National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Natural Resource Condition AssessmentZLWKDGGHQGXP

Fort Pulaski National Monument, Georgia

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2009/103 
ON THE COVER 

Fort Pulaski and its surrounding vegetation. 

Photograph by: Scott D. Klopfer, Conservation Management Institute, Virginia Tech 
Natural Resource Condition AssessmentZLWKDGGHQGXP

Fort Pulaski National Monument, Georgia

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2009/103 

Jessica L. Dorr1

, Scott D. Klopfer1, Ken M. Convery1, Rebecca M. Schneider1, Linsey C. Marr2, and 

John M. Galbraith3

1

Conservation Management Institute 

Virginia Tech 

1900 Kraft Drive, Suite 250 

Blacksburg, VA 24061-0534 

2

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 

Virginia Tech 

3

Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Science 

Virginia Tech 

An addendum (appended to this report) was added in July 2009 to address the 3.3.1 Air Quality 

section of the Fort Pulaski National Monument (NM) Natural Resource Condition Assessment. 

The original air quality condition assessment utilized EPA criteria designated for pollutants that 

are considered problematic for human health. While these metrics are significant, it is important 

to note that a difference exists between air quality measurements pertaining to the human dimension 

and those pertaining to the natural resource dimension. Because the original condition assessment 

focused on the human dimensions of air quality, this addendum was developed to include air quality 

measures and target values from the perspective of natural resource planning and management. 

We used methods developed by the National Park Service (NPS) Air Resources Division (ARD) to 

evaluate air quality conditions within national parks. 

May 2009 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Fort Collins, Colorado
The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and 

applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management 

of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation 

and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information 

is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, 

and is designed and published in a professional manner. 

Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current 

natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a 

general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues 

of management applicability. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this series 

include vital signs monitoring plans; monitoring protocols; "how to" resource management 

papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of 

resource programs or divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; 

fact sheets; and regularly-published newsletters. 

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations and data in this report are solely 

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, NPS. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. 

This report is available from the Southeast Regional Office and the Natural Resource 

Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM). 

Please cite this publication as: 

Dorr, J. L., S. D. Klopfer, K. M. Convery, R. M. Schneider, L. C. Marr, and J. M. Galbraith. 

2009. Natural resource condition assessment with addendum, Fort Pulaski National Monument, 

Georgia. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2009/103. National Park Service, 

Fort Collins, Colorado. 

NPS D-172, May 2009 

ii 
Contents 

Page 

Tables ............................................................................................................................................. vi

Figures............................................................................................................................................ ix

Appendices ................................................................................................................................... xiii

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... xv

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... xix

Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ xx

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Park and Resources ................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Bio-geographic and Physical Setting ................................................................................... 3

2.1.1 Park Location and Size ................................................................................................ 3

2.1.2 Park Plans and Objectives ........................................................................................... 3

2.1.3 Climate ......................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.4 Geology, Landforms, and Soils .................................................................................... 5

2.1.5 Surface Water and Wetlands ........................................................................................ 6

2.2 Regional and Historic Context ............................................................................................. 8

2.2.1 Regional History and Land Use ................................................................................... 8

2.2.2 Site History ................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Unique and Significant Park Resources and Designations ................................................ 10

2.3.1 Unique Resources ....................................................................................................... 10

2.3.2 Special Designations .................................................................................................. 10

3.0 Condition Assessment (Interdisciplinary Synthesis) .............................................................. 11

3.1 Ecosystem Pattern and Process .......................................................................................... 12

3.1.1 Landscape Dynamics .................................................................................................. 12

3.1.1.a Current condition: ............................................................................................................ 12

3.1.1.b Resource threats and stressors: ........................................................................................ 18

3.1.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ..................................................................................... 18

3.1.1.d Condition status summary ............................................................................................... 19

3.1.1.e Recommendations to park managers: .............................................................................. 19

3.1.2 Fire and Fuel Dynamics ............................................................................................. 20

3.1.2.a Current condition: ............................................................................................................ 20

3.1.2.b Resource threats and stressors: ........................................................................................ 25

3.1.2.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ..................................................................................... 26

3.1.2.d Condition status summary: .............................................................................................. 27

3.1.2.e Recommendations to park managers: .............................................................................. 27

3.2 Human Use ......................................................................................................................... 28

3.2.1 Non-point Source Human Effects ............................................................................... 28

3.2.1.a Current condition: ............................................................................................................ 28

3.2.1.b Resource threats and stressors: ........................................................................................ 34

3.2.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ..................................................................................... 34

iii 
3.1.2.d Condition status summary: .............................................................................................. 34

3.2.1.e Recommendations to park managers: .............................................................................. 35

3.2.2 Visitor and Recreation Use ........................................................................................ 35

3.2.2.a Current condition: ............................................................................................................ 35

3.2.2.b Resource threats and stressors: ........................................................................................ 37

3.2.2.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ..................................................................................... 37

3.1.2.d Condition status summary: .............................................................................................. 37

3.2.2.e Recommendations to park managers: .............................................................................. 38

3.3 Air and Climate .................................................................................................................. 38

3.3.1 Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 38

3.3.1.a Current condition: ............................................................................................................ 40

3.3.1.b Resource threats and stressors: ........................................................................................ 43

3.3.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ..................................................................................... 43

3.1.2.d Condition status summary: .............................................................................................. 43

3.3.1.e Recommendations to park managers: .............................................................................. 44

3.3.2 Climate ....................................................................................................................... 44

3.3.2.a Current condition: ............................................................................................................ 44

3.3.2.b Resource threats and stressors: ........................................................................................ 63

3.3.2.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ..................................................................................... 63

3.1.2.d Condition status summary: .............................................................................................. 63

3.3.2.e Recommendations to park managers: .............................................................................. 64

3.4 Water .................................................................................................................................. 64

3.4.1 Hydrology ................................................................................................................... 64

3.4.1.a Current condition: ............................................................................................................ 65

3.4.1.b Resource threats and stressors: ........................................................................................ 72

3.4.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ..................................................................................... 76

3.1.2.d Condition status summary: .............................................................................................. 76

3.4.1.e Recommendations to park managers: .............................................................................. 76

3.4.2 Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 77

3.4.2.a Current condition: ............................................................................................................ 78

3.4.2.b Resource threats and stressors: ........................................................................................ 82

3.4.2.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ..................................................................................... 83

3.1.2.d Condition status summary: .............................................................................................. 83

3.3.2.e Recommendations to park managers: .............................................................................. 84

3.5 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 85

3.5.1 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................... 85

3.5.1.a Current condition: ............................................................................................................ 85

3.5.1.b Resource threats and stressors: ...................................................................................... 100

3.5.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ................................................................................... 100

3.1.2.d Condition status summary: ............................................................................................ 101

3.5.1.e Recommendations to park managers: ............................................................................ 101

3.6 Biological Integrity .......................................................................................................... 101

3.6.1 Focal Communities and At-risk Biota ...................................................................... 101

3.6.1.a Current condition: .......................................................................................................... 103

3.6.1.b Resource threats and stressors: ...................................................................................... 110

3.6.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ................................................................................... 113

3.6.1.d Condition status summary ............................................................................................. 114

3.6.1.e Recommendations to park managers: ............................................................................ 114

4.0 Summary and Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 117

iv 
v 

Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................... 119

Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 128

Addendum .................................................................................................................................. 181


Tables 

Page 

Table 1. Condition status scoring system for Fort Pulaski National Monument Natural 

Resource Assessment. .................................................................................................. 11

Table 2. Example condition status table. Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best 

source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park 

boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, 

and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1). ...................... 12

Table 3. Land cover (from 2001 C-CAP) totals and percent of total within Fort Pulaski 

National Monument boundary and in the subbasin study area containing FOPU and 

surrounding watersheds. ............................................................................................... 14

Table 4. Comparison of cover types (from 2001 C-CAP) within Fort Pulaski National 

Monument boundary, coastal study area, and coastal conservation areas. .................. 15

Table 5. Comparison of natural, semi-natural, and unnatural vegetation (reclassified from 

2001 C-CAP) at Fort Pulaski National Monument and in the subbasin study area. .... 15

Table 6. Land cover change (from 1996 and 2001 C-CAP) in the subbasin study area 

containing Fort Pulaski National Monument and surrounding watersheds. ................ 18

Table 7. Landscape dynamics condition status summary within Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best 

source), spatial (1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal

(1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, 

fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1). .......................................................... 19

Table 8. List of the coastal conservation areas, organizations, and contact information. ........ 20

Table 9. Wildfires reported at Fort Pulaski National Monument from 1/1/1972 to 12/31/2007, 

at the National Fire and Aviation Management Web Application (National Wildfire 

Coordinating Group 2008). .......................................................................................... 21

Table 10. Fire condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data quality 

was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = 

inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older 

than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores 

respectively (see Table 1)............................................................................................. 27

Table 11. Schueler (2000) related percent impervious cover to management category. ......... 32

Table 12. Impervious surface totals for Fort Pulaski National Monument and each watershed/ 

subbasin within the study area. Management category from Schueler 2000. .............. 32

Table 13. Human effects condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data 

quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial

(1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = 

older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor 

scores respectively (see Table 1).................................................................................. 34

Table 14. Number of National Park Service Fort visitors in ranked order. ............................. 37

Table 15. Visitor use condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data 

quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial

(1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = 

older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor 

scores respectively (see Table 1).................................................................................. 38

vi 
Table 16. The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a cross-agency U.S. Government venture whose 

purpose is to explain air quality health implications to the public. .............................. 39

Table 17. Air quality index in 2007 at monitoring sites near Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

Blank cells mean that the pollutant was not measured at the site ................................ 40

Table 18. Air quality condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data 

quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial

(1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = 

older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor 

scores respectively (see Table 1).................................................................................. 44

Table 19. List of recommended air quality organizations to participate with and promote 

regional approaches. ..................................................................................................... 44

Table 20. Classification used for Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) values. .................. 52

Table 21. Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale (Blake et al. 2007). ............................................... 56

Table 22. Climate condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data 

quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial

(1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = 

older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor 

scores respectively (see Table 1).................................................................................. 64

Table 23. Surface water detention correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Fort Pulaski NM. ............................................................................................... 65

Table 24. Coastal storm surge detention correlation to National Wetland Inventory 

classification within Fort Pulaski NM. ........................................................................ 66

Table 25. Streamflow maintenance correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Fort Pulaski NM. ............................................................................................... 67

Table 26. Nutrient transformation correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Fort Pulaski NM. ............................................................................................... 69

Table 27. Sediment and other particulate retention correlation to National Wetland Inventory 

classification within Fort Pulaski NM. ........................................................................ 70

Table 28. Shoreline stabilization correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Fort Pulaski NM. ............................................................................................... 71

Table 29. Hydrology condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data 

quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial

(1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = 

older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor 

scores respectively (see Table 1).................................................................................. 76

Table 30. Georgia water quality standards. .............................................................................. 80

Table 31. Standards for nutrient concentrations as developed for the National Coastal 

Condition Report II (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2005). DIN refers to total 

dissolved inorganic nitrogen. DIP refers to total dissolved inorganic phosphorous. ... 80

Table 32. Potential for impairment of Fort Pulaski National Monument water resources. 

Adapted from McFarlin and Albers (2005). ................................................................ 84

Table 33. Water quality condition status summary within Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), 

spatial (1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = 

recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, 

and poor scores respectively (see Table 1). ................................................................. 84

vii 
viii 

Table 34. Recommendations to improve water quality and monitoring at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument from McFarlin and Albers (2005). ............................................................ 85

Table 35. Historical soil survey (USDA Bureau of Soils 1911) classification and approximate 

percent of total acreage for Fort Pulaski National Monument. .................................... 87

Table 36. Current soil survey (National Park Service 2006) classification, acreages, and 

percent of total acreage for Fort Pulaski National Monument. .................................... 88

Table 37. Potential erosion hazard (off-road, off-trial) according to soil characteristics at Fort 

Pulaski National Monument. ........................................................................................ 95

Table 38. Flooding frequency according to soil characteristics at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument .................................................................................................................... 97

Table 39. Drainage classes according to soil characteristics at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. ................................................................................................................... 99

Table 40. Soil condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data quality 

was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = 

inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older 

than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores 

respectively (see Table 1)........................................................................................... 101

Table 41. List of available animal and plant surveys at Fort Pulaski National Monument. .. 102

Table 42. Management matrix used to categorize trend combinations. ................................. 106

Table 43. Species that utilize Fort Pulaski National Monument by taxa. .............................. 109

Table 44. Total number of species documented at Fort Pulaski National Monument, number 

of high priority species from the GA Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, 

and % of high priority species within Georgia that are found on FOPU. .................. 110

Table 45. Periwinkle density for fall collection sites on the Georgia Coastal LTER between 

2003 and 2006. ........................................................................................................... 112

Table 46. Proportion of invasive species by taxa at Fort Pulaski National Monument. ........ 113

Table 47. Biotic community condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), 

spatial (1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = 

recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, 

and poor scores respectively (see Table 1). ............................................................... 114

Table 48. Condition status scoring system for Fort Pulaski National Monument Natural 

Resource Assessment. ................................................................................................ 117

Table 49. Overall condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data 

quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial

(1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = 

older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor 

scores respectively (see Table 48).............................................................................. 118
Figures 

Page 

Figure 1. Fort Pulaski National Monument is located on the coast of Georgia, just east of the 

city of Savannah. ............................................................................................................ 4

Figure 2. Canal leading from Fort Pulaski National Monument ................................................ 6

Figure 3. Water resources and hydrologic units surrounding Fort Pulaski National Monument.

 ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Figure 4. The study area of major watersheds examined for the Fort Pulaski NM Natural 

Resource Assessment. .................................................................................................. 13

Figure 5. Land cover (from 2001 C-CAP) in the subbasin study area containing Fort Pulaski 

National Monument and surrounding watersheds. ...................................................... 16

Figure 6. Vegetation in the subbasin study area containing Fort Pulaski National Monument 

and surrounding watersheds. ........................................................................................ 17

Figure 7. Wildfire sites and the dates they occurred, from 2000 to 2007 (GeoMAC 2008), 

within 20 miles of Fort Pulaski National Monument. .................................................. 22

Figure 8. Simulated historical percent of low and mixed severity fires according to 

LANDFIRE (USDA Forest Service 2006) in the region of Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. ................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 9. Simulated historical percent of replacement severity fires according to LANDFIRE 

(USDA Forest Service 2006) in the region of Fort Pulaski National Monument. ....... 24

Figure 10. Departure between current vegetation condition and reference vegetation condition 

according to LANDFIRE (USDA Forest Service 2006) in the region of Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. Fire Regime Condition Class I is low departure from historic 

vegetation; Condition Class II is moderate departure from historic vegetation; and 

Condition Class III is high departure from historic vegetation. ................................... 25

Figure 11. Wildfire fuel types according to LANDFIRE (USDA Forest Service 2006) in the 

region of Fort Pulaski National Monument. ................................................................ 26

Figure 12. A recent observed fire danger class map for the United States (USDA Forest 

Service 2008). .............................................................................................................. 28

Figure 13. Human population change in counties surrounding Fort Pulaski National 

Monument (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). ...................................................................... 30

Figure 14. Human population density (people per square kilometer, 2007) for counties 

surrounding Fort Pulaski National Monument (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). ............... 31

Figure 15. Impervious surface (from National Land Cover Database 2001) in the subbasin 

study area containing Fort Pulaski National Monument and surrounding watersheds. 33

Figure 16. Number of visitors per year to Fort Pulaski NM from 1935 to 2007. Data from 

NPS (2008b). ................................................................................................................ 36

Figure 17. Average monthly visitors (from the past 10 years, 1998 – 2007) to Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. Data from NPS (2008b). ............................................................ 36

Figure 18. Air quality monitoring sites near Fort Pulaski National Monument. Green indicates 

"Good" air quality, while yellow indicates "Moderate" air quality at these sites in 

2007. ............................................................................................................................. 41

Figure 19. 8-hour average ozone (O3) exceedances for Fort Pulaski National Monument. .... 42

Figure 20. 24-hour average fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exceedances for Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. .................................................................................................... 43

ix 
Figure 21. Mean annual temperature for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean annual 

temperature is 64.95 °F. The trend is 0.2 °F increase per decade. ............................... 46

Figure 22. Mean temperature during winter for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean 

temperature was 50.24 °F. The trend is 0.10 °F increase per decade. ......................... 46

Figure 23. Spring temperature for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean temperature 

was 64.52 °F. The trend is 0.19 °F increase per decade. ............................................. 47

Figure 24. The summer temperature for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean 

temperature was 78.91 °F. The trend is 0.30 °F increase per decade. ......................... 47

Figure 25. The fall temperature for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean temperature 

is 66.22 °F. The trend is 0.20 °F increase per decade. ................................................. 48

Figure 26. Annual precipitation for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean annual 

precipitation is 48.26 inches with an increasing trend of 0.17 inches per decade. ...... 49

Figure 27. The winter precipitation for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean 

precipitation is 8.89 inches. The trend is 0.08 inches per decade. This figure was 

generated separately from the NOAA site but the data are from the same source as 

other figures below. ...................................................................................................... 50

Figure 28. The spring precipitation for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean 

precipitation is 9.89 inches. The trend is 0.15 inches per decade. ............................... 50

Figure 29. The summer precipitation for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean 

precipitation is 19.27 inches. The trend is -0.11 inches per decade. ............................ 51

Figure 30. The fall precipitation for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean precipitation 

is 10.13 inches. The trend is 0.06 inches per decade. .................................................. 51

Figure 31. PDSI value for Savannah, GA for 9-year periods from 1900 to 2007. .................. 53

Figure 32. The total growing degree days per year for Savannah, GA from 1896 to 2008. The 

long term mean annual growing degree day total is 9146 (black line). The blue line 

indicates an increasing trend (R2= 0.31) ...................................................................... 54

Figure 33. The approximate date when 1200 GDD has been reached for each year. The 

decreasing trend indicates that this date is arriving earlier each year (trend is 0.4 days 

per decade). .................................................................................................................. 55

Figure 34. Total number of all storms per month (1851 – 2007) occurring within 100 nautical 

miles of Fort Pulaski National Monument. .................................................................. 57

Figure 35. Total number of major and minor storms per month (1851 – 2007) occurring 

within 100 nautical miles of Fort Pulaski National Monument. .................................. 58

Figure 36. Total number of storms by category per month (1851 – 2007) occurring within 100 

nautical miles of Fort Pulaski National Monument. Tropical depressions (TD) have 38 

mph sustained wind speeds or less, tropical storms (TS) have 39 to 73 mph wind 

speeds, and the remaining hurricane categories (1 – 4) are from Saffir/Simpson 

Hurricane Scale (Table 21). ......................................................................................... 59

Figure 37. Total number of all storms per decade (1851 – 2007) occurring within 100 nautical 

miles of Fort Pulaski National Monument. .................................................................. 60

Figure 38. Total number of major and minor storms per decade (1851 – 2007) occurring 

within 100 nautical miles of Fort Pulaski National Monument. .................................. 61

Figure 39. Total number of storms by category per decade (1851 – 2007) occurring within 

100 nautical miles of Fort Pulaski National Monument. Tropical depressions (TD) 

have 38 mph sustained wind speeds or less, tropical storms (TS) have 39 to 73 mph 

x 
wind speeds, and the remaining hurricane categories (1 – 4) are from Saffir/Simpson 

Hurricane Scale (Table 21). ......................................................................................... 62

Figure 40. Surface water detention correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Fort Pulaski NM. ............................................................................................... 66

Figure 41. Coastal storm surge detention correlation to National Wetland Inventory 

classification within Fort Pulaski NM. ........................................................................ 67

Figure 42. Streamflow maintenance correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Fort Pulaski NM. ............................................................................................... 68

Figure 43. Nutrient transformation correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Fort Pulaski NM. ............................................................................................... 69

Figure 44. Sediment and other particulate retention correlation to National Wetland Inventory 

classification within Fort Pulaski NM. ........................................................................ 70

Figure 45. Shoreline stabilization correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Fort Pulaski NM. ............................................................................................... 72

Figure 46. Digital elevation model (DEM) of Fort Pulaski National Monument region 

showing mean sea level, and approximate two foot, and four foot storm surge. ......... 74

Figure 47. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 2008) flood maps for the Fort 

Pulaski National Monument region, showing all areas are under flood hazard. .......... 75

Figure 48. Water resources and hydrologic units surrounding Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. ................................................................................................................... 78

Figure 49. Hazardous sites in Chatham County, surrounding Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

These sites are recorded by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) and 

have released or are suspected to have released a regulated substance without a state 

sanctioned clean-up procedure. .................................................................................... 83

Figure 50. Extent of historical soil survey (USDA Bureau of Soils 1911) at Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. .................................................................................................... 87

Figure 51. Extent of current soil survey (National Park Service 2006) at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. ................................................................................................................... 89

Figure 52. This aerial image (Google 2008) shows dredged spoil piles and the bike trail on 

McQueen’s island are now vegetated with shrubs and trees........................................ 91

Figure 53. White areas on fringes of nontidal dredged spoil deposits and uplands next to tidal 

marshes may indicate poor vegetation from low pH or high salinity, or poorlyvegetated sandy sediment washed free during extreme high tides (Google 2008). ..... 91

Figure 54. Cockspur Island (Google 2008), showing made land vegetated with scrub-shrub 

and forest trees, with an inset of the eroded sandy beach. ........................................... 92

Figure 55. Inset from Figure 54 showing shoreline erosion on the north shore of Cockspur 

Island (Google 2008). .................................................................................................. 92

Figure 56. Lower Coastal Plain Map, with arrow showing the location of Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. Barrier islands, also known as the Golden Isles, line the coast of 

Georgia. The Lower Coastal Plain extends for sixty-five to seventy miles between the 

Savannah and St. Marys Rivers and contains the remains of older and higher 

shorelines and dunes west of the present coast. Courtesy of V. J. Henry (Seabrook 

2006). ........................................................................................................................... 93

Figure 57. This aerial image (Google 2008) with red lines indicate the location of Holocene 

barrier island dunes. The blue circle shows another Holocene-aged deposit on 

xi 
xii 

Cockspur Island under the original fort (National Park Service 1995), while adjacent 

shrub and forest areas are recent dredged deposits. ..................................................... 94

Figure 58. Potential erosion hazard (off-road, off-trial) according to soil characteristics at Fort 

Pulaski National Monument. Slight means erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic 

conditions; moderate means that some erosion is likely and that erosion-control 

measures may be needed; severe means that erosion is very likely, erosion-control 

measures advised; and very severe means that significant erosion is expected, loss of 

soil productivity and off-site damage likely................................................................. 96

Figure 59. Flooding frequency according to soil characteristics at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. None means flooding is not probable; very rare means flooding is very 

unlikely; rare means flooding is unlikely but possible under unusual weather 

conditions; occasional means flooding occurs infrequently under normal weather 

conditions; frequent means flooding is likely to occur often; and very frequent means 

flooding is likely to occur very often under normal weather conditions. .................... 98

Figure 60. Drainage classes according to soil characteristics at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. ................................................................................................................... 99

Figure 61. Hydric rating according to soil characteristics at Fort Pulaski National Monument.

 .................................................................................................................................... 100

Figure 62. USGS Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) Routes in the area surrounding Fort Pulaski 

National Monument that were chosen for the assessment. ........................................ 104

Figure 63. Number of periwinkles per square meter versus percent marsh biomass from a 

controlled study (Silliman and Bertness 2002). ......................................................... 111
Appendices 

Page 

Appendix A: Land cover calculation methods. ...................................................................... 129

Appendix B: Hydrology calculation methods. ....................................................................... 133

Appendix C: Soil series description and soil ratings. ............................................................ 134

Appendix D: Reference species lists from habitat distribution models published by the 

Georgia Gap Analysis Program (UGA Institute of Ecology and GA Cooperative Fish 

& Wildlife Research Unit 2003) ................................................................................ 148

Appendix E: The following species lists (Appendix F through Appendix J) have been crossreferenced to NatureServe’s global and state rankings (NatureServe 2008); and the GA 

DNR listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (GA DNR Wildlife Resources 

Division 2008). ........................................................................................................... 151

Appendix F: Native (n=224) and non-native (n=83) plant species documented at Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. .................................................................................................. 154

Appendix G: Fish species documented for Fort Pulaski National Monument....................... 163

Appendix H: Herpetofauna (amphibian and reptile species) documented for Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. .................................................................................................. 166

Appendix I: Bird species documented for Fort Pulaski National Monument. ....................... 170

Appendix J: Mammal species documented for Fort Pulaski National Monument. ............... 179

xiii 
xiv 
Executive Summary 

The goal of this assessment is to provide an overview of natural resource condition status to 

allow Fort Pulaski National Monument (NM) to effectively manage National Park Service (NPS) 

trust resources through Resource Stewardship Strategies (RSS) and General Management Plans. 

An ancillary benefit is that it will aid the park in meeting government reporting requirements, 

such as the land health goals under the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA). This 

assessment is primarily based on existing data and information from the NPS Inventory & 

Monitoring Program, and from other Federal and State natural resource agencies. 

A natural resource assessment should provide a concise, understandable, and accurate summary 

of the condition of the ecological system. Reporting on this ecological condition will provide for 

better decision-making (Young and Sanzone 2002). As such we found that collaborating with 

decision-makers was an important part of this project. 

Precise measurements and objective analysis are preferred for assessing the condition of natural 

resources. Wherever possible, we used quantitative data and established thresholds, but in some 

cases only qualitative measures were available to rate important categories. Rather than remove 

these categories all together, we simply report on the type of data that was available and the 

methods used to compare these data to a desired condition. In all cases, straightforward tables, 

charts, maps, and geospatial data are provided to summarize findings. 

The National Park Service (NPS) monitors the condition of their natural resources using an 

ecological monitoring framework that has been widely used among other agencies (Fancy et al. 

2008). There are six basic level 1 categories: 1) air and climate; 2) geology and soils; 3) water; 4) 

biological integrity; 5) human use; and 6) ecosystem pattern and process. This framework is 

based on earlier work including the Environmental Protection Agency’s ecological condition 

framework that uses similar essential ecological attributes as their upper-level categories (Young 

and Sanzone 2002). We found the NPS categories to be uncomplicated and intuitive. This 

framework is also familiar to NPS personnel and will allow the users to compare current vital 

sign monitoring plans to this assessment. We have, however, reorganized the NPS framework to 

go from small-scale (broad) to large-scale (detailed) analysis, beginning with a primary threat 

and stressor: ecosystem pattern and process (landscapes). 

Throughout this assessment, several data under each category are given a condition status score. 

Some of these scores are based on predesigned systems, but all have been cross referenced to a 

good, fair, poor scoring system (Table 1). 

Table 1. Condition status scoring system for Fort Pulaski National Monument Natural Resource 

Assessment. 

Score Range Midpoint 

Good 0.67 – 1.00 0.84

Fair 0.34 – 0.66 0.5

Poor 0.00 – 0.33 0.17

xv 
In addition, we provide a data quality rating based on three categories, thematic, spatial, and 

temporal. We gave thematic a 1 or 0 (yes or no) based on whether these data were from the best 

available source. Spatial received a 1 or 0 based on the spatial proximity of these data (in-park 

data or out-of-park data). We also gave temporal a 1 or 0 based on how recently these data were 

acquired. Temporal was somewhat dependent on data type, but generally, if the data were from 

the last 5 years they received a 1. A sample is shown in Table 2. These tables are combined and 

an overall condition status is reported in the conclusion of this document. The user can also 

access these scores in the provided spreadsheet to view calculations, update data, and modify 

importance ratings as management goals change. 

Table 2. Example condition status table. Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best 

source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), 

and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to 

good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1). 

Category Condition 

Status 

Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

1 0 0 

Condition Group A Good 1 out of 3 

1 1 0 

Condition Group B Fair 2 out of 3 

1 1 1 

Condition Group C Poor 3 out of 3 

The overall condition status for Fort Pulaski NM is just inside the good range (0.67, close to fair; 

Table 3). Midpoint scores were averaged for NPS ecological monitoring framework level 2 

categories (Fancy et al. 2008) to come up with the overall condition status for the monument. 

Landscape dynamics, fire dynamics, human effects, visitor use, air quality, and hydrology scored 

in the good range. Landscape, fire, human effects, and air quality are broad-scale assessment 

categories upon which Fort Pulaski NM has limited management influence. Consistent reporting 

and collaboration are essential for these categories. Visitor use is relatively consistent and this 

fort is visited at an average level compared with other forts managed by the NPS. Hydrology will 

move further into the good range when the erosion on the north shoreline of Cockspur Island is 

addressed. 

Biological integrity (biotic) received a fair rating. The species assemblages present do not appear 

to reflect the more complete biotic communities observed in the surrounding area. This is 

perhaps due to the relatively recent establishment of upland habitat and may be due in part to a 

lack of comprehensive survey efforts. Other categories that scored in the fair range included 

climate, hydrology, water quality, and geology and soils. Climate and water quality are 

categories that will need coordination with other management organizations to improve. 

Collecting additional water quality data within park boundaries would allow better assessment of 

in-park resources. Geology and soils have remained relatively consistent, with the only limiting 

factor being the flooding frequency. 

Spatial proximity and thematic (best source) are the limiting factors in data quality. Thematic is 

often in the fair range for data quality, mostly due to needing more local-scale data. This 

xvi 
National Monument was established primarily to protect cultural resources, so a minimal amount 

of natural resource data has been collected on-site. There are plans to map vegetation 

communities and continue species and community inventory and monitoring. An observation 

that was present in several of the assessment categories is the importance of coordination with 

outside management organizations. It was also noted in several categories that additional localscale data collection could improve assessment and management. 

The good, fair, poor scoring system has its limitations. It is somewhat subjective, especially 

when pre-established thresholds and criteria are missing. However, in most cases we were able to 

find thresholds from other agencies or peer-reviewed publications. We made note of the cases 

where established rating systems or thresholds were not available. With these caveats in mind, 

we effectively reported on the condition status of important natural resource management 

categories while providing further information on data quality. 

Table 3. Overall condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data quality 

was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside park 

boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The 

colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1). 

Category 

Condition 

Status 

Score Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Landscape dynamics total    0 3 0 

Good 0.84 3 out of 9 

Fire dynamics total 0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Human effects total 2 2 2 

Good 0.67 6 out of 6 

Visitor use total 0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Air quality total 1 0 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Climate total 5 1 5 

Fair 0.50 11 out of 15 

Hydrology total 1 6 6 

Good 0.70 13 out of 18 

Water quality total 4 0 0 

Fair 0.42 4 out of 12 

Soil total 3 3 3 

Fair 0.62 9 out of 9 

Biotic total 5 1 6 

Fair 0.39 12 out of 18 

FOPU overall 21 18 25 

Good 0.67 64 out of 96 

xvii 
xviii 

This project provided a comprehensive amount of organized tabular data and many geospatial 

data layers and maps that will aid in the management of Fort Pulaski NM. These data are 

provided on an accompanying disk and can be used to compare current status to future 

conditions. This is merely a first step to compiling data and reporting on current condition status, 

data gaps, and threats and stressors. A well-established assessment protocol will include followup and future analysis. 
Acknowledgements 

This project would not have been possible without the help of personnel from Fort Pulaski 

National Monument, NPS Southeast Region, Southeast Coast Network, Natural Resource 

Program Center, and various departments at Virginia Tech. We would like to thank the following 

people for their contribution to this assessment effort: 

Fort Pulaski National Monument

Charles Fenwick 

Brent Rothschild 

Mike Weinstein 

Southeast Region

Jim Long 

Southeast Coast Network

Joe DeVivo 

Tony Curtis 

Christina Wright 

Natural Resource Program Center

Jeff Albright 

Conservation Management Institute, Virginia Tech 

Shelia Crowe 

Jeff Dobson 

Jacob Hartwright 

Ginger Hicks 

David Palmer 

Laura Roghair 

Jeff Waldon 

Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech

Myles Killar 

Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Tech

Dr. Stephen Schoenholtz 

 

xix 
Abbreviations 

AQI Air Quality Index 

BBS Breeding Bird Survey 

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand 

C-CAP Coastal Change Analysis Program 

CRD Coastal Resources Division 

DDT Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane 

DEM Digital Elevation Model 

DIN Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen 

DIP Dissolved Inorganic Phosphorus 

DNR Department of Natural Resources 

DO Dissolved Oxygen 

DRG Digital Raster Graphic 

EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPD Environmental Protection Division 

ERL Effects Range Low 

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute 

FDA Food and Drug Administration 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FOPU Fort Pulaski National Monument 

GA Georgia 

GAP Gap Analysis Program 

GCE Georgia Coastal Ecosystems 

GDD Growing Degree Days 

GeoMAC Geospatial Multi-Agency Coordination Group 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GMP General Management Plan 

GPRA Government Performance Results Act 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

I&M Inventory and Monitoring 

LMER Land Margin Ecosystem Research 

LTER Long-Term Ecological Research 

MLRA Major Land Resource Area 

NB National Battlefield 

NCA National Coastal Assessment 

NHD National Hydrologic Data 

NM National Monument 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NTCHS National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

PDSI Palmer Drought Severity Index 

xx 
xxi 

PPM Parts per million 

RSS Resource Stewardship Strategies 

SC South Carolina 

SCP Southern Coastal Plain 

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic 

TD Tropical Depression 

TS Tropical Storm 

U.S. United States 

UGA University of Georgia 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USGS United States Geological Survey 
xxii 
1.0 Introduction 

The goal of this assessment is to provide an overview of natural resource condition status to 

allow Fort Pulaski National Monument (NM) to effectively manage National Park Service (NPS) 

trust resources through Resource Stewardship Strategies (RSS) and General Management Plans. 

