 

resources or values. (NPS Management 

Policies 2006, section 1.4.5) An impact on any 

monument resource or value may, but does 

not necessarily, constitute an impairment. 

An impact would be more likely to constitute 

impairment to the extent it affects a resource 

or value whose conservation is 

 necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing 

legislation or proclamation of the 

monument, or 

 key to the natural or cultural 

integrity of the monument or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the 

monument, or 

 identified in the monument’s general 

management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents as being of 

significance 

 

Impairment may result from NPS activities 

in managing the monument; visitor activities; 

or activities undertaken by concessioners, 

contractors, and others operating in the 

monument. 

Please note that, in accordance with recent 

NPS policy, “Appendix E: Determination of 

Impairment” has been removed from this 

plan and will instead be attached to the 

Record of Decision for the Final General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

Unacceptable Impacts 

The impact threshold at which impairment 

occurs is not always readily apparent. 

Therefore, the National Park Service applies 

a standard that offers a greater assurance 
Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

151 

that impairment will not occur. The 

National Park Service does this by avoiding 

impacts that it determines to be 

unacceptable. These are impacts that fall 

short of impairment, but are still not 

acceptable within a particular park’s 

environment. Guidelines for the 

identification of unacceptable impacts are 

provided in NPS Management Policies 2006, 

section 1.4.7.1 (NPS 2006a). 

Virtually every form of human activity that 

takes place within a park has some degree of 

effect on park resources or values, but that 

does not mean the impact is unacceptable or 

that a particular use must be disallowed. 

Therefore, for the purposes of these policies, 

unacceptable impacts at Fort Pulaski 

National Monument are impacts that, 

individually or cumulatively, would 

 be inconsistent with the park’s 

purposes or values 

 impede the attainment of the park’s 

desired future conditions for natural 

and cultural resources as identified 

through the park’s planning process 

 create an unsafe or unhealthful 

environment for visitors or 

employees 

 diminish opportunities for current 

or future generations to enjoy, learn 

about, or be inspired by park 

resources or values 

 unreasonably interfere with 

– park programs or activities 

– an appropriate use 

– the atmosphere of peace and 

tranquility, or the natural 

soundscape maintained in 

wilderness and natural, historic, 

or commemorative locations 

within the park 

– NPS concessioner or contractor 

operations or services 

In accordance with NPS Management 

Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a), park managers 

must not allow uses that would cause 

unacceptable impacts on park resources. 

To determine if unacceptable impacts 

could occur to the resources and values of 

Fort Pulaski National Monument, the 

impacts of both existing and proposed 

actions in this general management plan 

have been evaluated, based on the 

preceding criteria. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

Once impacts are identified, each alternative 

is compared to a baseline, represented by 

future conditions that would occur under 

the no-action/continue current management 

alternative (alternative A). For the no-action 

alternative, the impact analysis compares 

future resource conditions in 2024 to 

existing conditions in 2009, assuming 

continuation of current management 

direction. 

The impact analysis for the action 

alternatives (alternatives B and C) compares 

the action alternatives in the year 2024 to the 

no-action alternative in the year 2024. Said 

differently, the description of the impacts of 

the action alternatives sets forth the 

difference between implementing the noaction alternative and implementing the 

action alternatives. To fully understand the 

impacts of implementing any of the action 

alternatives, the reader must take into 

consideration the impacts that would occur 

under the no-action alternative. 

IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

Transportation 

Under all of the alternatives, existing 

transportation flows within the monument 

would be maintained in essentially their 

current form. Visitation levels may increase 

under all of the alternatives, due primarily to 

rising population in the local area, with 

impacts on monument roads, U.S. Highway 

80, and roads in adjacent communities that 

would be minor to moderate, long term and 

adverse. Impacts to monument natural 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

152 

resources (particularly geologic resources 

and soils, vegetation, and wildlife) from the 

monument road and parking system would 

be negligible to minor, long term, and 

adverse. No impacts are anticipated to 

cultural resources. 

Cumulative Effects. The proposed U.S. 

Highway 80 bridges replacement project 

could affect both transportation patterns 

and national monument resources. Land 

from within the current monument 

boundary could be required to 

accommodate various elements of the U.S. 

Highway 80 bridges replacement project, 

and this land could conceivably contain 

cultural resources on it. Impacts could 

possibly be mitigated by the donation of 

state land that has important natural and 

cultural resources. 

Two proposed harbor projects could 

likewise affect transportation patterns and 

monument resources. The Savannah Harbor 

Expansion Project would involve deepening 

36 miles of the navigation channel an 

additional 6 to 8 feet and widening bends at 

12 locations. Specifically, the Georgia Ports 

Authority has proposed to deepen the 36-

mile portion of the Savannah River from 

Fort Pulaski (at river mile 0) to above the 

Kings Island Turning Basin from its current 

42-foot depth to a depth of 48 feet. Possible 

adverse effects associated with the proposed 

deepening include its effects on water 

conditions (i.e., surface water salinity, 

groundwater intrusion, dissolved oxygen, 

water clarity, contaminant concentrations), 

and how those in turn might affect 

freshwater wetlands and aquatic resources 

(e.g., striped bass, shortnose sturgeon). 

Additional impacts include a possible 

increase in the rate of erosion to the north 

shore of Cockspur Island. There are 

significant cultural resources in the 

northeast section of Cockspur Island near 

the river’s mouth, and this area has been 

exclusively erosional for the past 40 years, 

and continues to be so today (Alexander 

2008). Although a recent study was unable to 

draw a clear link between shoreline erosion 

and river channel deepening, it noted that 

the historic placement of dredge spoil and 

other anthropogenic activities on the north 

shore of Cockspur has impeded erosion 

along the river bank. Based on data obtained 

after these activities ceased, it appears that 

the northeast portion of Cockspur Island 

would probably have been erosional 

throughout the last century had it not been 

for these activities. This area bears the full 

brunt of energy from both weather systems 

and shipping activity in the river. Harbor 

traffic has been increasing steadily with time, 

and so harbor-related impacts on the 

shoreline must be increasing as well. 

The second project is a proposed bi-state 

container port on the Savannah River at 

Hardeeville, South Carolina (Jasper County). 

If built, the port would be 10 miles closer to 

the ocean than the Port of Savannah’s 

Garden City Terminal. Possible effects 

include adverse impacts on water quality and 

physical effects associated with port 

development (e.g., dredging, channel 

maintenance, deepening, etc.). Additional 

impacts could include exacerbation of 

erosive forces on the north shore of 

Cockspur Island. 

When the long-term, negligible to minor, 

and adverse effects of implementing any of 

the action alternatives are added to the 

moderate to major effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

as described previously, there would be 

long-term, moderate to major, adverse 

cumulative impacts on monument geological 

resources, soils, vegetation, fish, and wildlife 

as a result of transportation projects. Any 

one of the action alternatives would 

contribute a negligible increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Impacts to transportation 

under all alternatives would be negligible to 

minor, long term, direct, and adverse. 

Moderate to major impacts on a number of 

the monument’s natural resources could 

ensue from deepening the Savannah River 

ship channel and constructing the proposed 

Jasper Port, both of which would take place 

outside the monument boundary. 
Climate Change 

153 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Under all of the alternatives, existing 

emissions of greenhouse gases would 

initially continue more or less in their 

current form. No major new development or 

increase in vehicle usage is contemplated 

under any of the alternatives. Over time, 

however, the monument will implement the 

Climate Friendly Parks program developed 

jointly by the National Park Service and the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This 

program may lower emissions and reduce 

the monument’s overall carbon footprint. 

Possible elements of the program at Fort 

Pulaski could include greater use of energyefficient vehicles, less frequent mowing of 

open areas, and more effective recycling and 

re-use strategies. In themselves, impacts 

from these activities would be negligible, 

direct and indirect, long term, and beneficial. 

When combined with similar efforts 

elsewhere, beneficial impacts would be 

greater, albeit difficult to quantify. 

Cumulative Effects. Because it is a coastal 

monument, Fort Pulaski National 

Monument is more vulnerable than inland 

areas to the projected consequences of 

global climate change, including sea level rise 

and more violent and frequent storm events. 

The National Park Service and the United 

States Geological Survey have developed 

coastal vulnerability index maps for a 

number of coastal monuments. These maps 

identify coastal areas sensitive to sea-level 

rise, and will allow managers to take 

precautions necessary for their protection. 

Records show that sea levels at Fort Pulaski 

are rising at a rate of 13 inches per century. 

Levels could rise another 25 inches by 2100 

if the current rate of climate change 

continues. These changes in sea level could 

disrupt ecological services (nutrient 

recycling, sedimentation, primary/secondary 

productivity) provided by wetlands due to 

changes in hydrology and physical structure, 

biogeochemistry, vegetation, and animal 

populations (Michener et al. 1997). In 

addition, Georgia is expected to experience 

a predicted increase in temperatures by as 

much as 4oF (~2oC; fall) and in precipitation 

by as much as 40% (summer/fall) (USEPA 

1997). Together, all of these changes have 

major implications for Fort Pulaski’s salt 

marsh and shoreline areas because they 

could lead to loss of wetlands and serious 

erosion (McFarlin and Alber 2005). Rising 

sea levels could also affect the structural 

integrity of the fort. 

The monument would have extreme 

difficulty adapting to such changes, because 

they would entail outright loss or significant 

damage to the resources the monument was 

established to protect. Impacts would be 

major, direct, long term, and adverse. The 

alternatives in this plan would contribute a 

negligible increment to this adverse impact. 

Conclusion. Direct impacts on climate 

under all alternatives would be negligible, 

long term, direct and indirect, and adverse. 

Major, long-term, and adverse impacts on 

monument resources could ensue from 

global climate change. The alternatives in 

this plan would contribute a negligible 

increment to this adverse impact. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

154 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE A (CONTINUE 

CURRENT MANAGEMENT) 

Cultural Resources 

Archeological Resources. Under 

alternative A, impacts on archeological 

resources could result from visitor activities 

such as hiking, picnicking, cycling, and 

exploring. Trampling or disturbance could 

result in a loss of surface archeological 

materials, alteration of artifact distribution, 

and a reduction of contextual evidence. 

Additional impacts on archeological 

resources could occur due to soil erosion 

from existing roads and trails, soil 

disturbance due to the construction of new 

or expanded trails, shoreline erosion from 

ongoing shipping activities in the Savannah 

River, soil compaction at trailheads and 

parking areas, and soil disturbance resulting 

from miscellaneous facility maintenance 

activities. Apart from shoreline erosion, the 

impacts of which are difficult to predict, the 

impacts related to these activities would for 

the most part be confined to surface soil 

layers and take place in previously disturbed 

areas. Impacts would thus be permanent, 

adverse, and of negligible to minor intensity. 

Archeological resources adjacent to or easily 

accessible from roads or trails could be 

vulnerable to looting and vandalism. 

Continued ranger patrol and emphasis on 

visitor education would minimize adverse 

effects and any adverse effects would be 

anticipated to range in intensity from 

negligible to minor and be permanent. There 

is no potential for impacts on archeological 

sites resulting from facility development. 

Cumulative Impacts—Ongoing monument 

management and visitor use activities have 

resulted in relatively little disturbance of 

archeological resources in the monument. 

Large-scale projects such as deepening the 

Savannah River ship channel could pose 

some impacts on archeological resources in 

the vicinity of the monument. The number 

and extent of these archeological resources 

is unknown so the potential impact cannot 

be assessed with any degree of accuracy. 

However, the impacts of the federal channel 

project will be assessed in separate 

environmental compliance documents being 

prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. When the permanent, negligible 

to minor adverse effects of implementing the 

actions under alternative A are added to the 

minor effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

previously, there would be a permanent, 

negligible to minor, adverse cumulative 

impact on archeological resources. The 

actions under alternative A would contribute 

a negligible increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion—Under alternative A, impacts on 

archeological resources would be 

permanent, negligible, and adverse. 

Cumulative impacts would be permanent, 

minor, and adverse. The actions under 

alternative A would contribute a negligible 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Section 106 Summary—After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative A would have no adverse effect 

on archeological resources. 

Museum Collections. Museum collections 

would be collocated with the collections of 

Fort Frederica and Ocmulgee national 

monuments in Macon, Georgia, thereby 

eliminating their vulnerability to storm surge 

and wind damage. Impacts to museum 

collections would be permanent and 

beneficial. 

Cumulative Impacts—The National Park 

Service is currently endeavoring to move 

vulnerable museum collections in the 

Southeast away from coastal locations to 

more secure inland facilities. Impacts to 

museum collections would be permanent 

and beneficial. The actions under alternative 

A would contribute a significant increment 

to this cumulative impact. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (Continue Current Management) 

155 

Conclusion—Under alternative A, impacts on 

museum collections would be permanent 

and beneficial. Cumulative impacts would 

likewise be permanent and beneficial. The 

actions under alternative A would contribute 

a significant increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Section 106 Summary—After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative A would have no adverse effect 

on museum collections. 

Historic Structures. Under alternative A, 

impacts on historic structures would 

continue to occur due to aging of the historic 

fabric, normal wear and tear, and vandalism. 

Impacts for the most part would be 

temporary, adverse, and of negligible 

intensity. Continued ranger patrols and 

cyclic maintenance activities would 

minimize damage to historic structures. 

Negative impacts would be anticipated to be 

short-term, negligible, and adverse. No 

historic structures would be modified or 

removed under this alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts—No historic structures 

associated with Fort Pulaski survive in the 

immediate area surrounding the monument. 

However, in the local metropolitan and 

regional area, a number of historic structures 

survive, and losses to these resources 

continue to occur due to development 

projects and structural modification. 

Therefore, when the short-term, negligible 

to minor, and adverse effects of 

implementing alternative A are added to the 

moderate to major adverse effects of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described previously, there would 

be long-term, moderate to major adverse 

cumulative impacts on historic structures. 

Alternative A would contribute a negligible 

increment to this cumulative impact.

Conclusion—Under alternative A, impacts on 

historic structures would be short term, 

negligible, and adverse, mostly due to 

normal wear and tear. Cumulative impacts 

would be moderate to major and adverse 

due to continued development in the local 

and regional area. The actions under 

alternative A would constitute a negligible 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Section 106 Summary—After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative A would have no adverse effect 

on historic structures. 

 

Cultural Landscapes. Under alternative A, 

the cultural landscape of the monument 

would continue to differ from its historic 

appearance. Areas on Cockspur Island that 

were open fields or otherwise cleared during 

the Civil War would continue to be covered 

by invasive, nonnative vegetation. Sight lines 

between the fort and Union batteries would 

continue to be obscured. As a result, existing 

adverse impacts on the cultural landscape 

would continue. Some removal of nonnative 

vegetation could occur under this alternative 

through periodic employment of NPS 

nonnative plant management teams. 

Resulting impacts on the cultural landscape 

would be long term and beneficial. No 

impacts would occur from facility 

development because no new development 

is planned under this alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts—Development 

continues on nearby Tybee Island, including 

areas where Union batteries were located 

during the war. On the other hand, efforts 

are ongoing to preserve the sites of historic 

batteries on Tybee and Long islands. On 

balance, impacts on the cultural landscape of 

the area surrounding the monument are long 

term, minor to moderate, and both 

beneficial and adverse. When the long-term 

and beneficial effects of implementing 

alternative A are added to the minor to 

moderate effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

previously, there would be long-term, minor 

to moderate, beneficial and adverse 

cumulative impacts on the cultural 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

156 

landscape. Alternative A would contribute a 

negligible to minor increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion—Under alternative A, there 

would be long-term beneficial impacts on 

the cultural landscape due to a gradual 

reduction in nonnative vegetation. 

Cumulative impacts would be long term, 

minor to moderate, and both beneficial and 

adverse. Alternative A would contribute a 

negligible to minor increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Section 106 Summary—After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative A would have no adverse effect 

on the cultural landscape. 

Ethnographic Resources. Fort Pulaski 

National Monument has not yet been the 

subject of an ethnographic assessment and 

therefore the existence (or nonexistence) of 

ethnographic resources is undocumented. 

However, research by Dr. Charles J. Elmore 

(Elmore 2002) and other records 

demonstrate that there are traditional 

attachments and connections between the 

African American community in the 

Savannah area and Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. These connections include the 

use of slaves in the construction of the fort, 

General David Hunter’s emancipation 

proclamation, the use of the fort as a stop on 

the Underground Railroad, and the use of 

the fort as a haven for freed and escaped 

slaves subsequent to the capture of Fort 

Pulaski by Union forces in April of 1862. In 

addition to these African American 

connections, the story of the “Immortal Six 

Hundred” resonates today among those 

whose ancestors fought on the side of the 

Confederacy and those who continue to do 

research on the subject of prisoners of war. 

Alternative A would have few if any impacts 

on the foregoing attachments because it 

would continue to provide long-term 

protection to the fort and its historic 

context. Impacts to ethnographic resources 

would therefore probably be negligible, long 

term, and neutral. 

Cumulative Impacts—Development 

continues on nearby Tybee Island, including 

in areas that may have ethnographic 

resources similar to those within the 

monument. Actual impacts on ethnographic 

resources are not known. However, given 

the long-term protection of the fort and its 

historic context, alternative A would 

contribute a negligible increment to any 

cumulative impact that might occur. 

Conclusion—Under alternative A, there 

would probably be negligible, long-term, and 

neutral impacts on ethnographic resources. 

Cumulative impacts are unknown. 

Alternative A would contribute a negligible 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Section 106 Summary—After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative A would have no adverse effect 

on ethnographic resources. 

Natural Resources 

Geology and Soils. Under alternative A, 

geological, physiographical, and soil 

resources would continue to be subject to 

current management practices and policies. 

Impacts to these resources would be due to 

soil erosion from existing roads and trails, 

shoreline erosion from ongoing shipping 

activities in the Savannah River, soil 

compaction at trailheads and parking areas, 

and soil disturbance resulting from 

miscellaneous facility maintenance activities. 

Impacts to soils and geologic resources 

would be negligible to minor, local, short 

and long term, direct, and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts—Permanent soil loss 

resulting from regional growth and 

development would adversely impact soils. 

The impact of these efforts on soils is 

expected to be long term, moderate to 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (Continue Current Management) 

157 

major, and adverse. When the probable 

effects of implementing the actions under 

alternative A are added to the effects of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions as described previously, 

there would be a long-term, moderate to 

major, adverse cumulative impact on soils. 

The actions under alternative A would 

contribute a negligible increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion—Under alternative A, impacts on 

soils and geologic resources would be long 

term, negligible to minor, adverse, and local. 

There would be a long-term, moderate to 

major, adverse cumulative impact on soils 

and geologic resources. The actions under 

alternative A would contribute a negligible 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Plant Communities and Vegetation.

Vegetation resources would continue to be 

subject to current management practices and 

policies. Impacts would be due primarily to 

removal of dead, diseased, or hazardous 

trees, as well as fuel removal in accordance 

with the approved fire management plan. 

Additional impacts would occur from the 

possible continued spread of nonnative 

vegetation, as well as from trampling and 

other visitor use of existing facilities. 

Collectively, impacts from implementing 

alternative A would continue to be negligible 

to minor, adverse, long term, and local. 

Cumulative Impacts—Regional growth and 

development is expected to result in an 

increase in the disturbance or destruction of 

plant communities and vegetation. The 

impact of these activities on vegetation and 

vegetative communities is expected to be 

long term, moderate to major, and adverse. 

When the probable effects of implementing 

the actions under alternative A are added to 

the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

previously, there would be a long-term, 

moderate to major, and adverse cumulative 

impact on plant communities and 

vegetation. The actions under alternative A 

would contribute a negligible increment to 

this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion—Under alternative A, impacts on 

plant communities and vegetation would be 

long term, adverse, negligible to minor, and 

local. There could be long-term, moderate to 

major, and adverse cumulative impacts on 

vegetation and plant communities in the 

surrounding region. The actions under 

alternative A would contribute a negligible 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Exotic/Nonnative Plants. Nonnative plants 

can have severe effects on the integrity of 

native systems and habitats. Visitors can be 

agents for seed dispersal, increasing the 

threat to native plant communities. Under 

alternative A, impacts on monument 

resources from the growth and spread of 

exotic/nonnative plants would continue to 

occur. Some limited removal of nonnatives 

would take place as funding became 

available, but large scale restoration would 

not be likely to take place in the near term. 

Nonnative vegetation would therefore 

continue to displace native vegetation in 

large portions of Cockspur Island, with 

corresponding impacts on natural processes 

and native wildlife. Impacts from 

exotic/nonnative species would be long 

term, adverse, and moderate to major, and 

would be concentrated on Cockspur Island. 

Cumulative Impacts—Regional growth and 

development is expected to result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural lands to 

developed areas and thereby increase the 

amount of disturbed land available for 

colonization by nonnative species. The 

impact of these activities on native plants 

and plant communities is expected to be 

long term, moderate to major, and adverse. 

When the probable effects of implementing 

the actions under alternative A are added to 

the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

previously, there would be a long-term, 

moderate to major, adverse cumulative 

impact on native natural processes resulting 

from the loss of vegetative cover and the 

spread of nonnative plants. The actions 

under alternative A would contribute a very 

small increment to this cumulative impact. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

158 

Conclusion—Under alternative A, impacts 

from nonnative plants and nonnative 

vegetation would be long term, adverse, and 

moderate to major, and would be 

concentrated on Cockspur Island. There 

could be long-term, moderate to major, 

adverse cumulative impacts on native natural 

processes. The actions under alternative A 

would contribute a very small increment to 

this cumulative impact. 

Fish and Wildlife. Under alternative A, 

minor adverse impacts on fish and wildlife 

would continue to occur, primarily from 

disturbance to soils and vegetation caused by 

ongoing visitor use and NPS management 

activities. Some limited vegetation 

management efforts, including hazardous 

vegetation removal and limited management 

of nonnative vegetation, would improve 

habitat by decreasing competition from 

nonnative plants and increasing the 

availability of native plants as food sources. 

Impacts from these management activities 

would be long term and beneficial. Overall, 

impacts on fish and wildlife from the 

continuation of current management 

(alternative A) would be long term, minor, 

and both beneficial and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts—Regional growth and 

development is expected to continue and 

result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands to development in the general 

area. The loss of natural areas and the 

increasing urbanization of the region have 

led to a loss of wildlife habitat. Continued 

urbanization will fragment remaining natural 

areas and increase the risks and threats to 

wildlife, including automobile collisions, 

nonnative species, and pathogens. Rainwater 

runoff and industrial discharges from urban 

areas may lead to a deterioration of water 

quality, with corresponding impacts on fish 

species. Overall, the effects of the activities 

described previously would probably be 

long term, moderate, and adverse on fish 

and wildlife in the region. When the 

probable effects of implementing the actions 

under alternative A are added to the effects 

of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions as described previously, 

there would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on fish and 

wildlife. The actions under alternative A 

would contribute a very small increment to 

this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion—Under alternative A, impacts on 

fish and wildlife from the continuation of 

current management would be long term, 

minor, and both beneficial and adverse. 

Impacts would be concentrated at Cockspur 

Island. Minor adverse impacts on soil, water 

quality, and vegetation would result in minor 

adverse effects on some fish and wildlife 

species. In contrast, the removal of 

nonnatives would result in beneficial effects 

on some wildlife species. There would be 

long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative 

impacts on fish and wildlife. The actions 

under alternative A would contribute a very 

small increment to this cumulative impact. 