An ancillary benefit is that it will aid the park in meeting government reporting requirements, 

such as the land health goals under the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA). This 

assessment is primarily based on existing data and information from the NPS Inventory & 

Monitoring Program, and from other Federal and State natural resource agencies. 

A natural resource assessment should provide a concise, understandable, and accurate summary 

of the condition of the ecological system. Reporting on this ecological condition will provide for 

better decision-making (Young and Sanzone 2002). As such we found that collaborating with 

decision-makers was an important part of this project. 

An iterative process was implemented to collect and synthesize data and meet with NPS staff. 

We collaborated on what was important for their particular assessment, park, and watershed. 

Additional data was then collected and the process repeated itself to further refine and identify 

additional natural resource issues and objectives for this assessment. 

Precise measurements and objective analysis are preferred for assessing the condition of natural 

resources. Wherever possible, we used quantitative data and established thresholds, but in some 

cases only qualitative measures were available to rate important categories. Rather than remove 

these categories all together, we simply report on the type of data that was available and the 

methods used to compare these data to a desired condition. In all cases, straightforward tables, 

charts, maps, and geospatial data are provided to summarize findings. 

1 

2.0 Park and Resources 

2.1 Bio-geographic and Physical Setting 

2.1.1 Park Location and Size 

Fort Pulaski NM is located in the Coastal Plain of Georgia, 15 miles east of the city of Savannah, 

in Chatham County, and just south of the South Carolina border and Savannah River (Figure 1). 

The fortification is located on Cockspur Island, surrounded by approximately 600 acres of 

protected land. The NPS administers approximately 5,000 additional acres on McQueens Island 

and two small islands off Cockspur, Daymark Island and the Cockspur Island Lighthouse 

Reservation (Figure 1). This is a total of 5,623 acres of federally protected land under the 

management of Fort Pulaski NM (National Park Service 1995, Meader 2003). 

2.1.2 Park Plans and Objectives 

The general mission of Fort Pulaski NM is to preserve the fort, its associated structures and 

surroundings, and interpret its roles in coastal fortifications, military technology, and the Civil 

War. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 requires parks to complete 

5-year strategic planning reports and submit annual progress-based reports to show how they met 

plan goals and objectives (Meader 2003). 

According to the Resource Management Plan (National Park Service 1995), the primary 

objective of the resource management program at Fort Pulaski NM is to preserve and protect the 

historic site and structures associated with the fortification. A secondary objective is to manage 

the flora and fauna of the monument in such a manner that natural processes can occur 

unimpeded to the greatest extent possible. 

There are very current and broad park purpose statements in review for the new General 

Management Plan (GMP). These include: 

1. 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; 

2. Preserve and protect other military structures, other government structures, and 

archeological resources associated with various military developments and fortifications 

on Cockspur Island; 

3. Preserve and protect 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 (National Park Service 2007). 

Once completed, the new GMP will provide broad level planning for Fort Pulaski NM and will 

be the foundation for long-term direction (NPS Planning Environment and Public Comment 

2008). 

3 
Figure 1. Fort Pulaski National Monument is located on the coast of Georgia, just east of the city 

of Savannah. 

2.1.3 Climate 

The climate of the Savannah and Tybee Island region of the Georgia Coastal Plain is 

semitropical and characterized by warm and often hot, humid weather. The average annual 

temperature of the area is 66.1 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with a mean maximum temperature of 

4 
76.6°F and a mean minimum temperature of 55.5°F. The warmest month on average is July, at 

91°F. The coolest month on average is January, at 38.3°F (Georgia Automated Environmental 

Monitoring Network 2008). Lowest and highest recorded temperatures were 105°F in 1986 and 

3°F in 1985 (The Weather Channel 2008). The wettest month has historically been August, with 

an average of 6.77 inches of precipitation. A great deal (49%) of the rain falls during the months 

of June through September. Tropical storms and hurricanes are a concern as this area is brushed 

or hit by a tropical system every 3.61 years (Hurricane City 2008). The growing season averages 

260 days, with the last spring freeze normally occurring in early March and the first fall freeze 

normally occurring in late November (UGA State Climate Office 2008). 

2.1.4 Geology, Landforms, and Soils 

The Coastal Plain region is composed of un-deformed sedimentary rock layers whose ages range 

from the Late Cretaceous to the present Holocene sediments of the coast. Beneath Coastal Plain 

sediments are harder igneous and metamorphic rocks, such as those found in the Piedmont. 

Usually referred to as the "basement," these hard rocks occur at greater and greater depths 

toward the south and east, reaching depths of up to 10,000 feet or more beneath the modern 

Georgia coast (Frazier 2007). Sediment from the upper Piedmont region eroded into the Coastal 

Plain over the past 100 million years. In addition to recent alluvium, organic and marine deposits 

make up some of the sediment found in the Coastal Plain (UGA Department of Geology 2008). 

Human-dredged and deposited sediments are abundant along the coastlines. Specifically, the 

coastal region near Fort Pulaski NM is a Holocene-aged deposit of organic, marine, and alluvial 

origin. 

More specifically Cockspur Island is primarily human-constructed with a system of dikes and 

drainage canals (Figure 2). Dredging in the Savannah River made up the spoil deposition which 

began with the fort construction (National Park Service 1995). Cockspur and Long Island to the 

northwest were combined into one island from sediment deposition after jetties were built and 

the placement of dredge materials during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Due to these 

human activities, Cockspur Island, once mostly tidal marsh, is now 43% dry upland. Deposition 

of dredge material by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) continued until the 1980’s, 

halted by land-protection plans and a bill that passed in 1996 to prevent the USACE from 

continuing spoil deposition practices (Meader 2003). 

5 
Figure 2. Canal leading from Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Only 5% of McQueens Island is upland, with the remainder in native tidal salt marsh. These 

upland areas were filled for the development of U.S. Highway 80 and a railroad right of way that 

is now a pedestrian and bike trail. Land maps, circa 1862, show only the area inside the dikes of 

the fort as dry land on Cockspur and McQueens Island (National Park Service 1995). For all of 

the land area of Fort Pulaski (5,623 acres), several reports (National Park Service 1995, Meader 

2003, National Park Service 2007) document close to 5,000 acres as salt marsh. 

According to Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) from the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) and NPS (National Park Service 2006), 81.5% of the soil is Tidal marsh, salty, 

11.8% is water, and the remaining 6.7% is Made land. The parent material of Tidal marsh, salty

is marine deposits, while tidal marshes make up the landform. The slope in this class is 0 to 2 

percent. The area is very poorly drained since the depth to water table is about 0 inches and it is 

flooded two times per day. In addition, the typical profile is silty clay in both 0 to 10 inches and 

10 to 60 inches. Made land is widely variable, from sandy to clayey with differing water capacity 

thresholds. As the name suggests, alterations of soil were performed by filing, removing, 

dredging, and dumping (National Park Service 2006, USDA Natural Resource Conservation 

Service 2006). 

2.1.5 Surface Water and Wetlands 

The water bodies and waterways within or adjacent to Fort Pulaski NM include five saltwater 

ways: the Savannah River, the South Channel of the Savannah River, Bull River, Oyster Creek, 

and Lazaretto Creek (Figure 3). Three small bodies of freshwater include two unnamed water 

bodies, and a moat surrounding the fortification (McFarlin and Alber 2005). 

6 
The Savannah River and the South Fork, whose headwaters stretch to the Blue Ridge, are in the 

Lower Savannah Subbasin (National Hydrologic Data Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 03060109), 

or more specifically, the Savannah-Abercorn Creek Watershed (HUC 0306010906). The 

remaining waterways, Bull River, Oyster Creek, and Lazaretto Creek, are purely tidal in nature 

and are located in the Ogeechee Coastal Subbasin (HUC 03060204). Savannah (HUC 030601) 

and Ogeechee (HUC 030602) are two separate basins that coincide on the Fort Pulaski NM 

property (Figure 3). A large amount of the research and emphasis has been on the effects of 

pollution and water flows on the Savannah River (McFarlin and Alber 2005). The U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers operates three dams and reservoirs upstream of Fort Pulaski: Hartwell, 

Richard B. Russell, and J. Strom Thurmond (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2008). 

Nearly 5,000 acres or 89% of Fort Pulaski NM are native tidal salt marsh. These wetlands are 

important globally and support key aquatic species such as shrimp, oysters, juvenile fish, and 

shellfish (National Park Service 2007). As development along the coast and threats of rising sea 

level from climate change continues, importance will be placed on maintaining wetlands. 

7 
Figure 3. Water resources and hydrologic units surrounding Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

2.2 Regional and Historic Context 

2.2.1 Regional History and Land Use 

The region surrounding Fort Pulaski NM has a rich history stretching back to early Native 

American occupation. The neighboring islands of Wilmington and Whitemarsh had active 

human use in the Middle and Late Woodland periods (ca. 500 B.C. to A.D. 1100). When Spain 

8 
settled the area in the early 16th century, the Euchee Tribe was occupying adjacent Tybee Island 

(Meader 2003). 

Spanish missions left the area by 1684 due to the growth of Charles Town (later Charleston), the 

English colony to the north. Spain, France, and England disputed over Georgia until the city of 

Savannah was settled by the British (Meader 2003). Savannah was established in 1733 by 

General James Oglethorpe and 120 of his passengers, forming Georgia, the last of the 13 British 

Colonies. 

Savannah is a large city just 10 to 15 miles west of Fort Pulaski with an estimated population in 

2006 of 127,889. The 2006 estimate marks a steady decline from the 2000 census of 131,510 

individuals and the 1990 census of 137,560 (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). This is an incomplete 

statistic since suburban movement has affected many city populations across the country. If we 

look at the counties surrounding Savannah, there are significant population increases. Chatham 

County boasted an estimated 248,469 individuals in 2007, up 7% from the 2000 census of 

232,048 individuals. Effingham County, to the northwest, is up 35%, from 37,535 in 2000 to 

50,728 in 2007. Conversely, Jasper County, SC has grown only 6% to the 2007 estimate of 

21,953 (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). The Savannah River basin as a whole had 523,100 

individuals in 1995, with estimates of 60% growth to 900,000 individuals by 2050 (GA DNR 

Environmental Protection Division 2001). 

Similar to much of the United States, land use in the Savannah River basin is in flux. Forestry 

and its products are a major land use and commodity within the Savannah River basin, with 

approximately 2,420,300 acres of commercial forest land (GA DNR Environmental Protection 

Division 2001). Farmland has been decreasing since 1982. Almost 75% was pasture with the 

remainder in cotton, peanuts, tobacco, and grain. Poultry and livestock are also a large part of the 

agriculture in the Savannah River basin. Despite this, the closest areas, in Chatham and 

Effingham, had less than 15% of their counties in farmland (GA DNR Environmental Protection 

Division 2001). 

2.2.2 Site History 

The first written account of Europeans on Cockspur Island (then Peeper Island) was in 1736, 

when John Wesley, the father of Methodism, and a small group from General James 

Oglethorpe’s ship made a short stop to give thanks. Before the first fort was built, goods were 

loaded and unloaded from ships on Cockspur Island. Fort George was built in the mid-1700’s to 

protect the colonies of Georgia and South Carolina from Spanish invasion from the south, but 

fell into disrepair in the 1770s. In 1794, Fort Green stood for a short period. A new system of 

fortification in America during the early 1800s would eventually lead to the construction of Fort 

Pulaski. By 1847, the primary components of the fortification we know today were complete 

(Meader 2003). 

Fort Pulaski was under Confederate control during the early part of the Civil War, from January 

1861 to April 1862. On April 10, 1862, Union forces took control in the momentous battle that 

marked the end of masonry fortifications. Directly following the Civil War, plans were made to 

modernize Fort Pulaski, but these were quickly thwarted by plans for a new installation on Tybee 

Island. Fort Pulaski officially closed in 1873 with a caretaker on post and became a military 

9 
10 

reservation that could be used in the future. After much neglect and alternative uses, Fort Pulaski 

officially became a national monument on October 15, 1924 (Meader 2003). 

Fort Pulaski was transferred from the War Department to the National Park Service in 1933. A 

great amount of work and money were needed for repairs and preservation of the fort. The New 

Deal programs in the 1930s and the Mission 66 program in the 1950s and 60s were the driving 

force behind rehabilitation and maintenance of this once great fort. Additional land was acquired 

and general park maintenance and management plans were established (Meader 2003). 

2.3 Unique and Significant Park Resources and Designations 

2.3.1 Unique Resources 

There are several significant historical park resources at Fort Pulaski NM. Chiefly it is the 

location where the end of masonry fortification was marked when this fort was breached by 

rifled cannons during the Civil War. This fort was also Robert E. Lee’s first project, overseeing 

construction after he graduated from West Point. There are several other significance statements 

of historical basis listed in the GMP review, but only one of natural resource significance: Fort 

Pulaski NM protects one of the largest federal holdings of native salt marsh (National Park 

Service 2007). This is a rather important statement and several other unique natural resources 

inevitably follow as a result. These include habitat for rare wildlife species, including important 

fish nurseries and coastal bird habitat. Salt marshes are an extremely productive natural 

environment (GA DNR Coastal Resources Division 2008b). Decaying grass particles from tidal 

marshes form the beginning of a complex food web that nourishes a long list of marine life. 

2.3.2 Special Designations 

Although Fort Pulaski NM has no special designations at this time, there are plans to perform a 

formal wilderness assessment as part of their GMP process followed by a recommendation to 

Congress (National Park Service 2007). In fact, until there is a formal request, the NPS manages 

land that has wilderness characteristics in a manner required by the Wilderness Act. In addition, 

there has been some discussion of whether Fort Pulaski NM could meet the requirements of an 

Important Birding Area (Park Staff 2007). 
3.0 Condition Assessment (Interdisciplinary Synthesis) 

The National Park Service (NPS) monitors the condition of their natural resources using an 

ecological monitoring framework that has been widely used among other agencies (Fancy et al. 

2008). There are six basic level 1 categories: 1) air and climate; 2) geology and soils; 3) water; 4) 

biological integrity; 5) human use; and 6) ecosystem pattern and process. This framework is 

based on earlier work including the Environmental Protection Agency’s ecological condition 

framework that uses similar essential ecological attributes as their upper-level categories (Young 

and Sanzone 2002). We found the NPS categories to be uncomplicated and intuitive. This 

framework is also familiar to NPS personnel and will allow the users to compare current vital 

sign monitoring plans to this assessment. We have, however, reorganized the NPS framework to 

go from small-scale (broad) to large-scale (detailed) analysis, beginning with a primary threat 

and stressor: ecosystem pattern and process (landscapes). 

Throughout this assessment, several data under each category are given a condition status score. 

Some of these scores are based on predesigned systems, but all have been cross referenced to a 

good, fair, poor scoring system (Table 1). 

Table 1. Condition status scoring system for Fort Pulaski National Monument Natural Resource 

Assessment. 

Score Range Midpoint 

Good 0.67 – 1.00 0.84

Fair 0.34 – 0.66 0.5

Poor 0.00 – 0.33 0.17

In addition, we provide a data quality rating based on three categories, thematic, spatial, and 

temporal. We gave thematic a 1 or 0 (yes or no) based on whether these data were from the best 

available source. Spatial received a 1 or 0 based on the spatial proximity of these data (in-park 

data or out-of-park data). We also gave temporal a 1 or 0 based on how recently these data were 

acquired. Temporal was somewhat dependent on data type, but generally, if the data were from 

the last 5 years they received a 1. A sample is shown in Table 2. These tables are combined and 

an overall condition status is reported in the conclusion of this document. The user can also 

access these scores in the provided spreadsheet to view calculations, update data, and modify 

importance ratings as management goals change. 

 

11 
Table 2. Example condition status table. Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best 

source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), 

and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to 

good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1). 

Category Condition 

Status 

Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

1 0 0 

Condition Group A Good 1 out of 3 

1 1 0 

Condition Group B Fair 2 out of 3 

1 1 1 

Condition Group C Poor 3 out of 3 

3.1 Ecosystem Pattern and Process 

3.1.1 Landscape Dynamics 

Managing the entire landscape as opposed to individual species or community types is a 

recommended step to maintain ecosystem health. With that in mind, the landscape as a whole 

was considered at Fort Pulaski NM. Ecosystems do not often function within the small political 

boundaries in which regulating bodies are constrained. Fort Pulaski is a relatively small park 

unit, so we chose to first look at the monument within its watershed context and then examine 

the finer-scale park property. 

3.1.1.a Current condition: 

Study area: 

The hydrologic units that were chosen are based on the National Hydrologic Data (NHD) and 

include all of the Lower Savannah subbasin, hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03960109, and a 

portion of the Ogeechee Coastal subbasin, HUC 03060204, north of the Ogeechee River. 

Specific upstream watersheds include the Savannah River-Black Swamp (HUC 036010902), 

Ebenezer Creek (HUC 0306010903), and Savannah River-Abercorn Creek (HUC 030601906). 

These watersheds are present in the Georgia Counties of Chatham, Effingham, and Screven. 

They also stretch across the state line into the South Carolina counties of Jasper, Hampton, and 

Allendale (Figure 4). 

12 
Figure 4. The study area of major watersheds examined for the Fort Pulaski NM Natural 

Resource Assessment. 

Land cover: 

When looking at land cover, there are several possible data sources that could be used. We chose 

the newest, most complete, and detailed classification from the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP). These data 

are part of the overall National Land Cover Dataset, but are more detailed around the coastal 

regions (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2008a). We examined these data in 

the overall subbasin study area outlined above and within the Fort Pulaski NM boundary. More 

detailed spatial data preparation methods can be found in Appendix A: Land cover calculation 

methods. 

The total land area within the subbasin study area is approximately 913,000 acres. Of this total 

acreage, 20.2%, or 184,579 acres, is Palustrine Forested Wetland, a class which represents only 

0.9%, or 52 acres, within the FOPU boundary (Table 3, Figure 5). The Estuarine Emergent 

Wetland class, however, comprises 65.8%, or 3,647 acres, within FOPU, but makes up a limited 

7.4%, or 67,526 acres, within the study area. These differing comparisons are not surprising, 

considering the study area extends approximately 70 miles inland, causing a greater diversity and 

differing inland cover types compared to the small and strictly coastal nature of Fort Pulaski NM. 

13 
Contrasting the relative make-up of cover-types within the subbasin study area allows the 

opportunity to see where this coastal park fits within the broader landscape. 

Table 3. Land cover (from 2001 C-CAP) totals and percent of total within Fort Pulaski National 

Monument boundary and in the subbasin study area containing FOPU and surrounding 

watersheds. 

Land Cover Classification 

FOPU 

Acres 

FOPU 

% 

Study Area 

Acres 

Study 

Area % 

Estuarine Emergent Wetland 3646.5 65.8 67526 7.4

Water 1424.2 25.7 140438 15.4

Low Intensity Developed 122.3 2.2 29494 3.2

Developed Open Space 80.7 1.5 22804 2.5

Evergreen Forest 65.4 1.2 182459 20.0

Palustrine Forested Wetland 52.3 0.9 184579 20.2

Scrub/Shrub 30.2 0.5 64209 7.0

Pasture/Hay 28.0 0.5 17187 1.9

Palustrine Emergent Wetland 25.8 0.5 28462 3.1

Unconsolidated Shore 23.4 < 0.5 3036 0.3

Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland 20.9 < 0.5 32807 3.6

Grassland 17.6 < 0.5 40373 4.4

Bare Land 2.2 < 0.5 2753 0.3

Medium Intensity Developed 2.0 < 0.5 6993 0.8

Mixed Forest 1.8 < 0.5 25544 2.8

Cultivated 0.2 0.0 45463 5.0

Deciduous Forest 0.2 0.0 11982 1.3

High Intensity Developed 0.0 0.0 6595 0.7

Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland 0.0 0.0 20 0.0

Estuarine Forested Wetland 0.0 0.0 16 0.0

A more significant comparison was examining the cover type percentages in the coastal region of 

the study area and with other protected areas in the nearby coastal region (Table 4). These totals 

and percentages show that Fort Pulaski NM is protecting a large amount of the Estuarine 

Emergent Wetland in the coastal region of the watersheds. The coastal conservation areas that 

we examined included Wassaw Island National Wildlife Refuge, Tybee National Wildlife 

Refuge, Burnside State Conservation Area, Wormsloe State Historic Site, Little Tybee-Cabbage 

Island State Natural Area, Skidaway Island State Park, Ossabaw Island State Wildlife 

Management Area, and a county greenspace. 

Fort Pulaski NM holds 21.5%, or 3,647 acres, of the 16,972 acres of Estuarine Emergent 

Wetland on protected conservation lands in the coastal region of the subbasin study area. There 

is an additional 34,277 acres of Estuarine Emergent Wetland in the coastal region of the study 

area that is not owned and under direct protection by a conservation organization. Despite the 

fact that tidally influenced marshes and waterways are protected under the Coastal Marshlands 

Protection Act (GA DNR Coastal Resources Division 2008a), these areas are still under 

development pressure and permits can be acquired to alter these wetlands. With that in mind, 

Fort Pulaski NM and other conservation areas may play a larger role in the protection of Georgia 

coastal natural areas as population and development pressures increase. 

14 
Table 4. Comparison of cover types (from 2001 C-CAP) within Fort Pulaski National Monument 

boundary, coastal study area, and coastal conservation areas. 

Land Cover Classification 

FOPU 

Acres 

FOPU 

% 

Coastal 

Area 

Acres 

Coastal 

Area % 

Coastal 

Conservation 

Acres 

Coastal 

Conservation 

% 

Estuarine Emergent Wetland 3646.5 65.8 51249 43.3 13325.2 61.8

Water 1424.2 25.7 38501 32.5 3211.3 14.9

Low Intensity Developed 122.3 2.2 3178 2.7 15.3 < 0.5

Developed Open Space 80.7 1.5 3375 2.9 8.9 < 0.5

Evergreen Forest 65.4 1.2 11865 10.0 2699.4 12.5

Palustrine Forested Wetland 52.3 0.9 2209 1.9 729.0 3.4

Scrub/Shrub 30.2 0.5 1214 1.0 131.9 0.6

Pasture/Hay 28.0 0.5 85 < 0.5 2.9 < 0.5

Palustrine Emergent Wetland 25.8 0.5 1406 1.2 233.5 1.1

Unconsolidated Shore 23.4 < 0.5 1513 1.3 590.2 2.7

Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland 20.9 < 0.5 739 0.6 92.5 < 0.5

Grassland 17.6 < 0.5 1172 1.0 232.0 1.1

Bare Land 2.2 < 0.5 641 0.5 228.2 1.1

Medium Intensity Developed 2.0 < 0.5 455 < 0.5 2.4 < 0.5

Mixed Forest 1.8 < 0.5 497 < 0.5 31.6 < 0.5

Deciduous Forest 0.2 0.0 136 < 0.5 13.1 < 0.5

Cultivated 0.2 0.0 6 < 0.5 0.0 0.0

High Intensity Developed 0.0 0.0 162 < 0.5 0.7 < 0.5

Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland 0.0 0.0 17 < 0.5 6.9 < 0.5

Estuarine Forested Wetland 0.0 0.0 15 < 0.5 5.6 < 0.5

Total 5543.1 100 118434 100 21560.5 100

Vegetation: 

In addition, we reclassified and examined the land cover data to quantify “natural vegetation,” 

“semi-natural vegetation,” and “unnatural vegetation” within the subbasin study area and within 

the monument boundary (Appendix A). Natural vegetation dominates the relative land area of 

the subbasin study area and an even greater relative area of Fort Pulaski NM (Table 5, Figure 6). 

Only 3% of the monument is in “unnatural vegetation,” while its subbasin study area is 

composed of almost 6% “unnatural vegetation.” 

Table 5. Comparison of natural, semi-natural, and unnatural vegetation (reclassified from 2001 

C-CAP) at Fort Pulaski National Monument and in the subbasin study area. 

Vegetation Classification 

FOPU 

Acres 

FOPU 

% 

Study Area 

Acres 

Study 

Area % 

Natural Vegetation 3860.8 94.3 638864 83.2

Semi-natural Vegetation 109.0 2.7 85654 11.2

Unnatural Vegetation 124.1 3.0 43168 5.6

15 
Figure 5. Land cover (from 2001 C-CAP) in the subbasin study area containing Fort Pulaski 

National Monument and surrounding watersheds. 

16 
Figure 6. Vegetation in the subbasin study area containing Fort Pulaski National Monument and 

surrounding watersheds. 

17 
3.1.1.b Resource threats and stressors: 

Threats and stressors to landscape dynamics are plentiful and often serve as primary threats to 

other natural resource categories examined in this assessment. Several were mentioned in the 

previous condition status and all are related. They include human population growth, 

unstructured development, and overutilization of natural resources, all of which often lead to 

habitat fragmentation and wetland loss. 

Land cover changes have been evident throughout the subbasin study area (Table 6). There was a 

6% increase from 1996 to 2001 in developed areas within the study area. These changes will 

directly impact Fort Pulaski NM as even relatively small protected natural areas fall under 

increased pressure to accommodate much of their region’s natural processes and biodiversity. 

Table 6. Land cover change (from 1996 and 2001 C-CAP) in the subbasin study area containing 

Fort Pulaski National Monument and surrounding watersheds. 

Land Cover Classification 

Study Area 

Acres 1996 

Study Area 

% 1996 

Study Area 

Acres 2001 

Study Area 

% 2001 

Percent 

Change 

1996 – 2001 

Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland 23362 2.6 32807 3.6 40.43

Bare Land 2199 0.2 2753 0.3 25.20

Palustrine Emergent Wetland 24037 2.6 28462 3.1 18.41

Unconsolidated Shore 2586 0.3 3036 0.3 17.40

Scrub/Shrub 55676 6.1 64209 7.0 15.33

Deciduous Forest 10449 1.1 11982 1.3 14.67

Grassland 36865 4.0 40373 4.4 9.52

Developed Open Space 21314 2.3 22804 2.5 6.99

Pasture/Hay 16291 1.8 17187 1.9 5.50

Low Intensity Developed 27983 3.1 29494 3.2 5.40

Medium Intensity Developed 6644 0.7 6993 0.8 5.26

Mixed Forest 24382 2.7 25544 2.8 4.76

Cultivated 43802 4.8 45463 5.0 3.79

High Intensity Developed 6439 0.7 6595 0.7 2.41

Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland 20 0.0 20 0.0 0.00

Estuarine Forested Wetland 16 0.0 16 0.0 0.00

Estuarine Emergent Wetland 67550 7.4 67526 7.4 -0.04

Water 141227 15.5 140438 15.4 -0.56

Palustrine Forested Wetland 202098 22.1 184579 20.2 -8.67

Evergreen Forest 199784 21.9 182459 20.0 -8.67

3.1.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

To assess in-park landscapes, a more in-depth, detailed scale vegetation communities map would 

be an ideal addition to the broader scale land cover on which this analysis was primarily based. 

National Park Service has a service-wide vegetation mapping initiative (National Park Service 

2008c). Current plans will have final maps available for Fort Pulaski NM in 2012 (Curtis 2008). 

We could also draw more thorough conclusions with more recently acquired data (Table 7). 

18 
3.1.1.d Condition status summary 

The land cover comparison to coastal study area condition status is good because Fort Pulaski 

NM is protecting a greater percentage of wetland and forest cover types than the coastal study 

area (Table 7). The monument is also protecting a larger relative area of wetlands than the 

coastal conservation areas, so this condition status is in the good range (Table 7). The forested 

percentage within Fort Pulaski NM boundaries is less, but wetlands made up for this disparity. 

Natural and semi-natural vegetation make up the bulk of the relative land area of Fort Pulaski 

NM, so vegetation comparison to subbasin study area also received a good condition status 

(Table 7). 

Table 7. Landscape dynamics condition status summary within Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = 

inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 

years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see 

Table 1). 

Category 

Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Land cover comparison to 

coastal study area 

0 1 0 

Good 0.84 1 out of 3 

Land cover comparison to 

coastal conservation areas 

0 1 0 

Good 0.84 1 out of 3 

Vegetation comparison to 

subbasin study area 

0 1 0 

Good 0.84 1 out of 3 

Landscape dynamics total 0 3 0 

Good 0.84 3 out of 9 

3.1.1.e Recommendations to park managers: 

Landscape scale initiatives take collaboration from all parties involved. Continuing to build on 

partnerships with other conservation organizations and land managers (Table 8) will promote 

broad-scale collaboration efforts. 

 

19 
Table 8. List of the coastal conservation areas, organizations, and contact information. 

Conservation Area Organization Webpage 

1. Tybee National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

http://www.fws.gov/tybee/ 

2. Wassaw Island National Wildlife 

Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/wassaw/ 

3. Burnside State Conservation 

Area 

GA Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR) 

http://www.gadnr.org/ 

4. Wormsloe State Historic Site GA DNR http://www.gastateparks.org/net/go/parks.a

spx?s=7.0.1.5 

5. Little Tybee-Cabbage Island 

State Natural Area 

GA DNR http://www.n-georgia.com/wildlife.htm 

6. Skidaway Island State Park GA DNR http://gastateparks.org/info/skidaway/ 

7. Ossabaw Island State Wildlife 

Management Area 

GA DNR http://www.n-georgia.com/wildlife.htm 

8. County Greenspace Chatham County http://www.chathamcounty.org/pwps.html 

3.1.2 Fire and Fuel Dynamics 

Fire exclusion practices have drastically changed the natural fire processes that took place in 

many ecosystems across the United States (U.S. Geological Survey 2000). Fire is now being 

used more actively in managing natural landscapes such as historical prairies and pine savannahs 

in the Coastal Plain of the Southeastern U.S. (Waldrop et al. 1992, U.S. Geological Survey 

2000). Chinese tallow and other Southeastern invasive exotic species may also be controlled with 

appropriately timed controlled burns (Zouhar et al. 2008). 

3.1.2.a Current condition: 

Despite the Southeastern Coastal Plain having an active fire regime and history, fire has not been 

a major concern at Fort Pulaski NM. There have been 20 fires recorded at Fort Pulaski NM since 

1972 (Table 9). These have all been small fires, the majority less than one acre. There were five 

fires within 20 miles of the monument reported by Geospatial Multi-Agency Coordination Group 

(GeoMAC 2008) since 2000 (Figure 7). 

 

20 
Table 9. Wildfires reported at Fort Pulaski National Monument from 1/1/1972 to 12/31/2007, at 

the National Fire and Aviation Management Web Application (National Wildfire Coordinating 

Group 2008). 

WFMI 

ID Fire Name 

NPS 

ID Protection Type Date Acres Cause Owner 

226860 McQueens 3001 NPS land under NPS 

protection 

4/21/1973 0.1 Miscellaneous NPS 

226861 Parking 5001 NPS land under NPS 

protection 

8/8/1975 0.1 Natural NPS 

226862 Grass #1 6001 Other lands, no agreement, 

where NPS action taken to 

prevent spread to NPS land 

2/16/1976 1 Miscellaneous NPS 

226865 Williams 7003 NPS land under NPS 

protection 

1/13/1977 0.1 Equipment NPS 

226864 Grass 1 7002 Other lands, no agreement, 

where NPS action taken to 

prevent spread to NPS land 

2/26/1977 1 Miscellaneous NPS 

226863 Grass 2 7001 Other lands, no agreement, 

where NPS action taken to 

prevent spread to NPS land 

2/26/1977 1 Miscellaneous NPS 

226866 Brush 8001 NPS land under NPS 

protection 

9/15/1978 0.1 Miscellaneous NPS 

226867 Scout Camp 3069 NPS land under NPS 

protection 

3/7/1981 1 Campfire NPS 

226868 US 80 #1 3069 NPS land under NPS 

protection 

5/18/1982 0.1 Miscellaneous State 

226871 Honeybuck 4 Support actions by NPS USFWS 

226872 Support 37 Support actions by NPS USFS 

226869 Support 2 Support actions by NPS USFS 

226870 Support 3 Support actions by NPS USFS 

226873 Calvary 1 NPS land under NPS 

protection 

4/21/1990 0.1 Campfire NPS 

226874 Hotmower 2 NPS land under NPS 

protection 

6/2/1990 0.3 Equipment NPS 

226875 Support 3 Support actions by NPS USFS 

226876 Support 4 Support actions by NPS USFS 

226877 Support 1 Support actions by NPS USFS 

226878 Support 2 Support actions by NPS USFS 

226879 Talley 1 NPS land under NPS 

protection 

7/24/1995 0.1 Natural NPS 

21 
Figure 7. Wildfire sites and the dates they occurred, from 2000 to 2007 (GeoMAC 2008), within 

20 miles of Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

According to a simulated historical fire severity model (USDA Forest Service 2006), the 

majority of Fort Pulaski NM fires were of replacement severity (Figure 9). Low and mixed 

severity fires accounted for a very small percentage of fires (Figure 8). The low severity fires 

cause less than 25% average replacement of dominant biomass; the medium severity fires cause 

between 25 and 75% replacement; and the replacement severity fires cause greater than 75% 

average replacement of dominant biomass. The majority of Fort Pulaski NM is in the Fire 

Regime Condition Class II (Figure 10), meaning there is moderate departure from historic 

vegetation. These data are intended to be used at a landscape scale (USDA Forest Service 2006), 

so caution should be taken with analysis of these data within the larger, more detailed scale 

within Fort Pulaski NM boundaries. 

22 
Figure 8. Simulated historical percent of low and mixed severity fires according to LANDFIRE 

(USDA Forest Service 2006) in the region of Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

23 
Figure 9. Simulated historical percent of replacement severity fires according to LANDFIRE 

(USDA Forest Service 2006) in the region of Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

24 
Figure 10. Departure between current vegetation condition and reference vegetation condition 

according to LANDFIRE (USDA Forest Service 2006) in the region of Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. Fire Regime Condition Class I is low departure from historic vegetation; Condition 

Class II is moderate departure from historic vegetation; and Condition Class III is high departure 

from historic vegetation. 

3.1.2.b Resource threats and stressors: 

Fuel types (Figure 11) and fuel loads are an existing threat and stressor that should be monitored 

at Fort Pulaski NM. As dead and dry plant materials build up, the risk of more catastrophic fire 

events increases (U.S. Geological Survey 2000). 

25 
Figure 11. Wildfire fuel types according to LANDFIRE (USDA Forest Service 2006) in the 

region of Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

3.1.2.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

As mentioned before, there is a data gap since there are no detailed, large-scale vegetation maps 

available for Fort Pulaski NM. With a current vegetation map, we could more thoroughly assess 

the role of fire in the vegetation communities. 

26 
3.1.2.d Condition status summary: 

Fire and fuel dynamics received a good condition status because there were relatively few 

recorded fires at the monument or in the region (Table 10). Additionally, almost all of Fort 

Pulaski NM and the majority of the surrounding region exhibits moderate departure from historic 

vegetation, placing it in Fire Regime Condition Class II. 

Table 10. Fire condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data quality was 

rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside park 

boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The 

colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1). 

Category 

Condition 

Status Midpoint

Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Fire dynamics total 0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

3.1.2.e Recommendations to park managers: 

Fort Pulaski NM should continue to record fire occurrence information with the National 

Wildfire Coordinating Group. The last fire was recorded in 1995. A formal fire management plan 

may also be an appropriate addition. 

The Wildland Fire Assessment System (USDA Forest Service 2008) has a Fire Danger Rating 

website (http://www.wfas.net/content/view/17/32/). 

A daily observed (current) fire danger class and a forecasted fire danger class can be viewed for 

the United States as well as regional subsets (Figure 12). 

27 
Figure 12. A recent observed fire danger class map for the United States (USDA Forest Service 

2008). 

3.2 Human Use 

3.2.1 Non-point Source Human Effects 

In the region of Fort Pulaski NM, human population and resulting development pressures are 

growing. This encroachment of human population and development is arguably the most 

important threat or stressor the monument must consider. Development may lead to increasing 

point and non-point source pollution, affecting air and water quality. Increased vehicle emissions 

can occur as more people move to the area. In-park biological integrity may also be stressed 

from these outside influences. 

3.2.1.a Current condition: 

We examined two factors to assess the current condition of human effects in the Fort Pulaski NM 

area. First, census data was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau and trends were analyzed. The 

second factor we examined was relative impervious surfaces within Fort Pulaski NM boundary 

and in the broad, subbasin study area. 

Human population: 

Although seemingly intuitive, several studies have quantitatively researched the relationship 

between human population and the degradation of the world’s natural resources (Jones and Clark 

28 
1987, Forester and Machlist 1996, McKinney 2001, Parks and Harcourt 2002, Cardillo et al. 

2004). In a 2001 study, nonnative plant and fish diversity were negatively correlated with human 

population (McKinney 2001). Parks and Harcourt (2002) found that the probability of species 

extinction around western U.S. National Parks was significantly correlated with the surrounding 

human population density. 

The area surrounding Fort Pulaski NM is a large and growing metropolitan area connected to the 

city of Savannah. Significant population increases from U.S. Census Bureau (2008) data were 

evident in this region (Figure 13). The fastest growing county in the subbbasin study area is 

Effingham County, Georgia, which went from 25,687 to 50,728 individuals from 1990 to 2007, a 

97% increase. Close behind is nearby Bryan County with a 95% increase from the 1990 census 

to 2007 population estimates. The county in which Fort Pulaski NM is located, Chatham County, 

Georgia, increased their population by a comparatively marginal 14%. On the South Carolina 

side, population in Beaufort County went from 86,428 in 1990 to 147,316 in 2007, a 70% 

increase. 

Along with population change, a good indicator of human effects on natural resources is 

population density. Chatham County totaled by far the highest population density in the study 

area in 2007 with 152 people/square km. Nearby Beaufort County is the second highest with 62 

people/square km, while the remainder of the counties in the region were well below our 

threshold of 50 people/square km (Figure 14). 

29 
Figure 13. Human population change in counties surrounding Fort Pulaski National Monument 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2008). 

30 
Figure 14. Human population density (people per square kilometer, 2007) for counties 

surrounding Fort Pulaski National Monument (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). 

31 
Impervious surface: 

Studies have shown that increased impervious surface leads to degradations in water quality, 

hydrology, habitat structure, and aquatic biodiversity (Schueler 2000, Hurd and Civco 2004). In 

a review of eighteen studies that related stream quality to urbanization, Schueler (2000) suggests 

using three management categories (Table 11) to group streams by percent impervious surface. 

Table 11. Schueler (2000) related percent impervious cover to management category. 

Impervious Cover Management Category 

1 to 10% impervious Sensitive streams 

11 to 25% impervious Impacted streams 

26 to 100% impervious Non-supporting streams 

 

We used these groups to find the potential quality within Fort Pulaski NM and each watershed 

upstream of the monument within the subbasin study area (Table 12, Figure 15). Ogeechee 

Coastal (HUC 03060204) and Savannah River-Abercorn Creek (HUC 0306010906) watersheds 

contain Fort Pulaski NM and have the highest percentages of impervious surface in the subbasin 

study area (Table 12, Figure 15). This is not surprising since these two watersheds contain the 

city of Savannah and surrounding suburbs. The watersheds that exceeded the 10% impervious 

threshold were classified as impacted. Despite this, we have classified Fort Pulaski NM as 

sensitive, with impervious cover at 5.1%, while the entire subbasin study area averages 9.6% 

impervious. These are below the 10% threshold, but it is important to take note of the impacted 

watersheds that Fort Pulaski NM is a part of and the potential for increase across the subbasins. 

Table 12. Impervious surface totals for Fort Pulaski National Monument and each watershed/ 

subbasin within the study area. Management category from Schueler 2000. 

Watershed/ Subbasin 

Pervious 

(acres) 

Impervious 

(acres) 

Total 

(acres) 

Percent 

Impervious 

Management 

Category 

Ogeechee Coastal 

(03060204) 

188750 36121 224871 16.1 Impacted 

streams 

Savannah R.-Abercorn Creek 

(0306010906) 

228993 29705 258697 11.5 Impacted 

streams 

Ebenezer Creek 

(306010903) 

120051 5846 125897 4.6 Sensitive 

streams 

Savannah R.-Black Swamp 

(0306010902) 

207299 7033 214332 3.3 Sensitive 

streams 

Total (study area) 745093 78705 823798 9.6 

Sensitive 

streams 

Fort Pulaski NM 5260 283 5543 5.1 

Sensitive 

streams 

32 
Figure 15. Impervious surface (from National Land Cover Database 2001) in the subbasin study 

area containing Fort Pulaski National Monument and surrounding watersheds. 

33 
3.2.1.b Resource threats and stressors: 

The condition assessments for human effects, described in the previous section, are threats and 

stressors to several natural resources within the monument. We started with these broad-scale 

conditions so they can be applied as threats and stressors to several of the following natural 

resource categories. Rapid population increases can lead to unstructured, unplanned 

development, higher population densities, and overutilization of natural resources. 

3.2.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

U.S. Census Bureau population data is a good source of information, but assigning resource 

thresholds to these data was a challenge that was not easily supported with current literature for 

the Southeastern U.S. We used somewhat arbitrary thresholds for population growth and density 

in assigning low, medium, and high impacts to the natural resource. These thresholds can easily 

be changed as more quantitative relationships are formulated for this area of the U.S. 

Broad, small-scale remotely sensed data were a good source for this assessment category. 

Unfortunately they may be less accurate at the larger scale (more detailed) park level. This was a 

continual challenge in several of our assessment categories since Fort Pulaski NM is a relatively 

small park (5,623 acres). Table 13 shows the summary of condition status and data quality. 

3.1.2.d Condition status summary: 

Human population condition status is in the fair range because population density is fairly 

substantial within the region surrounding Fort Pulaski NM (Table 13). Population growth is also 

relatively high in the surrounding counties. This reinforces findings in landscape dynamics 

(3.1.1.d Condition status summary) since there was a 6% increase from 1996 to 2001 in 

developed areas within the study area. Areas within the monument are good for “land cover 

comparison to study area”, but may not have been considered good if they had been rated for all 

of the subbasin study area. Impervious surface coverage was below the 10% threshold within the 

monument boundary so it received a good rating (Table 13). However, it is important to note that 

the subbasin (HUC 03060204) and the watershed (HUC 0306010906) that Fort Pulaski NM is a 

part of are slightly above the 10% threshold. This may lead to greater impacts from outside the 

monument boundary to streams and other resources within Fort Pulaski NM. 

Table 13. Human effects condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data 

quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside 

park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). 

The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1). 

Category 

Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Human population 

1 1 1 

Fair 0.5 3 out of 3 

Impervious surface 

1 1 1 

Good 0.84 3 out of 3 

Human effects total 2 2 2 

Good 0.67 6 out of 6 

34 
3.2.1.e Recommendations to park managers: 

Higher population densities have been correlated with a myriad of environmental impacts. 

However, focusing development and human population growth restrictions on high population 

centers may not be the most productive course. Studies have found that nonnative species 

introductions (McKinney 2001) and species extinctions (Balmford 1996) occur more rapidly in 

fast-growing lower human-populated areas as opposed to highly populated areas. Thus, it may be 

prudent to focus structured development, nonnative species, and other natural resource education 

campaigns on low population centers with a high potential for growth. 

Although human population increase and development is, in most cases, an outside threat 

unmanageable by the park, there are instances in which park interpretation and education can 

play a large role in surrounding resource protection. In addition, focusing efforts on sustainable 

development and limiting impervious surfaces within park boundaries is important for in-park 

resource management. These campaigns may also increase the knowledge and perceived 

importance of structured development within surrounding locales. 

3.2.2 Visitor and Recreation Use 

The National Park Service was established to provide for its visitors. The NPS mission is to 

"preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system 

for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.” In fact, the top 

guiding principle to accomplish this mission is excellent service for park visitors and partners 

(National Park Service 2008a). Visitors are no doubt the primary reason the NPS exists and 

continues to be an important part of this country. 

Visitor and recreation use, however, has been shown to negatively affect the other half of the 

NPS mission, which is to protect natural and cultural resources. Several studies have shown a 

negative correlation between outdoor recreation and the various natural resources covered in this 

assessment (Taylor and Knight 2003, Wood et al. 2006, Park et al. 2008). As visitation to parks 

increase, these two parts of the mission often work against each other. 

3.2.2.a Current condition: 

The number of visitors per year to Fort Pulaski NM was steadily on the increase until the mid1980s and has leveled off in the past 20 years (Figure 16). Visitation is relatively constant 

throughout the year with spikes occurring in April and July (Figure 17). Fort Pulaski NM was 

ninth out of 21 in the number of visitors to NPS Forts in 2007 (Table 14) and 16th out of 68 

National Monuments visited in 2007. 

35 
Figure 16. Number of visitors per year to Fort Pulaski NM from 1935 to 2007. Data from NPS 

(2008b). 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

220,000

240,000

260,000

280,000

300,000

320,000

340,000

360,000

380,000

400,000

420,000

440,000

460,000

480,000

500,000

1935 1943 1951 1959 1967 1975 1983 1991 1999 2007

Visitors

Year

Figure 17. Average monthly visitors (from the past 10 years, 1998 – 2007) to Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. Data from NPS (2008b). 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Visitors

Months

36 
Table 14. Number of National Park Service Fort visitors in ranked order. 

Park Visitors 

% of Fort 

visitors Rank 

Fort Point NHS 1,552,141 21.8 1

Fort Matanzas NM 830,672 11.7 2

Fort Sumter NM 788,838 11.1 3

Fort Vancouver NHS 682,645 9.6 4

Castillo de San Marcos NM 632,048 8.9 5

Fort McHenry NM & HS 574,924 8.1 6

Fort Necessity NB 353,296 5.0 7

Fort Raleigh NHS 321,717 4.5 8

Fort Pulaski NM 317,349 4.5 9

Fort Frederica NM 264,586 3.7 10

Fort Caroline NMEM 250,616 3.5 11

Fort Donelson NB 233,205 3.3 12

Fort Smith NHS 83,850 1.2 13

Fort Stanwix NM 59,643 0.8 14

Fort Davis NHS 51,435 0.7 15

Fort Laramie NHS 40,263 0.6 16

Fort Larned NHS 30,471 0.4 17

Fort Scott NHS 22,314 0.3 18

Fort Union Trading Post NHS 12,405 0.2 19

Fort Union NM 10,534 0.1 20

Fort Bowie NHS 10,027 0.1 21

NPS Fort Total 7,122,979 100.0

3.2.2.b Resource threats and stressors: 

Visitor and recreation use is itself a threat and stressor to the natural resources of Fort Pulaski 

NM. With that said, visitor statistics do not indicate a sharp increase in recent years and this fort 

is visited at an average level compared with other forts managed by the National Park Service 

(Table 15). 

3.2.2.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

An examination of in-park degradation due to visitor use would be a good addition to these 

analyses. Trail spatial data would help to quantify the effects of visitor use on the natural 

resources. These data were not available (Table 15). 

3.1.2.d Condition status summary: 

Visitor use is in the good range for condition status because statistics do not indicate a sharp 

increase in visitors and this fort was visited at an average level compared with other forts 

managed by the National Park Service (Table 15). 

 

37 
Table 15. Visitor use condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data 

quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside 

park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). 

The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1). 

Category 

Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Visitor use total 

0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

3.2.2.e Recommendations to park managers: 

We recommend continuing to collect visitor use statistics and identify and monitor trends in 

recreation. Collecting additional visitor statistics and recreation use parameters, such as percent 

trail degradation, would be a useful addition to data and analysis. 

3.3 Air and Climate 3OHDVHVHHDGGHQGXPRQSDJH

3.3.1 Air Quality 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires monitoring of six pollutants 

considered harmful to human health and the environment. The six “criteria” pollutants are listed 

below (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008b). The first two are considered problematic 

in hundreds of counties across the U.S., and the last four are of concern only in a handful of 

locations at most. 

Ozone (O3) is "good up high but bad nearby." Ozone high in the atmosphere protects us from 

ultraviolet (UV) radiation, but ozone at ground level can negatively affect plant populations and 

can cause respiratory irritation when humans or animals breathe it. Symptoms include coughing, 

wheezing, breathing difficulties, inflammation of the airways, and aggravation of asthma. Ozone 

is not directly emitted; rather it is formed from reactions involving volatile organic compounds 

and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight. 

Particulate matter (PM) is subdivided into two categories by size: 

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) consists of particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers. For 

comparison, the average human hair is 70 micrometers in diameter. Fine particles can be inhaled 

deeply into the lungs and can cause respiratory irritation and, over the long term, are associated 

with elevated levels of cardiovascular disease and mortality. Particles also obscure visibility and 

affect global climate. Fine particles are generated by combustion; major sources include industry 

and motor vehicles. Such particles can also be formed in the atmosphere through reactions 

involving gases. 

Coarse particulate matter (PM10) consists of particles smaller than 10 micrometers. They may 

cause respiratory irritation. Coarse particles stem from grinding and other mechanical processes 

and include wind-blown dust. 

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) originates mostly from coal combustion and causes respiratory irritation. It 

also contributes to acid rain and particle formation. 

38 
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas that is formed during incomplete combustion 

of fuels. Its major sources include vehicles and fires. Exposure to high levels of carbon 

monoxide can cause dizziness, headaches, confusion, blurred vision, and ultimately coma and 

death. 

Lead (Pb) is a metal found in particles and can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney 

function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems, and the cardiovascular 

system. In children, it has been found to lower IQ. Lead originates mainly from the processing of 

metals in industry. 

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a brownish gas that is generated during high-temperature combustion. 

It is a member of a family of chemicals called nitrogen oxides, or NOx. Major sources of NOx

include coal-fired power plants, industrial boilers, and motor vehicles. Like ozone, it causes 

respiratory irritation. It is also important because it can react to form ozone and particles, 

contribute to acid rain, deposit into water bodies and upset the nutrient balance, and degrade 

visibility. 

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards are levels not to be exceeded for each pollutant 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008a). Air quality is summarized for the public in 

terms of the Air Quality Index (AQI, Table 16), a scale that runs from 0 to 500, where any 

number over 100 is considered to be unhealthy (AirNow 2008a). Based on measurements or 

predicted levels of pollutants, an AQI is calculated for each of the criteria pollutants, and the 

highest value is reported to the public. 

Table 16. The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a cross-agency U.S. Government venture whose 

purpose is to explain air quality health implications to the public. 

Air Quality Index 

Levels of Health Concern 

Numerical 

Value Meaning 

Good 0 – 50 Air quality is considered satisfactory, and air pollution 

poses little or no risk. 

Moderate 51 – 100 

Air quality is acceptable; however, for some pollutants 

there may be a moderate health concern for a very small 

number of people who are unusually sensitive to air 

pollution. 

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups 101 – 150 Members of sensitive groups may experience health 

effects. The general public is not likely to be affected. 

Unhealthy 151 – 200 

Everyone may begin to experience health effects; 

members of sensitive groups may experience more 

serious health effects. 

Very Unhealthy 201 – 300 Health alert: everyone may experience more serious 

health effects. 

Hazardous > 300 Health warnings of emergency conditions. The entire 

population is more likely to be affected.

 

39 
Environmental effects 

In addition to health, air pollution has also been shown to impact visibility, vegetation, surface 

waters, soils, and fish and wildlife at National Park Service sites in the Southeast Coast Network. 

In 2003, the National Park Service conducted an Air Quality Inventory and Monitoring 

Assessment of the Southeast Coast Network that reported on atmospheric deposition of 

compounds that can affect acidity, nutrient balances, and wildlife in surface waters; air toxics; 

surface water chemistry in the context of acidification due to atmospheric deposition; fine 

particulate matter and ozone; and ozone-sensitive plant species (National Park Service 2003). 

The report concluded that although only two of the seventeen parks have monitors on-site, 

existing monitors within ~100 miles are sufficiently representative. Only two parks, Congaree 

Swamp NM and Moores Creek NB, were deemed extremely sensitive to acidification from 

atmospheric deposition. Ozone concentrations were high enough in all parks to potentially cause 

plant damage. 

3.3.1.a Current condition: 

Monitoring sites: 

Georgia DNR's Environmental Protection Division operates five air quality monitoring sites in 

Chatham County, within ~25 km of Fort Pulaski NM. They measure O3, PM2.5, PM10, and SO2. 

Table 17 and Figure 18 show the air quality index in 2007 for each of the pollutants measured. 

Blank cells mean that the pollutant was not measured at the site. Additional details about the 

derivation of the values follow the table. 

Table 17. Air quality index in 2007 at monitoring sites near Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

Blank cells mean that the pollutant was not measured at the site 

Site ID Common name State County City Latitude Longitude O3 PM2.5 PM10 SO2 CO NO2

130510014 Shuman Middle 

School GA Chatham Savannah 32.06194 -81.06722 39 

130510017 Market St. GA Chatham Savannah 32.09278 -81.14417 86 

130510021 E. President St. GA Chatham Savannah 32.06905 -81.04895 74 0 

130510091 Mercer Middle GA Chatham Savannah 32.11058 -81.16202 73 

130511002 W. Lathrop & 

August Ave. GA Chatham Savannah 32.09028 -81.13056 0 

40 
Figure 18. Air quality monitoring sites near Fort Pulaski National Monument. Green indicates 

"Good" air quality, while yellow indicates "Moderate" air quality at these sites in 2007. 

There are multiple standards, over varying averaging periods, for some criteria pollutants. In 

some cases, the standard is based on the annual average while in others, it is based on a 

maximum (or 4th-highest or 98th percentile) in a year. Furthermore, some standards are based on 

averages over multiple years. The exact details are provided in the footnotes of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards table (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008a). For each 

of the pollutants, we selected the traditionally more problematic averaging period, extracted the 

relevant average or high concentration from the EPA's Air Quality System Data Mart (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 2008c), and converted it to an Air Quality Index value using 

the AQI calculator (AirNow 2008b). The values shown in Table 17 correspond to metrics 

described below. 

O3: 8-hour average, 4th highest in a year 

PM2.5: 24-hour average, 98th percentile in a year 

PM10: 24-hour average, maximum in a year 

SO2: 24-hour average, maximum in a year 

41 
Air quality trends: 

Trends in ozone and fine particulate matter, the only two pollutants for which violations of the 

national standards have occurred since the year 2000, are shown in Figure 19 and Figure 20. The 

figures show the number of times the national standard was violated in a year, known as 

"exceedances," on the left axis and an indicator of the highest concentration in a year on the right 

axis. The air quality standards are based on the 4th highest concentration in a year for ozone and 

the 98th percentile concentration for PM2.5. Ignoring the very highest concentration in a year 

allows for unusual events that may cause anomalies. 

The ozone measurements shown are from the E. President St. site. In recent years, ozone 

exceedances have occurred infrequently: twice in 2004 and once in 2006. The EPA standard for 

8-hour ozone is based on the 4th highest measurement in a year, and this metric has been 

decreasing slightly over time and now falls below the standard of 0.075 part per million (ppm). 

Figure 19. 8-hour average ozone (O3) exceedances for Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

The PM2.5 measurements shown are from the Mercer Middle site; measurements from the other 

site that measures this pollutant, Market St., are similar. PM2.5 exceedances occurred once in 

2001, twice in 2005, and once in 2007. The EPA standard for 24-hour PM2.5 is based on the 98th 

percentile of measurements in a year, and this metric has fluctuated between 25 and 39 

micrograms per cubic meter, compared to the standard of 35. 

42 
Figure 20. 24-hour average fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exceedances for Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. 

 

Air quality forecast: 

The location nearest Fort Pulaski NM with a daily air quality forecast is the Aiken-Augusta, 

SC/GA area, which is approximately 200 km to the northwest (AirNow 2008c). The AQI 

forecast is provided for both ozone (O3) (in the summer and fall only) and fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5). The Aiken-Augusta forecast is a reasonable indicator for Fort Pulaski NM, but because 

of the large distance between the two locations and their inland versus coastal settings, the 

forecast may not always apply to Fort Pulaski NM. 

3.3.1.b Resource threats and stressors: 

Threats to the monument's air quality include new point sources, such as power plants and large 

industrial facilities that are located upwind. Emissions from such sources can travel hundreds of 

kilometers and influence the monument's air quality. Additionally, development near the 

monument could lead to an increase in vehicle traffic and its associated emissions that could 

impact the monument's air quality. 

3.3.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

An air monitoring site on the monument's property would provide the best information about its 

air quality. Such sites are expensive to install and maintain; however, it is feasible that if a 

nearby monitoring site needs to be relocated, the state environmental agency might be willing to 

consider moving it to the monument. The spatial component of data quality received a 0 because 

the available data could be more local (Table 18). 

3.1.2.d Condition status summary: 

Fort Pulaski NM's air quality is typically in the good to moderate range, although it may 

occasionally be unhealthy for sensitive groups (Table 17 and Table 18). Like most of the U.S., 

the most problematic pollutants are ozone and fine particulate matter. As the figures above show, 

exceedances of the national standards occur 1 to 2 times per year for these two pollutants, and 

the high concentrations of ozone are close to violating the national standard. Air quality at Fort 

43 
Pulaski NM is mainly influenced by regional-scale pollution that affects the entire Southeastern 

U.S. 

Table 18. Air quality condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data 

quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside 

park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). 

The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1). 

Category 

Condition 

Status Midpoint

Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Air quality total 1 0 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

3.3.1.e Recommendations to park managers: 

Collaborative efforts are needed to tackle the region's air pollution. Park managers are urged to 

participate in and to promote regional-scale approaches to improve the area's air quality and 

visibility through the organizations listed in Table 19. 

Table 19. List of recommended air quality organizations to participate with and promote regional 

approaches. 

Organization Webpage 

1. Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the 

Southeast (VISTAS) 

http://www.vistas-sesarm.org/ 

2. EPA Region 4 http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/index.htm 

3. Georgia Department of Natural Resources - Environmental 

Protection Division - Air Protection Branch 

http://www.georgiaair.org/ 

4. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental 

Control - Bureau of Air Quality 

http://www.scdhec.net/environment/baq/ 

3.3.2 Climate 

Climate is the long-term pattern and processes of weather events for a given location. Climate is 

one of the most significant abiotic factors dictating biotic components anywhere on the Earth. 

There is much interest in climate recently, due to increasing temperatures and changing weather 

patterns across the globe (Blaustein et al. 2001, Walther et al. 2002, Corn 2005). Such changes 

have the potential to impact natural resources by shifting dominant vegetation communities, 

impacting animal species at the frontiers of their range, and impacting fundamental ecosystem 

processes. 

We included some basic assessments on the climate of the landscape around Fort Pulaski NM. 

This information can be used to provide some insight into potential direct and indirect impacts a 

changing climate might have on their natural resources. 

3.3.2.a Current condition: 

Climate is a complex amalgam of long-term weather events. Our assessment includes several of 

these factors examined over the long term (> 30 years). We attempted to narrow the suite of 

44 
factors down to those metrics where data was available and long-term trends were easily 

established. These include temperature, precipitation, available moisture, phenology through 

growing degree days, and extreme weather events (e.g., hurricanes) which act as agents of major 

landscape change and disturbance ecology. 

Temperature: 

We used data provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

National Climatic Data Center to assess temperature change for Fort Pulaski NM. Nearby 

Savannah, Georgia is one of the cities available for long-term climate information summaries 

provided through the NOAA (2008c) “Climate at a Glance” web information tool. This tool 

allows access to monthly, seasonal, and recent daily climate information including mean 

temperature. 

We used the “seasonal” option to examine annual temperature trends as well as seasonally for 

winter (December – February), spring (March – May), summer (June – August), and fall 

(September – November) seasons. The range of dates for which data were available was 1895 

through 2007. 

The mean annual temperature for Savannah, Georgia has increased approximately 0.20 degrees 

Fahrenheit per decade (mean = 64.95 °F) from 1895 to 2007 (Figure 21). This observed trend 

was similar for all four seasons (Figure 22 through Figure 25). The most potentially biologically 

significant increase was observed during the summer season with temperatures increasing one 

degree approximately every 30 years. 

45 
Figure 21. Mean annual temperature for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean annual 

temperature is 64.95 °F. The trend is 0.2 °F increase per decade. 

Figure 22. Mean temperature during winter for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean 

temperature was 50.24 °F. The trend is 0.10 °F increase per decade. 

46 
Figure 23. Spring temperature for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean temperature was 

64.52 °F. The trend is 0.19 °F increase per decade. 

Figure 24. The summer temperature for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean 

temperature was 78.91 °F. The trend is 0.30 °F increase per decade. 

47 
Figure 25. The fall temperature for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean temperature is 

66.22 °F. The trend is 0.20 °F increase per decade. 

Since the upland habitats at Fort Pulaski NM developed over a similar timeframe, the present 

vegetation communities may be more reflective of this increasing thermal condition more so than 

similar older, longer-standing vegetation communities. 

Precipitation: 

Similar analyses were conducted for precipitation using data collected at Savannah, GA. The 

annual precipitation at Savannah shows great variation through time and has a slight increasing 

trend of approximately 0.17 inches per decade (Figure 26) 

48 
Figure 26. Annual precipitation for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean annual 

precipitation is 48.26 inches with an increasing trend of 0.17 inches per decade. 

We also examined precipitation seasonally (as described in temperature above) for winter, 

spring, summer, and fall from 1895 to 2007 (Figure 27 through Figure 30). 

49 
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

Year

Inches

Figure 27. The winter precipitation for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean 

precipitation is 8.89 inches. The trend is 0.08 inches per decade. This figure was generated 

separately from the NOAA site but the data are from the same source as other figures below. 

Figure 28. The spring precipitation for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean precipitation 

is 9.89 inches. The trend is 0.15 inches per decade. 

50 
Figure 29. The summer precipitation for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean 

precipitation is 19.27 inches. The trend is -0.11 inches per decade. 

Figure 30. The fall precipitation for Savannah, GA from 1895 to 2007. The mean precipitation is 

10.13 inches. The trend is 0.06 inches per decade. 

51 
Overall, the trend for precipitation is increasing, but slightly. However, precipitation for the 

summer period is actually decreasing over time. The overall trend is significant given the 

observed increase in temperatures for the same seasonal period. Taken together, it is reasonable 

to assume that increasing temperatures and decreasing precipitation will result in a decrease in 

available water and an increase in drying. This may lead to more frequent or increasingly severe 

drought conditions that will impact biotic resources, particularly during extremes. 

Moisture: 

We also summarized information on drought severity using monthly data from NOAA for 

coastal Georgia from 1900 – 2007 (Figure 31). Drought severity was measured with the Palmer 

Drought Severity Index (PDSI, also as the Palmer Drought Index [PDI]). The PDSI attempts to 

measure the duration and intensity of the long-term drought-inducing circulation patterns. Longterm drought is cumulative, so the intensity of drought during the current month is dependent on 

the current weather patterns plus the cumulative patterns of previous months. 

The PDSI values reflect the severity of drought and are classified into several levels (Table 20). 

We used these classes for each monthly PDSI value from 1900 to 2007, then determined the 

proportion of months in each class for each 9-year period for ease of comparison (Figure 31). 

Table 20. Classification used for Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) values. 

PDSI Range Class Description 

-3 or less Severely Dry 

-2 to -3 Excessively Dry 

-1 to -2 Abnormally Dry 

-1 to 1 Slightly Dry/Favorably Moist 

1 to 2 Abnormally Wet 

2 to 3 Wet 

3 or greater Excessively Wet 

52 
Figure 31. PDSI value for Savannah, GA for 9-year periods from 1900 to 2007.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percentage of Months

Year

Excessively Wet

Wet

Abnormally Wet

Slightly Dry/ 

Favorably Moist

Abnormally Dry

Excessively Dry

Severely Dry

The data indicate a clear increase in the proportion of months classified as “excessively dry” or 

“severely dry” since 1971. The red and orange bands clearly increase in width relative to the 

classes at the wetter end of the scale after that period. It is also evident that drought severity has 

fluctuated greatly in the past. This supplies additional support to our observations that increasing 

temperature and decreasing precipitation may lead to increased instance of drought conditions. 

Phenology (growing degree days): 

Temperature and precipitation have seasonal variation. The patterns of seasonal variation in 

these abiotic factors impact the biological processes of all local biota. These cycles are reflected 

in the timing of migration, flowering, and the birth of young. The study of such cycles and 

seasonal timing is termed “phenology” and changes in these annual cycles can provide 

information regarding important issues like the length of the growing season. 

The best metric available for recording the passage of phenologic time are “growing degree 

days.” A growing degree day can vary depending on the reference temperature corresponding to 

the species or process of interest, but is most often defined as the total amount of time the 

temperature is above 40 °F. At this temperature, plants can photosynthesize, and typically this 

equates to growing season. 

We calculated the approximate number of growing degree days per month for Fort Pulaski NM 

by using monthly mean temperature data for weather collection stations in nearby Savannah, 

53 
Georgia. Monthly temperature was available from 1896 to 2008 and was used to calculate the 

monthly growing degree day total with a simple formula: 

GDD = (Tm – 40) Dm 

Where GDD = Growing degree days 

Tm = monthly mean temperature 

Dm = number of days in month 

The number of growing degrees days for each month were summed to determine the 

approximate number of growing degree days per year. These values were plotted against time 

(year) to illustrate the long-term trends in the numbers of growing degree days at Fort Pulaski 

NM (Figure 32). 

Figure 32. The total growing degree days per year for Savannah, GA from 1896 to 2008. The 

long term mean annual growing degree day total is 9146 (black line). The blue line indicates an 

increasing trend (R2

= 0.31) 

We observed an increase in the number of growing degree days that may indicate an increase in 

the growing season through time. To better illustrate this, we elected to examine the same data in 

terms of phenology. Much research has been completed equating phenological events to growing 

degree days (McMaster and Wilhelm 1997, University of Massachusetts Extension 2008, 

Virginia Tech FORSITE 2008). We attempted to put this in the context of a calendar year by 

selecting an arbitrary GDD threshold (1200 GDD) and estimating the date at which that number 

of growing degree days was achieved. This would be analogous to estimating the specific date a 

phenologic event was to occur (e.g., the blooming of dogwood trees). 

Since our source data is as monthly mean daily temperature, we calculated the total monthly 

accumulated GDD by multiplying the mean daily temperature by the number of days in the 

month. We then set a reference number of GDDs at 1200 to approximate a springtime 

54 
phenological event. Historically, this value was achieved during the month of either March or 

April. We used the total GDD accumulated for the year through March 31 (sum of January, 

February, and March) then calculated the difference from 1200. 

We estimated the number of days required to achieve the 1200 GDD by calculating the slope of 

the line for the appropriate month. If the difference was positive, we estimated the exact date 

where 1200 was achieved by determining the slope of the line between the total GDD for March 

and the total for April. If negative, the same procedure was used between February and March. 