 

Water Quality. Alternative A would result in 

impacts on hydrology and water quality that 

are negligible to minor, long term, indirect, 

and adverse. Impacts would be due to 

sedimentation from existing roads and trails, 

as well as from oil and grease discharges at 

parking areas and road crossings over 

waterways. Additional impacts could occur 

from the use of herbicides to control 

nonnative vegetation. To mitigate impacts 

from herbicide, the National Park Service 

would use the appropriate class of herbicide 

for the vegetation setting in question, would 

strictly adhere to application directions, and 

would use appropriate best management 

practices. 

Cumulative Impacts—Regional growth and 

development is expected to result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural lands to 

development and alter the hydrology of the 

general area. Water quality would be 

affected by inputs from urban and suburban 

development, including increases in organic 

compounds and chemical concentrations. 

Inputs would derive both from point sources 

(e.g., sewer outfalls) and nonpoint sources 

(e.g., storm water runoff). The impact on 

water quality within the watershed is 

expected to be adverse, but the intensity is 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (Continue Current Management) 

159 

unknown. When the probable effects of 

implementing the actions under alternative 

A are added to the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

as described previously, there would be a 

long-term, adverse cumulative impact on 

water quality in the watershed. The intensity 

of the impact is unknown. The actions under 

alternative A would contribute a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion—Under alternative A, impacts on 

water quality would be long term, negligible 

to minor, adverse, and local. There would be 

a long-term, adverse cumulative impact on 

water quality in the watershed. The intensity 

of the impact is unknown. The actions under 

alternative A would contribute a very small 

adverse increment to this cumulative impact. 

 

Floodplains. Under alternative A, existing 

structures in the 100-year floodplain would 

remain in place. Such structures include the 

historic fort, the visitor center, 

administrative structures, access roads and 

trails, visitor parking area, sidewalks and 

trails, etc. Impacts to floodplain functions 

would be negligible to minor. These 

structures will remain in place because they 

either constitute the resource that the 

monument was designated to protect, or 

they provide administrative or visitor 

services in the only practical locations 

available. 

Cumulative Impacts—Regional growth and 

development is expected to affect 

floodplains in the region. Floodplains could 

be physically altered, changing their capacity 

and altering the natural course of floodwater 

flow. Natural flood patterns would be 

adversely affected, but any adverse impacts 

on property and life should be mitigated 

through proper permitting. The impact of 

the floodplain modification and structures in 

floodplains could be long term, minor to 

major (depending on the location and the 

nature of the impact), and adverse. When 

the probable effects of implementing the 

actions under alternative A are added to the 

effects of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions as described previously, 

there would be a long-term, minor to major, 

adverse cumulative impact on floodplains. 

The actions under alternative A would 

contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion—Given that Cockspur Island 

rarely floods, impacts on floodplain 

functions under alternative A would be local, 

direct and indirect, negligible to minor, and 

adverse. Impacts to infrastructure in the 

event of flooding would be short and long 

term, moderate to major, and adverse. 

Wetlands. No filling of wetlands or other 

reduction in wetland function or values 

would occur as a result of alternative A. 

Therefore, no new impacts on wetlands 

would occur under this alternative. Impacts 

on wetlands would be attributed primarily to 

the retention and maintenance of existing 

facilities, such as roads, grades, and trails. 

Impacts would include those from past 

vegetation loss and alteration of soils, which 

have resulted in permanent effects on 

wetland size and integrity that are long term, 

minor, adverse, and local. Indirect impacts, 

such as increased runoff and sedimentation, 

are and will continue to be long term, minor, 

adverse, and local. Collectively, impacts on 

wetlands under alternative A would 

continue to be long term, minor, adverse, 

and local. 

Cumulative Impacts—Some reduction in 

wetland function or values inside the 

monument could take place as a result of 

actions occurring outside the monument 

boundary, e.g., expansion of U.S. Highway 

80, and alteration of the Savannah River 

channel to accommodate more and larger 

ships. Short-term impacts on wetlands 

would be adverse, moderate, and local; longterm residual impacts would be adverse, 

minor, and local. Regional growth and 

development is expected to result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural lands to 

development and alter the hydrology of the 

general area. Changes in sheet flow and 

water quality would affect the size, integrity, 

and function of wetlands in the watershed. 

The impact of these activities on wetlands 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

160 

would be long term, moderate to major, and 

adverse. The adverse impacts would be at 

least partially offset by wetlands mitigation 

required by permitting agencies. Overall, the 

effects of the projects discussed previously 

would be adverse on wetlands. When the 

probable effects of implementing the actions 

under alternative A are added to the effects 

of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions as described previously, 

there would be a long-term, minor to major, 

adverse cumulative impact on wetlands. The 

actions under alternative A would not 

contribute any new impacts to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion—Under alternative A, past 

impacts on wetlands would continue and 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

local. There would be a long-term, minor to 

major, adverse cumulative impact on 

wetlands. The actions under alternative A 

would not contribute any new impacts on 

this cumulative impact. 

Wilderness Resources and Values 

In accordance with NPS Management Polices 

2006, eligible land in the monument would 

continue to be managed to preserve its 

wilderness character and maintain its 

potential eligibility for wilderness 

designation; however, lands within the 

monument would not be proposed for 

wilderness designation and hence would not 

receive the special status and protection that 

derives from wilderness designation. 

Because of limited public use of the salt 

marsh portion of the monument, 

fragmentation of habitats would be 

minimized, and the current condition of the 

natural soundscape would continue to be 

preserved. Opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation would 

continue to be preserved and available. 

Continuation of current management would 

result in long-term beneficial impacts on 

wilderness character. Fishing would be 

allowed but would be accommodated by 

boat-in access only. The minimal public use 

in the salt marsh portion of the monument 

would cause only negligible to minor adverse 

impacts on wilderness resources and values. 

Ongoing NPS resource management 

activities would continue to preserve the 

long-term naturalness and untrammeled 

quality of the eligible lands, but development 

outside the monument boundary could 

cause some short- and long-term adverse 

impacts on wilderness character, including 

degradation of the natural soundscape and 

diminished opportunities for solitude. 

Overall, the impacts on wilderness resources 

and values would continue to be long term, 

beneficial, and local. 

Cumulative Impacts. Regional growth and 

development is expected to continue and 

result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands in the general area. Increasing 

urbanization, fragmentation of habitat, and 

the loss of natural areas have led to the 

degradation of natural resources, ecosystem 

function, and natural soundscapes in the 

region. The impact of these activities on 

wilderness resources and values is expected 

to be long term, moderate, and adverse. 

Overall, the effects of the projects discussed 

previously would probably be adverse to 

wilderness resources and values in the 

region. When the probable effects of 

implementing the actions under alternative 

A are added to the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

as described previously, there would be a 

long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

cumulative impact on wilderness resources 

and values in the region. The actions under 

alternative A would not contribute to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, impacts 

on wilderness resources and values from the 

continuation of current management would 

be long term, beneficial, and local. There 

would be a long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on wilderness 

resources and values in the region. The 

actions under alternative A would not 

contribute to this cumulative impact. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (Continue Current Management) 

161 

Visitor Use and Experience 

The no-action alternative would not change 

the current management of the monument. 

Visitors would continue to have access to 

the historic fort and lighthouse, and 

monument staff would continue to offer a 

variety of interpretive programs. 

Opportunities for hiking, biking, and 

picnicking would continue to be available. 

Overall, access to historic resources and the 

availability of varied recreational 

opportunities would result in long-term, 

beneficial impacts on visitor use and 

experience. 

Cumulative Impacts. Regional growth is 

expected to result in increased development 

in the vicinity of the monument. As a result, 

opportunities for cultural tourism and 

recreational activities may expand at Tybee 

Island and in the Savannah metropolitan 

area. Because the monument is well-buffered 

by thousands of acres of salt marsh, these 

opportunities would expand the choices 

available to monument visitors without 

affecting the actual visitor experience of 

most people using the monument. 

Combining the probable effects of 

implementing the no-action alternative with 

the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions described 

previously, the cumulative impact on visitor 

use and experience in the monument would 

be long term and beneficial. The actions 

under the no-action alternative would not 

contribute an appreciable increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under the no-action 

alternative, impacts on visitor use and 

experience would be long term, moderate, 

and neutral. The cumulative impact on 

visitor use and experience in the monument 

would be long term and beneficial. The 

actions under the no-action alternative 

would not contribute an appreciable 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

Analysis of economic impacts under 

alternative A was based on projected 

visitation to the monument as well as 

estimated one-time capital expenditures due 

to construction activities, if appropriate. 

Because alternative A would maintain the 

status quo, visitor spending is assumed to 

remain more or less as it is today, with some 

slight increase due to anticipated population 

growth in the local area. 

Local Economy Employment. Because no 

new jobs would be created under alternative 

A, Chatham County would not realize any 

changes to its employment levels. As a result, 

long-term impacts resulting from alternative 

A would be local, negligible, and neutral. 

Furthermore, because there would be no 

new capital expenditures in the monument, 

short-term employment impacts would also 

remain unaffected, because there would be 

no need to hire labor for construction 

activity. Consequently, short-term impacts 

of alternative A would be local, negligible, 

and neutral. 

Housing. Because alternative A would not 

entail hiring additional staff, demand for 

residential housing would remain 

unchanged. Short-term impacts resulting 

from alternative A would be local, negligible, 

and neutral. 

Sales. Total sales of goods and services in 

Chatham County, as a result of visitor 

spending, would remain more or less 

unchanged under the no-action alternative. 

Because alternative A does not increase or 

decrease sales revenue, long-term impacts 

would be local, negligible, and neutral. 

Cumulative Impacts. The action area for 

evaluating cumulative impacts on the 

socioeconomic environment is Chatham 

County. The implementation of alternative A 

does not have a strong likelihood of 

attracting new visitors and locals to the 

monument. Relatively steady visitation 

would translate into more or less unchanged 

spending in the area, resulting in neutral 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

162 

impacts for Chatham County in terms of 

employment, housing, and taxable annual 

sales. However, long-term economic activity 

in the county appears likely to increase due 

to the continued long-term expansion of 

world shipping and the potential 

construction of new facilities at the Port of 

Savannah and the proposed port at Jasper 

County, South Carolina. A surge in retirees 

in coming years is expected to increase 

populations near the coast with concomitant 

impacts on construction, health care, and 

related industries. Combining the probable 

effects of implementing the no-action 

alternative with the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

described previously, the cumulative 

socioeconomic impacts would be local and 

beneficial. Alternative A would contribute a 

negligible increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Because there would be no 

changes to visitor spending or construction 

activity within Chatham County under 

alternative A, long-term and short-term 

impacts on the socioeconomic environment 

would be local, negligible, and neutral. As a 

result, county employment, housing, and 

sales would remain constant. In terms of 

cumulative impacts, long-term and shortterm impacts would be local and beneficial. 

Alternative A would contribute a negligible 

increment to this total cumulative effect. 

Monument Operations 

Alternative A would maintain the status quo 

with respect to monument staff and facilities. 

Possible future boundary expansions adding 

new historical resources would impose 

additional long-term maintenance and 

interpretation responsibilities on monument 

staff. Current staff levels are generally 

adequate to protect existing monument 

resources and serve visitors. Thus, 

alternative A would result in minor, longterm, neutral impacts on NPS operations. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cooperation and 

coordination with neighboring agencies and 

entities regarding planning, land use, 

resources, and development proposals near 

the monument would continue to require 

varying amounts of staff time and result in 

minor to moderate long-term adverse 

impacts. Combined with other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future impacts, 

alternative A would result in minor to 

moderate, long-term, neutral cumulative 

impacts on NPS operations. 

Conclusion. Operation of existing visitor 

and administrative facilities in the 

monument would result in continuing 

minor, long-term, neutral impacts on NPS 

operations. The cumulative impacts of the 

no-action alternative and other reasonably 

foreseeable future actions required of 

monument staff would be minor to 

moderate, long term, and neutral. 

Energy Requirements and 

Conservation Potential 

Under alternative A, no new facilities would 

be developed, thereby eliminating any new 

energy requirements for facility 

construction. Public use of the monument 

would remain at about its current level. The 

fuel and energy consumed by visitors 

traveling to the monument would not be 

likely to increase because visitation is not 

likely to increase substantially. Energy would 

still be consumed to maintain existing 

facilities and for resource management of 

the monument. 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Unavoidable adverse impacts are defined as 

impacts that cannot be fully mitigated or 

avoided. Adverse impacts on natural and 

cultural resources and visitor experience 

could occur in some areas throughout the 

monument, resulting from limited public use 

or NPS management activities. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative) 

163 

Irretrievable or Irreversible 

Commitments of Resources 

Under alternative A, the energy 

requirements identified previously would 

result in an irreversible commitment of 

resources. There would be no permanent 

effects on monument resources. 

Relationship between Local Shortterm Uses of the Environment and 

Maintenance or Enhancement of 

Long-term Productivity 

In this alternative, most of the monument 

would be protected in a natural state and 

would maintain its long-term productivity. 

Only a small percentage of the monument 

would be maintained as developed areas. 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Cultural Resources 

Archeological Resources. Under this 

alternative, management of archeological 

resources would be similar to alternative A 

(continue current management). However, 

under alternative B, funding would also be 

sought for archeological studies to provide 

information about the construction village 

that was necessary to recreate part of the 

cultural landscape. Studies would be 

performed in such a way as not to constitute 

an adverse effect on a historic property. The 

proposed studies would improve 

archeological understanding of the site and 

expand the monument’s museum 

collections. 

On the other hand, the landscape restoration 

activities called for under this alternative 

(i.e., removing and replanting trees) could 

result in some soil disturbance and attendant 

impacts on archeological resources. Impacts 

are expected to be negligible because 

removed trees would be cut off at the 

ground surface rather than uprooted, and 

new plantings would be installed outside the 

historic core of the monument. Similar 

impacts on archeological resources could 

come from (a) removing the existing parking 

area and constructing a new one in a less 

conspicuous location, and (b) constructing a 

new visitor center annex on pilings above 

the 100-year floodplain in close proximity to 

the existing visitor center. (Before either of 

these projects could proceed, an 

archeological survey would need to be 

performed in the area of the proposed 

ground disturbance, followed by 

consultation with the Historic Preservation 

Division of the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources.) Few if any impacts are 

expected to archeological resources from 

the latter projects because ground 

disturbance would take place in previously 

disturbed areas that consist primarily of 

dredge spoil. 

Overall, impacts on archeological resources 

under this alternative, if any, could be 

greater than under alternative C because the 

landscape area to be restored under 

alternative B is larger and because impacts 

may result from moving the parking area and 

removing the old lot. Impacts on 

archeological resources under this 

alternative are anticipated to be local, 

permanent, negligible, and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts—Ongoing monument 

management and visitor use activities have 

resulted in relatively little disturbance of 

archeological resources in the monument. 

Large-scale projects such as deepening the 

Savannah River ship channel could pose 

some impacts on archeological resources in 

the vicinity of the monument. The number 

and extent of these archeological resources 

is unknown so the potential impact cannot 

be assessed with any degree of accuracy. 

However, the impacts of the federal channel 

project will be assessed in separate 

environmental compliance documents being 

prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. When the long-term, direct and 

indirect, and beneficial effects of 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

164 

implementing the actions under alternative B 

are added to the minor effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

as described previously, there would be a 

permanent, negligible to minor, adverse 

cumulative impact on archeological 

resources. The actions under alternative B 

would contribute a negligible increment to 

this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion—Under alternative B, impacts on 

archeological resources would be 

permanent, negligible, and adverse. 

Cumulative impacts would be permanent, 

minor, and adverse. The actions under 

alternative B would contribute a negligible 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Section 106 Summary—After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative B would have no adverse effect 

on archeological resources. 

Museum Collections. Under this 

alternative, management of museum 

collections would be similar to alternative A 

(continue current management). However, 

under alternative B, funding would also be 

sought for archeological studies to provide 

information about the construction village 

that was necessary to recreate part of the 

cultural landscape. In addition, funding 

would be sought to prepare exhibits. The 

proposed studies would improve 

archeological understanding of the site and 

expand the monument’s museum 

collections. Impacts to museum collections 

would be local, long term, and beneficial. 

Cumulative Impacts—Generally the same as 

under alternative A, except that alternative B 

would also expand the monument’s museum 

collections. The actions under alternative B 

would contribute a significant increment to 

this cumulative beneficial impact.

Conclusion—Under alternative B, impacts on 

museum collections would be permanent 

and beneficial. Cumulative impacts would 

likewise be permanent and beneficial. The 

actions under alternative B would contribute 

a significant increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Section 106 Summary—After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative B would have no adverse effect 

on museum collections. 

Historic Structures. The impacts on 

historic structures under alternative B would 

be similar to those of alternative A (continue 

current management). However, under 

alternative B the parking lot in front of the 

historic fort would be moved to a new 

location outside the viewshed from the top 

of the fort. The former parking lot would 

then be removed and the area restored to the 

approximate landscape conditions existing 

during the principle period of significance. 

Impacts to the historic fort complex from 

this action would be local, long term, direct 

and beneficial. On the other hand, impacts 

on the historic parking area in the Mission 

66 visitor center complex would be local, 

long term, direct, major, and adverse. Should 

alternative B become the selected action, the 

National Park Service would negotiate a 

memorandum of agreement with the 

Historic Preservation Division of the 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

to address this adverse effect, with 

appropriate mitigation measures. 

As under alternative A, impacts on historic 

structures would continue to occur due to 

aging of the historic fabric, normal wear and 

tear, and vandalism. Impacts for the most 

part would be temporary, adverse, and of 

negligible intensity. Continued ranger 

patrols and cyclic maintenance activities 

would minimize damage to historic 

structures. 

Overall, impacts on the historic fort area 

would be long term and beneficial, but these 

beneficial impacts would be partially offset 

by long-term major direct adverse impacts 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative) 

165 

on the parking area of the Mission 66 visitor 

center. 

Cumulative Impacts—No historic structures 

associated with Fort Pulaski survive in the 

immediate area surrounding the monument. 

However, in the local metropolitan and 

regional area, a number of historic structures 

survive, and losses to these resources 

continue to occur due to development 

projects and structural modification. 

Therefore, when the local, long-term, 

beneficial and adverse effects of 

implementing alternative B are added to the 

moderate to major adverse effects of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described previously, there would 

be long-term, moderate to major adverse 

cumulative impacts on historic structures. 

The actions under alternative B would 

contribute to these cumulative adverse 

impacts in a negligible to minor degree.

Conclusion—Under alternative B, impacts on 

historic structures would for the most part 

be local, long term, direct and indirect and 

beneficial due to partial restoration of the 

historic scene from the principal period of 

significance. However, relocating the 

parking area of the Mission 66 visitor center 

would result in long-term, direct, major, 

adverse impacts on a historic structure. In 

addition, some short-term, direct, negligible, 

and adverse impacts would occur to historic 

structures, mostly due to normal wear and 

tear. Cumulative impacts would be moderate 

to major and adverse due to continued 

development in the local and regional area. 

The actions under alternative B would 

contribute to these adverse cumulative 

impacts in a negligible to minor degree.

Section 106 Summary—After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative B would have an adverse effect 

on the Mission 66 visitor center complex. 

Should alternative B become the selected 

approach for managing the monument, the 

National Park Service would negotiate a 

memorandum of agreement with the 

Historic Preservation Division of the 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

to address this adverse effect, with 

appropriate mitigation measures. 

Cultural Landscapes. Under alternative B, 

some of the existing adverse impacts on the 

cultural landscape would continue. 

However, this alternative would establish a 

large Historic Setting Zone, which would 

permit restoration of some cultural 

landscapes in accordance with the 

recommendations of the approved cultural 

landscape report. Of the two action 

alternatives, alternative B would have the 

greatest beneficial impacts on cultural 

landscapes because it would restore more 

site conditions and views to a condition 

approximating those in existence at the time 

of the Civil War. Periodic removal of 

nonnative vegetation would continue to 

occur under this alternative through 

periodic employment of NPS nonnative 

plant management teams. In addition, 

alternative B would move the parking lot 

from in front of the historic fort to a new 

location outside the viewshed from the top 

of the fort. The former parking lot would 

then be removed and the area restored to the 

approximate landscape conditions existing 

during the principle period of significance. 

Overall impacts on the cultural landscape 

due to site restoration would be local, long 

term, direct and indirect, and beneficial. 

Although impacts on the cultural landscape 

from site restoration would be long term and 

beneficial, moving the parking lot and 

constructing the visitor center annex would 

have an adverse effect on an historic 

property. The adverse impacts would stem 

from (a) removing the parking lot from its 

original context adjacent to the Mission 66-

era visitor center and moving it to a new 

location in the cultural landscape, and (b) 

constructing a visitor center annex adjacent 

to the Mission 66-era visitor center. Impacts 

to the cultural landscape from moving the 

parking area and constructing the annex 

would be local, permanent, direct, major, 

and adverse. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

166 

Should alternative B become the selected 

action, the National Park Service would 

negotiate a memorandum of agreement with 

the Historic Preservation Division of the 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

to address adverse effects with appropriate 

mitigation measures. 

Cumulative Impacts—Development 

continues on nearby Tybee Island, including 

areas where Union batteries were located 

during the war. On the other hand, efforts 

are ongoing to preserve the sites of historic 

batteries on Tybee and Long islands. On 

balance, impacts on the cultural landscape of 

the area surrounding the monument are long 

term, minor to moderate, and both 

beneficial and adverse. When the long-term, 

moderate to major, beneficial and adverse 

effects of implementing alternative B are 

added to the minor to moderate effects of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions as described previously, 

there would be long-term beneficial 

cumulative impacts on the cultural 

landscape. Alternative B would contribute a 

moderate increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion—Under alternative B, impacts on 

the cultural landscape would be long term, 

moderate to major, and both beneficial and 

adverse. Restoration of historic site 

conditions and views would result in an 

overall beneficial impact on the cultural 

landscape; however, movement of the visitor 

center parking lot from its original location 

would result in an adverse effect to a historic 

property. Construction of the visitor center 

annex would have an adverse effect on the 

cultural landscape. Cumulative impacts 

would be long term and beneficial. 

Alternative B would contribute a moderate 

increment to this cumulative impact.

Section 106 Summary—After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative B would have an adverse effect 

on the cultural landscape in the vicinity of 

the Mission 66 visitor center. Should 

alternative B become the selected approach 

for managing the monument, the National 

Park Service would negotiate a 

memorandum of agreement with the 

Historic Preservation Division of the 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

to address this adverse effect, with 

appropriate mitigation measures. 

Ethnographic Resources. Impacts on 

ethnographic resources would be the same 

as under alternative A. 

Cumulative Impacts—Development 

continues on nearby Tybee Island, including 

in areas that may have ethnographic 

resources similar to those within the 

monument. Actual impacts on ethnographic 

resources are not known. However, given 

the long-term protection of the fort and its 

historic context, alternative B would 

contribute a negligible increment to any 

cumulative impact that may be occurring. 

Conclusion—Under alternative B, there 

would probably be negligible, long-term, and 

neutral impacts on ethnographic resources. 

Cumulative impacts are unknown. 

Alternative B would contribute a negligible 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

FORT PULASKI SALLY PORT

Section 106 Summary—After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative) 

167 

of alternative B would have no adverse effect 

on ethnographic resources. 