This permitted us to use the most accurate daily rate in our estimation. 

Using this process we determined the calendar date that 1200 GDD was achieved for each year 

in the dataset and plotted it over time (Figure 33). 

y = -0.0391x + 39616

R2

 = 0.0127

2/22

3/3

3/13

3/23

4/2

4/12

4/22

5/2

1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

Year

Date

Figure 33. The approximate date when 1200 GDD has been reached for each year. The 

decreasing trend indicates that this date is arriving earlier each year (trend is 0.4 days per 

decade). 

This illustrates that the phenology of Fort Pulaski NM may be advancing which, in turn, may 

allow species found in warmer climates with longer growing seasons to expand into this area 

while perhaps limiting more northern species. However, the annual variation for this factor is 

high, making the correlation for this trend extremely weak (R2

 = 0.01). 

Extreme weather events: 

To observe extreme weather events and trends, we obtained historic storm tracks from NOAA’s 

Coastal Services Center (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2008b). We 

acquired storm data from 1851 to 2007, which was loaded into a GIS. We then selected all 

storms that occurred within 100 nautical miles (nm) of the Fort Pulaski NM park boundary to 

assess those storms which were most likely to have an impact on the ecosystems and processes 

associated with the park. 

55 
Each storm category is defined as a separate event, so we combined storms that occurred on 

successive days into one storm event and maintained the most severe storm rating assigned to 

any one of the storms. This was necessary to accurately and efficiently understand storm 

frequency and the impacts of extreme weather on Fort Pulaski NM and the surrounding areas. 

Additionally, it is worth noting that storms were not named until around 1950. In our assessment, 

we included storms rated as tropical depressions (TD), tropical storms (TS), and category 1 – 4 

hurricanes. There were no Category 5 hurricanes in the historical data that came within 100 nm 

of Fort Pulaski NM. 

Storms categorized as tropical depressions are those with maximum sustained winds of 38 mph 

or less. Tropical storms are those with maximum sustained winds of 39 to 73 mph (U.S. 

Department of Commerce 2001). The Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale (Table 21) rates and 

categorizes hurricanes on a scale of 1 through 5 based on wind speeds (Blake et al. 2007). A 

major hurricane is any storm categorized as 3, 4, or 5 on the Saffir/Simpson Scale. 

Table 21. Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale (Blake et al. 2007). 

 Typical Characteristics of Hurricanes by Category 

Scale Number 

(Category) 

Wind Speed 

(mph) Millibars Inches Surge (feet) Damage 

1 74 – 95 > 979 > 28.91 4 to 5 Minimal 

2 96 – 110 965 – 979 28.50 – 28.91 6 to 8 Moderate 

3 111 – 130 945 – 964 27.91 – 28.47 9 to 12 Extensive 

4 131 – 155 920 – 944 27.17 – 27.88 13 to 18 Extreme 

5 > 155 < 920 < 27.17 > 18 Catastrophic 

Upon analyzing the historic hurricane data, we were able to better understand the frequency and 

magnitude of extreme weather events affecting Fort Pulaski NM. We observed the data in terms 

of monthly occurrence as well as yearly occurrence. Figure 34 through Figure 36 illustrates 

various combinations of storm activity during the annual monthly cycles, while Figure 37

through Figure 39 illustrates various combinations of storm activity broken down decennially to 

adequately facilitate illustration and interpretation. 

The majority of all storm activity within 100 nautical miles of Fort Pulaski NM occurs later in 

the year, between the months of August and October, with September experiencing the most 

(Figure 34). When the storms are divided into groups designated as either major or minor, these 

findings remain constant. Breaking the storms into groups, however, illustrates that minor storms 

(TD, TS, or Cat 1 or 2 hurricanes) pose a greater threat to Fort Pulaski NM than do major storms 

(Figure 35). 

Dissecting the data further, we were able to illustrate the frequency of each storm category and 

the potential impacts on Fort Pulaski NM. According to the data, the monument is affected most 

by tropical storms, followed by Cat 1 hurricanes, both of which are relatively minor storm 

systems (Figure 36). 

The annual data, combined into ten-year blocks, permits the interpretation of historic storm 

trends and the potential for projecting future storm activity and potential impacts on Fort Pulaski 

56 
NM. When all storm categories are combined, the data show that storm activity is on a relative 

decline (Figure 37). The graphic also illustrates that although the trend is declining, storm 

activity peaks an average of every twenty years since the 1940 – 1949 decennial block. Based on 

these data alone, storm activity should peak in the 2000 – 2009 decennial block and continue the 

historic downward trend in the next decade. 

When the annual data is split into major and minor storms, it is evident that while Fort Pulaski 

NM is threatened more by minor storms than major storms, it is nevertheless experiencing a 

diminishing amount of storm activity (Figure 38). The graph illustrates that while minor storm 

activity is decreasing overall, Fort Pulaski NM has experienced a peak every twenty years since 

the 1940 – 1949 decennial block. According to the trends, minor storms should peak in the 2000 

– 2009 decennial block and continue to decline in the following decade. The data also suggests 

that Fort Pulaski NM may soon be due for a major storm event. The trends for major storm 

indicate that activity peaks every sixty years, with the last peak occurring in the 1950 – 1959 

decennial block. 

Splitting the annual data into its primary components permits the observation of each storm 

category and its trends since 1851 (Figure 39). Fort Pulaski NM has historically been affected 

most by Tropical Storms, followed by an alternating secondary influence from Tropical 

Depressions and Cat 1 hurricanes. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Number of Storms

Figure 34. Total number of all storms per month (1851 – 2007) occurring within 100 nautical 

miles of Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

57 
58 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Number of Storms

Major Storms (Cat 3-5)

Minor Storms (TD-Cat 2)

Figure 35. Total number of major and minor storms per month (1851 – 2007) occurring within 

100 nautical miles of Fort Pulaski National Monument. 
0

5

10152025

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 

Month

Number of Storms

TDTS1234

59

Figure 36. Total number of storms by category per month (1851 – 2007) occurring within 100 nautical miles of FMonument. Tropical depressions (TD) have 38 mph sustained wind speeds or less, tropical storms (TS) have 39 

speeds, and the remaining hurricane categories (1 – 4) are from Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale (Table 21). 
R2 = 0.0987

02468

101214

1850-

1859

1860-

1869

1870-

1879

1880-

1889

1890-

1899

1900-

1909

1910-

1919

1920-

1929

1930-

1939

1940-

1949

1950-

1959

1960-

1969

1970-

1979

1

1

Years

Number of Storms

60

Figure 37. Total number of all storms per decade (1851 – 2007) occurring within 100 nautical miles of Fort PulaMonument. 
0

2468

101214

1850-

1859

1860-

1869

1870-

1879

1880-

1889

1890-

1899

1900-

1909

1910-

1919

1920-

1929

1930-

1939

1940-

1949

1950-

1959

1960-

1969

1970-

1979

1

1

Years

Number of Storms

MaMin

61

Figure 38. Total number of major and minor storms per decade (1851 – 2007) occurring within 100 nautical mileNational Monument. 
Figure 39. Total number of storms by category per decade (1851 – 2007) occurring within 100 nautical miles of 

Monument. Tropical depressions (TD) have 38 mph sustained wind speeds or less, tropical storms (TS) have 39 speeds, and the remaining hurricane categories (1 – 4) are from Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale (Table 21). 

02468

1012

1850-

1859

1860-

1869

1870-

1879

1880-

1889

1890-

1899

1900-

1909

1910-

1919

1920-

1929

1930-

1939

1940-

1949

1950-

1959

1960-

1969

1970-

1979

1

1

Years

Number of Storms

62
3.3.2.b Resource threats and stressors: 

The threat of changing climate is real, and much research points to the high likelihood of broad 

ecological impacts as a result. How these changes will impact specific park resources is yet 

unknown, but they are likely to be comprehensive. That is not to say that those changes will be 

catastrophic. While specific biota or processes will be impacted, climate change may not result in 

extinctions or degradations. 

Perhaps the most important and immediate trend to consider is the increase in likelihood of drier 

summer periods and the impact this may have on the salt marsh. Particularly given the recent 

linkages identified with stressed salt marshes and susceptibility to the periwinkle (see threats and 

stressors section under 3.6 Biological Integrity). This could have an immediate impact on the salt 

marsh communities at Fort Pulaski NM. 

3.3.2.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

Data quality is relatively good for the climate categories. We gave spatial a zero because these 

data were not collected at Fort Pulaski NM itself, but it could be argued that these should receive 

a one (Table 22). All the data used for climate were taken from long-term datasets for nearby 

Savannah, Georgia. It is unlikely that the climate at Fort Pulaski NM varies much from this data, 

but without even the most basic climate variable information taken on-site, this remains a critical 

assumption. Since climate is the product of long-term weather variables, simply initiating 

weather data collection now will not yield useful information for some time unless it is used to 

calibrate the dataset available for Savannah. 

It would be advisable for the park to maintain basic phenological information. This could be used 

along with data gathered throughout the region to quantify the changing phenology over a 

reasonably short time frame. The park can easily identify specific events (e.g., the appearance of 

the first bloom) that should be monitored and recorded annually as part of other ongoing 

activities. 

Assigning condition status was a bit a challenge for this assessment category. Although we have 

tracked and displayed these data in a thorough manner, there are little historical or experimental 

outcomes to compare these climatic and extreme weather events to. Despite this, a status of fair 

seemed appropriate in all cases when the relative trends were analyzed (Table 22). 

3.1.2.d Condition status summary: 

Temperature is in the fair range for Fort Pulaski NM because of an increasing trend that was 

evident in the data (Table 22). The condition status was also fair for precipitation due to a 

decreasing summer trend (Table 22). Moisture’s condition status was fair because the increase in 

the proportion of months classified as “excessively dry” or “severely dry” since 1971 (Table 22). 

Phenology is in the fair range due to the observed increase in the number of growing degree days 

that may indicate an increase in the growing season through time (Table 22). The extreme 

weather events category also falls within fair condition status because based on historic trends, 

Fort Pulaski NM may soon be due for a major storm event (Table 22). 

 

63 
Table 22. Climate condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data quality 

was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside park 

boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The 

colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1). 

Category 

Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Temperature 

1 0 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Precipitation 

1 0 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Moisture 

1 0 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Phenology (GDD) 

1 0 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Extreme weather events 

1 1 1 

Fair 0.5 3 out of 3 

Climate total 

5 1 5 

Fair 0.50 11 out of 15 

3.3.2.e Recommendations to park managers: 

Simple measures to monitor the climate changes at Fort Pulaski NM should be considered. This 

does not require a comprehensive or expensive program, but simply a dedicated effort to raise 

awareness of the changes on the park as they occur. We recommend: 

- attention to the summer season temperature and precipitation to anticipate the threat of 

marsh stress and the potential for it contributing to salt marsh dieback. 

- participation in national and regional investigations into phenological changes. The US 

National Phenology Network (http://www.usanpn.org/) provides information and protocol 

for low-cost programs. 

3.4 Water 

3.4.1 Hydrology 

Hydrologic issues at Fort Pulaski NM are wide and varied. The unique interaction of coastal 

water processes in conjunction with the Savannah River estuary and arrangement of wetlands 

make for a complicated array of hydrologic function. We examined these first within the context 

of the wetlands through a National Wetlands Inventory assessment protocol (Tiner 2003a). In 

addition, there are several local hydrologic issues that are important to the park, including: 

Savannah port dredging; water diversions from upstream Savannah River dams; lighthouse base 

degradation from wave action; park entrance bridge piling replacement; altered salinity; and 

shoreline change that has been studied in-depth by Dr. Clark Alexander (2008) of the Skidaway 

Institute. 

64 
3.4.1.a Current condition: 

There are 5197 acres of wetlands at Fort Pulaski NM according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). NWI designed a straightforward way of assessing 

watershed function in a spatial context using available NWI classifications. The newer wetland 

landscape position, landform, water flow path, and waterbody type descriptors (LLWW) (Tiner 

2003b) are also needed to perform this correlation. There are ten functions that NWI has 

designed to evaluate wetlands. These are: 1) surface water detention, 2) coastal storm surge 

detention, 3) streamflow maintenance, 4) nutrient transformation, 5) sediment and other 

particulate retention, 6) shoreline stabilization, 7) provision of fish and shellfish habitat, 8) 

provision of waterfowl and waterbird habitat, 9) provision of other wildlife habitat, and 10) 

conservation of biodiversity. 

The criteria that were developed by Tiner (2003a) have been reviewed by wetland specialists 

working in Maryland, Delaware, New York, and Maine. These criteria may need to be modified 

slightly for Georgia, but we work under the assumption that these functional analyses will 

operate similarly for the Southeastern U.S. The first 6 functions are covered in this hydrology 

section. 

Surface water detention: 

The majority of Fort Pulaski NM wetlands are highly rated for surface water detention (Table 23, 

Figure 40). These wetland types have been shown to provide flood storage and reduce 

downstream floods and flood heights (Tiner 2003a). 

Table 23. Surface water detention correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification within 

Fort Pulaski NM. 

NWI Correlation Acres 

% of FOPU 

Wetlands 

High 5158.8 99.26

Moderate 2.7 0.05

Not Correlated/Poor 35.5 0.68

5197.0 100.00

65 
Figure 40. Surface water detention correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Fort Pulaski NM. 

Coastal storm surge detention: 

Table 24 and Figure 41 illustrate that Fort Pulaski NM wetlands are almost 85% capable of 

offering high levels of coastal storm surge detention. These are wetlands that will function as 

temporary water storage under the pressure of large storms such as hurricanes and tropical 

storms (Tiner 2003a). 

Table 24. Coastal storm surge detention correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Fort Pulaski NM. 

NWI Correlation Acres 

% of FOPU 

Wetlands 

High 4407.4 84.81

Not Correlated/Poor 789.6 15.19

5197.0 100.00

66 
Figure 41. Coastal storm surge detention correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Fort Pulaski NM. 

Streamflow maintenance: 

The coastal location of Fort Pulaski NM precludes it from offering much in the way of 

streamflow maintenance (Table 25, Figure 42). Headwater wetlands, far upstream from the 

monument operate to increase streamflow (Tiner 2003a). 

Table 25. Streamflow maintenance correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Fort Pulaski NM. 

NWI Correlation Acres 

% of FOPU 

Wetlands 

Not Correlated /Poor 5197.0 100

67 
Figure 42. Streamflow maintenance correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Fort Pulaski NM. 

Nutrient transformation: 

Nutrient transformation occurs most readily in permanently flooded wetlands whereas 

temporarily flooded wetlands have only moderate potential (Tiner 2003a). Nutrients increase the 

biological oxygen demand (BOD) and therefore lower DO concentrations in water and have 

consistently ranked as one of the top causes of water degradation in the U.S. (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 2008d). Sixty-six percent of the wetlands at Fort Pulaski NM 

are highly or moderately correlated with nutrient transformation (Table 26, Figure 43). The 

irregularly exposed wetlands and subtidal rivers/streams do not offer much in the way of nutrient 

transformation because they are continuously saturated and anaerobic. 

 

68 
Table 26. Nutrient transformation correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification within 

Fort Pulaski NM. 

NWI Correlation Acres 

% of FOPU 

Wetlands 

High 3417.5 65.76

Moderate 35.5 0.68

Not Correlated /Poor 1744.0 33.56

5197.0 100.00

Figure 43. Nutrient transformation correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Fort Pulaski NM. 

Sediment and other particulate retention: 

There is a high correlation of wetlands at Fort Pulaski NM (85%) with the retention of sediments 

and other particulates (Table 27, Figure 44). Water quality is supported through this wetland 

function (Tiner 2003a). Maintenance of healthy native vegetation is an important way to insure 

that sediment and particulate retention is maximized. 

 

69 
Table 27. Sediment and other particulate retention correlation to National Wetland Inventory 

classification within Fort Pulaski NM. 

NWI Correlation Acres 

% of FOPU 

Wetlands 

High 4407.4 84.81

Moderate 2.7 0.05

Not Correlated /Poor 786.9 15.14

5197.0 100.00

Figure 44. Sediment and other particulate retention correlation to National Wetland Inventory 

classification within Fort Pulaski NM. 

Shoreline stabilization: 

Shoreline stabilization is an important function for Fort Pulaski NM. Shoreline change has 

occurred at the monument and has been studied in depth. Wind waves, boat wakes, tides, and 

fluvial discharge from the Savannah River have contributed to the dynamic nature of the 

shoreline at Fort Pulaski NM (Alexander 2008). Dredging events of the Savannah River for 

channel deepening have occurred semi-regularly since 1929. Channel deepening may cause an 

increase in bank erosion leading to channel widening, as well as current velocity and tidal range 

increases (Barbe et al. 2000 and Cox et al. 2003 as cited in Alexander 2008). The north shoreline 

70 
of Fort Pulaski NM is closest to these dredging events and is thus more susceptible to their 

effects. 

Despite this, Alexander (2008) showed no direct relationship between shoreline erosion and river 

channel deepening from his analysis of historical aerial photography and field measurements 

(1905 – 2005). Part of the lack of correlation was explained from the early placement of dredge 

material on Cockspur Island’s north shore. It is also important to note that the eastern section of 

the north shore, closest to important cultural resources, has been eroding, with no accretion, for 

the past 40 years. The movement of the shell ridge/sandy overwash on the north shore has been 

projected to contact the culturally significant North Pier in less than a year from January 2008, 

leading to the contact of direct wave action on the pier between November 2009 and October 

2010 (Alexander 2008). This is assuming current conditions remain constant. 

NWI correlations (Tiner 2003a) show a relatively high level of shoreline stabilization 

functionality within all of the wetlands of Fort Pulaski NM (Table 28, Figure 45). However, in 

agreement with Alexander (2008), the immediate shoreline, composed of subtidal, 

unconsolidated bottom, shows no correlation to shoreline stabilization and is a major concern for 

Fort Pulaski NM. 

Table 28. Shoreline stabilization correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification within 

Fort Pulaski NM. 

NWI Correlation Acres 

% of FOPU 

Wetlands 

High 4407.4 84.81

Not Correlated /Poor 789.6 15.19

5197.0 100.00

71 
Figure 45. Shoreline stabilization correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification within 

Fort Pulaski NM. 

3.4.1.b Resource threats and stressors: 

Sea level rise and flooding are a real concern at Fort Pulaski NM. A recent study (Craft et al. 

2009) showed that salt marshes on the Georgia coast may decline in area by 20 to 40% due to 

predicted sea level rise in this century. Craft et al. (2009) also predicted that under a mean 

scenario, tidal freshwater marshes will increase by 2% and under a maximum scenario they will 

decline by 39%. The mean scenario assumes a 52-cm (1.7-foot) increase in sea level, resulting in 

an overall loss of 184 km2

 of Georgia tidal marsh. 

We examined the effect of a 2-foot and 4-foot storm surge or sea-level rise on the land area of 

Fort Pulaski NM (Figure 46). In a 2-foot surge, the area of water increased from 777 to 3235 

acres, or 14% to 58% of Fort Pulaski NM area. In a 4-foot surge, the area of water increased to 

4316 acres, or 78% of Fort Pulaski NM under water. The Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (2008) also shows Fort Pulaski NM under a hazardous flood area (Figure 47). 

The Ports Authority of Georgia and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are working to expand the 

Savannah Harbor to accommodate larger vessels. The project is currently in a post authorization 

planning, engineering, and design phase. Potential environmental consequences for the Savannah 

72 
River include beach and bank erosion resulting from container ship wake, contamination 

resulting from dredge spoils, and loss of marsh habitat. The Savannah Harbor Expansion website 

(http://sav-harbor.com/) provides current information about the project and provides links to 

relevant materials. 

Other threats and stressors include the proposed Highway 80 expansion and its impact on 

wetlands. Park entrance bridge pilings are also in need of replacement since they date from 1934 

and are deteriorating. Another concern is the lighthouse platform degradation. Alexander (2008) 

found that the platform was generally shifting to the west and thinning on the east bank. He 

recommends strengthening the northeast and east sides of the lighthouse base. 

73 
74 

Figure 46. Digital elevation model (DEM) of Fort Pulaski National Monument region showing 

mean sea level, and approximate two foot, and four foot storm surge. 
75

This Map Is For Advisory Purposes Only Figure 47. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 2008) flood maps for the Fort Pulaski National Moshowing all areas are under flood hazard.
3.4.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

Data quality is relatively good for this assessment category (Table 29). Local-scale wetland and 

hydrology analysis, specific to Fort Pulaski NM, would add detail to this assessment. When 

spatial scale was questionable, we gave thematic a zero for data quality. Salt water intrusion and 

ground water monitoring would be good quanitative data sources to collect for future hydrologic 

assessments. 

3.1.2.d Condition status summary: 

Surface water detention, coastal storm surge detention, and sediment and other particulate 

retention are all in the good range because the majority of Fort Pulaski NM wetlands were highly 

rated for these assessment categories (Table 29). Sixty-six percent of the wetlands are highly or 

moderately correlated with nutrient transformation, 34% are not correlated, thus giving this 

category a fair condition status (Table 29). The majority of Fort Pulaski NM wetlands are highly 

rated for shoreline stabilization. However, in agreement with Alexander (2008), the immediate 

shoreline, composed of subtidal, unconsolidated bottom, shows no correlation to shoreline 

stabilization and is a major concern. Consequently, shoreline stabilization is in the fair range for 

condition status (Table 29). In addition, the monument wetlands do not offer much in the way of 

streamflow maintenance because of its coastal location. Headwater wetlands, far upstream from 

the Fort Pulaski NM operate to increase streamflow so this category is not applicable (Table 29). 

Table 29. Hydrology condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data 

quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside 

park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). 

The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1). 

Category 

Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Surface water detention 0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Coastal storm surge 

detention 

0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Streamflow maintenance 

0 1 1 

N/A -- 2 out of 3 

Nutrient transformation 

0 1 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Sediment and other 

particulate retention 

0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Shoreline stabilization 

1 1 1 

Fair 0.5 3 out of 3 

Hydrology total 

1 6 6 

Good 0.70 13 out of 18 

3.4.1.e Recommendations to park managers: 

Controlling erosion on the north shoreline of Cockspur Island is a major priority. We also 

recommend avoiding excavation in the tidal marshes as well as filling and building on the tidal 

marsh soils. An additional proactive step would be to work with the Ports Authority of Georgia 

76 
and Georgia Department of Transportation to minimize the effects of the Savannah Harbor 

dredging and Highway 80 expansion. 

3.4.2 Water Quality 

Fort Pulaski NM is located at the mouth of the Savannah estuary, approximately 13 miles 

downstream of Savannah, Georgia (Figure 48). The 5,623-acre monument is composed of a 

series of small islands surrounded by tidally-influenced rivers and channels. According to 

national coastal land cover data (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2008a), Fort 

Pulaski NM water resources include 3,745 acres of wetland and 1,424 acres of open water. 

Because the Savannah basin drains over 9,850 sq mi (25,511 km2) of land, managers have little 

control over water quality within the monument boundaries(Cooney et al. 2005). 

In 2005, McFarlin and Alber completed a comprehensive water resource assessment of Fort 

Pulaski NM for the Water Resources Division of the National Park Service. The 187 page 

technical report (NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2005/345) provides a thorough treatment of the water 

resources at and near Fort Pulaski NM, including background information, research methods, 

descriptions of pollutants and sources, and recommendations. In contrast to McFarlin and Alber 

(2005), this assessment provides a concise picture of the conditions and threats of the water 

resources at Fort Pulaski NM and is written for the non-expert resource manager. This section, in 

essence, is a summary of the information provided in McFarlin and Alber (2005) and McFarlin 

and Alber (2007), and their efforts are recognized. Readers wishing to learn more about the 

water resources and watershed conditions at Fort Pulaski NM are referred to those documents. 

77 
Figure 48. Water resources and hydrologic units surrounding Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

3.4.2.a Current condition: 

Dissolved oxygen (DO): 

Dissolved oxygen is a relative measure of volume of oxygen, O2, dissolved in water, and is often 

measured in mg/l. It is considered relative because temperature, pressure, and salinity, affect the 

capacity of water to hold oxygen. Both high (i.e. supersaturation) and low DO concentrations can 

be harmful in aquatic systems, though low DO concentrations are more common. Low DO 

concentrations may result from excess organic matter in aquatic systems, as aerobic (oxygenconsuming) decomposition breaks down organic material. Low dissolved oxygen levels are most 

78 
prevalent during the warm summer months when water temperatures rise and mixing of the 

water column is reduced. 

McFarlin and Albers (2007) analyzed DO measurements taken from two distinct monitoring 

programs: the GA CRD Shellfish Monitoring Program and the NCA program (collected by GA 

CRD). In surface samples collected at four locations near Fort Pulaski NM as part of the 

Shellfish program, DO concentrations ranged from 2.7 to 10.7 mg/l and averaged 5.8 +-1.7 mg/l. 

These measurements were taken midday—and thus do not represent daily minimums—between 

March 2000 and April 2004. Thirty-one of 196 observations (16%) were below the GA EPD 

Recreational Water Quality Standard of 4 mg/l. Distinct seasonal variation occurred in DO 

concentrations with summertime minima and wintertime maxima; all observations of low DO 

occurred between May and October. 

Data collected by GA CRD for the NCA program sampled the entire water column during 

August or September, when DO minima often occur, during 2000, 2002, and 2003. McFarlin and 

Albers (2007) analyzed these data and determined that DO concentrations ranged from 3.32 to 

5.23 mg/l and averaged 4.38 +- 0.57; samples collected near bottom averaged 4.03 +- 0.62. 

McFarlin and Albers (2005) considered DO levels near Fort Pulaski NM (estuary frontage and 

tidal creeks), to be a potential problem based on observations of low levels in the tidal creeks and 

the fact that all 21 samples below 2 meters within the Savannah harbor were less than the GA 

EPD Recreational Water Quality Standard of 4 mg/l. Georgia water quality standards are 

presented in Table 30. Dissolved oxygen elsewhere in the estuary was considered an existing 

problem, primarily based upon observations in the Savannah Harbor. The low DO concentrations 

observed were likely due to discharges of organic matter and/or nutrients associated with 

upstream industrial activity (McFarlin and Albers, 2007). 

Because algae blooms have occurred in the freshwater moat that surrounds the fort and two small 

ponds, DO was classified as a potential problem in these areas. 

 

79 
Table 30. Georgia water quality standards. 

Use Classification Bacteria (fecal coliform) Dissolved Oxygen, DO pH Temp 

Drinking Water 

May – Oct < 200 colonies/100 ml as 

geometric mean; Nov – Apr <4000 

colonies/100 ml (instantaneous max) 

>5 mg/l daily average; 

Not <4 mg/l at all times 

Between 

6.0 and 

8.5 

< 90 F 

Recreation Coastal waters: 100 colonies/100 ml; 

Other: 200 colonies/100 ml 

>5 mg/l daily average; 

Not <4 mg/l at all times 

Between 

6.0 and 

8.6 

< 90 F 

Fishing 

May – Oct < 500 colonies/100 ml as 

geometric mean; Nov – Apr <4000 

colonies/100 ml (instantaneous max) 

>5 mg/l daily average; 

Not <4 mg/l at all times 

Between 

6.0 and 

8.7 

< 90 F 

Coastal Fishing 

May – Oct < 500 colonies/100ml as 

geometric mean; Nov – Apr <4000 

colonies/100 ml (instantaneous max) 

Site Specific 

Between 

6.0 and 

8.8 

< 90 F 

Wild River 

No Alteration of natural WQ Scenic River 

Georgia has no nutrient standards, except on a few lakes. 

Nutrients: 

According to the U.S. EPA, nutrient pollution, especially from nitrogen and phosphorus, has 

consistently ranked as one of the top causes of water degradation in the U.S. (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 2008d). Nutrients increase the biological oxygen demand 

(BOD) and therefore lower DO concentrations in water. This process occurs because nutrients 

stimulate the growth of algae and other aquatic plants, which eventually die. Once dead, this 

organic material is decomposed by oxygen-consuming processes, resulting in low DO. Nutrients 

often enter aquatic systems from agricultural runoff, storm water runoff, waste-water treatment 

plants, and septic systems (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008e). 

McFarlin and Albers (2007) analyzed nutrient measurements collected by several 

agencies/programs near Fort Pulaski NM, including GA CRD, GA Rivers LMER, NCA, and 

USGS. Since Georgia has not developed water quality standards for nutrients, we follow 

McFarlin and Albers (2007), and use the standards presented in the National Coastal Condition 

Report II (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2005) to classify samples as ”good,” “fair,” or 

“poor,” based upon their nutrient concentrations. These standards are presented in Table 31. 

Table 31. Standards for nutrient concentrations as developed for the National Coastal Condition 

Report II (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2005). DIN refers to total dissolved inorganic 

nitrogen. DIP refers to total dissolved inorganic phosphorous. 

Good Fair Poor 

DIN < 0.1 mg N/l 0.1 – 0.5 mg N/l > 0.5 mg N/l 

DIP < 0.01 mg P/l 0.01 – 0.05 mg P/l > 0.05 mg P/l 

 

Using the criteria, McFarlin and Albers (2007) concluded that 51% of the 167 DIN observations 

near Fort Pulaski NM were considered good, 49% were fair, and none were poor. Likewise, 4% 

of the 163 DIP samples were good, while 77% were fair, and 19% were poor. 

80 
Based upon their analysis, McFarlin and Albers (2007) suggest that nutrient concentrations near 

Fort Pulaski NM (FOPU estuary frontage and FOPU tidal creeks) are an existing problem. 

Because algae blooms have occurred in the freshwater moat that surrounds the fort and two small 

ponds, nutrients are classified as a potential problem in these areas. 

Bacterial contamination (fecal coliform): 

Fecal coliform bacteria contamination is the most common form of bacterial contamination in 

many water bodies. Its presence in aquatic environments is a human health hazard and may 

indicate the presence of other dangerous pathogens as well. Fecal coliform bacteria often enter 

waterways through the direct discharge of untreated (or insufficiently treated) human waste and 

agricultural and municipal runoff. 

 

As reported by McFarlin and Albers (2007), fecal coliform measurements taken from 1991 to 

2004 at four CRD shellfish stations near Fort Pulaski NM on Oyster Creek were generally low. 

In an analysis of data obtained at these stations, they found that only 9 of 584 monthly samples 

collected were above the GA criterion for recreational coastal water (100 CFU/100ml). More 

recent measurements, from 2002 to 2006, seem to indicate an improving trend; these samples 

measured less than 5 CFU/100 ml. 

Data collected upstream of the monument in the lower Savannah River basin revealed that 64% 

of samples (769 of 2,245 observations) exceeded EPA standards for bathing water (McFarlin and 

Albers, 2005). 

There is insufficient data to assess the condition of the freshwater moat and ponds at Fort Pulaski 

NM with respect to bacterial contamination. 

Based on these findings, bacterial contamination does not seem to be a problem in the Savannah 

Estuary near Fort Pulaski NM. There is, however, an existing bacterial contamination problem 

elsewhere within the watershed. 

Contaminants: 

Contaminants are substances such as metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides. These substances enter waterways through 

storm water runoff, industrial discharges, agricultural runoff, sewage treatment and atmospheric 

deposition. Once present in aquatic systems, they may concentrate in sediment and bottomdwelling organisms. Many of these substances pose a risk to human health and aquatic systems. 

McFarlin and Albers (2007) reviewed contaminant data (GPA 1998) as part of their water 

resources and watershed assessment for Fort Pulaski NM. They concluded that contaminants 

near Fort Pulaski NM are a persistent problem. Water above and below the monument exceeded 

GA Water Quality Standards for copper (>2.9 mg/L) and nickel (>8.3 mg/L), and elevated levels 

of ammonia (max. 34,000 μg/L), manganese (max. 2,130 mg/L) and arsenic (~6.6 μg/L) were 

found. The concentrations reported for ammonia and manganese have been shown to cause toxic 

effects in marine organisms. 

81 
Other studies identified elevated contaminant levels near Fort Pulaski NM as well. As reported 

by McFarlin and Albers (2007), the EMAP and NCA programs collectively identified 47 

contaminants in shrimp tissue. While none of these were above FDA guidelines, arsenic and 

PAHs were elevated under EPA Risk Guidelines. Loganathan et al. (2001) reported PCBs in fish 

tissue and DDT (2.11 ppb) in North Channel sediments above ERL values. Elevated 

concentrations of arsenic and PAH’s in oyster tissue was observed by Richardson and Sajwan 

(2001, 2002). 

Given these data, contaminants in the water near Fort Pulaski NM (estuary frontage and tidal 

creeks) are an existing problem. McFarlin and Albers (2005) concluded that toxic contaminants 

are a potential problem elsewhere in the estuary due to elevated concentrations of cadmium, 

copper, chromium, and arsenic in harbor sediments. 

The EPA's compilation of national recommended water quality criteria that includes 

contaminants is available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable. 

3.4.2.b Resource threats and stressors: 

Threats and stressors to the water resources near Fort Pulaski NM are numerous. Water quality at 

Fort Pulaski NM is largely influenced by external factors, including point and nonpoint sources 

that originate beyond the monument boundaries. Point-source pollution originates from a single 

point or location, such as wastewater treatment plants and industrial outflows. Within the 

Savannah River watershed, there are numerous point sources of pollutants. For a current list of 

EPA approved discharge sites visit the EPA’s Envirofacts Warehouse, 

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index.html. 

Nonpoint-source pollution is any contaminant that that does not originate from a point source. In 

the Savannah River watershed nonpoint sources include urban (i.e. storm water runoff) and 

agricultural runoff. Runoff often contains the same pollutants as point source discharges. 

However, since nonpoint sources of pollution do not come from any specific location, they are 

typically harder to control and pose more complex management challenges. 

As reported in the hydrology section of this report (3.4.1.b Resource threats and stressors:), the 

Savannah Harbor expansion project is underway. There are numerous potential environmental 

consequences to this project (http://sav-harbor.com/). An existing dredge disposal site is located 

near the monument. This site is known to contain arsenic and other heavy metals (Winger et al. 

2000). 

Several industrial facilities upstream of Fort Pulaski NM are known to release contaminants into 

the groundwater or air (Figure 49). The Georgia Department of Natural Resources provides an 

inventory of hazardous sites within the state. Sites can be identified by name or location. This 

resource is available at 

http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/hazsiteinv.htmlhttp://www.gaepd.org/Documents/hazsiteinv.ht

ml. 

82 
Figure 49. Hazardous sites in Chatham County, surrounding Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

These sites are recorded by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) and have 

released or are suspected to have released a regulated substance without a state sanctioned cleanup procedure. 

3.4.2.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

The freshwater moat and ponds at Fort Pulaski NM need additional data taken to accurately 

assess their condition. There have been ongoing problems with algal blooms and a fish kill in the 

moat surrounding the fortification, so prioritizing data collection for this area is advised. Water 

quality monitoring at regular stations and intervals around Fort Pulaski NM is also missing. 

3.1.2.d Condition status summary: 

Table 32 summarizes the potential for water quality impairment by resource and indicator. Each 

of the four indicators is considered an existing problem within one or more water resources at or 

near the monument. In nearly all cases, if a problem does not currently exist, the potential for 

impairment exists. McFarlin and Albers (2005) described the rationale for each of the 

assignments in Table 32. 

83 
Table 32. Potential for impairment of Fort Pulaski National Monument water resources. Adapted 

from McFarlin and Albers (2005). 

Indicator Savannah 

River 

Estuary 

FOPU 

Estuary 

Frontage 

FOPU Tidal 

Creeks 

FOPU 

Fresh Water 

Dissolved oxygen EP PP PP PP 

Nutrients ND EP EP PP 

Fecal coliform bacteria EP OK OK ND 

Contaminants PP EP EP NA 

OK = low or no problem; NA = not applicable; ND = insufficient data; PP = potential problem; 

EP = existing problem 

McFarlin and Albers (2005) considered dissolved oxygen levels near Fort Pulaski NM to be a 

potential problem so dissolved oxygen has a fair condition status rating (Table 33). Based upon 

established criteria, nutrient concentrations near the monument are an existing problem, so the 

nutrients category is in the poor range (Table 33). Fecal coliform bacteria is rated good for 

condition status because these measurements were generally low with an improving trend 

(McFarlin and Albers 2005, Table 33). In addition, the contaminants category is in the poor 

range because McFarlin and Albers (2005) showed them to be an existing problem due to 

elevated levels (Table 33). 

Table 33. Water quality condition status summary within Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data 

quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside 

park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). 

The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1). 

Category 

Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Dissolved oxygen 

1 0 0 

Fair 0.5 1 out of 3 

Nutrients 

1 0 0 

Poor 0.17 1 out of 3 

Fecal coliform bacteria 

1 0 0 

Good 0.84 1 out of 3 

Contaminants 

1 0 0 

Poor 0.17 1 out of 3 

Water quality total 4 0 0 

Fair 0.42 4 out of 12 

3.3.2.e Recommendations to park managers: 

McFarlin and Albers (2005) made several recommendations. We highlight the water quality 

specific recommendations in Table 34. 

84 
Table 34. Recommendations to improve water quality and monitoring at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument from McFarlin and Albers (2005). 

1. Work towards improved regional cooperation 

2. Initiate regular water quality monitoring at Fort Pulaski NM 

3. Collect additional water quality information 

4. Set up targeted monitoring for Harbor expansion and other modifications 

5. Improve access to state and federal water quality data and improved metadata 

3.5 Geology and Soils 

3.5.1 Geology and Soils 

As outlined in the park and resources section of this report, the Coastal Plain region is composed 

of un-deformed sedimentary rock layers whose ages range from the Late Cretaceous to the 

present Holocene sediments of the coast. Sediment from the upper Piedmont region eroded into 

the Coastal Plain over the past 100 million years. Beneath Coastal Plain sediments are harder 

igneous and metamorphic rocks, such as those found in the Piedmont. Usually referred to as the 

"basement rocks," these hard rocks occur at greater and greater depths toward the south and east, 

reaching depths of up to 10,000 feet or more beneath the modern Georgia coast (Frazier 2007). 

In addition to recent alluvium, organic and marine deposits make up most of the sediment found 

in the Coastal Plain (UGA Department of Geology 2008). Specifically, the coastal region near 

Fort Pulaski is a Holocene-aged deposit of organic, marine, and alluvial origin with some 

human-dredged sediment deposited along the Savannah River and coastline. 

3.5.1.a Current condition: 

We compared a 1911 soil survey (Table 35, Figure 50) to the current soil data from the Soil 

Survey Geographic Data Base (SSURGO, Table 36, Figure 51) to see if changes had occurred 

(USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service 2006). Current SSURGO data were compiled by 

the National Park Service. These soil data have a version date of December 21, 2006 and are 

available in GIS and database format (National Park Service 2006). The 1911 soil survey by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture was obtained from an on-line collection at University of 

Alabama (USDA Bureau of Soils 1911). The 1911 soil data were aligned to digital raster 

graphics (DRG, 1:24,000 topographic maps), using the georeferencing tools in ArcGIS (ESRI 

2006). We surveyed four DRG, 1:24,000 topographic maps that made up Fort Pulaski NM or 

were in close proximity to the boundary. These were all published in 1978 and included Fort 

Pulaski, Savannah, Tybee Island N, and Wassaw Sound. Published data was also used along with 

photo interpretation to assess both current soil resources and changes. 

The “Georgetown clay” making up about 10% of the area in the 1911 survey is an upland soil 

type from Central Texas that forms over limestone. The soil survey program was near its 

inception in 1911 and the Georgetown series as now identified does not occur on Cockspur 

Island. There is no limestone in the entire region (Frazier 2007). If there was a clay surfacetextured soil found in the area that was not tidally influenced, it was probably a Savannah River 

terrace deposit or a recent marine terrace remnant, since the adjacent Intracoastal Waterway seen 

in the 2006 soil survey does not appear in the 1911 survey (Figure 50 and Figure 51). The 

absence of the nontidal upland area near the Intracoastal Waterway in the 2006 survey may be 

due to slow (about 12 inches per century) sea-level rise and expansion of the tidal marsh (Frazier 

85 
2007), or just archaic or inaccurate mapping in 1911. The Transquaking soil type identified on 

about 90% of the area in the 1911 survey is an organic soil from the upper East Coast in 

Maryland and is also not representative of the soils in the area. The Bohicket soil used and 

associated capers soils in the 2006 soil survey provide a better description of the soil resources. 

Bohicket and Capers do not have thick organic sediment at the surface. Overall, the difference in 

soils between 1911 and 2006 reflect updated versions of the soil series concepts and soil survey 

accuracy, along with additions of dredged spoils and some human alteration of soils through 

landscaping and development of roads and buildings. 

The Intracoastal Waterway cut-through was added on the northwestern end of McQueens Island 

after 1911 (Figure 50 and Figure 51), and is probably the source of the dredged material that now 

makes up the adjacent tree and shrub-covered areas. Figure 52, from Google Maps (2008), 

provides a close-up view. The close-up shows possible shoreline erosion along the Waterway 

caused by wakes of passing ships through the narrow channel. It also appears that Long Island 

and Cockspur Island were already joined in 1911 (Figure 50). 

 

86 
Table 35. Historical soil survey (USDA Bureau of Soils 1911) classification and approximate 

percent of total acreage for Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

Soil 

Code 

Classification 

Name Description 

Extent w/in 

FOPU 

Gc Georgetown 

clay 

The Georgetown series consists of moderately deep, well drained, 

slowly permeable soils that have formed over indurated limestone 

of Cretaceous age. These soils are on nearly level to very gently 

sloping uplands. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent.(1)

≈ 10% 

Tm Tidal marsh The Transquaking series consists of very deep, very poorly drained 

soils flooded by tidal waters. Permeability is rapid in the organic 

deposits and slow in the mineral material. Parent material consists 

of organic deposits underlain by loamy mineral sediments. These 

soils are on coastal plains in brackish estuarine marshes along 

tidally influenced rivers and creeks with slopes ranging from 0 to 1 

percent. (Transquaking soils were previously mapped as Tidal 

Marsh, miscellaneous area. These soils become ultra acid when 

drained).(2)

≈ 90% 

(1) http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/G/GEORGETOWN.html

(2) http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/T/TRANSQUAKING.html

Figure 50. Extent of historical soil survey (USDA Bureau of Soils 1911) at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. 

87 
Table 36. Current soil survey (National Park Service 2006) classification, acreages, and percent 

of total acreage for Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

Map Symbol Map Unit Name Description 

FOPU 

Acres 

FOPU 

% 

Tml Tidal marsh, salty (Bohicket, flooded) 3

 – Very deep, very poorly 

drained soil on broad level tidal flats. Mostly clayey 

throughout. Flooded twice daily by sea water and 

continuously saturated. Permeability very slow and 

available water capacity is very low. Bohicket soils 

are on broad level tidal flats bordering the Atlantic 

Ocean; less than 3 feet above mean sea level and 

extending 5 to 15 miles inland along some of the 

larger rivers. The soils are too soft (supersaturated 

with seawater) to support the weight of large grazing 

animals. Closely associated soils that may be found in 

this map unit are the Capers soils4

 that are not as soft 

and can support more weight for roads and trails. 

4514 81.5

W Water Water 656 11.8

Mae Made land Variable textured material, sandy to clayey. Exposed 

to extreme altering of the original soil by cutting, 

filling, removing, dredging, dumping, or reshaping. 

Permeability, particle-size and available water 

capacity vary widely among sites. These land areas 

cannot be classified to existing series but probably 

were a mixture of Chipley(5), Foxworth(6), and 

Rutledge(7) soils before human alteration, with 

possible additions of sandy spoil from dredging. 

369 6.7

Total 5539 100

(3)

 http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/B/BOHICKET.html 

(4) http:// www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/C/CAPERS.html 

(5) http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/C/CHIPLEY.html 

(5) http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/F/FOXWORTH.html 

(7) http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/R/RUTLEGE.html

88 
Figure 51. Extent of current soil survey (National Park Service 2006) at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. 

Cockspur Island has been primarily human-constructed or modified with a system of dikes and 

drainage canals. Dredging in the Savannah River made up the spoil deposition which began with 

the fort construction (National Park Service 1995). Cockspur and Long Island to the northwest 

were combined into one island from sediment deposition after jetties were built and the 

placement of dredge materials during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Due to these human 

activities, Cockspur, once mostly tidal marsh, is now 43 % upland (Meader 2003). 

Only 5% of McQueens Island is upland with the remainder in native tidal salt marsh. These 

upland areas were filled for the development of U.S. Highway 80 and a railroad right of way that 

is now a pedestrian and bike trail. The dredged deposits are identified as “made land” and shown 

in Figure 51. Other tree-covered dredged deposits, not identified in Figure 51 as ”made land,” 

can be seen in recent aerial photos on the extreme eastern edge of McQueens Island on either 

side of Hwy. 80. Land maps, circa 1862, show the only dry land on Cockspur and McQueens 

Island as the area inside the dikes of the fort (National Park Service 1995). Several reports 

(National Park Service 1995, Meader 2003, National Park Service 2007) document close to 

5,000 acres of Fort Pulaski NM as salt marsh. 

89 
Spoil areas were identified on the Fort Pulaski topographic quad. They were mapped on the 

edges of the Savannah River dredged channel and within 150 meters of the north side of 

Cockspur Island. It was also noted by Meader (2003) that Oyster Bed Island, just to the north of 

Cockspur, is a common dredge deposition site. 

Aerial photos from Google Maps (Google 2008) indicate that the spoil piles from the waterway 

dredging of the tidal marsh have re-vegetated and many are now covered with scrub-shrub and 

forest trees. The healthy vegetation on the dredged spoil piles indicates that the soils must have 

been leached of sulfates since their deposition and the pH equilibrated. There is an indication of 

bare soils from acid-sulfates or very high salinity on fringes of some spoil piles and at the edge 

of the tidal marshes. There is also bare soil along the southern fringe of the made land deposits 

on Cockspur Island west of the fort. The source of the made land sediment on other areas not 

next to the Waterway and on Cockspur Island is unclear, but the soil is sandy surfaced and is 

now supporting trees and shrubs. It was, therefore, probably a sandier channel bottom sediment 

and not a highly sulfide-bearing clayey material dredged from the tidal marsh areas. There is a 

strong possibility that the original fort was built on a remnant of a Holocene barrier island 

deposit or a low terrace of the Savannah River on Cockspur Island, later expanded and thickened 

by addition of sandy dredged materials to form ”made land.” Rounded mounds of soil appear to 

match the dredged deposit landforms on other parts of nearby islands. The location of Cockspur 

Island lines up with mapped barrier island deposits shown in Figure 56 (Seabrook 2006), and is 

visible as large vegetated areas on close-up views of nearby islands (Figure 57). It would make 

sense that the soil under the fort was an upland area before the fort was built, because the tidal 

marsh soil would not have supported the weight of the buildings and would not have afforded 

protection from flooding and a view required for a fort location. The remainder of the “made 

land” is probably dredged material, and some material may have been added to raise the 

elevation of the fort. However, most of the “made land” is so low in elevation (< 3 feet) that it is 

almost certainly imperfectly drained. The “made land” is probably like the Chipley, Foxworth, 

and Rutledge soils (Table 36). These soils are sandy and differ mainly by depth to the water 

table. Bare sand is seen on the extreme eastern edge and northern shore of Cockspur Island at the 

edge of the made land deposit, indicating erosion from wave action or exposure during low tide. 

The waves are probably a combination of wakes from ships passing through the 36 foot deep 

Savannah River Channel, deepened in 1976, and waves from storm events. 

Clayey tidal marsh soils such as Bohicket and the associated Capers soils contain reduced 

sulfides and are called cat clays because of the formation of a gray and yellow pattern when they 

are exposed to oxygen by dredging or ditching. The gray is the background color of the 

subaqueous, reduced soil and the yellow mottles are iron-sulfates (jarosite) formed by oxidation 

and precipitation of sulfides in the exposed sediment. The formation of jarosite leads to release 

of sulfuric acid and thus lowers the pH to levels too low to support native vegetation, until the 

soil pH is raised through additions of calcium or leaching of sulfates. A full description and lab 

data for the soil series can be found in Appendix C. 

 

90 
Figure 52. This aerial image (Google 2008) shows dredged spoil piles and the bike trail on 

McQueen’s island are now vegetated with shrubs and trees. 

Figure 53. White areas on fringes of nontidal dredged spoil deposits and uplands next to tidal 

marshes may indicate poor vegetation from low pH or high salinity, or poorly-vegetated sandy 

sediment washed free during extreme high tides (Google 2008). 

91 
Figure 54. Cockspur Island (Google 2008), showing made land vegetated with scrub-shrub and 

forest trees, with an inset of the eroded sandy beach. 

Figure 55. Inset from Figure 54 showing shoreline erosion on the north shore of Cockspur Island 

(Google 2008). 

92 
Figure 56. Lower Coastal Plain Map, with arrow showing the location of Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. Barrier islands, also known as the Golden Isles, line the coast of Georgia. The Lower 

Coastal Plain extends for sixty-five to seventy miles between the Savannah and St. Marys Rivers 

and contains the remains of older and higher shorelines and dunes west of the present coast. 

Courtesy of V. J. Henry (Seabrook 2006). 

Holocene Barrier projected 

Fort Pulaski 

93 
Figure 57. This aerial image (Google 2008) with red lines indicate the location of Holocene 

barrier island dunes. The blue circle shows another Holocene-aged deposit on Cockspur Island 

under the original fort (National Park Service 1995), while adjacent shrub and forest areas are 

recent dredged deposits. 

Several soil-based assessments can be assembled from current soil data using the soil database 

(National Park Service 2006) and an extension that runs on ArcGIS (ESRI 2006), the USDA 

Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Data Viewer (2008). The assessments that we found 

most useful for park assessment included, potential erosion hazard for off-road, off trail traffic 

(Table 37, Figure 58, Appendix C); flooding frequency class (Table 38, Figure 59, other water 

features listed in Appendix C); drainage class (Table 39, Figure 60, Appendix C); hydric rating 

(Figure 61, Appendix C); soil features (Appendix C); and camp area, picnic area, and playground 

ratings (Appendix C). Explanations from USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil 

Data Viewer (2008) follow with more detail in Appendix C. 

94 
Potential erosion hazard (off-Road, off-Trail): 

“Ratings indicate the hazard or risk of soil loss from off-road and off-trail areas after disturbance 

activities that expose the soil surface, and are based on slope and soil erodibility factor K. The 

soil loss is caused by sheet or rill erosion in off-road or off-trail areas where 50 to 75 percent of 

the surface has been exposed by logging, grazing, mining, or other kinds of disturbance. 

The hazard is described as "slight", "moderate", "severe", or "very severe". A rating of "slight" 

indicates that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions; "moderate" indicates that 

some erosion is likely and that erosion-control measures may be needed; "severe" indicates that 

erosion is very likely and that erosion-control measures, including revegetation of bare areas, are 

advised; and "very severe" indicates that significant erosion is expected, loss of soil productivity 

and off-site damage are likely, and erosion-control measures are costly and generally 

impractical.” (USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service 2008) 

Table 37. Potential erosion hazard (off-road, off-trial) according to soil characteristics at Fort 

Pulaski National Monument. 

Potential Erosion Acres % of FOPU 

Not rated 1024.5 18.50

Slight 4513.9 81.50

5538.4 100.00

95 
Figure 58. Potential erosion hazard (off-road, off-trial) according to soil characteristics at Fort 

Pulaski National Monument. Slight means erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions; 

moderate means that some erosion is likely and that erosion-control measures may be needed; 

severe means that erosion is very likely, erosion-control measures advised; and very severe

means that significant erosion is expected, loss of soil productivity and off-site damage likely. 

Flooding frequency class: 

“Flooding is the temporary inundation of an area caused by overflowing streams, by runoff from 

adjacent slopes, or by tides. Water standing for short periods after rainfall or snowmelt is not 

considered flooding, and water standing in swamps and marshes is considered ponding rather 

than flooding. 

Flooding frequency class is the number of times flooding occurs over a period of time and is 

expressed as a class. Flooding Frequency Classes are based on the interpretation of soil 

properties and other evidence gathered during soil survey field work. The classes are: 

None - Flooding is not probable, near 0 percent chance of flooding in any year or less than 1 time 

in 500 years. 

Very rare - Flooding is very unlikely but possible under extremely unusual weather conditions 

(the chance of flooding is less than 1 percent in any year). 

96 
Rare - Flooding is unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions (the chance of 

flooding is 1 to 5 percent in any year). 

Occasional - Flooding occurs infrequently under normal weather conditions (the chance of 

flooding is 5 to 50 percent in any year). 

Frequent - Flooding is likely to occur often under normal weather conditions (the chance of 

flooding is more than 50 percent in any year but is less than 50 percent in all months in any 

year). 

Very frequent - Flooding is likely to occur very often under normal weather conditions (the 

chance of flooding is more than 50 percent in all months of any year).” 

(USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service 2008) 

Table 38. Flooding frequency according to soil characteristics at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument 

Flooding Frequency Acres % of FOPU 

None 1024.5 18.50

Frequent 4513.9 81.50

5538.4 100.00

97 
Figure 59. Flooding frequency according to soil characteristics at Fort Pulaski National 

Monument. None means flooding is not probable; very rare means flooding is very unlikely; 

rare means flooding is unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional

means flooding occurs infrequently under normal weather conditions; frequent means flooding is 

likely to occur often; and very frequent means flooding is likely to occur very often under normal 

weather conditions. 

Drainage classes: 

“Drainage class (natural) refers to the frequency and duration of wet periods under conditions 

similar to those under which the soil formed. Alterations of the water regime by human 

activities, either through drainage or irrigation, are not a consideration unless they have 

significantly changed the morphology of the soil. Seven classes of natural soil drainage are 

recognized -- excessively drained, somewhat excessively drained, well drained, moderately well 

drained, somewhat poorly drained, poorly drained, and very poorly drained.” (USDA Natural 

Resource Conservation Service 2008) 

 

98 
Table 39. Drainage classes according to soil characteristics at Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

Drainage Class Acres % of FOPU 

Not rated 1024.5 18.50

Very poorly drained 4513.9 81.50

5538.4 100.00

Figure 60. Drainage classes according to soil characteristics at Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

Map unit hydric rating: 

“This rating provides an indication of the proportion of the map unit that meets criteria for hydric 

soils. Map units that are dominantly made up of hydric soils may have small areas, or inclusions, 

of nonhydric soils in the higher positions on the landform, and map units dominantly made up of 

nonhydric soils may have inclusions of hydric soils in the lower positions on the landform. 

Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils 

that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing 

season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. These soils, under natural conditions, 

are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth 

and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. . . 

99 
. . . If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should 

exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible properties are 

indicators of hydric soils. . . .” (USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service 2008) 

Figure 61. Hydric rating according to soil characteristics at Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

3.5.1.b Resource threats and stressors: 

One threat is the possible presence of acid-sulfate soils on the edges of made land deposits of 

dredge materials. This threat will diminish as sea level rises. Also, as sea level rises, high salinity 

may kill upland vegetation. In addition, erosion of shorelines may occur, especially the north 

shore of Cockspur Island, from rising sea levels and wakes of passing ships on the Savannah 

River. The threat of rising sea levels and erosion is covered in more depth in the Hydrology 

section (3.4.1 Hydrology). 

3.5.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

Data quality is good in all cases (Table 40). Local-scale, specific soil analysis to Fort Pulaski 

NM may be appropriate to add detail to soil characteristics. 

100 
3.1.2.d Condition status summary: 

Soil properties did not appear to change from the 1911 soil survey, so soil change is in the good 

range for condition status (Table 40). Potential erosion hazard is slight for the majority of soils, 

so this category is rated in the good range (Table 40). The majority (81.5%) of Fort Pulaski NM 

has a very frequent flooding frequency class, while drainage class mirrored these findings with 

very poorly drained characteristics in the same soils. Consequently, flooding frequency and 

drainage class were combined and received a poor condition status (Table 40). 

Table 40. Soil condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data quality was 

rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside park 

boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The 

colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1). 

Category 

Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Soil change 

1 1 1 

Good 0.84 3 out of 3 

Potential erosion 

1 1 1 

Good 0.84 3 out of 3 

Flooding frequency and 

drainage class 

1 1 1 

Poor 0.17 3 out of 3 

Soil total 3 3 3 

Fair 0.62 9 out of 9 

3.5.1.e Recommendations to park managers: 

As reported previously in the report (3.4.1 Hydrology) and in this section, controlling erosion on 

the north shoreline of Cockspur Island is a major priority. We also recommend avoiding 

excavation in the tidal marshes as well as filling and building on the tidal marsh soils. These soils 

have low strength and the park should be aware of and follow all wetland protection regulations. 

3.6 Biological Integrity 

3.6.1 Focal Communities and At-risk Biota 

The species of plants and animals found within the boundary of Fort Pulaski NM are the product 

of numerous factors. The principal natural land cover classes found on the monument are coastal 

wetlands and upland forest. These classes of vegetation are no doubt comprised of several 

different plant communities which vary related to wetness, salinity, and management history 

among other factors. 

These communities can be described and classified using the National Vegetation Classification 

Standard (U.S. Geological Survey 2008b) and will be available as part of the Fort Pulaski NM 

Vegetation Characterization Project. These data were not available for this assessment; however, 

it is clear that the most dominant vegetation communities on Fort Pulaski NM include coastal 

salt marshes dominated by Spartina alternaflora and upland forests comprised of a mix of 

deciduous and coniferous tree species. 

101 
The complete assemblage of species, plants and animals, at Fort Pulaski NM is a direct result of 

several different types of vegetation, land use, and hydrologic regimes that occur within its 

boundary. The two most important natural communities are the salt marsh and the maritime 

forest. However, the species assemblages observed on Fort Pulaski NM are certainly the product 

of other communities (natural or anthropogenic) around the monument. 

Ideally, an assessment of the biotic communities at Fort Pulaski NM would consist of the 

complete range of plants and animals known to occur within the monument as well as the full 

suite of species found on pristine tracts of similar habitat in the same landscape. The biotic 

assessment would be performed on the full spectrum of animals and plants from each taxonomic 

class. Species absences or species located that were not part of that suite of native species would 

represent decreases in biotic integrity from the reference scenario. 

Such a complete assessment is beyond the scope of this project. We can, however, use existing 

datasets for a few of these taxa to permit some insight as to the likely state of biotic communities 

at Fort Pulaski NM. There have been several investigations of animals and plants at Fort Pulaski 

NM over the past 35-plus years (Table 41). 

Table 41. List of available animal and plant surveys at Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

Year Community target for survey Author(s) 

1970 Birds Author unknown (brochure) 

1978/1979 flora and fauna Southeastern Wildlife Services, Inc. (referenced 

in FOPU resource management plan) 

1981 vertebrate and invertebrate fauna Southeastern Wildlife Services, Inc. (cited in 

Tuberville, et al.)

1986 Birds Tucker, R. E. 

1999 vertebrate animals Rabolli, C. and K. Ellington

1998 Flora Govus, Thomas, E. 

2001 integrated pest management plan 

 (data in plan ~10yrs old) 

National Park Service 

2005 Herpetofauna Tuberville, T. D., J. D. Willson, M. E. Dorcas, and 

J. W. Gibbons 

These studies have been synthesized into a species information base by the NPS. With this 

system, users can extract predicted species lists for each park in the system including Fort 

Pulaski NM. We utilized this database to generate list of species (by taxa) expected to occur 

within Fort Pulaski NM. These lists were reviewed and corrected as necessary and used in this 

project as current species lists. 

Attempts at locating and utilizing appropriate reference datasets for comparison to Fort Pulaski 

NM community information were more problematic. Such information is either not readily 

available or is considered suspect for these purposes. Without defensible reference community 

assemblages, any assessments drawn using them would be suspect. We elected to focus on those 

communities for which the most defensible information was available. We also looked to the 

existing NPS Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Vital Signs Program for the Southeast Coastal 

102 
Network to provide some guidance as to which species communities were considered important 

enough for future monitoring efforts. 

The I&M program has specifically identified forest breeding birds and amphibians as 

communities of interest for that program. Relatively sound community information can be 

obtained for these groups and work on and around Fort Pulaski NM for these communities has 

been done relatively recently. 

3.6.1.a Current condition: 

Avian communities: 

The bird community at Fort Pulaski NM is reported to contain 64 species listed as “breeder”1. 

These species are associated with all the vegetation communities at Fort Pulaski NM. We elected 

to first compare this suite of species to that of known breeders from the surrounding landscape. 

The reference list of breeding birds was synthesized from data compiled as part of the ongoing 

USGS Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) effort (U.S. Geological Survey 2008c). We selected BBS 

routes from the surrounding landscape that had several years of survey data in them from 1966 – 

2007 (Figure 62). We selected eight routes for building the reference species list. 

 

1

 There are a number of native species listed with breeding status “unknown” or exotic species that were omitted 

from this analysis. 

103 
Figure 62. USGS Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) Routes in the area surrounding Fort Pulaski 

National Monument that were chosen for the assessment. 

We compiled the total number of species seen on each route over the 42-year period. We then 

counted the number of routes on which a species was observed during that period. Those species 

seen on at least six routes were used to compile the reference breeding bird route for the region. 

A total of 81 species were identified as breeding in the landscape surrounding Fort Pulaski NM. 

We then cross-referenced this list to the breeding list obtained for Fort Pulaski NM. A total of 45 

species were found on both lists. There were 13 species listed as “Breeding” at Fort Pulaski NM 

that were not found on at least six of the routes used to compile the reference list. Of these, seven 

species were not documented by the BBS at all. Upon further review, it was evident that these 

species tended to be marsh nesting birds that may not be adequately sampled with a survey like 

the BBS, so we elected to calculate two Jaccard Index of Similarity scores; one that included 

those species and one that did not. The Jaccard Index of Similarity is a simple method for 

comparing species diversity between two different samples or communities (Krebs 1999). The 

104 
value is calculated by dividing the number of species found in both samples (a) by the number 

found in only one sample or the other (b,c): 

Sj = a /(a+b+c) 

The Jaccard Index of Similarity between the reference breeding bird list and the breeding bird 

list from Fort Pulaski NM was 0.45. If we removed those seven species thought to be underrepresented in the reference list, the index score was determined to be 0.48. 

It is important to note that, 28 of the 36 species (~ 78%) on the reference list not in Fort Pulaski 

NM have been observed, but their breeding status has not been confirmed. Assuming those 

species were confirmed through additional survey efforts, then the similarity score for Fort 

Pulaski NM could be as high as 0.78. 

 

Another means for assessing the biotic condition of the birds at Fort Pulaski NM was to examine 

the population trends for each species. From a management perspective, Fort Pulaski NM would 

like to see each species either at, or moving towards, population levels desired for management. 

These levels will differ depending on the status of the species. For example, we assume that rare 

species populations would be desirable if they are increasing. The opposite would be true of 

exotic or nuisance species. 

Using the BBS data, we were able to establish observation trends for 45 species known to breed 

at Fort Pulaski NM. For each species, we calculated the number of times the species was 

observed each year over the course of the surveys, then calculated a regional average by dividing 

the total seen by the total number of routes that were completed in that year. In years that a route 

was completed but the species was not observed, we recorded a 0 value. We then plotted the 

mean number of observations against the years and used linear regression to create a trend line 

for each species. We used the statistical output to determine if the slope of the line was 

significantly different from 0. If so, it was classified as either “increasing” or “decreasing” for 

the period. 

We calculated this slope value for two periods. The first period was for the entire survey period 

(1966 – 2007). The second period was for the last 15 years only (1992 – 2007). Comparisons 

between these periods will allow us to determine if any non-significant long-term trends are 

changing more recently. 

We categorized trends as “acceptable” or “unacceptable” by using a simple management matrix 

for each class of species in the set (Table 42). These three classes were species of “concern,” 

“nuisance,” or “breeder.” These values were used to determine the overall management 

acceptability of population trends for the bird community. 

 

105 
Table 42. Management matrix used to categorize trend combinations. 

Period 1 Period 2 Management Evaluation 

1966 – 2007 1992 – 2007 Concern Nuisance Breeders 

Increasing increasing acceptable unacceptable acceptable 

Decreasing increasing acceptable unacceptable acceptable 

not significant increasing acceptable unacceptable acceptable 

Increasing decreasing unacceptable acceptable unacceptable 

Decreasing decreasing unacceptable acceptable unacceptable 

not significant decreasing unacceptable acceptable unacceptable 

Increasing not significant unacceptable unacceptable acceptable 

Decreasing not significant unacceptable acceptable unacceptable 

not significant not significant unacceptable unacceptable acceptable 

A total of 17 of the 45 (~ 38%) of the species were deemed “acceptable” based on their observed 

trends in the landscape surrounding Fort Pulaski NM. The remaining species observation trends 

were deemed “unacceptable” in light of the management levels placed on them. 

This result suggests that the majority of the breeding birds in the landscape surrounding, and 

perhaps including Fort Pulaski NM, are experiencing either long or short term declines that may 

increase their conservation priority in the future. It is important to note that this does not provide 

any proof that these species are declining on Fort Pulaski NM. There is no long term data on 

breeding bird observations at Fort Pulaski NM. However, if these species continue to decline 

over the local landscape, their continued presence as breeding birds at Fort Pulaski NM may be 

jeopardized. 

Amphibian communities: 

The amphibian community at Fort Pulaski NM has been identified specifically in the Southeast 

Coast Network I&M Draft Study Plan (National Park Service 2000). Amphibians are of 

particular interest in biotic condition analysis due to their sensitivity to their surrounding 

environment. Recent declines in amphibian production elsewhere in the Southeast make them of 

further interest as part of this assessment. 

Amphibians were recently inventoried at Fort Pulaski NM along with reptiles (Tuberville et al. 

2005). Tuberville et al. (2005) employed a variety of survey methods aimed at compiling the 

most comprehensive list of amphibians present at the monument. Our assessment was completed 

using the amphibian species documented during this effort. 

A total of eight species of amphibian (seven anurans, one salamander) were observed for Fort 

Pulaski NM as part of this survey. This study suggests that 25 additional amphibian species (14 

anurans, 11 salamanders) have ranges coincident with Fort Pulaski NM but were not observed. 

Presumably this is due to a lack of specific local-scale habitat conditions (e.g., fresh water, pine 

barrens) that these species require. 

The Jaccard Similarity Index between the observed species and the potential assemblage is 0.24. 

However, this value represents the most conservative application of this score. A number of 

these are clearly without habitat at Fort Pulaski NM and should be excluded from the reference 

potential assemblage. A detailed vegetation map was not yet available for Fort Pulaski NM, so 

106 
we were unable to obtain the local scale information needed to exclude species for lack of 

habitat. 

We elected to use species-habitat distribution models published by the Georgia Gap Analysis 

Program (UGA Institute of Ecology and GA Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit 2003). 