Natural Resources 

Geology and Soils. Impacts would include 

those from alternative A (continue current 

management). However, this alternative 

would establish a large Historic Setting 

Zone, which would permit restoration of 

historic site conditions and views in selected 

locations, in accordance with the approved 

cultural landscape report. Of the two action 

alternatives, alternative B would have the 

most adverse impacts on soils and geologic 

resources because it would remove the most 

vegetation and result in the most soil 

disturbance. Impacts to soils and geologic 

resources would be local, short and long 

term, direct, minor, and adverse. These 

impacts would be partially mitigated by use 

of best management practices during 

clearing. In addition to landscape 

rehabilitation, alternative B also calls for 

moving the parking lot from in front of the 

historic fort to a new location outside the 

viewshed of the top of the fort. The former 

parking lot would then be removed and the 

area restored to the approximate landscape 

conditions existing during the principle 

period of significance. Soils under the new 

parking area would be compacted and 

covered by paving material. Impacts to soils 

would be local, short and long term, 

moderate, and both beneficial and adverse. 

Further impacts on soils would come from 

construction of a new visitor center annex. 

Impacts would stem from installation of 

piles for the new structure, as well as from 

soil compaction and disturbance by vehicles 

and heavy equipment in staging areas. 

Impacts would be local, short and long term, 

minor, and adverse. Overall impacts on soils 

and geologic resources from construction 

activities and the broader landscape 

rehabilitation described previously would be 

local, long term, direct, minor to moderate, 

and adverse. Impacts would be partially 

mitigated by use of best management 

practices during clearing and construction. 

Cumulative Impacts—Permanent soil loss 

resulting from regional growth and 

development would adversely impact soils. 

The impact of these efforts on soils is 

expected to be long term, moderate to 

major, and adverse. When the local, shortand long-term, direct, minor, and adverse 

effects of implementing the actions under 

alternative B are added to the effects of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as described previously, there would 

be a long-term, moderate to major, adverse 

cumulative impact on soils. The actions 

under alternative B would contribute a very 

small increment to this cumulative impact.

Conclusion—Impacts to soils would stem 

largely from landscape rehabilitation efforts, 

together with additional impacts from 

moving the visitor parking lot and 

constructing a new visitor center annex. 

Soils under the old parking area would be 

restored as much as possible in order to 

recover a semblance of the historic scene. 

Soils under the new parking area would be 

compacted and covered by paving material. 

Soils in the vicinity of the new visitor center 

annex would be compacted and otherwise 

disturbed by construction activities. Overall 

impacts on soils would be local, long term, 

direct, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

Impacts would be partially mitigated by use 

of best management practices during 

clearing and construction. Cumulative 

impacts would be long term, moderate to 

major, and adverse. The actions under 

alternative B would contribute a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact.

Plant Communities and Vegetation. 

Impacts would include those from 

alternative A (continue current 

management). However, this alternative 

would establish a large Historic Setting 

Zone, which would permit restoration of 

historic site conditions and views in selected 

locations, in accordance with the approved 

cultural landscape report. Of the two action 

alternatives, alternative B would have the 

most adverse impacts on plant communities 

and vegetation because it would result in 

removal of the most vegetation. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

168 

Furthermore, alternative B calls for 

movement of the parking area to a new 

location, which would result in additional 

removal of existing vegetative cover. The 

latter impacts would be partially offset by 

revegetation of the old parking area. 

Additional impacts to vegetation would 

result from construction of a visitor center 

annex in close proximity to the existing 

visitor center. Vegetation, trees, and grasses 

would be removed from the site of the new 

structure and other vegetation would be 

disturbed by vehicles and heavy equipment 

in staging areas. Overall, impacts on plant 

communities and vegetation under 

alternative B would be local, short and long 

term, direct, minor, and adverse. These 

impacts would be beneficial to the extent the 

removed vegetation consisted of nonnative 

species. Impacts would be mitigated by new 

plantings outside the historic core of the 

monument. 

Cumulative Impacts—Regional growth and 

development is expected to result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural lands to 

developed areas and thereby increase the 

amount of disturbed land available for 

colonization by nonnative species. The 

impact of these activities on native plants 

and plant communities is expected to be 

long term, moderate to major, and adverse. 

When the local, short- and long-term, direct, 

minor, and adverse effects of implementing 

the actions under alternative B are added to 

the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions as described 

previously, there would be a long-term, 

moderate to major, adverse cumulative 

impact on native natural processes resulting 

from the loss of vegetative cover and the 

spread of nonnative plants. The actions 

under alternative B would contribute a small 

increment to this adverse cumulative impact. 

The contribution would be marginally 

greater under this alternative than under 

alternative C due to the relocation of the 

parking area. On the other hand, it is 

possible that alternative B could offset 

adverse cumulative impacts to a negligible 

degree to the extent it results in the removal 

of nonnative vegetation.

Conclusion—Under alternative B, impacts on 

plant communities and vegetation would 

result primarily from landscape 

rehabilitation efforts, together with impacts 

from moving the visitor parking lot. 

Vegetation in the vicinity of the old parking 

area would be restored as much as possible 

in order to recover a semblance of the 

historic scene. Vegetation in the area of the 

new parking lot would be removed. Overall 

impacts on plant communities and 

vegetation would be local, long term, direct, 

minor to moderate, and adverse. Cumulative 

impacts would be long term, moderate to 

major, and adverse. The actions under 

alternative B would contribute a small 

increment to this adverse cumulative impact.

Exotic/Nonnative Plants. Under 

alternative B, impacts on monument 

resources from the growth and spread of 

exotic/nonnative plants would continue to 

occur. Some limited removal of nonnatives 

would take place as funding became 

available, but large scale restoration would 

not be likely to take place in the near term. 

Alternative B would establish a large Historic 

Setting Zone, which would permit 

restoration of historic site conditions and 

views in selected locations. Such restoration 

activities would produce corresponding 

reductions in nonnative vegetation. On the 

other hand, this alternative calls for 

construction of a new visitor center annex 

and the movement of the parking area to a 

new location. Both of these projects would 

result in disturbed ground in the project area 

and immediate vicinity. Disturbed ground 

frequently provides ideal generating sites for 

nonnatives. One aspect of site restoration in 

the area of the former parking area would 

entail control of nonnatives. Nevertheless, 

despite these and other efforts, nonnative 

vegetation would continue to displace native 

vegetation in large portions of Cockspur 

Island, resulting in adverse impacts on 

natural processes and native wildlife. On 

balance, impacts from nonnative vegetation 

would be local, short and long term, 

moderate to major, and adverse. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative) 

169 

Cumulative Impacts—Regional growth and 

development is expected to result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural lands to 

developed areas and thereby increase the 

amount of disturbed land available for 

colonization by nonnative species. The 

impact of these activities on native plants 

and plant communities is expected to be 

long term, moderate to major, and adverse. 

When the long-term, moderate to major, and 

adverse effects of implementing the actions 

under alternative B are added to the effects 

of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions as described previously, 

there would be a long-term, moderate to 

major, adverse cumulative impact on native 

natural processes resulting from the loss of 

vegetative cover and the spread of nonnative 

plants. Certain of the actions in alternative B 

(i.e., restoration of historic site conditions 

and views in selected locations) would offset 

these cumulative adverse impacts to a 

negligible degree. 

Conclusion—Under alternative B, impacts 

from nonnative plants and nonnative 

vegetation would be long-term, adverse, and 

moderate to major, and would be 

concentrated on Cockspur Island. There 

could be long-term, moderate to major, 

adverse cumulative impacts on native natural 

processes. The actions under alternative B 

would both contribute to and offset these 

cumulative adverse impacts to a negligible 

degree. 

Fish and Wildlife. Impacts would include 

those from alternative A (continue current 

management). However, this alternative 

would establish a large Historic Setting 

Zone, which would permit restoration of 

historic site conditions and views in selected 

locations. Of the two action alternatives, 

alternative B would have more adverse 

impacts on fish and wildlife because it would 

result in removal of the most vegetative 

cover, with corresponding direct and 

indirect impacts on fish and wildlife habitat. 

Adverse impacts on fish and wildlife would 

result from increased siltation in adjacent 

waterways and loss of habitat due to removal 

of plant cover. Impacts to wildlife would not 

be uniform, because the clearing of historic 

sight lines would benefit some species and 

hurt others. Moreover, impacts on wildlife 

would be beneficial to the extent that 

removed vegetation consisted of nonnative 

species. Alternative B would result in more 

adverse impacts on wildlife than alternative 

C because it calls for movement of the 

parking area to a new location, which would 

result in additional removal and 

modification of existing habitat. The latter 

impacts would be partially offset by 

revegetation of the old parking area. Impacts 

on wildlife from the new visitor center annex 

would be negligible because this facility 

would be built in an area that has marginal 

value as wildlife habitat. Overall, impacts on 

fish and wildlife under alternative B would 

be local, short and long term, direct and 

indirect, minor, and both beneficial and 

adverse. Adverse impacts would be mitigated 

by new plantings outside the historic core of 

the monument. 

Cumulative Impacts—Regional growth and 

development is expected to continue and 

result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands to development in the general 

area. The loss of natural areas and the 

increasing urbanization of the region have 

led to a loss of wildlife habitat. Continued 

urbanization will fragment remaining natural 

areas and increase the risks and threats to 

wildlife, including automobile collisions, 

nonnative species, and pathogens. Rainwater 

runoff and industrial discharges from urban 

areas may lead to a deterioration of water 

quality, with corresponding impacts on fish 

species. Overall, the effects of the activities 

described previously would probably be 

long term, moderate, and adverse on fish 

and wildlife in the region. When the local, 

short- and long-term, direct, minor, and 

both beneficial and adverse effects of 

implementing the actions under alternative B 

are added to the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

as described previously, there would be a 

long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative 

impact on fish and wildlife. The actions 

under alternative B would contribute a very 

small increment to this cumulative impact.
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

170 

Conclusion—Under alternative B, impacts on 

fish and wildlife would be local, short and 

long term, direct and indirect, minor, and 

both beneficial and adverse. Impacts would 

be concentrated at Cockspur Island and 

would result from restoration of historic site 

conditions and views in selected locations, as 

well as movement of the principal parking 

area to a new location. Minor adverse 

impacts on soil, water quality, and vegetation 

would result in minor adverse effects on 

some fish and wildlife species. In contrast, 

the removal of nonnatives would result in 

minor beneficial effects on some wildlife 

species. There would be long-term, 

moderate, adverse cumulative impacts on 

fish and wildlife. The actions under 

alternative B would contribute a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Water Quality. Impacts would include 

those from alternative A (continue current 

management). However, this alternative 

would establish a large Historic Setting 

Zone, which would permit restoration of 

historic site conditions and views in selected 

locations. Of the two action alternatives, 

alternative B would have more adverse 

impacts on water quality because it would 

result in removal of the most vegetative 

cover, with corresponding direct and 

indirect impacts on water quality in adjacent 

water bodies. Adverse impacts on water 

quality would result from an increase in 

polluted runoff and from increased siltation 

in adjacent waterways. Adverse impacts 

would also result from construction of a new 

visitor center annex and from movement of 

the parking area to a new location. Both of 

these projects would cause additional soil 

disturbance and more potential for impacts 

on adjacent waters. The new education 

facility would also be served by a septic 

system, which potentially could adversely 

impact subsurface waters if not adequately 

maintained. Overall, impacts on water 

quality under alternative B would be local, 

short and long term, direct and indirect, 

minor, and adverse. Impacts would be 

partially mitigated by use of best 

management practices during clearing and 

site recovery. 

Cumulative Impacts—Regional growth and 

development is expected to result in an 

increase in the conversion of natural lands to 

development and alter the hydrology of the 

general area. Water quality would be 

affected by inputs from urban and suburban 

development, including increases in organic 

compounds and chemical concentrations. 

Inputs would derive both from point sources 

(e.g., sewer outfalls) and nonpoint sources 

(e.g., storm water runoff). The impact on 

water quality within the watershed is 

expected to be adverse, but the intensity is 

unknown. When the local, short- and longterm, direct, minor, and adverse effects of 

implementing the actions under alternative B 

are added to the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

as described previously, there would be a 

long-term, adverse cumulative impact on 

water quality in the watershed. The intensity 

of the impact is unknown. The actions under 

alternative B would contribute a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact.

Conclusion—Under alternative B, impacts on 

water quality would be local, short and long 

term, direct and indirect, minor, and 

adverse. There would be a long-term, 

adverse cumulative impact on water quality 

in the watershed. The intensity of the impact 

is unknown. The actions under alternative B 

would contribute a very small increment to 

this cumulative impact. Impacts would be 

partially mitigated by use of best 

management practices during clearing and 

site recovery. 

Floodplains. Impacts would be the same as 

those under alternative A, except that a new 

visitor center annex would be built in the 

100-year floodplain. The structure would 

meet a compelling need for additional space 

to interpret the fort to the public, 

accommodate school groups, hold staff 

meetings, etc. There is no practicable 

alternative to building in the floodplain 

because all of Cockspur Island is in the 100-

year floodplain. Impacts on both floodplain 

functions and infrastructure would be 

minimized by building the structure above 

the 100-year floodplain on piles. Impacts on 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative) 

171 

floodplain functions would be local, long 

term, direct and indirect, minor, and 

adverse. Impacts to infrastructure 

islandwide in the event of flooding would be 

short and long term, moderate to major, and 

adverse. For more information, see 

“Floodplain Statement of Findings” in 

appendix D. 

Cumulative Impacts—Cumulative impacts 

would be the same as under alternative A.

The actions under alternative B would 

contribute a small increment to this 

cumulative impact.

Conclusion—Given that Cockspur Island 

rarely floods, impacts on floodplain 

functions under alternative B would be local, 

direct and indirect, negligible to minor, and 

adverse. Impacts to infrastructure in the 

event of flooding would be short and long 

term, moderate to major, and adverse. 

Cumulative impacts would be long term, 

minor to major, and adverse. The actions 

under alternative B would contribute a small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Wetlands. Impacts would generally be the 

same as those from alternative A (continue 

current management). The site of the new 

visitor parking area under alternative B 

would be in an area of former (pre-1847) 

wetlands. Some wetland areas may remain in 

this area, and others may have developed in 

subsequent years. Final siting of the parking 

area would be done in such a way as to avoid 

or minimize any wetland impacts. Such 

impacts, if they occur, are likely to be local, 

long term, negligible to moderate, and 

adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts—Cumulative Impacts 

would be the same as under alternative A.

The actions under alternative B would 

contribute a very small increment to this 

cumulative impact, if any.

Conclusion—Under alternative B, impacts on 

wetlands are likely to be local, long term, 

negligible to moderate, and adverse. There 

would be a long-term, minor to major, 

adverse cumulative impact on wetlands. The 

actions under alternative B would contribute 

a very small increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Wilderness Resources and Values 

Alternative B proposes that approximately 

4,500 acres of salt marsh within the 

monument boundary be designated as part 

of the national wilderness preservation 

system. Designation as wilderness would 

afford the highest level of protection 

available to federally managed public lands 

and allow permanent protection of the 

wilderness resource. Permanent protection 

would minimize or prevent fragmentation of 

habitat and would ensure that opportunities 

for solitude and primitive and unconfined 

recreation are available over the long term. 

Fishing would continue to be allowed but 

would be accommodated by boat-in access 

only. Under the terms proposed in 

alternative B, and assuming authorization of 

motorboat use by Congress, designation 

would not prevent use of motorboats in the 

main channels of the salt marsh because this 

is an established use of long duration. 

Ongoing NPS resource management 

activities would continue to preserve the 

long-term naturalness and untrammeled 

quality of the eligible lands, but development 

outside the monument boundary could 

cause some short- and long-term adverse 

impacts on wilderness character, including 

degradation of the natural soundscape and 

diminished opportunities for solitude. 

Cumulative Impacts. Regional growth and 

development is expected to continue and 

result in an increase in the conversion of 

natural lands in the general area. Increasing 

urbanization, fragmentation of habitat, and 

the loss of natural areas have led to the 

degradation of natural resources, ecosystem 

function, and natural soundscapes in the 

region. The impact of these activities on 

wilderness resources and values would be 

long term, moderate, and adverse. 

Alternative B would not prevent or alter 

these impacts, but would offset them 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

172 

somewhat by granting most of the salt marsh 

in the monument permanent protection as 

wilderness. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B, impacts 

on wilderness resources and values from the 

designation of wilderness would be long 

term, moderate to major, and beneficial. 

There would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

wilderness resources and values in the 

region. The actions under alternative B 

would offset these impacts somewhat by 

granting most of the salt marsh in the 

monument permanent protection as 

wilderness.

Visitor Use and Experience 

Impacts would generally be the same as 

alternative A, except that implementation of 

alternative B would remove vegetation to 

facilitate understanding of Fort Pulaski’s 

field of fire and restore a portion of its 

historic sight lines. Alternative B calls for 

more site restoration than alternative C. The 

targeted clearing activities would provide 

visitors a greater understanding of the siege 

and reduction of Fort Pulaski in 1862. Some 

visitors would appreciate the enhanced 

historical perspective, while others would 

experience the removal of vegetative cover 

as a loss. Movement of the parking area to a 

new, less visible location would further 

enhance historic views from the fort. The 

area of the former parking area would be 

restored as much as possible to its historic 

appearance, thereby enhancing the 

experience of many visitors. A new visitor 

center annex would be constructed near the 

park’s administration building, enhancing 

visitor understanding and enjoyment. No 

new recreational opportunities would be 

provided under this alternative. Overall, 

enhanced appreciation of the historic scene 

and continued availability of varied 

recreational opportunities would result in 

long-term beneficial impacts on visitor use 

and experience. 

Cumulative Impacts. Regional growth is 

expected to result in increased development 

in the vicinity of the monument. As a result, 

opportunities for cultural tourism and 

recreational activities may expand at Tybee 

Island and in the Savannah metropolitan 

area. Because the monument is well-buffered 

by thousands of acres of salt marsh, these 

opportunities would expand the choices 

available to monument visitors without 

affecting the actual visitor experience of 

most people using the park. Combining the 

long-term, moderate, beneficial effects of 

implementing alternative B with the effects 

of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions described previously, the 

cumulative impact on visitor use and 

experience in the monument would be long 

term and beneficial. The actions under 

alternative B would contribute substantially 

to this cumulative impact.

Conclusion. Impacts to visitor use and 

experience would stem primarily from 

targeted restoration of historic views and 

movement of the parking area to a less 

visible location. Impacts would be local, 

short and long term, moderate, and both 

beneficial and adverse, depending on a given 

visitor’s individual preferences. Some 

visitors would appreciate the enhanced 

opportunity to experience historic views, 

while others would experience the removal 

of vegetative cover as a loss. Cumulative 

impacts would be long term and beneficial. 

The actions under alternative B would 

contribute a substantial increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

Under alternative B, visitation would be 

unlikely to increase to any appreciable 

degree over current levels, but might 

increase due to population growth. Impacts 

to the local economy from increased 

visitation-related spending would be long 

term, direct and indirect, and beneficial. 

Local Economy Employment. No new 

permanent jobs would be created under 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative) 

173 

alternative B as no new permanent staff 

would be necessary to implement the 

alternative. As a result, Chatham County 

would not realize any long-term changes to 

its employment levels and long-term impacts 

resulting from alternative B would be local, 

negligible, and neutral. On the other hand, 

total one-time costs (facility and nonfacility) 

would be more than 7.5 times higher under 

alternative B than under alternative A, and 

slightly more than under alternative C. 

These new expenditures would result in 

additional short-term employment 

opportunities for local contractors and 

others. Consequently, short-term impacts of 

alternative B would be local and beneficial. 

Housing. Because alternative B would not 

entail hiring additional permanent staff, 

demand for residential housing would 

remain unchanged. Short-term impacts 

resulting from alternative B would be local 

and neutral. 

Sales. Under alternative B, total sales of 

goods and services in Chatham County, as a 

result of visitor spending, would probably 

increase a small amount over the life of this 

plan. Because alternative B would result in 

only a small increase in sales revenue, longterm impacts would be local and beneficial. 

Cumulative Impacts. The action area for 

evaluating cumulative impacts on the 

socioeconomic environment is Chatham 

County. The implementation of alternative B 

would not have a strong likelihood of 

attracting significant numbers of new visitors 

and locals to the monument. Relatively 

steady to slightly increased visitation would 

translate into slightly increased spending in 

the area, resulting in small beneficial impacts 

for Chatham County in terms of 

employment, housing, and taxable annual 

sales. However, long-term economic activity 

in the county appears likely to increase due 

to the continued long-term expansion of 

world shipping and the potential 

construction of new facilities at the Port of 

Savannah and the proposed port at Jasper 

County, South Carolina. A surge in retirees 

in coming years is expected to increase 

populations near the coast with concomitant 

impacts on construction, health care, and 

related industries. Combining the probable 

effects of implementing alternative B with 

the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions described 

previously, the cumulative socioeconomic 

impacts would be local, moderate, and 

beneficial. Alternative B would contribute a 

negligible increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Because there would be only 

slight increases to visitor spending or 

monument expenditures within Chatham 

County under alternative B, long-term and 

short-term impacts on the socioeconomic 

environment would be local and slightly 

beneficial. As a result, county employment, 

housing, and sales would not be measurably 

affected. In terms of cumulative impacts, 

long-term and short-term impacts would be 

local and beneficial. Alternative B would 

contribute a negligible increment to this total 

cumulative effect. 

Monument Operations 

The impacts of alternative B on monument 

operations would include those of 

alternative A, plus the additional costs and 

effort needed to restore and maintain 

targeted historic views and operate and 

maintain the visitor center annex. The latter 

undertakings would impose additional longterm maintenance and interpretation 

responsibilities on monument staff. 

However, no addition of permanent staff 

would be necessary to implement alternative 

B. Thus, alternative B would result in minor, 

long-term, neutral impacts on NPS 

operations. 

Cumulative Impacts. Same as under 

alternative A. 

Conclusion. Operation of existing and 

projected visitor and administrative facilities 

in the monument would result in minor, 

long-term, neutral impacts on NPS 

operations. The cumulative impacts of 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

174 

alternative B and other reasonably 

foreseeable future actions required of 

monument staff would be minor to 

moderate, long term, and neutral. 

Energy Requirements and 

Conservation Potential 

Under alternative B, one new facility would 

be developed, thereby adding a new longterm energy requirement for facility 

construction and maintenance. 

Construction and operation of the visitor 

center annex would be in accordance with 

NPS sustainability guidelines in order to 

minimize energy consumption. Some fuel 

would be consumed in the course of 

restoring historic sites and views and moving 

the parking area to a new location, but the 

amounts would be minor. Public use of the 

monument would remain at about its current 

level. The fuel and energy consumed by 

visitors traveling to the monument would 

not be likely to increase because visitation is 

not likely to increase substantially. Energy 

would still be consumed to maintain existing 

facilities and for resource management of 

the monument. 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Unavoidable adverse impacts are defined as 

impacts that cannot be fully mitigated or 

avoided. Adverse impacts on natural and 

cultural resources and visitor experience 

could occur in some areas throughout the 

monument, resulting from limited public use 

or NPS management activities. 

Irretrievable or Irreversible 

Commitments of Resources 

Under alternative B, the energy 

requirements identified previously would 

result in an irreversible commitment of 

resources. There would be no permanent 

effects on monument resources. 

Relationship between Local Shortterm Uses of the Environment and 

Maintenance or Enhancement of 

Long-term Productivity 

In this alternative, most of the monument 

would be protected in a natural state and 

would maintain its long-term productivity. 