These models were synthesized with a combination of literature review, historical records, and 

expert review. The resulting species-habitat models were applied to real landscapes using a land 

cover map. Predicted species distributions were then attributed to specific EMAP hexagons and 

mapped for the entire state (UGA Institute of Ecology and GA Cooperative Fish & Wildlife 

Research Unit 2003). Fort Pulaski NM is located within the EMAP hexagon number 2568. We 

extracted the frogs and salamanders species whose distributions placed them within this hexagon 

and used that as a reference list (Appendix D). 

A total of 25 species were identified from the GA-GAP models as occurring within the hexagon 

coincident with Fort Pulaski NM. Of these, seven species were documented at Fort Pulaski NM. 

In addition, the southern toad was found at Fort Pulaski NM although this species was not 

predicted to occur by the GA-GAP models. The Jaccard Similarity Index was calculated as 0.27 

between Fort Pulaski NM amphibians and the GA-GAP derived reference set (Table 47). 

These indices reflect a relatively low overlap between the amphibians present at Fort Pulaski NM 

relative to similar habitats. That is, areas outside of the monument with similar habitat 

characteristics will have more species than were observed here. This, however, may be due to the 

relatively recent establishment of upland and freshwater habitats at Fort Pulaski NM. Since the 

monument is surrounded by salt water, the movement of amphibians from mainland populations 

and habitats to the islands is difficult. Therefore, although Fort Pulaski NM has relatively few 

frogs and salamanders, this may be due to its isolation from potential mainland immigrants rather 

than a degraded habitat condition. 

Reptile communities: 

We completed a community composition analysis for reptiles similar to our methods for 

amphibians. Reptiles were surveyed recently (Tuberville et al. 2005) along with amphibians 

using similar methods. 

A total of 17 reptiles were found on Fort Pulaski NM. The survey suggests the potential for 41 

additional species with overlapping ranges (although habitat may not be found on the 

monument). This yields the most conservative Jaccard Similarity Index of 0.29. 

The list of 41 additional species is likely comprised of several species unlikely to occur within 

Fort Pulaski NM because of a lack of appropriate habitat. As with amphibians, we elected to 

utilize predicted distributions of reptile species from the GA-GAP (Appendix D). The GA-GAP 

models predict the occurrence of 50 species in all. All 17 species observed at Fort Pulaski NM 

are included, so the Jaccard Similarity Index was calculated at 0.34. 

As with amphibians, it is reasonable to conclude that many reptile species have not yet been able 

to colonize the relatively new upland habitats of Cockspur Island on Fort Pulaski NM. Therefore, 

our similarity indices would provide a low value. We decided to do a last comparison by 

107 
synthesizing a list of reptiles that would be expected to utilize the salt marsh habitats only and 

compare that to the list of reptiles for Fort Pulaski NM. Since the salt marsh communities have 

persisted over much longer periods of time, we expected that the species assemblage would more 

closely overlap a reference list. 

We generated a reference list of reptiles from Gibbons (1978 as cited in Wiegert and Freeman 

1990). This list contains six species that are ubiquitous in coastal salt marshes throughout the 

Southeast. Of these six species, four have been documented at Fort Pulaski NM. Only the eastern 

mud turtle and yellow rat snake were not found (Jaccard Similarity Index = 0.67, Table 47). 

Mammal communities: 

The mammal community at Fort Pulaski NM is relatively small. There are 18 species on the 

monument including marine mammals and bats. Two species, the house mouse (Mus musculus) 

and black rat (Rattus rattus), are exotic species. 

We used the GA-GAP species distribution models as a reference list for comparison of mammals 

(Appendix D). GA-GAP models predicted the presence of 36 species in the Fort Pulaski NM 

area (did not include marine mammals). All 17 terrestrial species observed on Fort Pulaski NM 

were predicted by the GA-GAP models with a Jaccard Similarity Index of 0.47. 

Wiegert and Freeman (1990) also provided a list of salt marsh mammals (derived from Sanders 

1978) found in the salt marshes of the Southeast. We identified those species on Fort Pulaski NM 

that were likely present due to the salt marsh and compared it to this list. All six salt marsh 

species present on Fort Pulaski NM were found on the reference list of 14 species with a Jaccard 

Similarity Index of 0.43 (Table 47). 

Other communities: 

There are several other key biotic communities that should be examined as part of this 

assessment. For the salt marsh vegetation communities, these include fish (especially breeding 

salt marsh species) and invertebrates (crabs and bivalves in particular). For both upland areas and 

salt marsh, plants are important as well. 

The biotic species list compiled from the NPS biotic database (Certified Organisms: NPSpecies 

2008) indicates there are 40 fish species that utilize Fort Pulaski NM habitats for some period of 

their annual or seasonal life requisites (Table 43). 

Slusher (2009) performed an analysis of the aquatic condition for Fort Pulaski NM. The analysis 

compared native fish species documented on Fort Pulaski NM to native fish that occur in the 

watersheds based on NatureServe data. Percent similarity of native fish collected in the NPS unit 

was 0.13 (8/62). 

 

108 
Table 43. Species that utilize Fort Pulaski National Monument by taxa. 

Taxonomic 

Group 

# species 

documented 

at FOPU* 

# unconfirmed 

FOPU species 

Fish 40 2

Plants 307 --

* includes exotic species 

Without recent field-verified studies, it is difficult to draw assessment conclusions about these 

biotic groups. Factors such as abundance, distribution, and health for each group or species 

provide the information necessary to begin to assess their condition. Furthermore, we were 

unable to identify any available reference species lists appropriate for comparison to fish or 

plants at Fort Pulaski NM. 

At-risk biota: 

At-risk biota refers to those species that are listed as threatened or endangered (T&E) under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). We took this a 

step further to identify those species that are listed in the State of Georgia as endangered, 

threatened, rare, or high priority in the southern coastal plain under the GA Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy (GA DNR Wildlife Resources Division 2005). In addition these 

species were cross referenced to NatureServe’s global and state rankings (NatureServe 2008). 

The bird list was also cross referenced to the Partners in Flight Priority Species (Partners in 

Flight 2005) and Audubon WatchList (National Audubon Society 2007). Appendix E through 

Appendix J contain complete species lists with associated state and global ranks and federal and 

state status. 

There have been 22 high priority species documented at Fort Pulaski NM (Table 44). This is 

14% of the total number of high priority species identified for the Southern Coastal Plain of 

Georgia in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (GA DNR Wildlife Resources 

Division 2005). There are 17 high priority birds found on the monument, 63% of the 27 

identified in the Southern Coastal Plain of Georgia. 

 

109 
Table 44. Total number of species documented at Fort Pulaski National Monument, number of 

high priority species from the GA Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, and % of high 

priority species within Georgia that are found on FOPU. 

Taxonomic 

Group 

# species 

documented 

at FOPU* 

# 

unconfirmed 

FOPU spp. 

# SCP high 

priority spp** 

# high 

priority spp 

at FOPU 

% high 

priority spp 

at FOPU 

Plants 307 -- 88 1 1% 

Invertebrates -- -- 1 -- -- 

Mussels -- -- 7 -- -- 

Fish 40 2 5 0 -- 

Reptiles 17 -- 17 1 6% 

Amphibians 8 -- 7 0 -- 

Birds 213 0 27 17 63% 

Mammals 17 1 10 2 20% 

Total 601 3 162 22 14% 

*Including non-native species 

** GA DNR Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy list - Southern Coastal Plain (SCP) Ecoregion 

3.6.1.b Resource threats and stressors: 

The biotic communities and at-risk species of Fort Pulaski NM are under constant stress from 

agents within and outside the monument. These threats and stressors have the ability to reduce 

the natural resource condition with the monument. Therefore, it is important that managers and 

decision makers at Fort Pulaski NM identify those threats, how they may affect the natural 

resource condition, and how severe and imminent they may be. 

Habitat change: 

Some of the threats to the natural biotic communities and at-risk species of Fort Pulaski NM can 

be observed within its administrative boundary. Some of the most immediate and potentially 

severe threats to biotic diversity are related to habitat change. 

Habitat degradation and loss factors are caused by internal or external agents. Some of the most 

immediate threats and/or stressors to habitat degradation and loss within Fort Pulaski NM are: 

1. salt marsh dieback 

2. over-browsing by white-tailed deer 

3. invasive species 

Salt marsh dieback was first observed in Louisiana in 2000. Since that time, much research effort 

has been directed at determining what environmental factors and conditions contribute to the 

degradation and extirpation of salt marsh communities. One of those factors was determined to 

be over-abundant populations of salt marsh periwinkle (Littoraria irrorata) (Silliman et al. 2005) 

during periods of drought-stress. 

Periwinkles are a primary food source of the blue crab (Calinectes sapidus) which is harvested 

commercially throughout its range on the southeast coast. Unchecked by blue crab predation, 

periwinkle population can grow to over 2500 per square meter (Silliman and Bertness 2002). At 

these densities, the grazing activities of periwinkles can be detrimental to the dominant salt 

marsh plant species (Spartina alterniflora, Juncus roemerianus) and lead to the condition known 

110 
as “brown marsh.” Particularly when S. alterniflora productivity is reduced due to drought stress 

conditions (Silliman et al. 2005). 

We examined the available literature to determine if a threshold population value for salt marsh 

periwinkle could be established. This threshold represents the upper limits of “healthy” 

population density. When exceeded, the potential for degradation of the salt marsh habitat 

increases. We used the values published in several peer-reviewed articles (Silliman and Zieman 

2001, Silliman and Bertness 2002, Silliman et al. 2005) to establish the relationship between 

periwinkle density and degradation of the salt marsh. 

In general, periwinkle densities can have a significant impact on salt marsh communities at 

densities of 100 – 600 per square meter (Silliman et al. 2005) depending on other factors such as 

increased salinity due to drought conditions. In other controlled experiments, Silliman and 

Bertness (2002) found that periwinkles at medium density (~ 600/m2

) can be sufficient to greatly 

reduce salt marsh biomass over a growing season (Figure 63). 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 500 1000 1500

# periwinkle/sq. m.

% marsh biomass 

Short Marsh

Tall Marsh

Figure 63. Number of periwinkles per square meter versus percent marsh biomass from a 

controlled study (Silliman and Bertness 2002). 

The abundance of periwinkle is locally variable, and Fort Pulaski NM does not presently have a 

monitoring protocol or program in place. The closest available datasets for periwinkle abundance 

were collected by the Georgia Coastal Ecosystems LTER (GCE LTER 2008). Periwinkle 

populations were estimated in the field using variable-sized quadrats during the fall of each year 

starting in 2003 (Table 45). We included only those sites described as dominated by Spartina. 

The fall mean density for the 4 years we examined was approximately 140 per square meter (std. 

dev. 34.4). This would indicate that periwinkle densities were approaching numbers that could 

lead to brown marsh especially in dry years. 

111 
We used this information as a surrogate for periwinkle populations at Fort Pulaski NM. 

However, we do not truly know how well these values reflect the true population, so the results 

should be used with caution. 

Table 45. Periwinkle density for fall collection sites on the Georgia Coastal LTER between 2003 

and 2006. 

Year Mean No. 

(per m2) 

2003 169.9 

2004 95.5 

2005 127.9 

2006 163.0 

White-tailed deer: 

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are abundant at Fort Pulaski NM and at least one 

previous author has cautioned against the negative impact deer populations can have on native 

plant diversity, forest health, and the promotion of invasive species at Fort Pulaski NM. 

Unnaturally high levels of deer browsing in forested ecosystems may lead to decreased nesting 

success of ground nesting birds. 

Rabolli and Ellington (1999) recommended monitoring the white-tailed deer, population on Fort 

Pulaski NM because they could have negative effects on native vegetation or cultural resources. 

They estimated white-tailed deer to be at or near the carrying capacity of Fort Pulaski NM at 

about 63 deer per square mile. 

Fort Pulaski NM does not presently conduct a white-tailed deer population survey or impact 

survey (e.g., vegetation fenced exclosure studies) to assess white-tailed deer impacts. However, 

during a visit for this assessment the effects of deer browse on understory vegetation was 

apparent. 

Invasive species: 

Invasive species, particularly those that are exotic, have the potential to degrade native species 

and their habitat. They occupy habitat niches that would otherwise support native species, 

thereby degrading species communities. 

Invasive species are present at Fort Pulaski NM (Table 46). Invasive plant species comprise 27% 

of all plant species at Fort Pulaski NM, by far the greatest proportion among taxa with data. The 

pest species listed in the Fort Pulaski NM Integrated Pest Management Plan (National Park 

Service 2001) include: mosquitoes, cockroaches (German and American), fire ants, black rats, 

oleander (Nerium oleander; eradicated in 1990) tallow wood, chinaberry, termites, bagworm, 

Asian gypsy moth (potential, not confirmed). 

Per discussions with park personnel the species currently posing the largest threat to 

communities at Fort Pulaski NM are china berry, privet, and Chinese tallow. The NPS has an 

active program in place to control these species on Fort Pulaski NM. 

112 
Table 46. Proportion of invasive species by taxa at Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

Taxonomic 

Group 

# Native 

species 

# Non-native 

species 

% Nonnative 

Plants 224 83 27.0

Fish -- -- --

Herpetofauna 23 1 4.2

Birds 211 2 0.9

Mammals 15 2 11.7

External threats and stressors: 

There are many external threats to the biotic communities of Fort Pulaski NM, from factors 

external to the boundaries and management authority of the NPS. These factors have been 

covered extensively in previous sections and include: 

1. Increased isolation due to human population growth and development, as discussed in the 

Human Use section. 

2. Impact of 400,000 visitors per year, Visitor and Recreation Use section. 

3. As mentioned the Water section, the Georgia Ports Authority and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers have plans to expand the Savannah harbor, which could result in several 

negative impacts to Fort Pulaski NM wildlife and their habitats. 

4. Existing dredge disposal sites that were discussed in the Geology and Soils section. 

5. A hazardous sites map was also discussed and provided in the Water section (Figure 49). 

3.6.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

The biotic communities of Fort Pulaski NM may be unique in this landscape given the relatively 

recent establishment of upland habitat. Therefore, the species assemblages present do not appear 

to reflect the more complete biotic communities observed in the surrounding area. Relatively low 

similarity scores for all taxa may reflect the relatively low diversity on Fort Pulaski NM as a 

result. 

However, a lack of comprehensive survey efforts certainly contributes to some of the observed 

differences. Similarity index scores for birds, for example, may increase with more 

comprehensive data from within the monument. These surveys should not only focus on species 

inventory, but should also address abundance which, over time, will provide better information 

to complete biotic community assessments. Table 47 shows the summary of condition status and 

data quality. 

The following are specific knowledge gaps identified: 

1. Unknown abundance of the majority of all faunal and floral species, especially plants, 

breeding fish and invertebrate species. 

2. Unknown abundance (population size) and residency of most bird species (especially 

marshland birds). 

3. Littoraria density in Spartina marsh areas. 

4. Deer abundance and impact on upland vegetation communities. 

113 
3.6.1.d Condition status summary 

The Jacaard similarity index scores were cross referenced to report on the condition status for 

each of the major taxa (Table 47). An additional rating was added for bird trend acceptability 

based on the percentage of observed trends that were deemed “acceptable” in the landscape 

surrounding Fort Pulaski NM. Bird trend acceptability received a fair condition status and the 

overall condition status for biological integrity is in the fair range (Table 47). 

Table 47. Biotic community condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = 

inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 

years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see 

Table 1). 

Category 

Condition 

Status 

Score 

Midpoint 

Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Bird community 

composition 

(0.48 to 0.78) 1 0 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Bird trend acceptability 

38% 1 0 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Amphibian community 

(0.24 to 0.27) 1 0 1 

Poor 0.17 2 out of 3 

Reptile community 

(0.29 to 0.67) 1 0 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Mammal community 

(0.43 to 0.47) 1 0 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Fish community 

0.13 0 1 1 

Poor 0.17 2 out of 3 

Biological integrity total 5 1 6 

Fair 0.39 12 out of 18 

3.6.1.e Recommendations to park managers: 

Park managers at Fort Pulaski NM are aware of the need for long-term monitoring data (Watson 

2005, DiMatteo 2007). However, there are several factors limiting park personnel to conduct 

needed surveys and monitoring programs. 

Clearly, if surveys were conducted over several years where population trend data were 

available, Fort Pulaski NM personnel would be better able to assess the quality of habitat. The 

following are recommended projects for Fort Pulaski NM when the opportunity arises: 

1. Work with NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program on breeding bird and amphibian 

surveys. 

2. Expedite detailed vegetation maps that can be used to improve knowledge of available 

habitats. 

3. Implement simple periwinkle survey protocols (e.g., Georgia Coastal LTER invertebrate 

surveys). 

114 
115 

4. Develop a more complete breeding fish survey in salt marsh areas. 

5. Work with state and local natural resource agencies to determine the present abundance 

of white-tailed deer 

6. Use simple vegetation sampling and/or deer exclosure study to better understand impacts 

to vegetation communities from deer browsing. 
116 
4.0 Summary and Conclusion 

The overall condition status for Fort Pulaski NM is just inside the good range (0.67, close to fair; 

Table 49). Midpoint scores were averaged for NPS ecological monitoring framework level 2 

categories (Fancy et al. 2008) to come up with the overall condition status for the monument. 

Landscape dynamics, fire dynamics, human effects, visitor use, air quality, and hydrology scored 

in the good range. Landscape, fire, human effects, and air quality are broad-scale assessment 

categories upon which Fort Pulaski NM has limited management influence. Consistent reporting 

and collaboration are essential for these categories. Visitor use is relatively consistent and this 

fort is visited at an average level compared with other forts managed by the NPS. Hydrology will 

move further into the good range when the erosion on the north shoreline of Cockspur Island is 

addressed. 

Biological integrity (biotic) received a fair rating. The species assemblages present do not appear 

to reflect the more complete biotic communities observed in the surrounding area. This is 

perhaps due to the relatively recent establishment of upland habitat and may be due in part to a 

lack of comprehensive survey efforts. Other categories that scored in the fair range included 

climate, hydrology, water quality, and geology and soils. Climate and water quality are 

categories that will need coordination with other management organizations to improve. 

Collecting additional water quality data within park boundaries would allow better assessment of 

in-park resources. Geology and soils have remained relatively consistent, with the only limiting 

factor being the flooding frequency. 

Spatial proximity and thematic (best source) are the limiting factors in data quality. Thematic is 

often in the fair range for data quality, mostly due to needing more local-scale data. This 

National Monument was established primarily to protect cultural resources, so a minimal amount 

of natural resource data has been collected on-site. There are plans to map vegetation 

communities and continue species and community inventory and monitoring. An observation 

that was present in several of the assessment categories is the importance of coordination with 

outside management organizations. It was also noted in several categories that additional localscale data collection could improve assessment and management. 

The good, fair, poor scoring system (Table 48) has its limitations. It is somewhat subjective, 

especially when pre-established thresholds and criteria are missing. However, in most cases we 

were able to find thresholds from other agencies or peer-reviewed publications. We made note of 

the cases where established rating systems or thresholds were not available. With these caveats 

in mind, we effectively reported on the condition status of important natural resource 

management categories while providing further information on data quality. 

Table 48. Condition status scoring system for Fort Pulaski National Monument Natural Resource 

Assessment. 

Score Range Midpoint 

Good 0.67 – 1.00 0.84

Fair 0.34 – 0.66 0.5

Poor 0.00 – 0.33 0.17

117 
118 

Table 49. Overall condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data quality 

was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside park 

boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The 

colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 48). 

Category 

Condition 

Status 

Score Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Landscape dynamics total    0 3 0 

Good 0.84 3 out of 9 

Fire dynamics total 0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Human effects total 2 2 2 

Good 0.67 6 out of 6 

Visitor use total 0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Air quality total 1 0 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Climate total 5 1 5 

Fair 0.50 11 out of 15 

Hydrology total 1 6 6 

Good 0.70 13 out of 18 

Water quality total 4 0 0 

Fair 0.42 4 out of 12 

Soil total 3 3 3 

Fair 0.62 9 out of 9 

Biotic total 5 1 6 

Fair 0.39 12 out of 18 

FOPU overall 21 18 25 

Good 0.67 64 out of 96 

This project provided a comprehensive amount of organized tabular data and many geospatial 

data layers and maps that will aid in the management of Fort Pulaski NM. These data are 

provided on an accompanying disk and can be used to compare current status to future 

conditions. This is merely a first step to compiling data and reporting on current condition status, 

data gaps, and threats and stressors. A well-established assessment protocol will include followup and future analysis. 
Literature Cited 

AirNow. 2008a. Air quality index (AQI) - a guide to air quality and your health. A cross-agency 

U.S. Government web site (http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=static.aqi). Accessed 

June 2008. 

AirNow. 2008b. AQI calculator. (http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=aqi.conc_aqi_calc). 

Accessed June 2008. 

AirNow. 2008c. Georgia air quality conditions & forecasts. 

(http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.showlocal&CityID=327). Accessed 

June 2008. 

Alexander, C. 2008. Rates and processes of shoreline change at Ft. Pulaski National Monument. 

Applied Coastal Research Laboratory, Georgia Southern University and Skidaway 

Institute of Oceanography, Savannah, GA. 

Balmford, A. 1996. Extinction filters and current resilience: the significance of past selection 

pressures for conservation biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11:193-196. 

Blake, E. S., E. N. Rappaport, and C. W. Landsea. 2007. The deadliest, costliest, and most 

intense United States tropical cyclones from 1851 to 2006 (and other frequently requested 

hurricane facts). National Weather Service, National Hurricane Center, Miami, Florida. 

Blaustein, A. R., L. K. Belden, D. H. Olson, D. M. Green, T. L. Root, and J. M. Kiesecker. 2001. 

Amphibian breeding and climate change. Conservation Biology 15:1804-1809. 

Cardillo, M., A. Purvis, W. Sechrest, J. L. Gittleman, J. Bielby, and G. M. Mace. 2004. Human 

population density and extinction risk in the world's carnivores. PLoS Biology 2:909 - 

914. 

Certified Organisms: NPSpecies. 2008. The National Park Service biodiversity database. Secure 

online version of certified organisms from 

(https://science1.nature.nps.gov/npspecies/web/main/start). Accessed 30 April 2008. 

Cooney, T. W., P. A. Drewes, S. W. Ellisor, T. H. Lanier, and F. Melendez. 2005. Water 

resources data, South Carolina, water year 2005, volume 1, U.S. Geological Survey 

water-data report. SC-05-1. 

Corn, P. S. 2005. Climate change and amphibians. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 28:59-

67. 

119 
Craft, C., J. Clough, J. Ehman, S. Joye, R. Park, S. Pennings, H. Guo, and M. Machmuller. 2009. 

Forecasting the effects of accelerated sea-level rise on tidal marsh ecosystem services. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 7:73-78. 

Curtis, T. 2008. NPS Southeast Coast Network Ecologist /Remote Sensing Specialist. E-mail 

Communication, June 16, 2008. 

DiMatteo, A. 2007. National Parks Conservation Association natural resource assessment for 

Fort Pulaski National Monument. Masters Project. Duke University, Durham, NC. 

ESRI. 2006. ArcInfo, ArcMap 9.2. Redlands, CA. 

Fancy, S. G., J. E. Gross, and S. L. Carter. 2008. Monitoring the condition of natural resources in 

US National Parks. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (In Press). 

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2008. Flood map viewer. 

(https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/wps/portal). Accessed December 2008. 

Forester, D. J. and G. E. Machlist. 1996. Modeling human factors that affect the loss of 

biodiversity. Conservation Biology 10:1253-1263. 

Frazier, W. J. 2007. Coastal plain geologic province. New Georgia Encyclopedia. Georgia 

Humanities Council and the University of Georgia Press. 

(http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1161). Accessed August 

2008. 

GA DNR Coastal Resources Division. 2008a. Coastal Marshlands Protection Act. 

(http://crd.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=85&txtPage=2). 

Accessed August 2008. 

GA DNR Coastal Resources Division. 2008b. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 

Georgia's salt marshes. 

(http://crd.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=22). Accessed August 

2008 

GA DNR Environmental Protection Division. 2001. Savannah River basin management plan. 

GA DNR Wildlife Resources Division. 2005. Georgia comprehensive wildlife conservation 

strategy. (http://www1.gadnr.org/cwcs/Documents/strategy.html). Accessed June 2008. 

GA DNR Wildlife Resources Division. 2008. Georgia rare species and natural community 

information - protected species lists. 

120 
(http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/documentdetail.aspx?docid=89&pageid=2&categor

y=conservation). Accessed October 2008. 

GCE LTER. 2008. Georgia coastal ecosystems long term ecological research data. (http://gcelter.marsci.uga.edu/public/data/data.htm). Accessed June 2008. 

GeoMAC. 2008. Geospatial multi-agency coordination, wildland fire support. U.S. Department 

of Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture. (http://www.geomac.gov/). Accessed 

June 2008. 

Georgia Automated Environmental Monitoring Network. 2008. Climate averages for Chatham 

County, GA, Savannah International Airport (1951 to 2003). 

(http://www.griffin.uga.edu/aemn/cgi-bin/AEMN.pl?site=GASK&report=cl). Accessed 

May 2008. 

Google. 2008. Google maps. (http://maps.google.com/). Accessed November, 2008. 

Govus, T., E. 1998. Fort Pulaski National Monument inventory final report, part A: plants. 

Prepared for the National Park Service, Southeast Region. 

Hurd, J. D. and D. L. Civco. 2004. Surface water quality and impervious surface quantity: a 

preliminary study. Center for Land use Education And Research, Department of Natural 

Resources Management & Engineering, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 

The University of Connecticut. 

Hurricane City. 2008. Savannah, Georgia's history with tropical systems. 

(http://www.hurricanecity.com/city/savannah.htm). Accessed May 2008. 

Jones, R. C. and C. C. Clark. 1987. Impact of watershed urbanization on stream insect 

communities. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 23:1047-1055. 

Krebs, C. J. 1999. Ecological methodology. Second edition. Addison-Wesley Educational 

Publishers, Inc. 

Leica Geosystems Geospatial Imaging. 2004. ERDAS Imagine 8.7. Norcross, GA. 

Loganathan, B. G., K. S. Sajwan , J. P. Richardson, C. S. Chetty and D. A. Owen. 2001. 

Persistent organichlorine concentrations in sediment and fish from Atlantic coastal and 

brackish waters off Savannah,Georgia, USA. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42:246-250. 

McFarlin, C. and M. Alber. 2005. Assessment of coastal water resources and watershed 

condition at Fort Pulaski National Monument, Georgia. Department of Marine Sciences, 

University of Georgia, for the National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Water 

121 
Resources Division, Natural Resource Program Center, Technical Report 

NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2005/345. 

McFarlin, C. and M. Alber. 2007. Coastal watershed condition assessment of Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. Proceedings of the 2007 Georgia Water Resources Conference, 

March 27-29, 2007. University of Georgia. 

McKinney, M. L. 2001. Effects of human population, area, and time on non-native plant and fish 

diversity in the United States. Biological Conservation 100:243-252. 

McMaster, G. S. and W. W. Wilhelm. 1997. Growing degree-days: one equation, two 

interpretations. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 87:291-300. 

Meader, J. F. 2003. Fort Pulaski National Monument administrative history. Cultural Resources 

Division, Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service, Atlanta, GA. 

National Audubon Society. 2007. WatchList. 

(http://web1.audubon.org/science/species/watchlist/). Accessed June 2008. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008a. Coastal change analysis program, 

land cover analysis. (http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/lca/ccap.html). Accessed April 2008. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008b. Coastal Services Center, historical 

hurricane tracks. (http://maps.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/index.jsp). Accessed September 

2008. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008c. U.S. climate at a glance. 

(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html). Accessed July 2008. 

National Park Service. 1995. Resource management plan, Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

National Park Service. 2000. NPS, Southeast coastal inventory and monitoring network draft 

study plan. 

National Park Service. 2001. Integrated pest management plan, Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

National Park Service. 2003. Air quality monitoring considerations for the Southeast Coast 

Network. (http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/permits/aris/networks/secn.cfm). Accessed 

December 2008. 

National Park Service. 2006. NPS - Soil survey geographic (SSURGO) database for Fort Pulaski 

National Monument, Georgia. Survey area version 5, survey area version date 

122 
12/21/2006. (http://science.nature.nps.gov/nrdata/datastore.cfm?ID=43769). Accessed 

July 2008. 

National Park Service. 2007. Fort Pulaski National Monument, general management plan news 

(Newsletter #3 - Spring 2007). 

National Park Service. 2008a. NPS mission. (http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/mission.htm). 

Accessed November 2008. 

National Park Service. 2008b. NPS stats, National Park Service public use statistics office. 

(http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/). Accessed November 2008. 

National Park Service. 2008c. Vegetation mapping inventory. 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/inventory/veg/index.cfm). Accessed November 2008. 

National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2008. National fire and aviation management web 

application. (http://fam.nwcg.gov/fam-web/). Accessed June 2008. 

NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe explorer. (http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm). 

Accessed August 2008. 

NPS Planning Environment and Public Comment. 2008. Fort Pulaski National Monument 

general management plan. 

(http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?parkId=379&projectId=11163). Accessed 

November 2008. 

Park, L. O., R. E. Manning, J. L. Marion, S. R. Lawson, and C. Jacobi. 2008. Managing visitor 

impacts in parks: a multi-method study of the effectiveness of alternative management 

practices. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration 26:97-121. 

Park Staff. 2007. Personal communication, meeting with park staff. 18 September 2007. 

Parks, S. A. and A. H. Harcourt. 2002. Reserve size, local human density, and mammalian 

extinctions in U.S. protected areas. Conservation Biology 16:800-808. 

Partners in Flight. 2005. Species assessment database. 

(http://www.rmbo.org/pif/scores/scores.html). Accessed August 2008. 

Rabolli, C. and K. Ellington. 1999. Fort Pulaski National Monument inventory final report, part 

B: vertebrate animals. Prepared for: National Park Service, Southeast Region. 

123 
Richardson, J. P. and K. Sajwan. 2001. Baseline monitoring and analysis of health of the salt 

marsh ecosystem of Fort Pulaski National Monument, using sediment, oysters and water 

samples. Prepared for Fort Pulaski National Monument, National Park Service. 

Richardson, J. P. and K. Sajwan. 2002. Baseline monitoring and analysis of health of the salt 

marsh ecosystem of Fort Pulaski National Monument, using sediment, oysters and water 

samples; year II. Prepared for Fort Pulaski National Monument, National Park Service. 

Schueler, T. 2000. The importance of imperviousness. Pages 1-12 in T. Schueler and H. Holland, 

editors. The practice of watershed protection. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott 

City, MD. 

Seabrook, C. 2006. Lower coastal plain and coastal islands. New Georgia Encyclopedia. Georgia 

Humanities Council and the University of Georgia Press. 

(http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2123). Accessed November 

2008. 

Silliman, B. R. and M. D. Bertness. 2002. A trophic cascade regulates salt marsh primary 

production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America 99:10500 - 10505. 

Silliman, B. R., J. v. d. Koppel, M. D. Bertness, L. E. Stanton, and I. A. Mendelssohn. 2005. 

Drought, snails, and large-scale die-off of southern U.S. salt marshes. Science 310:1803 - 

1806. 

Silliman, B. R. and J. C. Zieman. 2001. Ecology. 82:2830-2845. 

Slusher, J. 2009. Analysis of aquatic conditions in Fort Pulaski National Monument. In 

Nibbelink, N.P., J.M. Long, K.T. McAbee, J.C. Wilson, and L. Brons. Watershed-based 

condition and threat assessment for fish and aquatic habitat in southeastern National Park 

Service Units. Task Agreement J5028000705 Final Report. National Park Service, 

Atlanta, Georgia. 

Taylor, A. R. and R. L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perception. Ecological Applications 13:951-963. 

The Weather Channel. 2008. Savannah, GA weather facts. 

(http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USGA0506?from=sear

ch). Accessed May 2008. 

Tiner, R. W. 2003a. Correlating enhanced National Wetlands Inventory data with wetland 

functions for watershed assessments: a rationale for northeastern U.S. wetlands., U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory Program, Region 5, Hadley, MA. 

124 
Tiner, R. W. 2003b. Dichotomous keys and mapping codes for wetland landscape position, 

landform, water flow path, and waterbody type descriptors. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Wetlands Inventory Program, Northeast Region, Hadley, MA. 

Tuberville, T., J. Willson, M. Dorcas, and J. Gibbons. 2005. Herpetofaunal species richness of 

southeastern National Parks. Southeastern Naturalist 4. 

Tucker, R. E. 1986. Preliminary list of birds of Fort Pulaski National Monument. National Park 

Service USDOI. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. US Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District. 

(http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/). Accessed September 2008. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. American fact finder. 

(http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en). Accessed August 2008. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2001. Hurricanes, unleashing nature's fury, a preparedness 

guide. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Weather Service. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. National coastal condition report II (2005), EPA620/R-03/002., Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

(http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/). Accessed August 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). (http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html). Accessed July 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008b. Six Common Air Pollutants. 

(http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/). Accessed July 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008c. Technology transfer metwork (TTN), air quality 

system (AQS) data mart. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/aqsdatamart/index.htm). Accessed 

July 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008d. Water quality criteria for nitrogen and 

phosphorus pollution, basic information. 

(http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/basic.htm). Accessed July 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008e. Water quality criteria for nitrogen and 

phosphorus pollution. (http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/) Accessed July 

2008. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Endangered species program, Endangered Species Act of 

1973. (http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/ESA/content.html). Accessed November 2008. 