Only a small percentage of the monument 

would be maintained as developed areas. 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Cultural Resources 

Archeological Resources. Alternative C

does not call for any changes in the 

management of archeological resources. 

Impacts to these resources would generally 

be the same as under alternative A. However, 

the landscape restoration activities called for 

under this alternative (i.e., removing and 

replanting trees) could result in some soil 

disturbance and attendant impacts on 

archeological resources. Impacts would be 

permanent, adverse, and of negligible 

intensity. The parking area would not be 

moved under this alternative and thus there 

would be no associated impacts on 

archeological resources. However, minimal 

(if any) impacts could also arise from 

constructing a visitor center annex on pilings 

in close proximity to the existing visitor 

center. Impacts from landscape restoration 

would be fewer under this alternative than 

under alternative B because less restoration 

would be called for under alternative C. 

Cumulative Impacts—Same as alternative A. 

The actions under alternative C would 

contribute a negligible increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion—Under alternative C, impacts on 

archeological resources would be 

permanent, negligible, and adverse. 

Cumulative impacts would be permanent, 

minor, and adverse. The actions under 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

175 

alternative C would contribute a negligible 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Section 106 Summary—After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative C would have no adverse effect 

on archeological resources. 

Museum Collections. This alternative does 

not call for any changes in the management 

of museum collections. Impacts to these 

resources would be the same as under 

alternative A. 

Cumulative Impacts—Same as alternative A. 

The actions under alternative C would 

contribute a significant increment to this 

beneficial cumulative impact.

Conclusion—Under alternative C, impacts on 

museum collections would be long term and 

beneficial. Cumulative impacts would 

likewise be long term and beneficial. The 

actions under alternative C would contribute 

a significant increment to this cumulative 

impact. 

Section 106 Summary—After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative C would have no adverse effect 

on museum collections. 

Historic Structures. The impacts on 

historic structures under alternative C would 

be similar to those of alternative A (continue 

current management). However, under 

alternative C, the Tybee Knoll Lighthouse oil 

shed would be stabilized and access would 

be provided to Cockspur Island Lighthouse. 

Impacts from these actions would be local, 

long term, direct and indirect, and beneficial. 

As under alternative A, impacts on historic 

structures would continue to occur due to 

aging of the historic fabric, normal wear and 

tear, and vandalism. Impacts for the most 

part would be temporary, adverse, and of 

negligible intensity. Continued ranger 

patrols and cyclic maintenance activities 

would minimize damage to historic 

structures. Adverse effects would be 

anticipated to be short term, negligible, and 

adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts—No historic structures 

associated with Fort Pulaski survive in the 

immediate area surrounding the monument. 

However, in the local metropolitan and 

regional area, a number of historic structures 

survive, and losses to these resources 

continue to occur due to development 

projects and structural modification. As a 

result, when the local, long-term, moderate, 

and beneficial effects of implementing 

alternative C are added to the moderate to 

major adverse effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions as 

described previously, there would be longterm, moderate to major adverse cumulative 

impacts on historic structures. The actions 

under alternative C would offset these 

cumulative adverse impacts to a negligible 

degree.

Conclusion—Under alternative C, impacts on 

historic structures would for the most part 

be local, long term, direct and indirect, and 

beneficial. Some short-term negligible to 

minor adverse impacts would occur, mostly 

due to normal wear and tear. Cumulative 

impacts would be moderate to major and 

adverse due to continued development in 

the local and regional area. The beneficial 

actions under alternative C would offset 

these cumulative adverse impacts to a 

negligible degree. 

Section 106 Summary—After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative C would have no adverse effect 

to historic structures. 

Cultural Landscapes. Under alternative C, 

some of the existing adverse impacts on the 

cultural landscape would continue. Like 

alternative B, this alternative would establish 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

176 

a Historic Setting Zone that would permit 

restoration of some cultural landscapes in 

accordance with the approved cultural 

landscape report. However, there would be 

less restoration of cultural landscapes under 

this alternative than under alternative B. 

Beneficial impacts of restoring historic site 

conditions and views would be 

correspondingly less under this alternative 

than under alternative B. Impacts would be 

local, long term, direct and indirect, and 

beneficial. Periodic removal of nonnative 

vegetation would continue to occur under 

this alternative through periodic 

employment of NPS nonnative plant 

management teams. Impacts on the cultural 

landscape would be long term and 

beneficial. 

On the other hand, adverse impacts would 

stem from constructing a visitor center 

annex near the existing Mission 66-era 

visitor center. Impacts to the cultural 

landscape from constructing the annex 

would be local, permanent, direct, major, 

and adverse. Should alternative C become 

the selected action, the National Park 

Service would negotiate a memorandum of 

agreement with the Historic Preservation 

Division of the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources to address adverse effects 

with appropriate mitigation measures. 

Cumulative Impacts—Cumulative impacts 

would generally be the same as under 

alternative B. The actions under alternative 

C would contribute a moderate increment to 

this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion—Under alternative C, there 

would be long-term beneficial impacts on 

the cultural landscape due to restoration of 

historic site conditions and views, but there 

would also be long-term adverse impacts 

resulting from construction of the visitor 

center annex. Cumulative impacts would be 

long term, minor to moderate, and both 

beneficial and adverse. Alternative C would 

contribute a small beneficial increment to 

this cumulative impact.

Section 106 Summary—After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative C would have an adverse effect 

on the cultural landscape in the vicinity of 

the Mission 66-era visitor center. Should 

alternative C become the selected approach 

for managing the monument, the National 

Park Service would negotiate a 

memorandum of agreement with the 

Historic Preservation Division of the 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

to address this adverse effect, with 

appropriate mitigation measures. 

WORLD WAR II BATTERY

Ethnographic Resources. Impacts on 

ethnographic resources would be the same 

as under alternative A. 

Cumulative Impacts—Development 

continues on nearby Tybee Island, including 

in areas that may have ethnographic 

resources similar to those within the 

monument. Actual impacts on ethnographic 

resources are not known. However, given 

the long-term protection of the fort and its 

historic context, alternative C would 

contribute a negligible increment to any 

cumulative impact that may be occurring. 

Conclusion—Under alternative C, there 

would probably be negligible long-term 

neutral impacts on ethnographic resources. 

Cumulative impacts are unknown. 

Alternative C would contribute a negligible 

increment to this cumulative impact. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

177 

Section 106 Summary—After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of alternative C would have no adverse effect 

on ethnographic resources. 

Natural Resources 

Geology and Soils. Impacts to soils and 

geologic resources would include those 

under alternative A (continue current 

management), together with additional 

impacts associated with limited restoration 

of historic site conditions and views. Some 

removal of vegetation would occur under 

alternative C to restore historic sight lines, 

but not as much as under alternative B. As a 

result, soil erosion from vista clearing would 

be less than under the latter alternative. On 

the other hand, alternative C would generate 

additional impacts on soils arising out of the 

construction of a visitor center annex and 

the construction and use of new trails and 

other recreational facilities not 

contemplated under alternative B. Overall, 

impacts on soils and geologic resources 

would be local, short and long term, minor, 

and adverse. Impacts would be partially 

mitigated by use of best management 

practices during clearing and construction. 

Cumulative Impacts—Cumulative impacts 

would generally be the same as under 

alternative B. The actions under alternative 

C would contribute a negligible increment to 

this cumulative impact.

Conclusion—Impacts would include those 

from alternative A, together with additional 

erosion from construction and use of new 

trails and other recreational facilities. 

Additional impacts to soils would stem from 

construction of a visitor center annex. Some 

removal of vegetation would occur to 

restore historic sight lines, but not as much 

as under alternative B. Impacts to soils 

would be local, short and long term, minor, 

and adverse. There would be a long-term 

moderate to major adverse cumulative 

impact on soils and geologic resources. The 

actions under alternative C would contribute 

a negligible increment to this cumulative 

impact.

 

Plant Communities and Vegetation. 

Impacts to plant communities and 

vegetation would include those under 

alternative A (continue current 

management), together with additional 

impacts associated with limited restoration 

of historic site conditions and views. Some 

removal of vegetation would occur under 

alternative C to restore historic sight lines, 

but not as much as under alternative B. As a 

result, damage to plants and plant 

communities from vista clearing would be 

less than under the latter alternative. On the 

other hand, alternative C would generate 

additional impacts on plant communities 

and vegetation arising out of the 

construction of a visitor center annex and 

the construction and use of new trails and 

other recreational facilities not 

contemplated under the other alternatives. 

Overall, impacts on plants and plant 

communities would be local, short and long 

term, minor, and adverse. Beneficial impacts 

from the removal of nonnative vegetation 

would be correspondingly less than under 

alternative B. Overall impacts would be 

mitigated by new plantings outside the 

historic core of the monument. 

Cumulative Impacts—Cumulative impacts 

would generally be the same as under 

alternative B. The actions under alternative 

C would contribute a very small increment 

to this adverse cumulative impact, and could 

even offset it to a negligible degree to the 

extent it results in the removal of nonnative 

vegetation.

Conclusion—Under alternative C, impacts on 

plant communities and vegetation would be 

local, short and long term, direct, minor, and 

adverse. There could be long-term moderate 

to major adverse cumulative impacts on 

vegetation and plant communities in the 

surrounding region. The actions under 

alternative C would contribute a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

178 

Exotic/Nonnative Plants. Impacts from 

nonnative plants would generally be the 

same as under alternative B, except that a 

less extensive sightline restoration effort 

would mean less removal of nonnatives. In 

addition, this alternative calls for the 

construction of new recreational facilities, 

which would entail new ground disturbance. 

Disturbed ground frequently provides ideal 

generating sites for nonnatives; similarly, 

trails can act as vectors for nonnatives. For 

this reason, mitigation measures would be 

implemented to limit the establishment of 

additional nonnatives in the monument. 

Impacts would be, local, short and long 

term, moderate to major, and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts—Cumulative impacts 

would generally be the same as under 

alternative B.

Conclusion—Under alternative C, impacts 

from nonnative plants and nonnative 

vegetation would be long term, adverse, and 

moderate to major, and would be 

concentrated on Cockspur Island. There 

could be a long-term moderate to major 

adverse cumulative impact on native natural 

processes. The actions under alternative C 

would offset the cumulative adverse impact 

to a negligible degree. 

Fish and Wildlife. Impacts to fish and 

wildlife would include those under 

alternative A (continue current 

management), together with additional 

impacts associated with limited restoration 

of historic site conditions and views. Some 

removal of vegetation would occur under 

alternative C to restore historic sight lines, 

but not as much as under alternative B. As a 

result, impacts on fish and wildlife from 

clearing would be less under alternative C 

than under alternative B. Adverse impacts on 

fish would result from a slight increase in 

polluted runoff from disturbed areas and 

from limited siltation of adjacent waterways. 

Wildlife would be affected by loss of habitat 

due to removal of plant cover. Impacts to 

wildlife would not be uniform, however, 

because the clearing of historic sight lines 

would benefit some species and hurt others. 

Moreover, impacts on wildlife would be 

beneficial to the extent that removed 

vegetation consisted of nonnative species. 

Besides impacts from vista clearing and site 

restoration, alternative C would generate 

additional impacts from the construction of 

a visitor center annex and the construction 

and use of new trails and other recreational 

facilities not contemplated under the other 

alternatives. On balance, impacts on fish and 

wildlife under this alternative would be 

local, short and long term, direct and 

indirect, minor, and both beneficial and 

adverse. Overall impacts would be mitigated 

by new plantings outside the historic core of 

the monument.

Cumulative Impacts—Cumulative impacts 

would generally be the same as under 

alternative B. The actions under alternative 

C would contribute a very small increment 

to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion—Under alternative C, impacts on 

fish and wildlife would be local, short and 

long term, direct and indirect, minor, and 

both beneficial and adverse. Impacts would 

be concentrated at Cockspur Island and 

would result primarily from restoration of 

historic site conditions and views in selected 

locations, as well as the construction of new 

recreational facilities. Minor adverse impacts 

on soil, water quality, and vegetation would 

result in minor adverse effects on some fish 

and wildlife species. In contrast, the removal 

of nonnatives would result in minor 

beneficial effects on some wildlife species. 

This alternative would result in long-term 

moderate adverse cumulative impacts on 

fish and wildlife. The actions under 

alternative C would contribute a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Water Quality. Impacts to water quality 

would include those from alternative A, 

together with additional impacts associated 

with limited restoration of historic site 

conditions and views. Some short-term 

increase in runoff and sedimentation would 

result from the removal of vegetation to 

restore historic sight lines, but not as much 

as under alternative B. Besides impacts from 

vista clearing and site restoration, alternative 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

179 

C would generate additional impacts from 

the construction of a visitor center annex 

and the construction and use of new trails 

and other recreational facilities not 

contemplated under the other alternatives. 

All told, there would be slightly more runoff 

and impacts on water quality under 

alternative C than under alternative A, but 

less than under alternative B. Impacts to 

hydrology and water quality would be local, 

short and long term, minor, and adverse. 

Impacts would be partially mitigated by use 

of best management practices during 

clearing and site recovery. 

Cumulative Impacts—Cumulative impacts 

would generally be the same as under 

alternative B. The actions under alternative 

C would contribute a very small increment 

to this adverse cumulative impact.

Conclusion—Under alternative C, impacts on 

water quality would be local, short and long 

term, minor, and adverse. There would be a 

long-term adverse cumulative impact on 

water quality in the watershed. The intensity 

of the impact is unknown. The actions under 

alternative C would contribute a very small 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Impacts would be partially mitigated by use 

of best management practices during 

clearing and site recovery. 

Floodplains. Impacts would generally the 

same as under alternatives A and B. Some 

new trails and other recreational facilities 

would be constructed, with minimal 

additional impacts on floodplain 

functioning. Impacts to floodplain functions 

would be negligible to minor, local, direct 

and indirect, and adverse. Impacts to 

infrastructure in the event of flooding would 

be moderate to major, short and long term, 

and adverse.

Cumulative Impacts—Cumulative impacts 

would generally be the same as under 

alternative A. The actions under alternative 

C would contribute a very small increment 

to this adverse cumulative impact.

Conclusion—Given that Cockspur Island 

rarely floods, impacts on floodplain 

functions under alternative C would be 

local, direct and indirect, negligible to minor, 

and adverse. Impacts to infrastructure in the 

event of flooding would be short and long 

term, moderate to major, and adverse. 

Cumulative impacts would be long term, 

minor to major, and adverse. The actions 

under alternative C would contribute a very 

small increment to this adverse cumulative 

impact. 

Wetlands. Impacts would be the same as 

those from alternative A (continue current 

management). 

Cumulative Impacts—Cumulative Impacts 

would be the same as under alternative A. 

Conclusion—Under alternative C, past 

impacts on wetlands would continue and 

would be long term, minor, adverse, and 

local. There would be a long-term minor to 

major adverse cumulative impact on 

wetlands. The actions under alternative A 

would not contribute any new impacts to 

this cumulative impact. 

Wilderness Resources and Values 

Analysis. Same as alternative B. As with 

alternative B, alternative C proposes that 

approximately 4,500 acres of salt marsh 

within the monument boundary be 

designated as part of the national wilderness 

preservation system. Designation under the 

terms proposed would guarantee permanent 

protection of the wilderness resource while 

allowing most current uses, including motor 

boating, to continue. 

Cumulative Impacts. Same as alternative B. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C, impacts 

on wilderness resources and values from the 

designation of wilderness would be long 

term, moderate to major, and beneficial. 

There would be a long-term minor to 

moderate adverse cumulative impact on 

wilderness resources and values in the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

180 

region. The actions under alternative C 

would offset these impacts somewhat by 

granting most of the salt marsh in the 

monument permanent protection as 

wilderness.

Visitor Use and Experience 

Analysis. Because it calls for less clearing of 

historic sight lines than alternative B, 

alternative C would provide less historic 

perspective and information for visitors 

seeking an in-depth experience of the 

monument’s cultural resources. On the 

other hand, some visitors would appreciate 

the greater amount of vegetative cover 

remaining under this alternative. Alternative 

C would also provide more new recreational 

opportunities than any of the other 

alternatives by authorizing an expanded trail 

system on Cockspur Island and expanding 

the launching facilities for canoes and 

kayaks at Lazaretto Creek. A visitor center 

annex would be constructed near the 

existing Mission 66-era visitor center, 

enhancing visitor understanding and 

enjoyment. Impacts to visitor use and 

experience would be moderate, local, short 

and long term, and both beneficial and 

adverse, depending on a given visitor’s 

individual preferences.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

would generally be the same as under 

alternative B. The actions under alternative 

C would contribute a substantial increment 

to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Impacts to visitor use and 

experience under alternative C would stem 

both from targeted restoration of historic 

views and authorization of additional 

recreational facilities. Impacts would be 

local, short and long term, moderate, and 

both beneficial and adverse, depending on a 

given visitor’s individual preferences. Some 

visitors would appreciate the enhanced 

opportunity to experience historic views, 

while others would experience the removal 

of vegetative cover as a loss. Less clearing 

would take place under this alternative than 

under alternative B, and impacts on visitor 

use and experience would vary accordingly. 

The cumulative impact on visitor use and 

experience in the monument would be long 

term and beneficial. The actions under 

alternative C would contribute a substantial 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

As under alternative B, visitation under 

alternative C would be unlikely to increase 

to any appreciable degree over current 

levels, but might increase due to population 

growth. Impacts to the local economy from 

increased visitation-related spending would 

be long term, direct and indirect, and 

beneficial. 

Local Economy Employment. No new 

permanent jobs would be created under 

alternative C as no new permanent staff is 

deemed necessary to implement the 

alternative. As a result, Chatham County 

would not realize any long-term changes to 

its employment levels and long-term impacts 

resulting from alternative C would be local, 

negligible, and neutral. On the other hand, 

total one-time costs (facility and nonfacility) 

would be more than seven times higher 

under alternative C than under alternative A, 

but less than under alternative B. These new 

expenditures would result in additional 

short-term employment opportunities for 

local contractors and others. Consequently, 

short-term impacts of alternative C would be 

local and beneficial. 

Housing. Because alternative C would not 

entail hiring additional permanent staff, 

demand for residential housing would 

remain unchanged. Short-term impacts 

resulting from alternative C would be local, 

negligible, and neutral. 

Sales. Under alternative C, total sales of 

goods and services in Chatham County, as a 

result of visitor spending, would probably 

increase a small amount over the life of this 

plan. Because alternative C would result in 

only a small increase in sales revenue, long-
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

181 

term impacts would be local and slightly 

beneficial. 

Cumulative Impacts. Same as alternative B. 

Alternative C would contribute a negligible 

increment to this cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Because there would be only 

slight increases to visitor spending or 

monument expenditures within Chatham 

County under alternative C, long-term and 

short-term impacts on the socioeconomic 

environment would be local and slightly 

beneficial. As a result, county employment, 

housing, and sales would not be measurably 

affected. In terms of cumulative impacts, 

long-term and short-term impacts would be 

local and beneficial. Alternative C would 

contribute a negligible increment to this total 

cumulative effect. 

Monument Operations 

The impacts of alternative C to monument 

operations would include those of 

alternative A, plus the additional costs and 

effort needed to restore and maintain 

targeted historic views and operate and 

maintain the new visitor center annex. The 

latter undertakings would impose additional 

long-term maintenance and interpretation 

responsibilities on monument staff. 

However, because alternative C calls for a 

less extensive landscape restoration than 

alternative B, it would have correspondingly 

less impact on monument operations. No 

addition of permanent staff would be 

necessary to implement alternative B. Thus, 

alternative B would result in minor longterm neutral impacts on NPS operations. 

Cumulative Impacts. Same as alternative A. 

Conclusion. Operation of existing and 

projected visitor and administrative facilities 

in the monument would result in minor 

long-term neutral impacts on NPS 

operations. The cumulative impacts of 

alternative C and other reasonably 

foreseeable future actions required of 

monument staff would be minor to 

moderate, long term, and neutral. 

Energy Requirements and 

Conservation Potential 

Under alternative C, no major new facilities 

would be developed, thereby eliminating any 

new long-term energy requirements for 

facility construction and maintenance. Some 

fuel would be consumed in the course of 

restoring historic sites and views and 

installing new recreational facilities, but the 

amounts would be minor. Public use of the 

monument would remain at about its current 

level. The fuel and energy consumed by 

visitors traveling to the monument would 

not be likely to increase because visitation is 

not likely to increase substantially. Energy 

would still be consumed to maintain existing 

facilities and for resource management of 

the monument. 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Unavoidable adverse impacts are defined as 

impacts that cannot be fully mitigated or 

avoided. Adverse impacts on natural and 

cultural resources and visitor experience 

could occur in some areas throughout the 

monument, resulting from limited public use 

or NPS management activities. 

Irretrievable or Irreversible 

Commitments of Resources 

Under alternative C, the energy 

requirements identified previously would 

result in an irreversible commitment of 

resources. There would be no permanent 

effects on monument resources. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

182 

Relationship Between Local Shortterm Uses of the Environment and 

Maintenance or Enhancement of 

Long-term Productivity 

In this alternative, most of the monument 

would be protected in a natural state and 

would maintain its long-term productivity. 

Only a small percentage of the monument 

would be maintained as developed areas. 
CONSULTATION 

AND 

COORDINATION

Robert E. Lee

istock.com

185 

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

BRIEF HISTORY OF PUBLIC 

INVOLVEMENT 

The General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement for 

Fort Pulaski National Monument represents 

thoughts of the NPS monument staff, state 

and local agencies and organizations, and the 

public. Consultation and coordination among 

the agencies and the public were vitally 

important throughout the planning process. 

Public meetings and newsletters were used to 

keep the public informed and involved in the 

planning process for Fort Pulaski. A mailing 

list was compiled that consisted of members 

of governmental agencies, organizations, 

businesses, legislators, local governments, and 

interested citizens. 

Initial scoping began in May 2003. Scoping is 

an early and open process for determining the 

scope of a proposed action or project and for 

identifying issues related to the project. 

During scoping, NPS staff provides an 

overview of the project, including purpose 

and need and preliminary issues. State and 

local agencies, private organizations and 

individuals, and the general public are asked 

to submit comments, concerns, and 

suggestions relating to the project and 

preliminary issues. 

On May 21, 2003, the planning team met with 

the Georgia Department of Transportation in 

connection with the proposed widening and 

elevation of U.S. Highway 80, which runs 

through the national monument. The 

planning team also met with staff from the 

Historic Preservation Division of the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources to discover 

any concerns or issues the team should 

consider in the planning process. 

Additional monument staff and agency 

scoping meetings were conducted at the 

monument in June 2003. The participants 

included 

 Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources, Coastal Resources 

Division 

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

 U.S. Coast Guard 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The first general management plan newsletter 

was mailed in November 2003 with a postagepaid response card provided for recipients to 

express their opinions and suggestions for the 

future management of Fort Pulaski. 

Subsequent public scoping meetings and 

multiple party stakeholder meetings were 

conducted at the monument and in various 

venues between Savannah and Tybee Island in 

December 2003. 