125 
U.S. Geological Survey. 2000. Fire ecology in the southeastern United States. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2008a. 7.5-minute digital elevation model (DEM). From 

GeoCommunity (http://www.geocomm.com/). Accessed December, 2008. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2008b. National vegetation classification standard (NVCS). 

(http://biology.usgs.gov/npsveg/nvcs.html). Accessed November 2008. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2008c. North American breeding bird survey data. Patuxent Wildlife 

Research Center, Laurel, MD. (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/results/). Accessed August 

2008. 

UGA Department of Geology. 2008. Georgia geology. 

(http://www.gly.uga.edu/default.php?PK=0&iPage=5). Accessed October 2008. 

UGA Institute of Ecology and GA Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit. 2003. A GAP 

analysis of Georgia. 

UGA State Climate Office. 2008. Savannah, Georgia climate information. 

(http://climate.engr.uga.edu/savannah/index.html). Accessed May 2008. 

University of Massachusetts Extension. 2008. Monitoring: growing degree days and plant 

phenology. (http://www.umassgreeninfo.org/fact_sheets/ipmtools/gdd_phrenology.html). 

Accessed November 2008. 

USDA Bureau of Soils. 1911. Historical soil survey maps. 

(http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/historicalmaps/soilsurvey/index.html). Accessed August 

2008. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006. LANDFIRE: 14047990, 64779257, 14896850, and 43476636: 

USDA Forest Service, Missoula MT. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Wildland fire assessment system. (http://www.wfas.net/). Accessed 

November 2008. 

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2006. Soil data mart. Soil survey area: Bryan and 

Chatham Counties, Georgia, version 5, December 21, 2006. 

(http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Survey.aspx?County=GA051). Accessed September 

2008. 

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2008. Soil data viewer. 

(http://soildataviewer.nrcs.usda.gov/). Accessed August 2008. 

126 
127 

Virginia Tech FORSITE. 2008. Forestry outreach site. Scientific investigations, phenology and 

growing degree days. (http://www.cnr.vt.edu/dendro/forsite/si6.htm). Accessed October 

2008. 

Waldrop, T. A., D. L. White, and S. M. Jones. 1992. Fire regimes for pine-grassland 

communities in the southeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 47:195-

210. 

Walther, G.-R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T. J. C. Beebee, J.-M. Fromentin, 

O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate 

change. Nature 416:389-395. 

Watson, K. 2005. Avian conservation implementation plan Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Wiegert, R. G. and B. J. Freeman. 1990. Tidal salt marshes of the southeast Atlantic coast: a 

community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report. 85 (7.29). 

Winger, P. V., P. J. Lasier, D. H. White, and J. T. Segina. 2000. Effects of contaminants in 

dredge material from the lower Savannah River. Archives of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology 38:128-136. 

Wood, K. T., S. R. Lawson, and J. L. Marion. 2006. Assessing recreation impacts to cliffs in 

Shenandoah National Park: integrating visitor observation with trail and recreation site 

measurements. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration 24:86-110. 

Young, T. F. and S. Sanzone. 2002. A framework for assessing and reporting on ecological 

condition. 

Zouhar, K., J. K. Smith, S. Sutherland, and M. L. Brooks. 2008. Wildland fire in ecosystems, fire 

and nonnative invasive plants. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-volume 6. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, 

UT. 
Appendices 

Page 

Appendix A: Land cover calculation methods. ...................................................................... 129

Appendix B: Hydrology calculation methods. ....................................................................... 133

Appendix C: Soil series description and soil ratings. ............................................................ 134

Appendix D: Reference species lists from habitat distribution models published by the 

Georgia Gap Analysis Program (UGA Institute of Ecology and GA Cooperative Fish 

& Wildlife Research Unit 2003) ................................................................................ 148

Appendix E: The following species lists (Appendix F through Appendix J) have been crossreferenced to NatureServe’s global and state rankings (NatureServe 2008); and the GA 

DNR listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (GA DNR Wildlife Resources 

Division 2008). ........................................................................................................... 151

Appendix F: Native (n=224) and non-native (n=83) plant species documented at Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. .................................................................................................. 154

Appendix G: Fish species documented for Fort Pulaski National Monument....................... 163

Appendix H: Herpetofauna (amphibian and reptile species) documented for Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. .................................................................................................. 166

Appendix I: Bird species documented for Fort Pulaski National Monument. ....................... 170

Appendix J: Mammal species documented for Fort Pulaski National Monument. ............... 179

128 
Appendix A: Land cover calculation methods. 

We used “Extract by Mask” in ArcToolbox (ESRI 2006) to clip each land cover dataset to the 

study areas. In some cases when the study areas went into another state, multiple datasets were 

mosaiced (combined) in ERDAS Imagine (Leica Geosystems Geospatial Imaging 2004). In some 

cases we performed grid reclassification and relabeling of class name to simplify and to make the 

raster files that were produced more useable. 

NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program Classification Scheme (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 2008a): 

Uplands 

Consisting of areas above sea level where saturated soils and standing water are absent. Also, the 

Hydrologic regime is not sufficiently wet to support vegetation associated with wetlands. Upland 

features are divided into classes such as High, Medium, Low Intensity Development, Cultivated 

land, Grassland, Pasture/ Hay, Barren land, Scrub/Shrub, Dwarf Shrub, Deciduous, Evergreen 

and Mixed Forest. 

2- Developed, High Intensity – Includes highly developed areas where people reside or work in 

high numbers. Impervious surfaces account for 80 to 100 percent of the total cover. 

Characteristic land cover features: Large commercial/industrial complexes and associated 

parking, commercial strip development, large barns, hangars, interstate highways, and runways. 

3- Developed, Medium Intensity – Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and 

vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 50 to 79 percent of the total cover. 

Characteristic land cover features: Small buildings such as single family housing units, farm 

outbuildings, and large sheds. 

4- Developed, Low Intensity – Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and 

vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 21 to 49 percent of total cover. 

Characteristic land cover features: Same as Medium Intensity Developed with the addition of 

streets and roads with associated trees and grasses. If roads or portions of roads are present in the 

imagery they are represented as this class in the final land cover product. 

5- Developed, Open Space – Includes areas with a mixture of some constructed materials, but 

mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20 

percent of total cover. 

Characteristic land cover features: Parks, lawns, athletic fields, golf courses, and natural grasses 

occurring around airports and industrial sites. 

6- Cultivated Crops – Areas used for the production of annual crops. Crop vegetation accounts 

for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. This class also includes all land being actively 

tilled. 

Characteristic land cover features: Crops (corn, soybeans, vegetables, tobacco, and cotton), 

orchards, nurseries, and vineyards. 

129 
7- Pasture/Hay – Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock 

grazing or the production of seed or hay crops, typically on a perennial cycle and not tilled. 

Pasture/hay vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. 

Characteristic land cover features: Crops such as alfalfa, hay, and winter wheat. 

8- Grassland/Herbaceous – Areas dominated by grammanoid or herbaceous vegetation, 

generally greater than 80 percent of total vegetation. These areas are not subject to intensive 

management such as tilling, but can be utilized for grazing. 

Characteristic land cover features: Prairies, meadows, fallow fields, clear-cuts with natural 

grasses, and undeveloped lands with naturally occurring grasses. 

9- Deciduous Forest – Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall and greater 

than 20 percent of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species shed foliage 

simultaneously in response to seasonal change. 

Characteristic species: Maples (Acer), Hickory (Carya), Oaks (Quercus), and Aspen (Populus 

tremuloides). 

10- Evergreen Forest – Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall and greater 

than 20 percent of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species maintain their 

leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage. 

Characteristic species: Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), slash pine (Pinus ellioti), shortleaf pine 

(Pinus echinta), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and other southern yellow (Picea); various spruces 

and balsam fir (Abies balsamea); white pine (Pinus strobus), red pine (Pinus resinosa), and jack 

pine (Pinus banksiana); hemlock (Tsuga canadensis); and such western species as Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii), redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), ponderosa pine (Pinus monticola), 

Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmanni), western red cedar (Thuja 

plicata), and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). 

11- Mixed Forest – Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater 

than 20 percent of total vegetation cover. Neither deciduous nor evergreen species are greater 

than 75 percent of total tree cover. 

Characteristic species: Those listed in 9 and 10. 

12- Scrub/Shrub – Areas dominated by shrubs less than 5 meters tall with shrub canopy typically 

greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. This class includes tree shrubs, young trees in an early 

successional stage, or trees stunted from environmental conditions. 

Characteristic species: Those listed in 9 and 10 as well as chaparral species such as chamise 

(Adenostoma fasciculatum), chaparral honeysuckle (Lonicera interrupta), scrub oak (Quercus 

beberidifolia), sagebrush (artemisia tridentate), and manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.). 

Wetlands 

Areas dominated by saturated soils and often standing water. Wetlands vegetation is adapted to 

withstand long-term immersion and saturated, oxygen-depleted soils. These are divided into two 

salinity regimes: Palustrine for freshwater wetlands and Estuarine for saltwater wetlands. These 

130 
are further divided into Forested, Shrub/Scrub, and Emergent wetlands. Unconsolidated Shores 

are also included as wetlands. 

13- Palustrine Forested Wetland – Includes all tidal and nontidal wetlands dominated by woody 

vegetation greater than or equal to 5 meters in height, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal 

areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 percent. Total vegetation coverage 

is greater than 20 percent. 

Characteristic species: Tupelo (Nyssa), Cottonwoods (Populus deltoids), Bald Cypress 

(Taxodium distichum), American elm (Ulmus Americana), Ash (Fraxinus), and tamarack. 

14- Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland – Includes all tidal and non tidal wetlands dominated by 

woody vegetation less than 5 meters in height, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in 

which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 percent. Total vegetation coverage is 

greater than 20 percent. The species present could be true shrubs, young trees and shrubs, or 

trees that are small or stunted due to environmental conditions (Cowardin et al. 1979). 

Characteristic species: Alders (Alnus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), buttonbush (Cephalanthus 

occidentalis), red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), honeycup (Zenobia pulverenta), spirea 

(Spiraea douglassii), bog birch (Betula pumila), and young trees such as red maple (Acer 

rubrum) and black spruce (Picea mariana). 

15- Palustrine Emergent Wetland (Persistent) – Includes all tidal and nontidal wetlands 

dominated by persistent emergent vascular plants, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such 

wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 

percent. Plants generally remain standing until the next growing season. Total vegetation cover is 

greater than 80 percent. 

Characteristic species: Cattails (Typha spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), 

rushes (Juncus spp.), saw grass (Cladium jamaicaense), and reed (Phragmites australis). 

16- Estuarine Forested Wetland – Includes all tidal wetlands dominated by woody vegetation 

greater than or equal to 5 meters in height, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in 

which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is equal to or greater than 0.5 percent. Total vegetation 

coverage is greater than 20 percent. 

Characteristic species: Red Mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), Black Mangrove (Avicennia 

germinans) and White Mangrove (Languncularia racemosa) 

17- Estuarine Scrub / Shrub Wetland – Includes all tidal wetlands dominated by woody 

vegetation less than 5 meters in height, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which 

salinity due to ocean-derived salts is equal to or greater than 0.5 percent. Total vegetation 

coverage is greater than 20 percent. 

Characteristic species: Sea-myrtle (Baccharis halimifolia) and marsh elder (Iva frutescens). 

18- Estuarine Emergent Wetland – Includes all tidal wetlands dominated by erect, rooted, 

herbaceous hydrophytes (excluding mosses and lichens). Wetlands that occur in tidal areas in 

which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is equal to or greater than 0.5 percent and that are 

present for most of the growing season in most years. Perennial plants usually dominate these 

wetlands. Total vegetation cover is greater than 80 percent. 

131 
132 

Characteristic species: Cordgrass (Spartina spp.), needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), narrow 

leaved cattail ( Typha angustifolia), southern wild rice (Zizaniopsis miliacea), common 

pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), sea blite (Suaeda californica), and arrow grass (Triglochin 

martimum). 

19- Unconsolidated Shore – Unconsolidated material such as silt, sand, or gravel that is subject 

to inundation and redistribution due to the action of water. Characterized by substrates lacking 

vegetation except for pioneering plants that become established during brief periods when 

growing conditions are favorable. Erosion and deposition by waves and currents produce a 

number of landforms representing this class. 

Characteristic land cover features: Beaches, bars, and flats. 

20- Barren Land – (rock/sand/clay) Barren areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, talus, 

slides, volcanic material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel pits, and other 

accumulations of earth material. Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 10 percent of total 

cover. 

Characteristic land cover features: Quarries, strip mines, gravel pits, dunes, beaches above the 

high-water line, sandy areas other than beaches, deserts and arid riverbeds, and exposed rock. 

21- Open Water – All areas of open water, generally with less than 25 percent cover of 

vegetation or soil. 

Characteristic land cover features: Lakes, rivers, reservoirs, streams, ponds, and ocean. 

Table A-1. Vegetation reclassification of C-CAP land cover to quantify “natural vegetation”, 

“semi-natural vegetation”, and “unnatural vegetation”. 

Vegetation Class C-CAP Class 

Natural Vegetation Deciduous Forest 

Estuarine Emergent Wetland 

Estuarine Forest Wetland 

Estuarine Shrub/Scrub Wetland 

Evergreen Forest 

Grassland 

Mixed Forest 

Palustrine Emergent Wetland 

Palustrine Forested Wetland 

Palustrine Shrub/Scrub Wetland 

Shrub/Scrub 

Semi-natural Vegetation Cultivated 

Pasture/Hay 

Developed Open Space 

Unnatural Vegetation High Intensity Developed 

Low Intensity Developed 

Medium Intensity Developed 

Other Bare Land 

Unconsolidated Shore 

Water 
Appendix B: Hydrology calculation methods. 

The 7.5-minute Digital Elevation Model (DEM) raster datasets were produced by the U.S. 

Geological Survey (2008a), and were obtained from the GeoCommunity website. We used 

“Extract by Mask” in ArcToolbox (ESRI 2006) to clip each DEM raster to the park boundaries. 

In some instances, the study areas of interest were contained in multiple quadrangles. In such 

cases, each raster dataset was clipped to the park boundary using the “Extract by Mask” tool and 

subsequently merged into one dataset using “Mosaic to New Raster” in ArcToolbox. Having 

clipped the DEM data to the park boundaries, the data were then reclassified, symbolized, and 

labeled to illustrate mean sea level, two-foot storm surges, and four-foot storm surges. Each 

reclassification permitted the analysis of changes in the acreage and percentage of land/water 

extent in each of the figures. 

133 
Appendix C: Soil series description and soil ratings. 

Brief Map Unit Description

Fort Pulaski National Monument, Georgia

[Only those map units that have entries for the selected description categories are included in this report]

Map unit: Mae - Made land

Description category: SOI

MADE LAND--Areas of variable textured material, ranging from sandy to clayey. Areas have been exposed to extreme altering of the 

original soil by cutting, filling, removing, dredging, dumping, or reshaping. Permeability and available water capacity vary widely from one 

area to another.

Map unit: Tml - Tidal marsh, salty

Description category: SOI

TIDAL MARSH, SALTY (BOHICKET, FLOODED)--This very deep, very poorly drained soil is on broad level tidal flats. This soil is mostly 

clayey throughout. It is flooded twice daily by sea water and is continuously saturated. Permeability is very slow and available water 

capacity is very low.

Map unit: W - Water

Description category: SOI

WATER--Water. 

Survey Area Version: 5

Survey Area Version Date: 12/21/2006 Page 1

134 
LOCATION BOHICKET SC+FL GA MS NC VA 

Established Series 

Rev. RLV-DJD 

07/1999 

BOHICKET SERIES 

The Bohicket series consists of very poorly drained, very slowly permeable soils that formed in 

marine sediments in tidal marshes. These soils are flooded twice daily by sea water. Slopes are 

less than 2 percent. 

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine, mixed, superactive, nonacid, thermic Typic Sulfaquents 

TYPICAL PEDON: Bohicket silty clay loam--saltwater marsh wildlife habitat. (Colors are for 

moist soil.) 

Ag--0 to 10 inches; dark gray (5Y 4/1) silty clay loam; massive; strong fine angular blocky 

structure when dry; very sticky; many medium and coarse pithy fibrous roots constituting 35 

percent of mass by volume; soil flows easily between fingers when squeezed and leaves small 

residue in hand; neutral; gradual wavy boundary. (8 to 24 inches thick) 

Cg1--10 to 49 inches; dark gray (5Y 4/1) silty clay; massive; very sticky; many fine and medium 

roots; soil flows easily between fingers when squeezed and leaves hand empty; neutral; clear 

wavy boundary. (20 to 50 inches thick) 

Cg2--49 to 55 inches; dark gray (5Y 4/1) silty clay and very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) fine 

sandy loam; massive; sticky; few fine roots; soil flows easily between fingers when squeezed and 

leaves small residue in hand; neutral; clear wavy boundary. (0 to 8 inches thick) 

Cg3--55 to 68 inches; greenish gray (5GY 5/1) clay; common coarse faint gray (5Y 4/1) mottles; 

massive; sticky; few fine roots; soil flows between fingers with some difficulty when squeezed 

leaving large residue in hand; moderately alkaline; gradual wavy boundary. (0 to 25 inches thick) 

Cg4--68 to 80 inches; dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1) clay; common medium faint greenish gray 

(5G 5/1) mottles; massive; slightly sticky; few lenses and pockets of dark grayish brown fine 

sandy loam material; soil flows between fingers with some difficulty when squeezed leaving 

large residue in hand; moderately alkaline. 

TYPE LOCATION: Beaufort County, South Carolina; 0.625 mile south of Lobeco; 825 feet 

north of Whale Branch bridge; 100 feet west of U.S. 21. 

RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: These soils are continuously saturated with sea water. Soil 

salinity is high or very high. The n value of all horizons within the 10 to 40 inch control section 

are 1 or more. Pale yellow sulfur compounds are common on surface of peds after air drying for 

30 days. The soil ranges from slightly acid to moderately alkaline throughout. Organic layers 

totaling less than 16 inches thick are in some pedons. After air drying for 30 days the soil is 

extremely acid. 

135 
The Ag horizon has hue of 10YR, 2.5Y, 5Y, 5G, or neutral, value of 2 to 5, and chroma of 0 to 2. 

It is silty clay loam, silty clay, or clay. 

The Cg horizon has hue of 10YR, 2.5Y, 5Y, 5GY, 5BG, or neutral, value of 2 to 7, and chroma 

of 0 to 2. The upper part of the Cg horizon is clay, silty clay, silty clay loam, clay loam, sandy 

clay, or the mucky analogues of these textures. Some pedons have pockets or thin strata of clay 

loam, sandy clay loam, silt loam, sandy loam, loamy sand, or sand. The lower part of the Cg 

horizon below about 40 inches, is variable, ranging from sand to clay. 

COMPETING SERIES: Capers series is the only other known series in the same family. 

Capers soils have n value of less than 1. Similar soils in other families are the Barbary, Barrada, 

Chastain, Gentilly, Ijam, and Wehadkee series. Barbary, Barrada, Chastain, Gentilly, Ijam, and 

Wehadkee soils have sulfur content of less than 0.75 and Wehadkee soils have less than 35 

percent clay. Chastain, Ijam, and Wehadkee soils have n value of less than 1. 

GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Bohicket soils are on broad level tidal flats bordering the Atlantic 

Ocean; less than 3 feet above mean sea level and extending 5 to 15 miles inland along some of 

the larger rivers. They are flooded by sea water twice daily. The soil formed in silty and clayey 

marine sediments. The climate is warm and humid. The mean annual precipitation ranges from 

38 to 52 inches and mean annual temperature ranges from 59 to 70 degrees F. 

GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: In addition to the competing series, these 

include the Meggett, Santee, and Stone series. Meggett, Santee, and Stone soils have Bt horizons. 

None of the associated soils are covered by seawater, or have high salinity or sulfur content. 

DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Very poorly drained; very slow runoff; very slow 

permeability. 

USE AND VEGETATION: Wetland wildlife habitat. Too soft for cattle grazing. Vegetation is 

smooth cordgrass. 

DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, and Virginia. The series is extensive. 

MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Raleigh, North Carolina 

SERIES ESTABLISHED: Berkeley County, South Carolina; 1974. 

REMARKS: Bohicket series was formerly mapped as a miscellaneous land type named Tidal 

Marsh soft. Also, such soils have been named "cat clay." 

Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are: 

Ochric epipedon - the zone from the surface to a depth of 10 inches (the Ag horizon). 

TABULAR SERIES DATA: 

136 
137 

SOI-5 Soil Name Slope Airtemp FrFr/Seas Precip Elevation 

SC0022 BOHICKET 0- 2 59- 70 220-250 38- 52 0- 3 

SOI-5 FloodL FloodH Watertable Kind Months Bedrock Hardness 

SC0022 FREQ 0- 0 APPARENT JAN-DEC 60-60 

SOI-5 Depth Texture 3-Inch No-10 Clay% -CECSC0022 0-10 SICL SIC C 0- 0 99-100 30-60 15- 30 

SC0022 0-10 MUCK MK-PEAT - - 0- 0 20- 45 

SC0022 0-10 MK-SICL 0- 0 99-100 27-40 20- 30 

SC0022 10-49 SIC C SC 0- 0 99-100 35-60 20- 30 

SC0022 49-80 VAR - - - - 

SOI-5 Depth -pH- O.M. Salin Permeab Shnk-Swll 

SC0022 0-10 6.1- 8.4 5.-25 8-32 0.06- 0.2 HIGH 

SC0022 0-10 6.1- 8.4 20-60 8-32 0.6- 6.0 

SC0022 0-10 6.1- 8.4 10-25 8-16 0.2- 2.0 HIGH 

SC0022 10-49 6.1- 8.4 5.-20 8-32 0.0-0.06 HIGH 

SC0022 49-80 - - - - 

National Cooperative Soil Survey 

U.S.A.
138 

Potential Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-Trail)

Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition 

Tie-break Rule: Higher 

Fort Pulaski National Monument, Georgia 

Survey Area Version and Date: 5 - 12/21/2006 

Map 

symbol Map unit name 

Component name and % composition 

Rating Rating reasons 

Mae Made land Not rated Made land 100% 

Tml Tidal marsh, salty Slight Tidal marsh, salty 100% 

W Water Not rated Water 100% 

Application Version: 5.2.0016 12/10/2008 

Page 1 of 2 
Potential Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-Trail) 

Rating Options 

Attribute Name: Potential Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-Trail) 

Ratings indicate the hazard or risk of soil loss from off-road and off-trail areas after disturbance activities that expose the soil 

surface, and are based on slope and soil erodibility factor K. The soil loss is caused by sheet or rill erosion in off-road or off-trail 

areas where 50 to 75 percent of the surface has been exposed by logging, grazing, mining, or other kinds of disturbance. 

The hazard is described as "slight", "moderate", "severe", or "very severe". A rating of "slight" indicates that erosion is unlikely 

under ordinary climatic conditions; "moderate" indicates that some erosion is likely and that erosion-control measures may be 

needed; "severe" indicates that erosion is very likely and that erosion-control measures, including revegetation of bare areas, are 

advised; and "very severe" indicates that significant erosion is expected, loss of soil productivity and off-site damage are likely, and 

erosion-control measures are costly and generally impractical. 

Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition 

Aggregation is the process by which a set of component attribute values is reduced to a single value to represent the map unit as a 

whole. 

A map unit is typically composed of one or more "components". A component is either some type of soil or some nonsoil entity, 

e.g., rock outcrop. The components in the map unit name represent the major soils within a map unit delineation. Minor 

components make up the balance of the map unit. Great differences in soil properties can occur between map unit components 

and within short distances. Minor components may be very different from the major components. Such differences could 

significantly affect use and management of the map unit. Minor components may or may not be documented in the database. The 

results of aggregation do not reflect the presence or absence of limitations of the components which are not listed in the database. 

An on-site investigation is required to identify the location of individual map unit components. 

For each of a map unit's components, a corresponding percent composition is recorded. A percent composition of 60 indicates that 

the corresponding component typically makes up approximately 60% of the map unit. Percent composition is a critical factor in 

some, but not all, aggregation methods. 

For the attribute being aggregated, the first step of the aggregation process is to derive one attribute value for each of a map unit's 

components. From this set of component attributes, the next step of the aggregation process derives a single value that represents 

the map unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map unit is derived, a thematic map for soil map units can be generated. 

Aggregation must be done because, on any soil map, map units are delineated but components are not.The aggregation method 

"Dominant Condition" first groups like attribute values for the components in a map unit. For each group, percent composition is set 

to the sum of the percent composition of all components participating in that group. These groups now represent "conditions" rather 

than components. The attribute value associated with the group with the highest cumulative percent composition is returned. If more 

than one group shares the highest cumulative percent composition, the corresponding "tie-break" rule determines which value 

should be returned. The "tie-break" rule indicates whether the lower or higher group value should be returned in the case of a 

percent composition tie. 

The result returned by this aggregation method represents the dominant condition throughout the map unit only when no tie has 

occurred. 

Tie-break Rule: Higher 

 The tie-break rule indicates which value should be selected from a set of multiple candidate values, or which value should 

be selected in the event of a percent composition tie. 

139 

Application Version: 5.2.0016 12/10/2008 

Page 2 of 2 
140 

Water Features

Fort Pulaski National Monument, Georgia

[Depths of layers are in feet. See text for definitions of terms used in this table. Estimates of the frequency of ponding and flooding apply to the whole year rather tof an entry indicates that the feature is not a concern or that data were not estimated]

Water table Ponding 

Map symbol Hydrologic

and soil name Surface runoff Months Upper Lower Surface Duration Freque

group limit limit water depth

Ft Ft Ft

Mae:

Made land --- --- Jan-Dec --- --- None 

Tml:

Tidal marsh, salty D --- January 0.0 >6.0 0.0-3.0 Brief Freque

February 0.0 >6.0 0.0-3.0 Brief FrequeMarch 0.0 >6.0 0.0-3.0 Brief FrequeApril 0.0 >6.0 0.0-3.0 Brief FrequeMay 0.0 >6.0 0.0-3.0 Brief FrequeJune 0.0 >6.0 0.0-3.0 Brief FrequeJuly 0.0 >6.0 0.0-3.0 Brief FrequeAugust 0.0 >6.0 0.0-3.0 Brief FrequeSeptember 0.0 >6.0 0.0-3.0 Brief FrequeOctober 0.0 >6.0 0.0-3.0 Brief FrequeNovember 0.0 >6.0 0.0-3.0 Brief FrequeDecember 0.0 >6.0 0.0-3.0 Brief Freque

W:

Water --- --- Jan-Dec --- --- None 

Survey Area Version: 5

Survey Area Version Date: 12/21/2006 
141 

Drainage Class

Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition 

Tie-break Rule: Higher 

Fort Pulaski National Monument, Georgia 

Survey Area Version and Date: 5 - 12/21/2006 

Map 

symbol Map unit name 

Rating 

Mae Made land

Very poorly drained 

Tml Tidal marsh, salty 

W Water 

Application Version: 5.2.0016 12/10/2008 

Page 1 of 2
142 

Drainage Class 

Rating Options 

Attribute Name: Drainage Class 

Drainage class (natural) refers to the frequency and duration of wet periods under conditions similar to those under which the soil 

formed. Alterations of the water regime by human activities, either through drainage or irrigation, are not a consideration unless 

they have significantly changed the morphology of the soil. Seven classes of natural soil drainage are recognized -- excessively 

drained, somewhat excessively drained, well drained, moderately well drained, somewhat poorly drained, poorly drained, and very

poorly drained. These classes are defined in the "Soil Survey Manual." 

Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition 

Aggregation is the process by which a set of component attribute values is reduced to a single value to represent the map unit as a 

whole. 

A map unit is typically composed of one or more "components". A component is either some type of soil or some nonsoil entity, 

e.g., rock outcrop. The components in the map unit name represent the major soils within a map unit delineation. Minor 

components make up the balance of the map unit. Great differences in soil properties can occur between map unit components 

and within short distances. Minor components may be very different from the major components. Such differences could 

significantly affect use and management of the map unit. Minor components may or may not be documented in the database. The 

results of aggregation do not reflect the presence or absence of limitations of the components which are not listed in the database. 

An on-site investigation is required to identify the location of individual map unit components. 

For each of a map unit's components, a corresponding percent composition is recorded. A percent composition of 60 indicates that 

the corresponding component typically makes up approximately 60% of the map unit. Percent composition is a critical factor in 

some, but not all, aggregation methods. 

For the attribute being aggregated, the first step of the aggregation process is to derive one attribute value for each of a map unit's 

components. From this set of component attributes, the next step of the aggregation process derives a single value that represents 

the map unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map unit is derived, a thematic map for soil map units can be generated. 

Aggregation must be done because, on any soil map, map units are delineated but components are not.The aggregation method 

"Dominant Condition" first groups like attribute values for the components in a map unit. For each group, percent composition is set 

to the sum of the percent composition of all components participating in that group. These groups now represent "conditions" rather 

than components. The attribute value associated with the group with the highest cumulative percent composition is returned. If more 

than one group shares the highest cumulative percent composition, the corresponding "tie-break" rule determines which value 

should be returned. The "tie-break" rule indicates whether the lower or higher group value should be returned in the case of a 

percent composition tie. 

The result returned by this aggregation method represents the dominant condition throughout the map unit only when no tie has 

occurred. 

Tie-break Rule: Higher 

 The tie-break rule indicates which value should be selected from a set of multiple candidate values, or which value should 

be selected in the event of a percent composition tie. 

Application Version: 5.2.0016 12/10/2008 

Page 2 of 2 
143 

Map Unit Hydric Rating

Aggregation Method: Absence/Presence 

Tie-break Rule: Lower 

Fort Pulaski National Monument, Georgia 

Survey Area Version and Date: 5 - 12/21/2006 

Map 

symbol Map unit name Rating 

Mae Made land Unknown Hydric 

Tml Tidal marsh, salty All Hydric 

W Water Not Hydric 

Application Version: 5.2.0016 12/10/2008 

Page 1 of 2
144 

Map Unit Hydric Rating 

Rating Options 

Attribute Name: Map Unit Hydric Rating 

This rating provides an indication of the proportion of the map unit that meets criteria for hydric soils. Map units that are dominantly 

made up of hydric soils may have small areas, or inclusions, of nonhydric soils in the higher positions on the landform, and map 

units dominantly made up of nonhydric soils may have inclusions of hydric soils in the lower positions on the landform. 

Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of 

saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal 

Register, 1994). These soils, under natural conditions, are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to 

support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. 

The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with wetness. In order to determine whether a specific 

soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration of the 

water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established 

(Federal Register, 2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands. The 

criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil 

Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2003) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). 

If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should exhibit certain properties that can be 

easily observed in the field. These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite 

determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and others, 2002). 

Aggregation Method: Absence/Presence 

Aggregation is the process by which a set of component attribute values is reduced to a single value to represent the map unit as a 

whole. 

A map unit is typically composed of one or more "components". A component is either some type of soil or some nonsoil entity, 

e.g., rock outcrop. The components in the map unit name represent the major soils within a map unit delineation. Minor 

components make up the balance of the map unit. Great differences in soil properties can occur between map unit components 

and within short distances. Minor components may be very different from the major components. Such differences could 

significantly affect use and management of the map unit. Minor components may or may not be documented in the database. The 

results of aggregation do not reflect the presence or absence of limitations of the components which are not listed in the database. 

An on-site investigation is required to identify the location of individual map unit components. 

For each of a map unit's components, a corresponding percent composition is recorded. A percent composition of 60 indicates that 

the corresponding component typically makes up approximately 60% of the map unit. Percent composition is a critical factor in 

some, but not all, aggregation methods. 

For the attribute being aggregated, the first step of the aggregation process is to derive one attribute value for each of a map unit's 

components. From this set of component attributes, the next step of the aggregation process derives a single value that represents 

the map unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map unit is derived, a thematic map for soil map units can be generated. 

Aggregation must be done because, on any soil map, map units are delineated but components are not.The aggregation method 

"Absence/Presence" returns a value that indicates if, for all components of a map unit, a condition is always present, never present, 

partially present, or whether the condition's presence or absence is unknown. The exact phrases used for a particular attribute may 

vary from what is shown below. 

"Always present" means that the corresponding condition is present in all of a map unit's components. 

"Never present" means that the corresponding condition is not present in any of a map unit's components. 

"Partially present" means that the corresponding condition is present in some but not all of a map unit's components, or that the 

presence or absence of the corresponding condition cannot be determined for one or more components of the map unit. 

"Unknown presence" means that for components where presence or absence can be determined, the corresponding condition is 

never present, but the presence or absence of the corresponding condition cannot be determined for one or more components. 

The result returned by this aggregation method quantifies the degree to which the corresponding condition is present throughout

the map unit. 

Tie-break Rule: Lower 

 The tie-break rule indicates which value should be selected from a set of multiple candidate values, or which value should 

be selected in the event of a percent composition tie. 