Participants in these meetings represented 

 Savannah State University 

 Georgia Historical Society 

 Savannah Pilots Association 

 Tybee Island City Council 

 Coastal Georgia Regional 

Development Council 

 Savannah/Chatham County Police 

Department 

 Tybee Island Historic Society 

 Chatham County Public Works & 

Parks Department 

 Oatland Island Educational Center 

 Georgia Land Trust 

 Metropolitan Planning Commission 

 National Park Service, Denver Service 

Center, Curatorial Services 

The previously described organizations 

additionally represent, individually and 

collectively, the African American community, 

Civil War enthusiasts, descendants of Civil 

War era escaped slaves and prisoners of war, 

and other groups. 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

186 

Newsletter 2 was issued in the spring of 2004 

to report the findings of the scoping process 

to the public. Those findings are discussed in 

detail in chapter 1. A notice of intent to 

prepare the general management plan / 

environmental impact statement was 

published in the Federal Register on February 

24, 2005. Another notice of intent was 

published in the Federal Register on July 2, 

2007. This notice expanded the scope of the 

general management plan / environmental 

impact statement to include a wilderness 

study to determine if any portions of the 

national monument should be recommended 

for inclusion in the national wilderness 

preservation system as defined in the 

Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Newsletter 3 was published in May 2007 and 

contained preliminary alternatives for the 

public to review and critique. Subsequently, 

between May 22 and May 23, 2007, four 

public open house meetings were held in the 

Savannah area (two meetings in the 

monument, one meeting at the Tybee Island 

City Hall, and one meeting at the Savannah 

Civic Center) to provide direct opportunities 

for the public to hear descriptions of and to 

comment on the proposed alternatives. 

RELEASE OF THE DRAFT GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS 

STUDY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT 

The Fort Pulaski National Monument Draft 

General Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement was released 

to the public on May 11, 2012. Two public 

meetings were held near Fort Pulaski to 

review and discuss the draft plan and receive 

public input. 

 June 13, 2012, Tybee Island YMCA 

Complex, Tybee Island, Georgia 

 June 14, 2012, Savannah Civic Center, 

Savannah, Georgia 

The public comment period closed on July 9, 

2012. 

Approximately nine individuals, 

organizations, and agencies submitted 

correspondence about the draft plan. This 

correspondence came in the form of hardcopy 

letters and emails. A total of 29 individual 

comments were derived from the 

correspondence received. 

All comment letters received from agencies 

and organizations are posted to the NPS’s 

internet-based Planning, Environment, and 

Public Comment (PEPC) system 

(http://parkplanning.nps.gov/fopu) for public 

inspection. 

A report titled “Comments and Responses on 

the Fort Pulaski National Monument Draft 

General Management Plan / Wilderness Study 

/ Environmental Impact Statement” is 

included at the end of this chapter. The report 

summarizes the substance of the comments 

received during this draft review period and 

provides a collection of NPS responses to the 

various concerns that were raised. 

CONSULTATIONS WITH OTHER 

AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Section 

7 Consultation 

During the preparation of this document, NPS 

staff has coordinated informally with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Savannah Coastal 

Refuge Complex Office. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service provided a list of federal threatened 

and endangered species that might be in or 

near the national monument (appendix C). 

In accordance with the Endangered Species 

Act and relevant regulations at 50 CFR 402, 

the National Park Service determined that the 

management plan is not likely to adversely 

affect any federally threatened or endangered 

species and sent a copy of the draft 

management plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Consultations with Other Agencies and Organizations 

187 

Service office with a request for written 

concurrence with that determination. In 

addition, the National Park Service has 

committed to consult on future actions 

conducted under the framework described in 

this management plan to ensure that such 

actions are not likely to adversely affect 

threatened or endangered species. 

Historic Preservation Division of the 

Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources, Section 106 Consultation 

Agencies that have direct or indirect 

jurisdiction over historic properties are 

required by section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

(16 USC 470, et seq.), to take into account the 

effect of any undertaking on properties 

eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places. In addition to the informal 

meeting with staff from the Georgia Historic 

Preservation Division cited earlier, the 

planning team sent the Historic Preservation 

Division a copy of newsletter number 1 in 

November of 2003 and newsletter number 2 

in the spring of 2004. Informal consultation 

with other parties regarding cultural resource 

issues took place in the context of the 

meetings described previously in this chapter. 

Nine federally recognized American Indian 

tribal organizations were formally invited to 

consult on the general management plan. 

They were 

 Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town 

 Catawba Indian Nation 

 Chickasaw Nation 

 Kialegee Tribal Town 

 Muscogee (Creek) Nation 

 Poarch Band of Creek Indians of 

Alabama 

 Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

 Seminole Tribe of Florida 

 Thlopthlocco Tribal Town 

No tribal or local government representative 

or any other interested party expressed an 

interest in consulting on this plan pursuant to 

36 CFR 800.2. 

Under the terms of the 2008 programmatic 

agreement among the National Park Service, 

the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the National Conference of 

State Historic Preservation Officers, “all 

undertakings that do not qualify for 

streamlined review [e.g., preparation of 

general management plans] ... will be 

reviewed in accordance with 36 CFR Part 

800.” Therefore, the draft general 

management plan / wilderness study / 

environmental impact statement was 

submitted to the Historic Preservation 

Division of the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources for review and comment. 

List of Reviewing Agencies and 

Recipients 

Federal Agencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

U.S. Department of Defense 

 Army Corps of Engineers 

 Coast Guard 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

 National Park Service 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

American Indian Tribal Governments 

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town 

Catawba Indian Nation 

Chickasaw Nation 

Kialegee Tribal Town 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation 

Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

Seminole Tribe of Florida 

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town 

U.S. Senators and Representatives 

Honorable Johnny Isakson, Senator 

Honorable Saxby Chambliss, Senator 

Honorable Jack Kingston, House of 

Representatives 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

188 

State Officials, Senators, and 

Representatives 

Honorable Sonny Perdue, Governor 

State Senator Earl “Buddy” Carter (District 1) 

State Senator Lester G. Jackson (District 2) 

State Representative Ann Purcell (Chatham 

District 159) 

State Representative Bob Bryant (Chatham 

District 160) 

State Representative Mickey Stephens 

(Chatham District 161) 

State Representative J. Craig Gordon 

(Chatham District 162) 

State Representative Burke Day (Chatham 

District 163) 

State Agencies and Commissions 

Historic Preservation Division of the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources 

Regional, County, and Local Governments 

Savannah 

Tybee Island 

Chatham County 

Coastal Georgia Regional Commission 

Organizations, Businesses, and Universities 

Savannah College of Art and Design 

Savannah State University 

Armstrong Atlantic State University 

Tybee Island Historic Society 

Georgia Historical Society 

National Parks and Conservation Association 

Civil War Preservation Trust 

Libraries 

Tybee Island Branch Library, Tybee Island 

Islands Branch Library, Wilmington Island 

Bull Street Library, Savannah 

Television Stations 

WSAV Television 

WJCL Television 

WTOC Television 

Newspapers 

Savannah Tribune 

Savannah Morning News 

Savannah Herald 

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE 

FORT PULASKI NATIONAL 

MONUMENT DRAFT GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS 

STUDY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT 

This section summarizes the comments

received following the release of the Fort 

Pulaski National Monument draft general 

management plan / wilderness study / 

environmental impact statement on May 5, 

2012. All written comments were considered 

during the preparation of the final general 

management plan, wilderness study, and 

environmental impact statement in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulations for implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1503). The 

comments allow the planningteam, NPS 

decision-makers, and other interested parties 

to review and assess the views of other 

agencies, organizations, and individuals 

related to the preferred alternative, the other 

alternatives, and potential impacts. 

All comments received during the public 

review and comment period have been duly 

considered and will remain in the project

administrative record. The administrative

record (or project file) documents the NPS 

decision-making process and records the basis

and rationale for making the decision. 

Methodology 

Fort Pulaski National Monument received 

nine pieces of correspondence during the 

public review andcomment period from May 

5, 2012, through July 14, 2012. 

Correspondencewas received by one of the 

following methods: e-mail, hard copy letter 

via mail, or entered directly into the PEPC 

system. Each of these letters or submissions is 

referred to as correspondence. Each item of 

correspondence was read and specific 

comments within each correspondence were 
Comments and Responses 

189 

identified. A total of 29 comments were 

derived from the correspondence received. 

Because the number of comments was 

relatively small, there was no need to 

categorize or code them. All the comments 

received were, however, classified as 

substantive. A substantive comment is defined 

in the NPS Director’s Order 12 (DO-12) 

Handbook asone that does one or more of the 

following (DO-12, section 4.6A): 

 question, with a reasonable basis, the 

accuracy of information presented in 

the EIS 

 question, with reasonable basis, the 

adequacy of the environmental 

analysis 

 present reasonable alternatives other 

than those presented in the EIS and/or 

 cause changes or revisions in the 

proposal 

As further stated in Director’s Order 12, 

substantivecomments “raise, debate, or 

question a pointof fact or policy. Comments 

in favor of or against the proposed action or 

alternatives, or comments that only agree or 

disagree with NPS policy, are not considered 

substantive.” In addition, these comments 

were addressed in a variety of ways in the 

agency responses to comments in table 14, 

which follows on the next page. 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

190 

TABLE 14. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

Fort Pulaski National Monument Draft GMP/EIS – Responses to Public Comments

Comment Response to Comment Location of Response

AGENCY COMMENTS

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 

 The DEIS discusses the NPS’s efforts to comply with the Endangered Species Act and 

section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. According to the DEIS, the NPS has informally coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on threatened and endangered species and the Georgia Historic Preservation Division on historic properties. While the NPS describes various coordination efforts, the FEIS should document resource agency formal consultations including concurrence with the NPS’s determination that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect any federally threatened or endangered species and section 106 determinations regarding the relocation of the parking area for the Mission 66 visitor center. 

The National Park Service has received correspondence from the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office acknowledging early coordination under the National Historic Preservation Act and our commitment to provide section 6 documentation on any projects emanating from the general management plan that may affect cultural resources. The National Park Service has also received correspondence (letter dated October 12, 2012) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurring with our conclusion that no endangered or threatened species would be adversely affected by any elements of the approved plan. 

N/A

 The NPS conducted a wilderness study for Fort Pulaski related to lands that were 

previously found eligible for wilderness designation. Based on a wilderness eligibility 

assessment, approximately 4,500 acres of tidal salt marsh at McQueen’s island was found eligible. Both action alternatives propose the same amount of acreage for designation as part of the national wilderness preservation system. The USEPA supports the preservation and restoration of the salt marsh areas at Fort Pulaski as proposed by the NPS. This designation would help to preserve and protect the natural state of the salt marsh, and provide for “compatible recreational opportunities, 

education, and scientific study.” 

Noted. N/A

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 

 The National Park Service has determined that any actions under these Alternatives (A, 

B, or C) “are not likely to adversely affect any federally threatened or endangered 

species.” We concur with your determination based solely on the actions of alternative B. In view of this, we believe that the requirements of section 7 of the ESA have been satisfied. However, obligations under section 7 of the ESA must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner which was not previously considered in this assessment; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the 

identified action. 

Prior to implementation of any action that is part of the final general management plan, the National Park Service will initiate and complete the appropriate level of compliance with NEPA, section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and National Historic Preservation Act. Language to this effect has been added to the “Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives” section of Chapter 2 which follows the section on “Development of Cost Estimates.” 

Chapter 2, page 84,line 19 

Georgia Historic Preservation Division: 

 Based on the information provided in the GNP (sic) and EIS, it appears that both 

alternatives B (NPS’ preferred alternative) and C have the potential to affect historic and archaeological properties as they are implemented. We look forward to receiving 

section 106 documentation for properties as part of the implementation of the GNP (sic). 

The National Park Service will comply with the requirements of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, including sections 106 and 110 prior to implementing any action with the potential to affect historic, archeological, or ethnographic resources. 

N/A
Comments and Responses 

191 

TABLE 14. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

Fort Pulaski National Monument Draft GMP/EIS – Responses to Public Comments

Comment Response to Comment Location of Response

Georgia Coastal Resources Division 

 The Plan states that the management of populations of nonnative plant and animal 

species, up to and including eradication, would be undertaken wherever such species threaten monument resources or public health and when control is prudent and feasible. We encourage you to take a proactive stance on nonnative species control by reporting occurrences of invasive species to the Early Detection and Distribution Mapping System (www.eddmaps.com ) developed by the Center for Invasive Species 

and Ecosystem Health at the University of Georgia. 

Fort Pulaski National Monument conducts nonnative species management activities and programs in accord with the NPS Management Polices 2006 directives and Executive Order 13112, “Invasive Species” (President William J. Clinton), February 3, 1999. The national monument actively manages and documents nonnative species through an internal monument natural resources program and with assistance from the Southeast Coast Exotic Plant Management Team (SECEPMT) and the Southeast Coast Network Inventory and Monitoring Program (SECN I&M). Fort Pulaski National Monument sets goals (Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]) in a cyclic plan and reports on these goals every fiscal year through the Performance Management Data System (PMDS) for the treatment of nonnative and invasive plants. The main nonnative species populations currently being managed through eradication treatments are lantana (Lantana camera), Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Past 

treatments also included Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinese) and crapemyrtle (Lagerstroemia indica).Presently, the majority of the treatment of monument nonnative species is a result of annual or bi-annual treatment trips by the SEC-EPMT. In fiscal year 2012, the SEC-EPMT treated 21.523 gross infested acres of 64.05 acres inventoried. The three main species treated during fiscal year 2012 were lantana (Lantana camera), Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera). The monument staff will consider reporting occurrences of invasive species to the Early Detection and Distribution Mapping System developed by the Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health at the University of Georgia. Fort Pulaski National Monument understands that early detection and rapid response are crucial in keeping nonnative species from displacing our natural resources and/or natural processes, impacting our cultural resources and landscapes, etc. Additional clarifying language has been added to the text to make the above points. 

Chapter 2, Actions Common to All Alternatives, page 57, after line 58 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

192 

TABLE 14. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

Fort Pulaski National Monument Draft GMP/EIS – Responses to Public Comments

Comment Response to Comment Location of Response

 The Program concurs with your consistency determination. This determination ensures 

that the proposed project has been designed to comply to the maximum extent practicable with the applicable enforceable policies of the Georgia Coastal Management Program. 

Noted. N/A

COMMENTS FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENTSChatham County – Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission:

 The Coastal Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (CORE MPO), a federally 

mandated transportation planning board staffed by the Chatham County - Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC), wishes to ensure that US 80, as a crucial land connection, continues to provide adequate and safe access to and from Tybee Island, Our comments on the transportation aspects of your proposal are as follows: 

 In the interest of corridor preservation for US 80, CORE MPO recommends that the 

Wilderness Area boundary, in sections parallel to US 80, be 50 feet off of the edge of 

the current US 80 right-of-way. A distance of 50 feet off of right-of-way was described in an earlier draft of the Wilderness Area Study. This boundary description is preferable to the current description (100 feet off of the current centerline) for the reasons stated below.  The distance of 100 feet off of the current centerline does not allow enough 

flexibility for potential adjustments to alignments in future transportation projects, 

especially since bridge widenings or replacements almost always occur more to one side of an existing bridge than the other, and; 

 In one area, west of Bull River Bridge, the current boundary description would 

result in the inclusion of a segment of Old US 80ITybee Road, and thus pal1 of current, public right-of-way, within the Wilderness Area. All existing right-of-way should be preserved for future transportation projects, and not included in the Wilderness Area. 

Language has been added to several sections that removes lands within 100 feet of the edge of the right-of-way of U.S. Highway 80 from the proposed wilderness designation. 

Page 47, lines 8–9; 

Page 63, lines 56–57 and lines 72–74 

 The Wilderness Area boundary should allow for the possibility of some additional land 

acquisition, and temporary use of land during construction, in future US 80 projects, as 

the roadway is a vital land connection. 

The reduced wilderness boundary described in the NPS response to the CORE MPO comments provides for the possibility of additional land acquisition and temporary use during construction referred to in this comment. However, it should be noted that no land that is currently within NPS ownership at Fort Pulaski can be acquired by the State of Georgia, any local governmental entity, or any private individual without an act of Congress expressly authorizing such an acquisition. 

See page references to previous comment. 
Comments and Responses 

193 

TABLE 14. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

Fort Pulaski National Monument Draft GMP/EIS – Responses to Public Comments

Comment Response to Comment Location of Response

 Descriptions of US 80 transportation projects, in several sections of the General 

Management Plan (GMP), should be updated to reflect awareness of a newer project coming out of our US 80 Bridges Replacement Study. The US 80 Bridges and Road Improvements (PI #0010560) is funded in the MPO’s 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and also has preliminary engineering (including the environmental process) programmed in the MPO’s FY 2013-2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). It will be sponsored by the Georgia Department of Transportation. The older project described in the GMP, the “US Highway 80 Expansion Project” (PI #522490), currently is not funded in the MPO’s LRTP or in the short-range TIP. 

Made text changes at various locations in the document reflect the new project proposed for Highway 80. 

Pages 25, 28, 35, 36, 57, 59, 141, 149, 152 

 Although the currently funded US 80 project would have fewer acres of environmental 

impact than the previous four-lane widening concept, that fact does not reduce the 

importance of our first comment regarding the Wilderness Area boundary. At the Bull River Bridge, the currently planned project probably would extend farther from the current centerline than the previous widening concept would have, although final alignment is unknown. 

Noted and responded to in the CORE MPO’s first comment. Page 47, lines 8–9; 

Page 63, lines 56–57 and lines 72–74 

 We support the proposal in all of the GMP alternatives to extend the McQueen’s Island 

Trail eastward to Tybee Island. As mentioned above, the MPO’s US 80 Bridges Study 

proposes this extension as well as a barrier-separated path along a new bridge at Lazaretto Creek. The existing trail and the future extension also are currently proposed for the bicycle and pedestrian network in the MPO’s Non-motorized Transportation Plan, expected to be adopted later this year. 

Noted. N/A

 Regarding any potential construction projects or land disturbing activities resulting 

from the GMP (visitor center, relocated parking lot), MPC provides the following comments for water resource protection: 

o Stormwater low impact development (LID) mechanisms such as grassy bioretention 

swales, tree islands, and parking lot curb cuts leading to gardens areas, should be incorporated into the engineering and development of the sites to provide viable mechanisms for managing and filtering stormwater produced on-site. Upon implementing LID practices, the high percentage of impervious surface coverage at completion as well as any impact to nearby water bodies will be dramatically lessened. 

o Where feasible, pervious/permeable paving should be used throughout to diminish 

the amount of petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POLs) running off of the parking lot’s pavement via sheet flow into the nearby wetlands and marshes and to prevent the deterioration of water quality. 

o All land disturbing activities associated with the construction should be conducted 

in accordance with best management practices (BMPs) detailed in the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act of 1975, as amended (O.C.G.A. 12-7-1) as well as the Coastal Stormwater Supplement (CSS) to the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual (GSMM). 

o If wetlands are impacted during any portions of the project and credits are required 

Table 1 on page 23 of the draft general management plan / environmental impact statement contains a section on sustainable design and development, which specifically requires facilities to be located, built and modified according to the Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (NPS 1993). This manual and a variety of laws, policies, and regulations obligate the National Park Service to create facilities that are harmonious with the environment, including water resources and wetlands. The National Park Service will comply with all applicable laws and regulations with regard to water resources and water quality. Specific measures for mitigating potential adverse impacts are beyond the scope of general management plans and will be included in subsequent plans and compliance processes for projects that emanate from the general management plan. There will be public involvement and outreach for each project if and when funds become available to implement them. Finally, the references to best management practices in the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act of 1975 and the Chatham County Comprehensive Water Supply Management Plan have been added to the references 

N/A
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

194 

TABLE 14. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

Fort Pulaski National Monument Draft GMP/EIS – Responses to Public Comments

Comment Response to Comment Location of Response

to be purchased from a mitigation bank, it is suggested that those credits be purchased from a bank that is located in the same watershed as the one being impacted. 

o The Savannah River that is adjacent to the proposed site is a listed as impaired by 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and has a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for dissolved oxygen. Practices to ensure the protection and prevention of contaminants from ultimately entering the river should be instituted at all costs. 

o Once construction is complete, please refer to the Chatham County Comprehensive 

Water Supply Management Plan for watering regulations and best management practices (BMPs). 

section of the final general management plan / environmental impact statement. 

COMMENTS FROM NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONSNational Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) 

 NPCA supports the inclusion in the final plan of 2 key points in Alternative C: 

1. Alternative C, like Alternative B recommends that vegetation should be removed to better understand the sight lines during the historic battle (from the Union batteries at Goat 

Point to Fort Pulaski); however Alternative C removes less vegetation. Given costs constraints and the threat of invasive species, the sight lines proposed in Alternative C may be more efficient to maintain while still providing important interpretive understanding for monument visitors. 2. Alternative C also calls for an expansion of recreational access by expanding the trail system and launching facilities for canoes and kayaks at Lazaretto Creek. The Georgia Coast Salt Water Travel Trail could benefit from improved launching facilities. Ft. Pulaski is also part of the metropolitan statistical area of Savannah. The NPS Call to Action theme ‘Connecting People to Parks’ speaks to connecting urban communities to parks through trails, waterways and community green spaces and expanding the use of parks for healthy outdoor recreation. We believe this element from Alternative C would help accomplish that important goal. 

1. The National Park Service believes that the strategy and 

mitigation for the removal of trees in the description of alternative B in chapter 2 addresses the concerns the National Parks Conservation Association raises about costs and the threat of invasive species. First, mature red cedars would only be removed as they succumb to disease, lightning damage, etc. Trees would be marked for removal by a surveyor and forester, in consultation with a cultural landscape specialist, to ensure that no more trees are removed than necessary to achieve desired sightlines. Second, with regard to invasive species, all the trees that would be removed are considered invasive for the location where they currently exist. 

2. Alternative B does not preclude the possibility of 

expanding trails and boat launching facilities. The recreation zone in alternative B is the same configuration as it is for alternative C and boat launching facilities on Lazaretto Creek would be allowable under either alternative. Fort Pulaski would be able to expand boat launching facilities and trails under the NPS preferred alternative (alternative B) if sufficient funding for planning, construction, and environmental compliance were to become available. In addition, current plans of the Metropolitan Planning Commission include extending the McQueens Island Trail beyond the Fort Pulaski entrance to Lazaretto Creek and onto Tybee Island by means of improvement or replacement of the U.S. Highway 80 bridge over the creek. 

Chapter 2, page 64
Comments and Responses 

195 

TABLE 14. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

Fort Pulaski National Monument Draft GMP/EIS – Responses to Public Comments

Comment Response to Comment Location of Response

 In 2007 NPCA conducted a State of the Parks Assessment at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. Key findings indicted the need for additional research on the history of Fort Pulaski and Cockspur Island beyond the Civil War to expand understanding of monument resources and add to interpretive programs. Topics in need of further study include American Indian habitation, the construction of Fort Pulaski and the fort’s role in the Underground Railroad. 

The document referred to in the comment was included in the list of references for the draft general management plan / environmental impact statement and helped inform the development of alternatives. Language has been added to the section “Future Studies and Implementation Plans Needed” in chapter 2 acknowledging the need for further research. 

Chapter 2, page 89

 Page 17, line 34-45 of the Draft GMP references Representative Jessie Jackson’s 

language, inserted into FY 2000 NPS appropriations bill, directing the Secretary of Interior 

to encourage NPS managers of Civil War battle sites to recognize and include...the unique role that the institution of slavery played in causing the civil war and its role ... at the individual site. We agree. 

Noted. N/A

 In Table 7, Summary of Impacts, Alternative B indicates that funding will be sought for 

archeological studies to provide information about the construction village that was necessary to recreate part of the cultural landscape... and prepare exhibits. NPCA suggests that perhaps additional research and interpretation could also deepen our understanding of the role of slavery and the Underground Railroad at Fort Pulaski. 

Language has been added to the section “Future Studies and Implementation Plans Needed” in chapter 2 acknowledging the need for further research. 

Chapter 2, page 91,line 1 

 NPCA supports the Park Service’s proposed Wilderness Study to evaluate options for 

designating wilderness and developing a formal wilderness proposal. Of concern is the 

traditional use of motorboats in the tidal Creeks of McQueen’s Island. Although the Wilderness Act allows the continuation of traditional uses when those uses have been established, it is inherent in the definition of wilderness that there are outstanding 

opportunities for solitude and a primitive unconfined type of recreation. NPCA supports the park service’s management of these areas in such a way as to preserve their 

wilderness characteristics to the maximum extent possible. 

Noted. N/A

Georgia Conservancy 

 The Plan proposes to submit 4,500 acres of pristine salt marsh on McQueens Island to 

Congress for approval as National Wilderness Area. The Wilderness Act also states that 

designated lands “shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character.” 16 V.S.c. § 1131. McQueens Island is rich with rare pristine salt marsh habitats. ... We strongly support any plan that calls for the preservation of 

untouched marshland habitat so that it may flourish and in its natural and primitive state. 

Noted. N/A
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

196 

TABLE 14. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

Fort Pulaski National Monument Draft GMP/EIS – Responses to Public Comments

Comment Response to Comment Location of Response

 Over the next twenty years, climate change will have an effect on Park management. The 

Plan recognizes the immediate and unique vulnerability that coastal environments face with regard to climate change, particularly sea level rise, and recommends the topic be “retained for analysis.” The rising sea level and resulting alteration of the marsh, coupled with the probable dredging of the Savannah River, only underscores the wetland vulnerability and likelihood of habitat conversion. While we understand the topic is complex, we strongly encourage the development and implementation of a proactive climate change strategy that maximizes the protection of priority habitat. 

The National Park Service recognizes that climate change is an enormous threat to the integrity of the national park system. Coastal monuments such as Fort Pulaski are especially vulnerable to the effects of global warming and sea level rise. The National Park Service has developed a climate change response strategy that incorporates climate change considerations and responses in all levels of NPS planning. Text changes and additions have been made in several locations (see next column) that provide more details regarding how resources may be impacted by climate change and the different strategies that will be employed to respond to climate change. 

Table 1, page 20; page 29; Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives section, page 84; Future Studies and Implementation Plans Needed section, page 89; multiple locations in chapter 3: page 104, 105, 109, 110, 113, and 116. 

Comments from the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) website.Only two comments were received in PEPC. These were from the Georgia Conservancy and the NPCA. Both of these have been addressed in the section on nongovernmental organizations above. 
REFERENCES, 

APPENDIXES, LIST 

OF PREPARERS, 

INDEX

David Libman, National Park Service

199 

SELECTED REFERENCES 

Alexander, C. 

2008 “Rates and Processes of Shoreline 

Change at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument.” Unpublished report 

submitted to the National Park 

Service. 

Backlund, P., A. Janetos, and D. Schimel 

2008 The effects of climate change on 

agriculture, land resources, water 

resources, and biodiversity in the 

United States. Synthesis and 

Assessment Product 4.3., U.S. 

Environmental Protection 

Agency, Climate Change Science 

Program, Washington, D.C. 

Boesch, D. F., J. C. Field, and D. Scavia 

2000 “The potential consequences of 

climate variability and change on 

coastal areas and marine 

resources: Report of the Coastal 

Areas and Marine Resources 

Sector Team, U.S. National 

Assessment of the Potential 

Consequences of Climate 

Variability and Change.” U.S. 

Global Change Research 

Program, Silver Spring, MD. 

Booth, D. T. 

2006 “Influence of incubation 

temperature on hatchling 

phenotype in reptiles.” 

Physiological and Biochemical 

Zoology 79:274-281. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis 

2008 Regional Economic Accounts

[Brochure]. 

http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/

default.cfm?catable=CA25: U.S. 

Department of Commerce. 

Burkett, V. R., D. A. Wilcox, R. Stottlemyer, 

W. Barrow, D. Fagre, J. Baron, J. Price, J. L. 

Nielsen, C. D. Allen, D. L. Peterson, G. 

Ruggerone, and T. Doyle 

2005 “Nonlinear dynamics in 

ecosystem response to climatic 

change: Case studies and policy 

implications.” Science Direct: 

357–394. 

Cathey, H. 

1990 South-East U.S. Zones 5b–10b. 

The United States National 

Arboretum USDA Plant Hardiness 

Zone Map, 1475, Retrieved 

February 4, 2009, from 

http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardz

one/hzm-se1.html 

Center for Quality Growth and Regional 

Development at the Georgia Institute of 

Technology 

2006 Georgia Coast 2030: Population 

Projections for the 10-county 

Coastal Region. 

Center for Watershed Protection 

2009 Coastal Stormwater Supplement to 

the Georgia Stormwater 

Management Manual. Ellicott 

City, MD. 

Coastal Georgia Regional Development 

Center, CEDS Strategy Committee 

2007 Comprehensive Economic 

Development Strategy (CEDS).

Prepared for U.S. Department of 

Commerce Economic 

Development Administration. 

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. 

LaRoe 

1979 Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United 

States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Publication FWS/OBS79/31. Washington, D.C: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 
SELECTED REFERENCES

200 

Desantis, L. R. G., S. Bhotika, K. Williams, 

and F. E. Putz 

2007 “Sea-level rise and drought 

interactions accelerate forest 

decline on the Gulf Coast of 

Florida, USA.” Global Change 

Biology 13:2349-2360. 

Ebi, K. L., G. A. Meehl, D. Bachelet, and D. 

F. Boesch 

2007 “Regional impacts of climate 

change: Four case studies in the 

United States.” Pew Center on 

Global Climate Change, 

Arlington, VA. 

Elfner, Mary A. 

2005 Tybee Island Beach Management 

Plan. Prepared for the City of 

Tybee Island, GA. 

Elmore, Charles J., PhD 

2002 General David Hunter’s 

Proclamation: The Quest for 

African-American Freedom, 

Before and During the Civil War.

Fort Washington, PA: Eastern 

National. 

Environmental Laboratory 

1987 “Corps of Engineers Wetlands 

Delineation Manual” (Technical 

Report Y-87-1). Vicksburg, MS: 

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways 

Experiment Station. NTIS No. 

AD A176 912. 

Florida State University, Center for OceanAtmospheric Prediction Studies 

2009 “Climate Data for Savannah 

Hilton Head International.” 

Retrieved June 30 from 

http://gis.coaps.fsu.edu/cgibin/mapserv.exe?mode=query&m

ap=c:inetpubwwwrootmsmapfiles

TerrClim.map&imgext=-

82.15234375+31.419921875+-

80.27734375+32.826171875&img

xy=320+239&imgbox=320+239+3

20+239&imgsize=640+480 

Frumhoff, P. C., J. J. McCarthy, J. M. Melillo, 

S. C. Moser, and D. J. Wuebbles 

2006 Climate change in the U.S. 

Northeast. Union of Concerned 

Scientists (UCS), Cambridge, MA. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

(GADNR), Coastal Resources Division 

2008 “Sea Turtles.” Retrieved from 

http://crd.dnr.state.ga.us/content/

displaycontent.asp?txtDocument

=365 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 

Environmental Protection Division 

2001 Savannah River Basin I Plan 2001, 

Section 5, “Assessments of Water 

Quantity and Quality.” Retrieved 

from 

http://www.gaepd.org/Document

s/savannah.html 

2009 Air Protection in Georgia. 

Retrieved from 

http://www.gaepd.org/Document

s/index_air.html 

Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) 

1998 Environmental Impact Statement – 

Savannah Harbor Feasibility 

Study. Available online: http://savharbor.com/index.html#Backgnd 

Govus, Thomas E. 

1998 Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Inventory Final Report Part A: 

Plants. Prepared for the National 

Park Service, Southeast Region. 

Groh, Lou 

1999 Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Archeological Overview and 

Assessment. Tallahassee: National 

Park Service, Southeast 

Archeological Center. 
Selected References 

201 

Harvell, C. D., K. Kim, J. M. Burkholder, R. 

R. Colwell, P. R. Epstein, D. J. Grimes, E. E. 

Hofmann, E. K. Lipp, A. Osterhaus, and R. 

M. Overstreet 

1999 “Emerging marine diseases - 

climate links and anthropogenic 

factors.” Science 285:1505. 

Hawkes, L. A., A. C. Broderick, M. H. 

Godfrey, and B. J. Godley 

2007 “Investigating the potential 

impacts of climate change on a 

marine turtle population.” Global 

Change Biology 13:923-932. 

Howell, Susan Meredith 

2004 “Shoreline Change At Fort 

Pulaski, Georgia: A Remote 

Sensing Approach.” Georgia 

Southern University, Skidaway 

Institute of Oceanography. 

Presentation to Geological 

Society of America, Northeastern 

Section (39th Annual) and 

Southeastern Section (53rd

Annual) Joint Meeting (March 

25–27), Washington, DC. 

HurricaneCity.com 

2009 “Savannah, Georgia’s History 

with Tropical Systems.” 

http://www.hurricanecity.com/cit

y/savannah.htm. 

Loehman, R. and G. Anderson 

2009 Understanding the science of 

climate change: talking points — 

impacts to the Atlantic Coast.

Natural Resource Report 

NPS/NRPC/NRR-2009/095. 

National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

Lovett, G. M., C. D. Canham, M. A. Arthur, 

K. C. Weathers, and R. D. Fitzhugh 

2006 “Forest ecosystem responses to 

exotic pests and pathogens in 

eastern North America.” 

BioScience 56:395–405. 

McFarlin, C. and M. Alber 

2005 Assessment of Coastal Water 

Resources and Watershed 

Conditions at Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. (Technical 

Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR2005/345). Prepared for the 

National Park Service, Water 

Resources Division, Natural 

Resource Program Center. 

Meader , J. Faith and Cameron Binkley, ed. 

2003 Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Administrative History. Atlanta: 

National Park Service, Cultural 

Resources Division, Southeast 

Regional Office. 

Michener, W. K., E. R. Blood, K. L. Bildstein, 

M. M. Brinson and L. R. Gardner 

1997 “Climate Change, Hurricanes and 

Tropical Storms, and Rising Sea 

Level in Coastal Wetlands.” 

Ecological Applications 7(3): 770–

801. 

Mobley, Chuck 

2007 “Enemies from Within, Without 

Threaten Savannah River 

Landmark.” Savannah Morning 

News, November 16. 

National Assessment Synthesis Team 

2000 Climate change impacts on the 

United States: the potential 

consequences of climate 

variability and change. U.S. 

Global Change Research 

Program. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) 

2008 NOAA Fisheries: Office of 

Protected Species. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/spe

cies/fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm 
SELECTED REFERENCES

202 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

1998 Recovery Plan for the Shortnose 

Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). 

Prepared by the Shortnose 

Sturgeon Recovery Team for the 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

National Parks Conservation Association 

(NPCA) 

2007 Fort Pulaski National Monument: 

A Resource Assessment. 

National Park Service (NPS), U.S. 

Department of the Interior 

1995a Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Collection Management Plan. 

Atlanta: National Park Service, 

Museum Services Division, 

Southeast Regional Office. 

1995b “Test Excavations at Civil War 

Period Battery Halleck, Fort 

Pulaski National Monument, 

Chatham County, Georgia” 

(Technical Reports No. 2, 

Interagency Archeological 

Services Division). Atlanta: 

National Park Service. 

2001 Cost Estimating Guideline with 

Class “C” Cost Data: New 

Construction. 

2004 “Fort Pulaski National 

Monument, Quarantine 

Attendant’s Quarters, Historic 

Structure Report.” Atlanta: 

National Park Service, Historical 

Architecture, Cultural Resources 

Division, Southeast Regional 

Office. 

2006a Management Policies 2006. 

2006b “Trip Report on Site Condition 

Assessments, Fort Pulaski 

National Monument, November 

28–December 2, 2005.” (SEAC 

Acc. 2012, September 21.) 

Tallahassee: National Park 

Service, Southeast Archeological 

Center. 

2006c Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Long Range Interpretive Plan. 

2006d Southeast Region Museum 

Collection Curatorial Facility Plan 

– May 2006.

2008a Cockspur Island Lighthouse 

Archeological Investigation Report. 

Tallahassee: National Park 

Service, Southeast Archeological 

Center. 

2008b Bank Stabilization of the 

Cockspur Island Lighthouse, 

Draft Environmental Assessment. 

2009a Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Cultural Landscape Report. 

Atlanta: National Park Service, 

Cultural Resources Division, 

Southeast Regional Office. 

2009b Fort Pulaski NHS Reports. 

National Park Service Public Use 

Statistics Office. 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/

park.cfm?parkid=365 

Padgett, Mark J. 

2008 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Savannah District, email to Mike 

Hosti, Chief of Maintenance 

Division, Fort Pulaski National 

Monument, September 24 re: 

Wetlands Analysis of Land 

Behind Fort Pulaski Visitor 

Center. 
Selected References 

203 

Passarelli, N., and T. Curtis 

2010 “Ichthyology Biological Profiles: 

Smalltooth Sawfish.” Retrieved 

from 

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/gal

lery/descript/Stsawfish/STSawfis

h.html 

Rabolli, C., and K. Ellington 

1999 Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Inventory Final Report; Part B: 

Vertebrate Animals. Prepared for 

the National Park Service, 

Southeast Region. 

Savannah Area Chamber of Commerce 

2009 Welcome to Savannah Area 

Chamber. Retrieved July 8, 2009, 

from Savannah Area Chamber 

Web site: 

http://www.savannahchamber.co

m/ 

Toma, M. J., and J. Bice 

2006 The Economic Impact of 

Manufacturing in the Savannah 

Area, 2005. Retrieved July 8, 2009, 

from 

http://www.savannahchamber.co

m/images/pdf/ManufactrImpct.p

df 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

2003 Evaluations of Benthic 

Communities and Sediments; 

Savannah Harbor; Savannah, 

Georgia. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington 

District 

2007 Savannah Harbor Expansion 

Bank Erosion Study, Fort Pulaski 

& North Tybee Island Georgia.

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division 

2009 Population Estimates

http://www.census.gov/popest/es

timates.php 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of 

The Solicitor, Southeast Regional Office 

2006 Legal Opinion Memorandum re 

Exchange at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. October 13. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) 

1997 Climate Change and Georgia. 

(EPA 230-F-97-008j). Office of 

Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. 

2009 “Beach Profile for Tybee Island 

North.” (Beach Advisory and 

Closing Online Notification). 

Retrieved from 

http://www.epa.gov 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

2008 Savannah National Wildlife 

Refuge. Accessed: 

http://www.fws.gov/savannah 

U.S. Geological Survey 

2002 Vulnerability of U.S. National 

Parks to Sea-Level Rise and 

Coastal Change. (Fact Sheet FS–

095–02.) 
204 

APPENDIXES 

 

206 

APPENDIX A: LIST OF RELEVANT LEGISLATION 

Laws and executive orders that apply to the 

management of Fort Pulaski National 

Monument are provided below. 

FORT PULASKI SPECIFIC LEGISLATION 

AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS 

Presidential Proclamation No. 1713 (43 Stat. 

1968), October 15, 1924. Established Fort 

Pulaski National Monument under the 

authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 

USC 431–433). 

Executive Order No. 6166 issued pursuant 

to the authority of Section 16 of the Act of 

March 4, 1933 947 Stat. 1517). Transferred 

Fort Pulaski National Monument from the 

War Department to the National Park 

Service. 

Act of Congress (49 Stat. 1979), June 26, 

1936. Expanded the boundaries of the 

national monument. 

Presidential Proclamation (72 Stat. 1), 

August 14, 1958. Expanded the boundary of 

Fort Pulaski to include the Cockspur Island 

Lighthouse and Daymark Island. 

Public Law 104-333 (110 Stat. 4188), 

November 12, 1996. Cancelled the authority 

of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to 

deposit dredge spoil on the north shore of 

Cockspur Island. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ENABLING 

LEGISLATION 

Act of August 25, 1916 (National Park 

Service Organic Act); Public Law 64-235; 16 

United States Code Section 1 et seq. as 

amended 

Reorganization Act of March 3, 1933; 47 

Stat. 1517 

General Authorities Act, October 7, 1976; 

Public Law 94-458; 90 Stat. 1939; 16 United 

States Code 1a-1 et seq. 

Act amending the Act of October 2, 1968 

(commonly called Redwoods Act), March 

27, 1978; Public Law 95-250; 92 Stat. 163; 16 

United States Code Subsection(s) 1a-1, 

79a-q 

National Parks and Recreation Act, 

November 10, 1978; Public Law 95-625; 92 

Stat. 3467; 16 United States Code 1 et seq. 

OTHER LAWS AFFECTING NPS 

OPERATIONS 

Accessibility 

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968; Public 

Law 90-480; 82 Stat. 718; 42 United States 

Code 4151 et seq. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Public Law 93-

112; 87 Stat. 357; 29 United States Code 701 

et seq. as amended by the Rehabilitation Act 

Amendments of 1974; 88 Stat. 1617 

Cultural Resources 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act; 

Public Law 95-341; 92 Stat. 469; 42 United 

States Code 1996 

Antiquities Act of 1906; Public Law 59-209; 

34 Stat. 225; 16 United States Code 432; 43 

Code of Federal Regulations 3 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act 

of 1974; Public Law 93-291; 88 Stat. 174; 16 

United States Code 469 
Appendix A: List of Relevant Legislation 

207 

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 

1979; Public Law 96-95; 93 Stat. 712; 16 

United States Code 470aa et seq.; 43 Code of 

Federal Regulations 7, subparts A and B; 36 

Code of Federal Regulations 79 

Indian Sacred Sites. Executive Order 13007. 

3 Code of Federal Regulations 196 (1997). 

National Historic Preservation Act as 

amended; Public Law 89-665; 80 Stat. 915; 16 

United States Code 470 et seq.; 36 Code of 

Federal Regulations 18, 60, 61, 63, 65, 79, 800 

Protection of Historic and Cultural 

Properties, Executive Order 11593; 36 Code 

of Federal Regulations 60, 61, 63, 800; 44 

Federal Register 6068 

Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act of 

1976; Public Law 94-541; 90 Stat. 2505; 42 

United States Code 4151-4156 

Natural Resources 

Analysis of Impacts on Prime or Unique 

Agricultural Lands in Implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act; E.S. 80-

3, 08/11/80, 45 Federal Register 59109 

Clean Air Act as amended; Public Law 

Chapter 360; 69 Stat. 322; 42 United States 

Code 7401 et seq. 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as 

amended; Public Law 92-583; 86 Stat. 1280; 

16 United States Code 1451 et seq. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended; Public Law 93-205; 87 Stat. 884; 16 

United States Code 1531 et seq. 

Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain 

Management”; 42 Federal Register 26951; 3 

Code of Federal Regulations 121 (Supp 177) 

Executive Order 11990, “Protection of 

Wetlands”; 42 Federal Register 26961; 3 Code 

of Federal Regulations 121 (Supp 177) 

Executive Order 11991, “Protection and 

Enhancement of Environmental Quality” 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations” 

Federal Caves Resource Protection Act of 

1988 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act; Public Law 92-516; 86 Stat. 

973; 7 United States Code 136 et seq. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

(commonly referred to as Clean Water Act); 

Public Law 92-500; 33 United States Code 

1251 et seq. as amended by the Clean Water 

Act; Public Law 95-217 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 

as amended; Public Law 85-624; 72 Stat. 563; 

16 United States Code 661 et seq. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act; Public 

Law Chapter 257; 45 Stat. 1222; 16 United 

States Code 715 et seq. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918; Public 

Law 186; 40 Stat. 755 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; 

Public Law 91-190; 83 Stat. 852; 42 United 

States Code 4321 et seq. 

National Park System Final Procedures for 

Implementing Executive Orders 11988 and 

11990 (45 Federal Register 35916 as revised 

by 47 Federal Register 36718) 

Protection and Enhancement of 

Environmental Quality; Executive Order 

11514 as amended, 1970; Executive Order 

11991; 35 Federal Register 4247; 1977; 42 

Federal Register 26967) 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; 

Public Law 94-580; 30 Stat. 1148; 42 United 

States Code 6901 et seq. 
APPENDIXES

208 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899; 33 United 

States Code Chapter 425, as amended by 

Public Law 97-332, October 15, 1982 and 

Public Law 97-449; 33 United States Code 

401-403 

Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 

(Public Law 89-80; 42 United States Code 

1962 et seq.) and Water Resource Council’s 

Principles and Standards; 44 Federal Register

723977 

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 

Act; Public Law 92-419; 68 Stat. 666; 16 

United States Code 100186 

Other 

Administrative Procedures Act; 5 United 

States Code 551–559, 701–706 

Concessions Policy Act of 1965; Public Law 

89-249; 79 Stat. 969; 16 United States Code 

20 et seq. 

Department of Transportation Act of 1966; 

Public Law 89-670; 80 Stat. 931; 49 United 

States Code 303 

Energy Supply and Environmental 

Coordination Act of 1974 

Executive Order 12003: Energy Policy and 

Conservation; 3 Code of Federal Regulations

134 (Supp 1977); 42 United States Code 2601 

Executive Order 12088: Federal Compliance 

with Pollution Control Standards 

Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental 

Review of Federal Programs; 47 Federal 

Register 30959 

Farmland Protection Policy Act PL-97-98 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act; Public Law 95-307; 92 Stat. 

353; 16 United States Code 1600 et seq. 

Freedom of Information Act; Public Law 93-

502; 5 United States Code 552 et seq. 

Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968; 

Public Law 90-577; 40 United States Code 

531-535 and 31 United States Code 6501-

6508 

Intergovernmental Coordination Act of 

1969; 42 United States Code 4101, 4231, 

4233 

Noise Control Act of 1972 as amended; 

Public Law 92-574; 42 United States Code 

4901 et seq. 

Outdoor Recreation Coordination Act of 

1963; Public Law 88-29; 77 Stat. 49 

Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act; Public Law 

94-565; 90 Stat. 2662; 31 United States Code 

6901 et seq. 

Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 

1982; 96 Stat. 2097; 23 United States Code 

101; and many others 

Wildfire Disaster Recovery Act; Public Law 

101-286 

Management Polices 2006 

This is an update to the 2001 Management 

Policies. The policies are derived from the 

laws that have been enacted to establish and 

govern the National Park Service and the 

national park system. This document serves 

as the basic, servicewide policy manual used 

by park superintendents and other NPS 

managers to guide their decision-making. 

The manual prescribes policies that enable 

the National Park Service to preserve park 

resources and values unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations, as required 

by law. The policies have been updated to 

keep pace with new laws that have been 

enacted, changes in technology and 

American demographics, and new 

understandings of the kinds of actions that 

are required to best protect the natural and 

cultural resources of the parks. The policies 

stress the importance of: using the parks for 

educational purposes; demonstrating 

environmental leadership in the parks; 
Appendix A: List of Relevant Legislation 

209 

managing park facilities and resources in 

ways that will sustain them for future 

generations of Americans to enjoy; and 

working with partners to help accomplish 

the NPS mission. The new Management 

Policies 2006 is available on the NPS website 

at http://www.nps.gov/policy/MP2006.pdf . 

Director’s Order 12 

Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision-making describes the policy and 

procedures by which the National Park 

Service will comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The Council on 

Environmental Quality, part of the Executive 

Office of the President, is the “caretaker” of 

the National Environmental Policy Act. The 

National Park Service is required to abide by 

all NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500–1508) 

and any other procedures and requirements 

imposed by other higher authorities, such as 

the Department of the Interior. 

Director’s Order 24 

Director’s Order 24: NPS Museum 

Collections Management lays the foundation 

by which the National Park Service meets its 

responsibilities toward museum collections. 

This director’s order provides policy 

guidance, standards, and requirements for 

preserving, protecting, documenting, and 

providing access to, and use of, NPS 

museum collections. 

Director’s Order 28 (NPS 1998e) 

Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource 

Management issued pursuant to 16 United 

States Code (1 through 4), addresses cultural 

resource management. The National Park 

Service will protect and manage cultural 

resources in its custody through effective 

research, planning, and stewardship and in 

accordance with the policies and principles 

in NPS Management Policies 2006. 

Director’s Order 28A 

Director’s Order 28A: Archeology provides a 

management framework for planning, 

reviewing, and undertaking archeological 

activities and other activities that may affect 

archeological resources within the National 

Park System. 

Director’s Order 47 

Director’s Order 47: Soundscape 

Preservation and Noise Management

articulates National Park Service operational 

policies that will require, to the fullest extent 

practicable, the protection, maintenance, or 

restoration of the natural soundscape 

resource in a condition unimpaired by 

inappropriate or excessive noise sources. 

Director’s Order 75A 

Director’s Order 75A: Civic Engagement and 

Public Involvement clarifies and strengthens 

the commitment of the National Park 

Service to legally required public 

involvement and participation as it relates to 

accomplishing its mission and management 

responsibilities under the NPS Organic Act 

of 1916. 

Director’s Order 77-1 

Director’s Order 77-1: Wetland Protection

establishes NPS policies, requirements, and 

standards for implementing Executive Order 

(E.O.) 11990: “Protection of Wetlands” (42 

Fed. Reg. 26961). E.O. 11990 was issued by 

President Carter in 1977, in order “...to 

avoid to the extent possible the long- and 

short-term adverse impacts associated with 

the destruction or modification of wetlands 

and to avoid direct or indirect support of 

new construction in wetlands wherever 

there is a practicable alternative....” 
APPENDIXES

210 

Directors Order 77-2 

Directors Order 77-2: Floodplain 

Management applies to all NPS proposed 

actions, including the direct and indirect 

support of floodplain development that 

could adversely affect the natural resources 

and functions of floodplains, including 

coastal floodplains, or increase flood risks. 

This director’s order also applies to existing 

actions when they are the subjects of 

regularly occurring updates of NPS planning 

documents. 

This director’s order does not apply to 

historic or archeological structures, sites, or 

artifacts whose location is integral to their 

significance or to certain actions as 

specifically identified in Procedural Manual 

77-2: Floodplain Management.
211 

APPENDIX B: WILDERNESS ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 

INTRODUCTION 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 USC § 1131 

et seq.) states that it is national policy to 

“secure for the American people of present 

and future generations the benefits of an 

enduring resource of wilderness.” The 

purpose of the act is to preserve and protect 

wilderness characteristics and values over 

the long term, while at the same time 

providing opportunities for solitude and 

unconfined recreation. 

The Wilderness Act defines wilderness as 

“an area of undeveloped Federal land 

retaining its primeval character and 

influence, without permanent improvements 

or human habitation which is protected and 

managed so as to preserve its natural 

conditions....” 16 USC § 1131I. 

New wilderness areas can only be designated 

by act of Congress. Such designations 

typically take place after, and are based on, 

the completion of a formal wilderness study. 

The wilderness study is a detailed 

assessment of federally owned lands in a 

particular area that have been deemed 

“eligible” for possible wilderness 

designation. In that regard, the Wilderness 

Act, together with regulations at 43 CFR Part 

19, NPS Management Policies 2006, and 

Director’s Order 41: Wilderness Preservation 

and Management, require that the National 

Park Service review all areas within a park to 

identify those areas, if any, that are eligible 

for possible wilderness designation based on 

the criteria contained in the Wilderness Act 

and NPS policies. The criteria for eligibility 

are as follows. 

National Park Service lands will be 

considered eligible for wilderness if they are 

at least 5,000 acres or of sufficient size to 

make practicable their preservation and use 

in an unimpaired condition, and if they 

possess the following characteristics (as 

identified in the Wilderness Act): 

 The earth and its community of life 

are untrammeled by humans, where 

humans are visitors and do not 

remain. 

 The area is undeveloped and retains 

its primeval character and influence 

without permanent improvements or 

human habitation. 

 The area generally appears to have 

been affected primarily by the forces 

of nature, with the imprint of 

humans’ work substantially 

unnoticeable. 

 The area is protected and managed 

so as to preserve its natural 

conditions. 

 The area offers outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation. 

NPS Management Policies 2006, section 

6.2.1.1, “Primary Eligibility Criteria.” 

RESULTS AND RATIONALE 

The wilderness eligibility assessment for 

Fort Pulaski National Monument was 

performed by an interdisciplinary team 

comprising specialists from the monument 

and the Southeast Regional Office. The team 

determined that approximately 4,500 acres 

of salt marsh on McQueens Island meet the 

criteria and therefore are eligible for 

wilderness designation. These lands 

generally appear to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature with 

minimal evidence of human activity. These 

areas of Fort Pulaski National Monument 

offer outstanding opportunities for solitude 

or for primitive and unconfined recreation. 

The eligible lands comprise two areas of salt 

marsh within NPS Tract 01-102 on 

McQueens Island. Specifically, the eligible 

areas may be described as follows: 
APPENDIXES

212 

a) All that portion of NPS Tract 01-102 

bounded west and north by a line 

lying 100 feet south of, and 

paralleling, the centerline of Old U.S. 

Highway 80/Tybee Road and new 

U.S. Highway 80 to a point east of 

the Fort Pulaski National Monument 

entrance road; on the east by a line 

extending south from the foregoing 

point to Lazaretto Creek, and from 

there by the mean high tide line of 

Lazaretto Creek; and on the south by 

the mean high tide lines of Lazaretto 

Creek, Tybee River, and Bull Creek. 

b) All that portion of NPS Tract 01-102 

bounded west by the mean high tide 

line of the Intracoastal Waterway; 

south by the mean high tide lines of 

St. Augustine and Bull creeks; east by 

a line lying 100 feet west of the 

centerline of U.S. Highway 80, which 

line parallels said centerline until 

extending north to a point 50 feet 

south of the edge of the right-of-way 

of the old Savannah-Tybee Island 

railroad grade; and north by a line 50 

feet south of, and paralleling, the 

right-of-way of the old SavannahTybee Island railroad grade. 

c) All as shown on figure 2-1. The 

foregoing eligible areas total 

approximately 4,500 acres on 

McQueens Island. In the event of a 

conflict between this acreage figure 

and the map, the map is intended to 

be controlling. 

The areas described previously consist 

entirely of undeveloped salt marsh. As such, 

they meet the criteria established by law for 

designation as wilderness. Specifically, in 

both areas the natural processes of the salt 

marsh are essentially intact, indicating that 

these areas have been affected primarily by 

the forces of nature. Although development 

is visible when looking out into the 

surrounding uplands, inside the marsh itself 

there are no structures or other permanent 

improvements, i.e., the imprint of humans’ 

work is substantially unnoticeable. 

Furthermore, the National Park Service has, 

and will continue to, protect and manage 

these areas so as to preserve their natural 

conditions. Finally, some limited 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation exist inside 

these areas (opportunities are limited not by 

a lack of primitive conditions, but by the 

nature of the salt marsh itself). 

For these reasons, the previously described 

areas on McQueens Island are eligible for 

designation as wilderness by Congress. 

Accordingly, the National Park Service will 

manage these areas in such a way as to 

preserve their wilderness character, as 

required by NPS Management Policies 2006 § 

6.3.1, until such time as the legislative 

process of wilderness designation has been 

completed. 

 
213 

APPENDIX C: THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Species Scientific Name Federal Status State Status 

Mammal 

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae E E 

Right whale Eubalaena glacialis E E 

West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E E 

 

Bird 

Bachman’s warbler Vermivora bachmanii E E 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T E 

Gull-billed tern Sterna nilotica No federal status T 

Piping plover Charadrius melodus T T 

Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E E 

Wood stork Mycteria americana E E 

 

Reptile 

Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi T T 

Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus No federal status T 

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas T T 

Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E E 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempi E E 

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E E 

Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T T 

 

Amphibian 

Flatwoods salamander Ambystoma cingulatum T T 

 

Fish 

Shortnose sturgeon1 Acipenser brevirostrum E E 

 

Plant 

Climbing buckthorn Sageretia minutiflora No federal status T 

Narrowleaf obedient plant Physostegia leptophylla No federal status T 

Pondberry Lindera melissifolia E E 
214 

APPENDIX D: FLOODPLAIN STATEMENT OF FINDINGS 
215 

 
216 

INTRODUCTION 

In accordance with Executive Order 11988, 

“Floodplain Management” the National 

Park Service has reviewed the flood hazards 

in Fort Pulaski National Monument and has 

prepared this “Statement of Findings.” 

In examining the monument, the structures 

at the following sites were identified as being 

within a regulatory 100-year floodplain: 

1) National Park Service Sites 

Twenty-nine existing structures, 

including Fort Pulaski, historic dike 

system, visitor center, detached 

restrooms, parking area, historic 

residence, Cockspur Island 

Lighthouse, maintenance facility, 

road system. One proposed new 

structure: the visitor center annex. 

2) U.S. Coast Guard Site 

Miscellaneous structures: 

administrative building, parking 

area, communications structures, 

fueling facility, and dock 

3) Savannah Pilots Association Site 

Miscellaneous structures: 

administrative building, parking 

area, fueling facility, and dock 

There are no other occupied structures 

within a regulatory floodplain at these sites 

that warrant inclusion in this flood hazard 

assessment. 

This “Statement of Findings” focuses on 

evaluating the flood hazards for the 

aforementioned structures in the 100-year 

floodplain. As a part of the effort to develop 

a general management plan (GMP) for the 

monument, the “Statement of Findings” 

describes the flood hazard, alternatives, and 

possible mitigation measures for the 

continued use of this area. Additional detail 

regarding the monument lands and 

resources, future actions to be taken in the 

area, and environmental impacts may be 

found in the General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITES AND 

USES 

National Park Service Sites 

The following inventory of structures in the 

floodplain at Fort Pulaski is taken in large 

part from the monument’s list of classified 

structures. The list of classified structures is 

an evaluated inventory of all historic and 

prehistoric structures within the monument 

boundary that have historical, architectural, 

and/or engineering significance. The various 

structures on the list of classified structures 

are described in the following the table, 

sorted by significance level. 
Appendix D: Floodplain Statement of Findings 

217 

LIST OF CLASSIFIED STRUCTURES

Catalog Number Name Significance Level 

HS-09 Dike Contributing 

HS-10 Canal Lock Contributing 

HS-11 Feeder Canal Contributing 

HS-2A1 Cistern No. 5 (Ruin) Contributing 

HS-2A2 Cistern No. 4 Contributing 

HS-2A4 Cistern No. 1 Contributing 

HS-2A6 Cistern No. 2 Contributing 

HS-2A7 Cistern No. 3 Contributing 

HS2B3 Cistern No. 6 Contributing 

HS2B5 Stones from Cistern (ruin) Contributing 

HS-03 North Channel Pier (Ruin) Local 

HS-06 Residence Local 

HS-2A3 Brick Foundation Ruin at Cistern No. 4 Local 

HS-2A5 Brick Foundation Ruin at Cistern No. 3 Local 

HS2B4 Cistern No. 7 Local 

HS-01 Fort Pulaski National 

HS-07 Moat National 

HS-08 Demilune National 

CS-01 John Wesley Memorial Not Significant 

HS-13 Lieutenant Robert Rowan Grave Stone Not Significant 

HS-14 Sellmer, Charles Howard, Grave Marker Not Significant 

HS-04 Cockspur Island Lighthouse State 

HS-05 Battery Horace Hambright State 

Dike. The dike, which allowed the island to 

be drained, was essential to the construction 

of Fort Pulaski. This historic engineering 

structure is directly associated with Robert 

E. Lee, who designed it. The dike is an 

earthen structure approximately 4–5 feet 

above grade with an irregular circumference 

of 2 miles. 

Canal Lock. The canal lock controls water 

flow between the moat and the feeder canal 

and kept tidal flooding out. This is also part 

of the water control system designed by 

Robert E. Lee. Water from the canal enters 

this arched brick tunnel, containing a tide 

gate, just before it enters the moat. The 

tunnel is flanked by brick retaining walls; the 

dimensions are 51 feet by 77 feet. A metal 

valve handle that controls the gate lies just 

north. 

Feeder Canal. The feeder canal is an 

engineering structure that provides water to 

the fort’s moat and is part of the water 

control system designed by Robert E. Lee. 

The canal is approximately 2,000 feet long 

and runs south from the moat to the South 

Channel Savannah River. The canal banks 

are earthen except near the moat, where 

there are brick retaining walls. 

Cistern No. 5 (Ruin). This cistern, one of 

several that supplied water to laborers living 

on-site during the construction of Fort 
APPENDIXES

218 

Pulaski, is significant as an example of early 

19th century utilitarian structure. These are 

the remains of a 15-foot-diameter round 

cistern. Visible on the ground surface are 

pieces of the stone cistern cover. 

Cistern No. 4. This cistern, associated with 

the post-construction history of Fort Pulaski 

is significant as a 19th century utilitarian 

structure. The 14.67-foot-diameter brick 

cistern has been filled with sand. No trace of 

a cistern cover is visible. 

Cistern No. 1. This cistern, one of several 

that supplied water to laborers living on-site 

during the construction of Fort Pulaski, is 

significant as an example of early 19th 

century utilitarian structure. The structure is 

a 9-foot-diameter circular brick cistern with 

a cement coating on the brick and a 

sandstone cap. The cistern rises 

approximately 4 feet above grade. 

Cistern No. 2. This cistern, one of several 

that supplied water to laborers living on-site 

during the construction of Fort Pulaski, is 

significant as an example of early 19th 

century utilitarian structure. The structure is 

a circular brick cistern 9 feet in diameter 

with a sandstone cap. The cistern rises 

approximately 3 feet above grade, is filled 

with sand, and exhibits the remains of a 

cement coating over the brick. 

Cistern No. 3. This cistern, one of several 

that supplied water to laborers living on-site 

during the construction of Fort Pulaski, is 

significant as an example of early 19th 

century utilitarian structure. The structure is 

a circular brick cistern, 13 feet in diameter, 

with a smaller, square opening set into the 

top. Portions of the stone cap remain along 

with remnants of a cement coating on the 

brick. 

Cistern No. 6. This cistern, one of several 

that supplied water to laborers living on-site 

during the construction of Fort Pulaski, is 

locally significant as an example of early 19th 

century utility structure. The structure is a 

large brick, stone, and mortar cistern 

approximately 12 feet in diameter and 2 feet 

high. The cistern head is a rectangular brick 

box (5 feet by 5 feet) with a 3-foot-square 

opening. 

Stones from Cistern (Ruin). Apparently 

pieces of the cover of a cistern. 

North Channel Pier (Ruin). This was the 

first structure built in association with Fort 

Pulaski and was the receiving point for 

materials used in the fort’s construction. The 

ruins consist of approximately 20 feet by 10 

feet of a 200-foot-long, L-shaped granite 

pier. Portions of the side walls, with some 

iron hardware, end in the remains of a tabby 

end wall. Granite pavers that once supported 

iron tracks for cannon carriages at the fort 

have been relocated to the end of the pier. 

Residence. Locally significant for 

architecture and its association with the U.S. 

Public Health Service quarantine station on 

Cockspur Island. Remodeled and used by 

the Navy as officers’ quarters during World 

War II, the interior contains many historic 

features and materials from that period. In 

1998, the building underwent numerous 

alterations that together gave the building an 

appearance that it never had. These included 

the addition of double-hung windows to 

part of the porch and construction of a wide, 

straight flight of stairs to the east porch that 

never existed during the historic period. In 

addition, the exterior siding and porthole 

windows installed by the Navy to enclose 

the elevated foundation were removed and 

replaced with plywood and lattice, another 

feature that was never present during the 

historic period. The structure has been 

adapted for monument headquarters offices, 

which is the current use. 

Brick Foundation Ruin at Cistern No. 4.

This ruin, associated with a cistern for 

workers on Fort Pulaski, is significant as an 

example of an early 19th century utilitarian 

structure. The ruin is a rectangular brick 

platform 51 inches by 63 inches and rising 

approximately 12 inches above grade. 

Brick Foundation Ruin at Cistern No. 3. 

This ruin, which is associated with a cistern 
Appendix D: Floodplain Statement of Findings 

219 

that supplied water to the construction 

village during the construction of Fort 

Pulaski, is significant as an early 19th century 

example of a utilitarian structure. The 

structure is a rectangular brick platform (85 

inches by 76 inches) rising 24 inches above 

grade at its highest point and filled with 

sand. It may have supported a pump or other 

equipment associated with the cistern. 

Cistern No. 7. This cistern, one of several 

that supplied water to the laborers who lived 

on-site during the construction of Fort 

Pulaski, is locally significant as an intact 

example of a 19th century utility structure. 

The structure is a large stone, brick, and 

mortar cistern with pedestal and head. The 

pedestal is composed of large stones and is 

approximately 5 feet by 10 feet. The cistern 

head is an open, rectangular box made of 

mortared brick and measures approximately 

4 feet by 3 feet and is 1 foot high. 

Fort Pulaski. Fort Pulaski was a pivotal link 

in the Third System of U.S. coastal defense. 

The fort’s reduction by new rifled artillery 

during the Civil War in April 1862 ended the 

era of impregnable masonry forts. The 

completed two tier structure is an irregular 

pentagon that faces east. The circumference 

of the fort is 1,508 feet and sides of 

approximately 350 feet surrounded by a wet 

moat. The walls are 32 feet high and 7 feet to 

11 feet thick. The fort contains 64 vaulted 

casemates and 54 gun mounts on the 

terreplein. The fort includes two powder 

magazines and a parade ground about the 

size of a football field. Local brownish 

“Savannah Gray” brick is found in the lower 

walls. The rose red brick is from Baltimore, 

Maryland, and Alexandria, Virginia. The 

latter is harder than the “Savannah Grays” so 

is used in the arches and embrasures. 

Moat. The wet moat was part of the original 

system of fortifications at Fort Pulaski, an 

important masonry fort of the Third System 

of U.S. coastal defense. The moat is 32 feet to 

48 feet wide and 7 feet deep surrounding 

Fort Pulaski and its demilune. The moat 

walls are brick. 

Demilune. Part of the original system of 

fortifications at Fort Pulaski, the demilune 

was substantially redesigned in 1872 from a 

flat walled ground to a system of earthen 

mounds containing magazines. The 

triangular demilune consists of a network of 

four magazines, gun emplacements, and 

connecting passages with oyster shellimbedded concrete walls protected by the 

earthen mounds. 

John Wesley Memorial. The memorial 

marks the traditional site of the first 

American religious service conducted by 

John Wesley, founder of Methodism. It was 

erected by the National Society of the 

Colonial Dames of America in the State of 

Georgia, an important historic preservation 

group. The memorial is a 15-foot-high 

square column with a limestone base, a brick 

shaft in Flemish bond, and a limestone cap 

surmounted by a limestone cross, all set on a 

square of slate tiles. The base, cap, and a 

limestone plaque on the shaft carry 

inscriptions. 

Lieutenant Robert Rowan Grave Stone.

This is the grave of an officer stationed at 

Fort Greene, an early 19th century fort on 

the island that is no longer extant. The 

marker was moved from the site of Fort 

Greene to its present location. The marker 

consists of a marble monument (18 inches 

wide by 26 inches high) with an inscription 

and a cut top. 

Sellmer, Charles Howard, Grave Marker. 

This is the grave of the infant son of 

Lieutenant Charles Sellmer and Marion 

Sellmer, stationed at Fort Pulaski in 1872. 

The grave has no significant association with 

the history of Fort Pulaski. The marker 

consists of a marble monument (10 inches 

wide by 2 inches deep by 24 inches high) 

with an inscription. 

Cockspur Island Lighthouse. The 

Cockspur Island Lighthouse sits on an islet 

at the mouth of the South Channel Savannah 

River. It is significant for its association with 

an era of coastal navigation and its 

embodiment of a specialized architectural 
APPENDIXES

220 

type. The structure originally housed a whale 

oil lamp; it was converted to a harbor beacon 

in 1909. Its use was discontinued in 1949. 

The lighthouse is a tapered brick tube, 16 

feet in diameter and 46 feet high, with 

corbelled brick cornice. There is an exterior 

brick stair fanlight door at the first landing. 

An interior spiral brick stair leads to the 

second landing. A wooden stair leads to the 

third landing, which supports the iron 

lantern house. The lighthouse foundation is 

threatened by years of erosion from storms 

and the active shipping channel that have 

lowered the height of the island and 

removed previous revetment causing the 

island to be underwater at all times except 

low tide. This exposes the wooden platform 

that supports the masonry foundation it sits 

on to shipworm infestation that can 

compromise and eventually destroy the 

platform. This threat is current and loss 

could occur within a matter of years. 

Battery Horace Hambright. This 1895 

battery was part of the Endicott or Fourth 

Seacoast Defense System and was manned 

during the Spanish-American War. Named 

for Lt. Horace Hambright, it is 

representative of U.S. defensive architecture 

of the period. The battery is a steelreinforced concrete structure with overall 

dimensions of 100 feet by 50 feet by 15 feet 

high. At ground level are three magazines 

with two gun emplacements above. The 

battery’s north face is covered by a grassed 

earth berm. 

In addition to the foregoing structures from 

the LCS, the following NPS structures are 

located in the floodplain. 

Visitor Center and Associated Structures.

The Fort Pulaski visitor center is a circular 

brick structure completed in 1964 under the 

NPS Mission 66 program. Adjoining 

structures include detached comfort 

stations, concrete walkways, and a large 

asphalt parking area. 

Maintenance Facility. This facility is 

associated with the Civilian Conservation 

Corps era at the monument, though it has 

since been altered and adapted. Adjoining 

structures include staff parking and the main 

monument road. 

Tybee Knoll Lighthouse Oil Shed. This 

historic structure is now a mere brick shell, 

with roof. It was formerly associated with a 

lighthouse on the northwest part of 

Cockspur Island that has long since 

disappeared. This structure would be 

stabilized under alternative C of the draft 

general management plan for Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. 

Visitor Center Annex. This proposed new 

structure would be designed for monument 

visitors, school groups, and staff. The 

specific dimensions, footprint, and other 

design parameters would be determined in a 

future planning project. The entire structure 

would be elevated on pilings above the 100-

year floodplain. The annex would be located 

in close proximity to the existing visitor 

center. 

U.S. Coast Guard Site 

The whole of Cockspur Island is federally 

owned and used by the National Park 

Service with special use permits for the 

Savannah bar pilots and the U.S. Coast 

Guard. A western portion of Cockspur 

Island was formerly used by the U.S. Navy 

and is off limits to visitors having been a 

munitions site. The U.S. Coast Guard 

currently occupies this site. 

The U.S. Coast Guard established a Search 

and Rescue Station on Cockspur Island on 

November 17, 1965. The National Park 

Service issued a special long-term use permit 

that allowed the U.S. Coast Guard to occupy 

a 400-foot by 450-foot tract of land on which 

permanent buildings, concrete-moorings, 

and communication equipment and 

antennas were constructed. In 1980, an 

interagency agreement between the National 

Park Service and the U.S. Coast Guard 

authorized administrative jurisdiction over 

an additional 1.85 acres of land for the 

Search and Rescue Station as long as it did 
Appendix D: Floodplain Statement of Findings 

221 

not jeopardize or interfere with the area’s 

natural and historic resources. In 1993, the 

U.S. Coast Guard reconstructed a 75-foottall steel aid-to-navigation structure 

destroyed in a recent storm and originally 

built in 1978. The U.S. Coast Guard 

continues these operations at Fort Pulaski 

National Monument to this day. Generally, 

the National Park Service views U.S. Coast 

Guard activities as compatible with 

monument policy. 

Savannah Bar Pilots Site 

The Savannah bar pilots and their collective, 

the Savannah Pilots Association, have roots 

that trace to the early days of the Colony of 

Georgia. The State Board of Commissioners 

of Pilotage at the Port of Savannah currently 

regulates the bar pilots, who earn their keep 

by facilitating safe passage to and from the 

port through the difficult-to-navigate waters 

of the Savannah River. Individual ships or 

shipping companies pay the pilots for these 

services. Cockspur Island provides a 

convenient location for the Savannah Pilots 

Association dock and facilities because every 

commercial vessel entering or leaving the 

Savannah River must have a pilot on board. 

In 1973, the National Park Service issued a 

20-year special use permit to the bar pilots to 

construct, maintain, and use living quarters, 

a dock, and fuel supply system, and a 

parking area on its .67-acre lot. With a longterm lease in place, the bar pilots completed 

renovations. The new dormitory they built 

stands at the location of the previous 

Savannah Pilots Association building. The 

National Park Service renewed the 

association’s special use permit in 1993 and 

again in 1998. 

The last permit renewal expired on 

December 8, 2008. Based on research and a 

recent Office of Inspector General report, 

the legality of continuing to authorize the 

use by special use permit was then subject to 

question. The Savannah Bar Pilots wished to 

continue operating their business out of Fort 

Pulaski. There were at that time and are not 

now, any other known locations that would 

allow the Savannah Bar Pilots to operate 

more efficiently because of the deep water 

accessibility and the distance to embarking 

and disembarking ships that enter and leave 

the Savannah Harbor. The Bar Pilots have 

been operating at the current location for 

more than 70 years with virtually no adverse 

impact on monument resources, visitor 

experience, or monument operations. The 

monument also derives substantial revenue 

from this operation. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF 

FLOODING AND FLOODPLAIN 

PROCESSES IN THE AREA 

Fort Pulaski and all the structures within the 

system of dikes and drainage ditches that 

were constructed between 1830 and 1847 

exist within an area that was formerly salt 

marsh or wetlands for the most part. Prior to 

being drained and reclaimed with spoil, 

these areas were subject to regular 

inundation from tidal action and storm 

events. Other parts of Cockspur Island have 

likewise been reclaimed with dredge spoil 

over the years. It is in these reclaimed areas 

where structures have been built to serve the 

National Park Service, the U.S. Coast Guard, 

and the Savannah Pilots Association. 

For the past 100 years, flooding at Cockspur 

Island has been infrequent. When it has 

occurred, flooding has been mainly 

characterized and driven by rising waters in 

the adjacent Savannah River and in on-site 

drainage features. Long periods of heavy 

precipitation as well as storm surge from the 

Atlantic Ocean associated with hurricanes 

and tropical storms can cause rising water to 

overtop the banks of the Savannah River and 

enter drainage features on the site. During 

periods of heavy precipitation, some 

ponding also occurs in low-lying areas and 

swales around the site due to the flat terrain 

and drainage constraints of the site. 

The last hurricane to hit the area was 

Hurricane David in 1979. Prior to that time, 

the only hurricanes to strike the Savannah 
APPENDIXES

222 

area in the past century or so were major 

storms in 1940 and 1898. So far as is known, 

flooding of structures on Cockspur Island as 

a result of these storms was relatively minor. 

However, Cockspur Island has historically 

been subject to intense hurricanes of 

incredible destructive power. In fact, Fort 

Pulaski is built on the site of a fort—Fort 

Green—that was destroyed by the great 

hurricane of 1824. Cockspur Island will 

always be subject to major storm surge and 

flooding if hit by a major hurricane. 

In the event of a hurricane, warning times 

would be adequate for monument visitors 

and staff to evacuate the island. U.S Highway 

80 traverses the monument and provides a 

readily accessible evacuation route. 

JUSTIFICATION FOR USE OF THE 

FLOODPLAIN 

Description of Preferred Alternative 

and Why Facilities Would Be 

Retained / Constructed in the 

Floodplain 

Under the preferred alternative in the 

general management plan, all of the 

structures currently maintained by the 

National Park Service, the U.S. Coast Guard, 

and the Savannah Pilots Association would 

be retained in their existing locations. The 

justification for retaining these structures in 

their existing locations in the 100-year 

floodplain is as follows: 

 The National Park Service is 

required by law and policy to 

maintain all historic structures in 

their present locations. Existing 

administrative structures (e.g., 

monument offices, maintenance 

facility, and visitor center) must 

remain on the island in order to 

manage resources effectively and 

serve visitors. The nearest 

nonfloodplain site is miles away. 

 The emergency services provided at 

this site by the U.S. Coast Guard 

Search and Rescue Station are 

dependent on the station’s being 

located on the Savannah River. The 

Cockspur Island site provides 

automobile access to the river that is 

not otherwise available to U.S. Coast 

Guard staff. 

 The piloting services provided by the 

Savannah Pilots Association 

operations facility are essential 

services, are required by law, and 

need to originate from a riverside 

location. The Cockspur Island site 

provides automobile access to the 

river that is not otherwise available 

to Savannah Pilots Association staff. 

 Relocating the facilities and services 

at both sites may be infeasible and 

very costly, from both a financial 

cost perspective and from a 

level/quality of service perspective. 

 All sites are located on disturbed 

ground. Moving the facilities would 

probably result in adverse impacts 

and the loss of other natural 

resource values in the area. 

 Both sites have direct access to a 

major highway (U.S. Highway 80) 

that provides a quick evacuation 

route to higher, inland areas. 

The preferred alternative also calls for the 

construction of a visitor center annex in the 

100-year floodplain. Since all of Cockspur 

Island lies within the 100-year floodplain, no 

alternate locations exist for this facility. The 

only alternative is not to build the facility at 

all; however; the monument has a pressing 

need for a facility of this type in order to 

provide adequate space for modern exhibits, 

visitor education, interpretive programs and 

to accomplish various administrative 

functions, such as all-employee meetings 

and training sessions. 

 
Appendix D: Floodplain Statement of Findings 

223 

DESCRIPTION OF SITE-SPECIFIC 

FLOOD RISK 

The potential for storm surge associated 

with hurricanes and tropical storms is the 

primary flood risk for the structures on 

Cockspur Island. Cockspur Island lies 

between the north and south branches of the 

Savannah River. Therefore, if the banks of 

the Savannah River are overtopped by storm 

surge, the structures at the site might be 

flooded from several directions. 

The timing and duration of potential 

flooding at Cockspur Island would vary 

depending on the intensity of the storm 

causing water levels to rise. Typically, 

tropical storms would arise with sufficient 

advance warning to give persons working on 

the island hours or days to evacuate. 

Because of the site’s location at the mouth of 

the Savannah River, there are notable issues 

related to surface erosion and sediment 

deposition that could result from flooding. 

There could be some sediment and debris 

deposition at this site as a result of storm 

surge, and storm surge would probably have 

the energy to produce detectable erosion or 

channelization. Hydrologic changes 

resulting from geomorphic and erosion 

processes could occur, particularly in the 

form of channel changes to the north and 

south branches of the Savannah River. 

FLOOD MITIGATION MEASURES 

Existing Structures 

The highest level of flood mitigation for 

Cockspur Island would be to relocate the 

facilities and/or services out of the 

floodplain, i.e., off of the island. This option 

is not currently feasible and has several costs 

associated with it. Thus, this option has not 

been chosen by the National Park Service. If 

or when any nonhistoric structures reach 

their usable lifespan, or if a future flood 

results in severe damage, then the National 

Park Service should assess possibilities for 

relocating the facilities. 

The continued use of Cockspur Island 

would necessitate the development (and 

future implementation) of an evacuation 

plan for the site. Given the nature of the 

flood risks associated with use of the island, 

the primary flood mitigation measure 

available to the National Park Service is the 

early, prompt, and safe evacuation of people 

working on the site. An evacuation plan 

would include strategies that ensure proper 

storm monitoring, emergency 

communication methods, effective 

evacuation routes, and timely emergency 

evacuation notification for staff and visitors. 

Because the island is connected by bridge to 

U.S Highway 80, a convenient evacuation 

routes is available to staff or visitors on the 

island. Evacuees could seek higher ground 

by driving west along U.S. Highway 80 

toward Savannah. 

The plan would be developed in concert 

with the protocol and strategy of the existing 

Chatham County emergency management 

system and the National Weather Service. 

This Chatham County emergency 

management system is already well 

developed and has proven to be very 

successful at providing people in the area 

with advanced warning of potential floods. 

During past floods, this emergency 

management system has given warning well 

in advance of storm activity, leaving ample 

time for evacuation. 

Once the plan is developed, all staff of the 

monument, the U.S. Coast Guard Search and 

Rescue Station, and the Savannah Pilots 

Association operations facility would be 

informed of the plan’s details and their 

respective implementation responsibilities. 

Staff at all facilities would also be informed 

on how to appropriately disseminate 

evacuation information to visitors who may 

be at any of the facilities when a flood 

occurs. 
APPENDIXES

224 

Fuel Storage 

Based on the facility design, construction, 

and operation, the potential for a spill or 

release of petroleum material to occur as a 

result of external factors at Fort Pulaski 

National Monument appears low. 

Nonetheless, spill response procedures have 

been developed and incorporated into Fort 

Pulaski’s spill prevention, control, and 

counter measures (SPCC) plan to allow for 

easy implementation in the event of an 

emergency. Furthermore, Fort Pulaski is 

looking into additional safety measures to 

employ when there is an anticipated natural 

disaster (hurricane, tornado, flood, etc.). 

The Savannah bar pilots currently store 

7,200 gallons of fuel on-site and they have an 

SPCC plan. The U.S. Coast Guard Station 

Tybee currently stores 7,500 gallons of fuel 

on-site and they also have an SPCC plan. 

Both are working to provide a copy of their 

SPCC plan to Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. 

In the event of an emergency release from 

their sites, the Savannah Pilots Association 

and the U.S. Coast Guard Station Tybee 

would alert the Fort Pulaski superintendent. 

The chain of command outlined in Fort 

Pulaski’s SPCC would then be activated. Any 

spill response and mitigation efforts 

necessary would be covered by the 

responsible party. 

New Structure 

The mitigation measures applicable to 

existing structures on Cockspur Island 

would also apply to the proposed new visitor 

center annex. However, the principal 

mitigation measure for the annex would be 

to build it above the 100-year floodplain on 

pilings. Building on pilings would allow 

storm surge to flow beneath the main 

structure and minimize impacts to 

floodplain processes. Furthermore, building 

on pilings would also serve to limit as much 

as possible structural damage to the annex. 

SUMMARY 

The National Park Service has determined 

that there is no practicable alternative to 

maintaining the historic and administrative 

structures currently in use at Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. Similarly, there is no 

practicable alternative to the current 

location of the U.S. Coast Guard Search and 

Rescue Station or the Savannah Pilots 

Association operations facility. This 

determination is primarily based on: (1) the 

necessity of these facilities remaining in 

place to fulfill their essential functions, (2) 

the lack of alternative locations to house the 

U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue Station 

or the Savannah Pilots Association 

operations facility; and (3) the notable costs 

and impacts that would be incurred by 

moving and/or constructing these facilities 

in new locations outside the floodplain. 

There is no practicable alternative to the 

proposed location of the visitor center 

annex. 

The primary flood mitigation measure for 

the U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue 

Station and the Savannah Pilots Association 

operations facility is to develop an 

evacuation plan for all facilities at these sites 

and keep all NPS staff, U.S. Coast Guard 

staff, and Savannah Pilots Association staff 

informed of the plan. Although the sites are 

within areas subject to flooding, there would 

be ample time to warn staff and visitors using 

the facilities to evacuate the area. If a flood 

occurs, visitors and staff could evacuate to 

higher ground via U.S. Highway 80. These 

mitigation measures would also apply to the 

proposed annex. In addition, the new annex 

would be built on pilings in order to 

minimally impede water flows and prevent 

property damage as much as possible.
225 

APPENDIX E: CONSULTATION LETTERS 
APPENDIXES

226 
Appendix E: Consultation Letters 

227 
APPENDIXES

228 
Appendix E: Consultation Letters 

229 
APPENDIXES

230 
Appendix E: Consultation Letters 

231 
APPENDIXES

232 
Appendix E: Consultation Letters 

233 
APPENDIXES

234 
Appendix E: Consultation Letters 

235 
APPENDIXES

236 
Appendix E: Consultation Letters 

237 
APPENDIXES

238 
239 

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

David Libman, Planning Team Leader, National Park Service, Southeast Region 

Rich Sussman, Former Chief, Planning and Compliance Division, National Park Service, 

Southeast Region 

Amy Wirsching, Planner, National Park Service, Southeast Region 

Mark Kinzer, Environmental Protection Specialist, Southeast Region 

Zackary Ray, Graduate Student Intern, National Park Service, Southeast Region 

John Breen, Former Superintendent, Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Charlie Fenwick, Former Superintendent, Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Randy Wester, Superintendent, Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Mike Hosti, Retired Chief of Maintenance, Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Tammy Herrell, Administrative Officer, Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Laura Rich Acosta, Facility Manager, Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Consultants: 

Kerri Cahill, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, User Capacity Analysis 

Susan Hitchcock, National Park Service, SERO, Cultural Landscapes 

 

241 

INDEX 

A

administrative commitments 13 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 11, 23, 

154, 155, 156, 163, 164, 165, 166, 174, 175, 

176, 187 

African American 15, 27, 29, 31, 108, 156, 185 

Alternative A i, 42, 53, 58, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, 70, 

71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 90, 91, 

151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 

161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 

172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 

Alternative B i, 3, 43, 62, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 

75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 90, 91, 92, 163, 

164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 

173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 

Alternative C i, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 

78, 79, 80, 81, 90, 163, 168, 169, 171, 172, 174, 

175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 217 

alternatives i, ii, 3, 5, 10, 17, 20, 26, 27, 29, 30, 

31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 53, 58, 

70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 80, 83, 90, 91, 92, 95, 

126, 137, 138, 140, 141, 150, 151, 152, 153, 

165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 177, 178, 179, 186, 213 

archeological resources 12, 23, 30, 71, 76, 85, 

101, 139, 153, 154, 163, 164, 174, 208 

B

Battery Hambright 4, 14, 16, 101, 103 

Battery Hamilton 14, 59 

boundary expansion 59, 72, 100 

C

Chatham County i, 3, 12, 25, 33, 60, 82, 99, 102, 

118, 121, 122, 128, 129, 130, 133, 140, 148, 

149, 161, 162, 172, 173, 180, 185, 188, 199, 220 

Choosing by Advantages 42, 43 

cisterns 15, 30, 109 

Civilian Conservation Corps 18, 43, 217 

Classified Structures 103, 104, 213, 214 

climate change 21, 28, 33, 76, 83, 89, 103, 108, 

109, 112, 115, 117, 153 

Coast Guard i, 13, 97, 98, 100, 110, 111, 132, 

185, 187, 213, 217, 219, 220, 221 

coastal zone 35 

Cockspur Island i, 3, 4, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 

27, 30, 57, 59, 63, 64, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 77, 79, 

86, 92, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 

105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 

114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 123, 124, 126, 128, 

132, 133, 148, 149, 152, 155, 157, 158, 159, 

168, 169, 170, 175, 177, 178, 179, 201, 202, 

213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 

Cockspur Island Lighthouse 100, 107, 108, 216 

Construction Village 30, 43, 101, 109 

Cost estimates 74 

Cultural Landscape Report 23, 25, 62, 63, 64, 67, 

71, 165, 166, 167, 175 

cultural landscapes 23, 30, 63, 67, 70, 71, 77, 85, 

101, 138, 139, 165, 175 

cultural resources i, 13, 19, 20, 24, 27, 30, 34, 36, 

42, 43, 48, 53, 54, 55, 58, 71, 83, 85, 88, 101, 

137, 138, 140, 151, 152, 162, 174, 179, 181, 

207, 208 

D

David Hunter 13, 200 

Daymark Island i, 12 

decision points 27 

demilune 4, 14, 96, 100, 102, 107, 109, 132, 149, 

216 

desired conditions 20, 41, 42, 50, 53 

E

environmental consequences 29, 47, 132, 137, 150 

environmentally preferable alternative 90, 91 

ethnographic resources 23, 30, 31, 78, 85, 138, 

139, 156, 166, 176 

executive order 110 

exotic species 19, 55, 57, 87, 113, 157, 158, 168, 

169 

F

fish and wildlife 79, 117, 140, 157, 158, 169, 177, 

178 

Floodplains 22, 32, 80, 125, 146, 159, 178 

Fort George 14, 95, 98, 101, 102, 109, 148 

Fort Greene 14, 101, 102, 103, 107, 109, 216 

Fundamental resources 14 

G

geology 31 

Georgia Port Authority 25 

Gullah/Geechee 27 

H

Highway 80 20, 24, 27, 29, 33, 35, 51, 57, 58, 59, 

70, 72, 73, 86, 99, 110, 128, 131, 132, 133, 141, 

149, 151, 152, 159, 185, 211, 219, 220, 221 

Historic Preservation Plan 25 

historic structures 23, 30, 59, 71, 74, 75, 77, 101, 

104, 111, 155, 164, 175, 219, 220 

I

Immortal Six Hundred 3, 13, 18, 62, 108, 156 

Impact Threshold 142 

impact topics 29, 137, 138, 140 

impairment 80, 150 

implementation 10, 11, 25, 29, 32, 42, 59, 72, 75, 

83, 87, 88, 137, 139, 147, 154, 155, 156, 161, 

163, 164, 165, 166, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 220 

Indian trust resources 36 

indicators and standards 50 

interpretation i, 17, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 43, 55, 62, 

67, 70, 82, 89, 102, 133, 140, 142, 162, 173, 180 

invasive species 43 

L

Lazaretto Creek 10, 27, 60, 63, 65, 67, 71, 72, 73, 

97, 98, 99, 101, 119, 128, 133, 140, 152, 179, 

211 
INDEX

242 

Lighthouse i, 4, 12, 16, 25, 30, 77, 96, 97, 100, 

103, 105, 107, 109, 117, 118, 124, 149, 175, 

201, 202, 213, 214, 216, 217 

M

management zones 17, 41, 50, 53 

McQueens Island i, 10, 18, 20, 27, 32, 44, 58, 70, 

72, 73, 100, 124, 126, 127, 128, 132, 133, 210, 

211 

mitigation 20, 23, 58, 59, 62, 67, 68, 70, 73, 83, 

85, 126, 137, 139, 159, 164, 165, 166, 177, 213, 

220, 221 

mitigative measures 24, 41, 83, 85, 88 

museum collections 23, 30, 31, 59, 71, 76, 101, 

104, 138, 139, 154, 155, 163, 164, 174, 175, 208 

N

National Historic Preservation Act 11, 19, 30, 31, 

83, 88, 137, 138, 187, 206 

National Park and Recreation Act 20 

National Park System General Authorities Act 19 

National Register of Historic Places 23, 45, 104, 

139, 187 

natural resources 3, 9, 10, 22, 30, 34, 42, 43, 53, 

55, 58, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 95, 137, 141, 151, 

153, 160, 171, 208 

no-action alternative 29, 58, 60, 74, 81, 82, 90, 

151, 160, 161, 162 

NPS Management Policies 9, 10, 20, 30, 32, 33, 

34, 35, 44, 46, 47, 58, 62, 150, 210, 211 

NPS Organic Act 19, 83, 208 

O

Oglethorpe 16, 95 

P

park operations 24, 29, 33, 42, 54, 86, 137, 138, 

141, 147, 173, 180 

period of significance i, 54, 62, 70, 77, 164, 165, 

167 

plant communities 78, 113, 140, 157, 167, 168, 

177 

Port of Savannah 13, 14, 86, 95, 98, 111, 132, 

152, 161, 173, 218 

preferred alternative i, 3, 41, 42, 43, 91, 219 

Presidential proclamation i 

Q

quarantine station 16, 97, 100, 106, 215 

R

resource conditions 4, 17, 25, 41, 42, 50, 53, 151 

Robert E. Lee 4, 13, 15, 95, 96, 101, 105, 148, 214 

S

salt marsh 4, 10, 12, 13, 15, 29, 32, 37, 43, 44, 

46, 47, 62, 70, 81, 99, 100, 110, 112, 113, 114, 

126, 127, 133, 148, 152, 153, 160, 161, 171, 

172, 179, 210, 211, 218 

Savannah Bar Pilots 18, 98, 99, 110, 111, 132, 

149, 185, 217, 218, 219, 221 

Savannah Pilots Association 13, 98, 218 

servicewide mandates 20, 41, 42 

shoreline erosion 27, 58, 70, 125, 152, 154, 156 

significance i, 4, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 27, 

41, 43, 53, 63, 67, 71, 85, 104, 150, 209, 213 

socioeconomic environment 42, 82, 137, 141, 161, 

162, 173, 180 

soundscape 35, 86, 151, 160, 171, 208 

special mandates 4, 27, 41, 53 

special status species 34, 87 

State Historic Preservation Office 23 

state-listed species 121 

summary of impacts 41 

T

trails 45, 54, 55, 78, 80, 86, 87, 110, 154, 156, 

158, 159, 176, 177, 178 

Tybee Island 3, 9, 15, 27, 33, 35, 59, 60, 67, 70, 

71, 72, 73, 92, 96, 97, 98, 99, 121, 123, 124, 

125, 128, 131, 133, 155, 156, 161, 165, 166, 

172, 176, 185, 186, 188, 200, 202, 203, 211 

U

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers i, 18, 25, 83, 126, 

132, 154, 163, 202 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 35 

user capacity 50 

V

viewshed 43, 60, 62, 164, 165, 167 

visitor experience 17, 24, 33, 50, 55, 71, 83, 137, 

138, 147, 161, 162, 172, 174, 181 

visitor use 4, 24, 29, 31, 36, 41, 42, 50, 51, 52, 54, 

55, 58, 74, 75, 76, 79, 81, 87, 140, 147, 148, 

154, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163, 172, 179 

W

water quality 22, 29, 32, 45, 79, 80, 118, 123, 

124, 140, 145, 152, 158, 159, 169, 170, 178 

Wesley Monument 16 

Wetlands 19, 22, 29, 32, 80, 88, 125, 126, 146, 

179, 199, 201, 202, 206, 208 

wilderness characteristics 46, 146, 210 

Wilderness Eligibility 10, 44, 46, 49, 58 

wilderness study 10, 32, 44, 47, 62, 186 
As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for 

most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use 

of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving 

the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historic places; and providing 

for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and 

mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our 

people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also 

has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in 

island territories under U.S. administration.

NPS 348/106627

June 2013 
Fort Pulaski NM 

P. O. Box 30757 

Savannah, GA 31410 

www.nps.gov/fopu/