Application Version: 5.2.0016 12/10/2008 

Page 2 of 2 
145 

Soil Features

Fort Pulaski National Monument, Georgia

[Absence of an entry indicates that the feature is not a concern or that data were not estimated]

Restrictive layer Subsidence Potentia

Map symbol for frost

and soil name Depth action 

Kind to top Thickness Hardness Initial Total 

In In In In

Mae:

Made land --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Tml:

Tidal marsh, salty --- --- --- --- --- 6-12 --- 

W:

Water --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Survey Area Version: 5

Survey Area Version: 5 

Date: 12/21/2006 
Chatham County, Georgia 

[The information in this table indicates the dominant soil condition but does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation. The numbers in the value 

columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given 

soil. The soil may have additional limitations] 

Camp Areas, Picnic Areas, and Playgrounds (GA) 

Tabular Data Version: 5 Tabular Data Version Date: 12/28/2006 Page 1 of 2 

Map symbol and soil name 

Pct. 

of 

map 

unit 

Camp areas (GA) Picnic areas (GA) Playgrounds (GA) 

Rating class and 

limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 

Tml: 

Bohicket 80-100 Very limited Very limited Very limited 

Depth to saturated 1.00 Ponding 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00 

zone Depth to saturated 1.00 zone 

Sodium content 1.00 zone Sodium content 1.00 

Salinity 1.00 Sodium content 1.00 Salinity 1.00 

Flooding 1.00 Salinity 1.00 Flooding 1.00 

Ponding 1.00 Slow water 1.00 Ponding 1.00 

movement 

146 
147 

Camp Areas, Picnic Areas, and Playgrounds (GA) 

The soils of the survey area are rated in this table according to limitations that affect their suitability for camp areas, picnic areas, and playgrounds. The 

ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the 

recreational uses. “Not limited” indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low 

maintenance can be expected. “Somewhat limited” indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The 

limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. 

“Very limited” indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome 

without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. 

Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They 

indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is 

not a limitation (0.00). 

The ratings are based on restrictive soil features, such as wetness, slope, and texture of the surface layer. Susceptibility to flooding is considered. Not 

considered in the ratings, but important in evaluating a site, are the location and accessibility of the area, the size and shape of the area and its scenic 

quality, vegetation, access to water, potential water impoundment sites, and access to public sewer lines. The capacity of the soil to absorb septic tank 

effluent and the ability of the soil to support vegetation also are important. Soils that are subject to flooding are limited for recreational uses by the 

duration and intensity of flooding and the season when flooding occurs. In planning recreational facilities, onsite assessment of the height, duration, 

intensity, and frequency of flooding is essential. 

The information in this table can be supplemented by other information, for example, interpretations for dwellings without basements, for local roads and 

streets, and for septic tank absorption fields. 

“Camp areas” require site preparation, such as shaping and leveling the tent and parking areas, stabilizing roads and intensively used areas, and 

installing sanitary facilities and utility lines. Camp areas are subject to heavy foot traffic and some vehicular traffic. The ratings are based on the soil 

properties that affect the ease of developing camp areas and the performance of the areas after development. Slope, stoniness, and depth to bedrock 

or a cemented pan are the main concerns affecting the development of camp areas. The soil properties that affect the performance of the areas after 

development are those that influence trafficability and promote the growth of vegetation, especially in heavily used areas. For good trafficability, the 

surface of camp areas should absorb rainfall readily, remain firm under heavy foot traffic, and not be dusty when dry. The soil properties that influence 

trafficability are texture of the surface layer, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), and large stones. The soil 

properties that affect the growth of plants are depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, Ksat, and toxic substances in the soil. 

“Picnic areas” are subject to heavy foot traffic. Most vehicular traffic is confined to access roads and parking areas. The ratings are based on the soil 

properties that affect the ease of developing picnic areas and that influence trafficability and the growth of vegetation after development. Slope and 

stoniness are the main concerns affecting the development of picnic areas. For good trafficability, the surface of picnic areas should absorb rainfall 

readily, remain firm under heavy foot traffic, and not be dusty when dry. The soil properties that influence trafficability are texture of the surface layer, 

depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, Ksat, and large stones. The soil properties that affect the growth of plants are depth to bedrock or a cemented 

pan, Ksat, and toxic substances in the soil. 

“Playgrounds” require soils that are nearly level, are free of stones, and can withstand intensive foot traffic. The ratings are based on the soil properties 

that affect the ease of developing playgrounds and that influence trafficability and the growth of vegetation after development. Slope and stoniness are 

the main concerns affecting the development of playgrounds. For good trafficability, the surface of the playgrounds should absorb rainfall readily, remain 

firm under heavy foot traffic, and not be dusty when dry. The soil properties that influence trafficability are texture of the surface layer, depth to a water 

table, ponding, flooding, Ksat, and large stones. The soil properties that affect the growth of plants are depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, Ksat, and 

toxic substances in the soil. 

Tabular Data Version: 5 Tabular Data Version Date: 12/28/2006 Page 2 of 2 
Appendix D: Reference species lists from habitat distribution models published by the Georgia 

Gap Analysis Program (UGA Institute of Ecology and GA Cooperative Fish & Wildlife 

Research Unit 2003) 

GA GAP Amphibians: 

Barking treefrog 

Brimley's chorus frog 

Bullfrog 

Cope's gray treefrog 

Dwarf salamander 

Eastern narrowmouth toad 

Eastern spadefoot toad 

Fowler's toad 

Southern leopard frog 

Greater siren 

Green treefrog 

Greenhouse frog 

Little grass frog 

Pig frog 

Pine woods treefrog 

Red-spotted/Central newt 

Slimy salamander complex 

Southern chorus frog 

Southern cricket frog 

Southern toad 

Southern two-lined salamander 

Spring peeper 

Squirrel treefrog 

Tiger salamander 

Two-toed amphiuma 

148 
Eastern Glass Lizard 

GA GAP Reptiles:

American Alligator 

Banded Water Snake 

Black Racer 

Black Swamp Snake 

Black/Eastern Kingsnake 

Box Turtle 

Broadhead Skink 

Brown Snake 

Brown Water Snake 

Canebrake/Timber Rattlesnake 

Chicken Turtle 

Coachwhip 

Common Musk Turtle 

Copperhead 

Coral Snake 

Corn Snake 

Cottonmouth 

Diamondback Terrapin 

Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake 

Eastern Garter Snake 

Eastern Hognose Snake 

Eastern Mud Turtle 

Fence Lizard 

Five-lined Skink 

Gopher Tortoise 

Green Anole 

Ground Skink 

Island Glass Lizard 

Loggerhead 

Mediterranean Gecko 

Milk snake 

Mimic Glass Lizard 

Mud Snake 

Pigmy Rattlesnake 

Rainbow Snake 

Red-bellied Snake 

Ribbon Snake 

Ringneck Snake 

River Cooter 

Rough Earth Snake 

Rough Green Snake 

Scarlet kingsnake 

Scarlet Snake 

Six-lined Racerunner 

Slider 

Snapping Turtle 

Southeastern Five-lined Skink 

Spotted Turtle 

Yellow/Black/Gray Rat Snake 

149 
GA GAP Mammals: 

American beaver 

Big brown bat 

Black rat 

Bobcat 

Brazilian free-tailed bat 

Common raccoon 

Cotton mouse 

Coyote 

Marsh rice rat 

Eastern fox squirrel 

Eastern gray squirrel 

Eastern mole 

Eastern pipistrelle 

Eastern red bat 

Eastern woodrat 

Evening bat 

Hispid cotton rat 

Hoary bat 

House mouse 

Least shrew 

Marsh rabbit 

Mink 

Nine-banded armadillo 

Northern river otter 

Northern yellow bat 

Norway rat 

Rafinesque's big-eared bat 

Seminole bat 

Southeastern myotis 

Southeastern shrew 

Southern flying squirrel 

Southern short-tailed shrew 

Striped skunk 

Virginia opossum 

White-tailed deer 

Woodland vole 

150 
Appendix E: The following species lists (Appendix F through Appendix J) have been crossreferenced to NatureServe’s global and state rankings (NatureServe 2008); and the GA DNR 

listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (GA DNR Wildlife Resources Division 2008). 

These are further explanations of the rank and status abbreviations. 

NatureServe Ranks (NatureServe 2008) 

Global Ranks: 

G#G#: NatureServe Global Conservation Status Rank, Range Rank - A numeric range rank (e.g., 

G2G3) is used to indicate the rank of uncertainty in the status of a species or community. Ranges 

cannot skip more than one rank (e.g., GU should be used rather than G1G4). 

G1: Critically Imperiled 

At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep 

declines, or other factors. 

G2: Imperiled 

At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), 

steep declines, or other factors. 

G3: Vulnerable 

At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or 

fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. 

G4: Apparently Secure 

Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. 

G5: Secure 

Common; widespread, and abundant. 

State Ranks: 

S#S#: NatureServe Subnational Conservation Status Rank - Range Rank-A numeric range rank 

(e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate the range of uncertainty about the status of the species or 

community. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank (e.g., SU should be used rather than S1S4). 

S?: Unranked 

State/Province conservation status not yet assessed. 

S1: Critically Imperiled 

Critically imperiled in the state or province because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer 

occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially 

vulnerable to extirpation from the state or province. 

S2: Imperiled 

Imperiled in the state or province because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few 

151 
populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to 

extirpation from the state or province. 

S3: Vulnerable 

Vulnerable in the state or province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 

or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. 

S4: Apparently Secure 

Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. 

S5: Secure 

Common, widespread, and abundant in the state or province. 

GA DNR listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (GA DNR Wildlife Resources 

Division 2008) 

Federal Status (From US Fish and Wildlife Service): 

LE: Listed as endangered. The most critically imperiled species. A species that may become 

extinct or disappear from a significant part of its range if not immediately protected. 

LT: Listed as threatened. The next most critical level of threatened species. A species that may 

become endangered if not protected. 

PE or PT: Candidate species currently proposed for listing as endangered or threatened. 

C: Candidate species presently under status review for federal listing for which adequate 

information exists on biological vulnerability and threats to list the taxa as endangered or 

threatened. 

PDL: Proposed for delisting. 

E(S/A) or T(S/A): Listed as endangered or threatened because of similarity of appearance. 

(PS): Indicates "partial status" - status in only a portion of the species' range. Typically indicated 

in a "full" species record where an infraspecific taxon or population has U.S. ESA status, but the 

entire species does not. 

State Status (From Georgia Department of Natural Resources): 

E: Listed as endangered. A species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or part of its 

range 

T: Listed as threatened. A species which is likely to become an endangered species in the 

foreseeable future throughout all or parts of its range. 

152 
153 

R: Listed as rare. A species which may not be endangered or threatened but which should be 

protected because of its scarcity. 

U: Listed as unusual (and thus deserving of special consideration). Plants subject to commercial 

exploitation would have this status
Appendix F: Native (n=224) and non-native (n=83) plant species documented at Fort Pulaski National Monumen

These species have been cross referenced to the GA Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (GA DNR WDivision 2005) high priority species in the southern coastal plain (SCP); and the GA DNR listings for endangerespecies (GA DNR Wildlife Resources Division 2008). *SCP high priority plant and State Status = Rare. See 

Appendix E for explanation of abbreviations. 

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Centella asiatica spadeleaf Unknown Chaerophyllum tainturieri chervil, hairy-fruit chervil, hairyfruit chervil Unknown 

Cyclospermum leptophyllum marsh parsley Unknown Hydrocotyle bonariensis largeleaf pennywort Unknown 

Hydrocotyle umbellata manyflower marshpennywort, umbrella pennyroyal Unknown 

Sanicula canadensis Canada sanicle, Canadian blacksnakeroot Unknown 

Spermolepis echinata bristly scaleseed, bristly-fruit scaleseed Unknown Sabal palmetto cabbage palm, cabbage palmetto Unknown 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia annual ragweed, common ragweed Unknown 

Aster subulatus var. ligulatus annual saltmarsh aster, panicled aster Unknown 

Baccharis angustifolia saltwater false willow Unknown 

Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis Unknown Bidens bipinnata Spanish needles, spanish-needles Unknown Bidens pilosa beggar's tick, cobbler's pegs, Spanish needle Unknown Borrichia frutescens bushy seaoxeye, bushy seaside tansy Unknown Cirsium arvense Californian thistle, Canada thistle, field thistle Unknown Conyza bonariensis asthmaweed, flaxleaved fleabane, hairy fleabane Unknown Conyza canadensis Canadian horseweed, horseweed, horseweed fleabane Unknown 

Coreopsis grandiflora bigflower coreopsis, largeflower tickseed Unknown Eclipta prostrata eclipta, false daisy, yerba de tago, yerba de tajo Unknown 

Erechtites hieraciifolia American burnweed Unknown 

Erigeron pusillus Fleabane, Canada horseweed Unknown Erigeron quercifolius oakleaf fleabane Unknown 

Erigeron strigosus Daisy Fleabane, prairie fleabane, rough fleabane Unknown 

Eupatorium capillifolium dogfennel Unknown 

Eupatorium compositifolium dogfennel eupatorium, yankeeweed Unknown Eupatorium fistulosum Joe Pye weed, trumpetweed Unknown Eupatorium serotinum late eupatorium, lateflowering thoroughwort Unknown 

Euthamia tenuifolia slender goldentop Unknown Gaillardia pulchella firewheel, Indian blanket, Indianblanket, rosering gaillardia Unknown 

154 
Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance 

Gamochaeta purpurea spoon-leaf purple everlasting, spoonleaf purple everlasting Unknown Gnaphalium obtusifolium Fragrant Cudweed Unknown 

Helenium amarum bitter sneezeweed, yellowdicks Unknown 

Heterotheca subaxillaris camphorweed, golden aster Unknown 

Hypochaeris brasiliensis Brazilian catsear Unknown Hypochaeris glabra smooth catsear Unknown Hypochaeris microcephala var. albiflora smallhead catsear Unknown Iva frutescens bigleaf sumpweed, Jesuit's bark Unknown 

Krigia caespitosa weedy dwarfdandelion Unknown Krigia virginica Virginia dwarfdandelion Unknown 

Lactuca floridana Florida lettuce, woodland lettuce Unknown 

Lactuca graminifolia grass-leaf lettuce, grassleaf lettuce Unknown 

Mikania scandens climbing hempvine, climbing hempweed Unknown Pluchea rosea rosy camphorweed Unknown 

Pyrrhopappus carolinianus Carolina desert-chicory, Carolina false dandelion Unknown 

Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod, common goldenrod Unknown 

Solidago sempervirens seaside goldenrod Unknown Solidago tenuifolia -- Unknown Symphyotrichum divaricatum southern annual saltmarsh aster Unknown 

Symphyotrichum tenuifolium perennial saltmarsh aster Unknown 

Taraxacum officinale blowball, common dandelion, dandelion, faceclock Unknown Youngia japonica oriental false hawksbeard Unknown 

Batis maritima saltwort, turtleweed Unknown Tillandsia usneoides Spanish moss Unknown Specularia perfoliata Claspingleaf Venus'-looking-glass Unknown 

Triodanis perfoliata clasping bellwort, clasping Venus' looking-glass Unknown 

Wahlenbergia marginata southern rockbell Unknown 

Lepidium virginicum peppergrass, poorman pepperweed, Virginian peppercress Unknown 

Raphanus raphanistrum wild radish Unknown 

Sesuvium maritimum slender seapurslane Unknown 

Sesuvium portulacastrum shoreline seapurslane Unknown 

Alternanthera philoxeroides alligator weed, alligatorweed, pig weed Unknown Amaranthus hybridus green pigweed, slim amaranth, smooth amaranth, smooth 

pigweed 

Unknown 

Opuntia ficus-indica indian fig, Indian-fig, tuna cactus Unknown 

155 
Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance 

Opuntia humifusa devil's-tongue, pricklypear Unknown Opuntia pusilla cockspur pricklypear Unknown Arenaria serpyllifolia thymeleaf sandwort Unknown Polycarpon tetraphyllum fourleaf manyseed Unknown Scleranthus annuus German knotgrass, knawel Unknown 

Spergularia salina salt sandspurry Unknown 

Stellaria media chickweed, common chickweed, nodding chickweed Unknown Atriplex cristata crested saltbush Unknown Atriplex prostrata hastate orache, triangle orache Unknown Chenopodium album common lambsquarters, lambsquarters, white goosefoot Unknown 

Chenopodium ambrosioides Mexican tea, Mexican-tea Unknown Salicornia bigelovii dwarf saltwort Unknown Salicornia virginica Virginia glasswort Unknown Salsola kali prickly Russian thistle, Russian thistle, tumbleweed Unknown 

Sarcocornia perennis chickenclaws Unknown Suaeda linearis annual seepweed Unknown 

Boerhavia coccinea scarlet spiderling Unknown Mirabilis jalapa common four o'clock, marvel of Peru Unknown Phytolacca americana American pokeweed, common pokeweed, inkberry Unknown Phytolacca rigida Common pokeweed Unknown 

Portulaca oleracea common purslane, duckweed, garden purslane Unknown Portulaca pilosa chisme, kiss me quick, kiss-me-quick Unknown 

Ilex vomitoria yaupon Unknown 

Commelina communis Asiatic dayflower, common dayflower Unknown 

Bulbostylis capillaris densetuft hairsedge, threadleaf beakseed Unknown 

Carex albolutescens greenwhite sedge Unknown 

Cladium jamaicense Jamaica sawgrass Unknown Cyperus echinatus globe flatsedge Unknown 

Cyperus filicinus fern flatsedge Unknown 

Cyperus lancastriensis manyflower flatsedge Unknown Cyperus polystachyos var. texensis Texan flatsedge Unknown 

Cyperus retrorsus pine barren flatsedge Unknown 

Cyperus rotundus nutgrass, purple nutsedge Unknown Cyperus virens green flatsedge Unknown 

Fimbristylis castanea marsh fimbry, saltmarsh fimbristylis Unknown 

156 
Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance 

Fimbristylis puberula hairy fimbry Unknown Kyllinga gracillima pasture spikesedge Unknown Schoenoplectus robustus sturdy bulrush Unknown 

Scleria triglomerata whip nutrush Unknown 

Agrostis hyemalis winter bentgrass Unknown 

Andropogon glomeratus bushy bluestem Unknown 

Andropogon virginicus broomsedge, broomsedge bluestem, yellow bluestem Unknown 

Arundinaria gigantea giant cane Unknown 

Briza minor little quakinggrass Unknown 

Bromus catharticus rescue brome, rescue grass, rescuegras, rescuegrass Unknown 

Cenchrus echinatus burgrass, common sandbur, field sandbur Unknown 

Cenchrus longispinus burgrass, field sandbur, innocent-weed Unknown 

Cenchrus tribuloides sanddune sandbur Unknown Chasmanthium laxum slender woodoats, spike uniola Unknown 

Cynodon dactylon Bermudagrass Unknown Digitaria sanguinalis Crabgrass Unknown Distichlis spicata desert saltgrass, inland saltgrass, marsh spikegrass Unknown 

Echinochloa crus-galli barnyard grass, Japanese millet Unknown 

Eleusine indica crowsfoot grass, goose grass, Indian goose grass Unknown 

Eragrostis elliottii field lovegrass Unknown Eremochloa ophiuroides centipede grass Unknown Eustachys petraea pinewoods fingergrass Unknown 

Hordeum pusillum little barley, little wildbarley Unknown Muhlenbergia filipes Southern hairgrass Unknown Oplismenus hirtellus bristle basketgrass Unknown 

Panicum amarum bitter panicgrass, bitter panicum Unknown 

Paspalum dilatatum dallas grass, water grass Unknown 

Paspalum distichum knotgrass, knotroot paspalum Unknown 

Paspalum notatum Bahia grass, bahiagrass Unknown 

Paspalum urvillei Vasey grass, Vasey's grass, vaseygrass Unknown Paspalum vaginatum seashore paspalum Unknown 

Phalaris caroliniana Carolina canarygrass Unknown Polypogon maritimus Mediterranean rabbitsfoot grass Unknown Polypogon monspeliensis annual rabbit's-foot grass Unknown Setaria magna giant bristlegrass Unknown 

157 
Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance 

Setaria parviflora knotroot bristlegrass, marsh bristle grass, yellow bristlegrass Unknown Sorghum halepense Johnson grass, Johnsongrass Unknown Spartina alterniflora Atlantic cordgrass, saltmarsh cordgrass, smooth cordgrass Unknown 

Spartina cynosuroides big cordgrass Unknown 

Spartina patens marshhay cordgrass, salt meadow cordgrass Unknown 

Sphenopholis obtusata prairie wedgegrass, prairie wedgescale Unknown 

Sporobolus indicus Rattail smutgrass, smut grass, smutgrass Unknown 

Sporobolus poiretii Unknown Sporobolus virginicus seashore dropseed Unknown Stenotaphrum secundatum St. Augustine grass, St. Augustinegrass Unknown 

Triplasis purpurea purple sand grass, purple sandgrass Unknown 

Uniola paniculata seaoats Unknown Vulpia sciurea squirreltail fescue Unknown Lonicera japonica Chinese honeysuckle, Japanese honeysuckle Unknown Sambucus canadensis american elder Unknown 

Diospyros virginiana common persimmon, eastern persimmon, Persimmon Unknown 

Sideroxylon tenax tough bully Unknown 

Acalypha gracilens slender copperleaf, slender threeseed mercury Unknown 

Chamaesyce bombensis dixie sandmat Unknown 

Chamaesyce cordifolia heartleaf sandmat Unknown Chamaesyce maculata spotted sandmat Unknown 

Chamaesyce nutans eyebane, nodding spurge, spotted sandmat, spotted spurge Unknown 

Chamaesyce polygonifolia seaside sandmat, seaside spurge Unknown Cnidoscolus stimulosus finger rot Unknown Croton glandulosus var. septentrionalis vente conmigo Unknown Croton punctatus gulf croton Unknown Euphorbia curtisii Curtis' spurge Unknown 

Triadica sebifera tallowtree Unknown Acacia farnesiana aroma, Ellington curse, sweet acacia Unknown 

Centrosema virginianum butterflypea, spurred butterfly pea Unknown 

Chamaecrista nictitans var. aspera partridge pea Unknown 

Clitoria mariana Atlantic pigeonwings, pidgeonwings Unknown 

Galactia elliottii Elliott's milkpea Unknown 

Galactia regularis eastern milkpea Unknown Galactia volubilis downy milkpea Unknown 

158 
Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance 

Gleditsia triacanthos common honeylocust Unknown Glottidium vesicarium bagpod Unknown 

Lespedeza cuneata Chinese lespedeza, sericea lespedeza Unknown Medicago polymorpha bur clover, burclover, California burclover, toothed medick Unknown Melilotus alba white sweetclover Unknown Melilotus indicus annual yellow sweetclover, Indian sweet-clover Unknown 

Melilotus officinalis yellow sweet-clover, yellow sweetclover Unknown Rhynchosia tomentosa twining snoutbean Unknown Senna obtusifolia Java-bean, sicklepod Unknown 

Sesbania herbacea bigpod sesbania, hemp sesbania, peatree Unknown Strophostyles helvula trailing fuzzybean, trailing wild-bean, Trailing wildbean Unknown Trifolium arvense hairy clover, hare's foot clover, oldfield clover Unknown Trifolium dubium hop clover, smallhop clover, suckling clover Unknown 

Vicia angustifolia garden vetch Unknown Vicia dasycarpa winter vetch Unknown Vicia grandiflora large yellow vetch Unknown Vicia sativa ssp. nigra common vetch, garden vetch, slimleaf vetch, vetch Unknown Vicia tetrasperma lentil vetch, sparrow vetch Unknown 

Vicia villosa hairy vetch, winter vetch, woolly vetch, wooly vetch Unknown Quercus hemisphaerica Darlington oak, Darlington's oak Unknown 

Quercus virginiana live oak Unknown Nerium oleander oleander Unknown Vinca minor common periwinkle, lesser periwinkle, myrtle Unknown 

Cynanchum angustifolium gulf coast swallow-wort, Gulf coast swallowwort Unknown 

Sabatia brachiata narrowleaf rose gentian, narrowleaf rosegentian Unknown 

Sabatia stellaris rose of Plymouth Unknown 

Oxalis stricta common yellow oxalis, erect woodsorrel, sheep sorrel Unknown 

Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Unknown Platanus occidentalis American sycamore, sycamore Unknown 

Carya illinoinensis pecan Unknown 

Juncus coriaceus leathery rush Unknown 

Juncus dichotomus forked rush Unknown Juncus diffusissimus slimpod rush Unknown 

Juncus effusus common rush, lamp rush Unknown 

Juncus marginatus grassleaf rush Unknown 

159 
Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance 

Juncus roemerianus needlegrass rush Unknown Juncus tenuis field rush, path rush, poverty rush Unknown 

Heliotropium curassavicum quail plant, salt heliotrope, seaside heliotrope Unknown Salvia lyrata lyreleaf sage Unknown 

Stachys floridana Florida betony, Florida hedgenettle Unknown Teucrium canadense American germander, Canada germander Unknown 

Trichostema dichotomum blue curls, forked bluecurls Unknown 

Callicarpa americana American beautyberry Unknown 

Glandularia pulchella South American mock vervain Unknown Lantana camara lantana, largeleaf lantana Unknown Lantana urticoides West Indian shrubverbena, western lantana Unknown 

Phyla nodiflora frog fruit, sawtooth fogfruit, turkey tangle, turkey tangle 

fogfruit 

Unknown 

Verbena bonariensis pretty verbena, purpletop vervain Unknown Verbena brasiliensis Brazilian vervain Unknown Verbena hastata blue verbena, blue vervain, Simpler's-joy, swamp verbena Unknown 

Cinnamomum camphora camphor laurel, camphor tree, camphortree Unknown 

Persea borbonia redbay Unknown Sassafras albidum sassafras Unknown Yucca aloifolia aloe yucca Unknown 

Yucca filamentosa Adam's needle Unknown 

Sisyrinchium rosulatum annual blue-eyed grass, annual blueeyed grass Unknown 

Zephyranthes candida autumn zephyrlily Unknown Smilax auriculata earleaf greenbrier Unknown 

Smilax bona-nox saw greenbrier Unknown Modiola caroliniana Carolina bristlemallow, Carolina modiola Unknown 

Sida acuta common wireweed Unknown Sida rhombifolia arrowleaf sida, cuban jute, Cuban-jute Unknown 

Sida spinosa prickly fanpetals, prickly sida Unknown Morella cerifera wax myrtle, waxmyrtle Unknown 

Lagerstroemia indica crapemyrtle Unknown Gaura angustifolia southern beeblossom Unknown 

Oenothera humifusa seabeach evening-primrose, seabeach eveningprimrose Unknown 

Oenothera laciniata cut-leaf evening-primrose Unknown 

Oenothera speciosa pinkladies, Showy evening primrose Unknown 

160 
Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance 

Spiranthes praecox greenvein ladies'-tresses, greenvein ladiestresses Unknown Fumaria vaillantii earthsmoke Unknown Juniperus silicicola Unknown Juniperus virginiana var. silicicola coast juniper, coastal redcedar, southern red-cedar Unknown Pinus elliottii slash pine Unknown 

Limonium carolinianum Carolina sea-lavender, Carolina sealavender Unknown Polygonum punctatum dotted smartweed Unknown 

Polygonum setaceum bog smartweed Unknown Rumex hastatulus heartwing dock, heartwing sorrel Unknown 

Rumex verticillatus swamp dock Unknown 

Asplenium platyneuron ebony spleenwort Unknown 

Pteridium aquilinum bracken, northern bracken fern, western brackenfern Unknown 

Pteris vittata Chinese brake, ladder brake Unknown 

Anagallis arvensis pimpernel, scarlet pimpernel Unknown Ranunculus pusillus low spearwort, weak buttercup Unknown Ranunculus sardous hairy buttercup Unknown 

Ampelopsis arborea peppervine Unknown Parthenocissus quinquefolia American ivy, fiveleaved ivy, Virginia creeper, woodbine Unknown 

Vitis aestivalis summer grape Unknown 

Vitis rotundifolia muscadine, muscadine grape Unknown 

Prunus angustifolia Chickasaw plum Unknown Prunus caroliniana Carolina laurelcherry Unknown Prunus serotina black cherry, black chokecherry Unknown 

Pyracantha coccinea scarlet firethorn Unknown Rubus argutus prickly Florida blackberry, sawtooth blackberry Unknown Rubus hispidus bristly dewberry Unknown 

Rubus trivialis southern dewberry Unknown 

Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush, common buttonbush Unknown 

Diodia teres poor joe, poorjoe, rough buttonweed Unknown 

Diodia virginiana Virginia buttonweed Unknown 

Galium hispidulum coastal bedstraw Unknown Galium parisiense wall bedstraw Unknown 

Richardia brasiliensis tropical Mexican clover Unknown Salix caroliniana coastal plain willow Unknown 

Salix nigra black willow Unknown 

161 
162 

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Acer rubrum red maple Unknown Rhus copallinum flameleaf sumac Unknown 

Melia azedarach chinaberry, Chinaberry tree, white cedar Unknown Zanthoxylum clava-herculis Hercules' club, hercules-club, hercules-club pricklyash Unknown 

Tribulus terrestris bullhead, caltrop, goathead, Mexican sandbur Unknown Campsis radicans common trumpetcreeper, cow-itch, trumpet creeper Unknown Polypremum procumbens juniper leaf Unknown 

*Forestiera segregate florida privet, Florida swampprivet Unknown Ligustrum japonicum Japanese privet Unknown Ligustrum sinense Chinese privet, common chinese privet Unknown 

Agalinis fasciculata beach false foxglove Unknown 

Nuttallanthus canadensis Canada toadflax, oldfield toadflax, oldfield-toadflax Unknown 

Veronica arvensis common speedwell, corn speedwell, rock speedwell Unknown Calystegia sepium bearbind, devil's guts, hedge bindweed, hedge false bindweed Unknown 

Ipomoea hederacea entireleaf morningglory, ivy-leaf mornin-glory Unknown Ipomoea pandurata bigroot morningglory, bigroot morninglory, man of the earth Unknown Ipomoea sagittata saltmarsh morning-glory, saltmarsh morningglory Unknown Physalis viscosa ssp. maritima Unknown Physalis walteri Walter's groundcherry Unknown 

Solanum carolinense apple of Sodom, bull nettle, Carolina horsenettle Unknown 

Solanum pseudogracile glowing nightshade Unknown 

Solanum rostratum buffalobur, buffalobur nightshade, Colorado bur Unknown 

Solanum sisymbriifolium sticky nightshade Unknown Hypericum gentianoides orangegrass, pinweed st. johnswort Unknown 

Hypericum hypericoides St. Andrew's cross, St. Andrews cross Unknown Typha angustifolia narrow-leaf cat-tail, narrowleaf cattail Unknown 

Ficus carica common fig, edible fig, fiku, piku Unknown Morus alba mulberry, white mulberry Unknown Celtis laevigata sugar berry, sugar hackberry, sugarberry Unknown Ulmus americana American elm Unknown Melothria pendula drooping melonnettle, Guadeloupe cucumber Unknown 

Passiflora incarnata purple passionflower Unknown 

Tamarix gallica French tamarisk, saltcedar, tamarisk, tamarix Unknown 

Hybanthus parviflorus violetilla Uncommon 
Appendix G: Fish species documented for Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

These species have been cross referenced to the GA Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (GA DNR WDivision 2005) high priority species in the southern coastal plain (SCP); NatureServe’s global and state rankings and the GA DNR listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (GA DNR Wildlife Resources Division 200

Appendix E for explanation of abbreviations. 

Scientific Common 

Name(s) 

Park 

Status 

Abundance Residency Nativity SCP high 

priority spp. 

Global Rank 

S

Name R

Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus 

Atlantic sturgeon Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Anguilla rostrata American eel Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Menidia menidia Atlantic silverside Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Strongylura marina Atlantic needlefish, 

silver gar 

Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Alosa mediocris bonejack, fall herring, 

freshwater taylor 

Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Alosa pseudoharengus alewife, bigeye herring, 

branch herring 

Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Brevoortia smithi yellowfin menhaden Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Brevoortia tyrannus Atlantic menhaden, 

bugfish, bunker 

Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Opisthonema oglinum Atlantic thread herring Present Unknown Unknown Native Anchoa hepsetus broad-striped anchovy, 

striped anchovy 

Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Anchoa mitchilli bay anchovy Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Cyprinodon variegatus sheepshead minnow, 

sheepshead pupfish 

Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Fundulus confluentus marsh killifish Present Unknown Unknown Native Fundulus heteroclitus Mummichog Present Unknown Unknown Native Fundulus majalis striped killifish Present Unknown Unknown Native Gambusia affinis mosquitofish, western 

mosquitofish 

Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Gambusia holbrooki eastern mosquitofish Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Poecilia latipinna sailfin molly Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Elops saurus Ladyfish Prob 

Present 

NA NA Native 

Megalops atlanticus Tarpon Present Unknown Unknown Native 

163 
Scientific Common 

Name(s) 

Park 

Status 

Abundance Residency Nativity SCP high 

priority spp. 

Global Rank 

S

Name R

Mugil cephalus black mullet, gray 

mullet, striped mullet 

Present Abundant Unknown Native 

Mugil curema silver mullet, white 

mullet 

Present Abundant Unknown Native 

Hypsoblennius ionthas freckled blenny Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Chloroscombrus chrysurus 

Atlantic bumper Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Oligoplites saurus leatherjack, 

leatherjacket 

Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Dormitator maculatus fat sleeper Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Eucinostomus argenteus 

spotfin mojarra Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Evorthodus lyricus lyre goby Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Pomatomus saltatrix Bluefish Present Unknown Unknown Native Bairdiella chrysoura silver perch Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Cynoscion nebulosus spotted seatrout Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Leiostomus xanthurus Spot Present Unknown Unknown Native Micropogonias undulatus 

Atlantic croaker Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Pogonias cromis black drum Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Sciaenops ocellatus red drum Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Scomberomorus maculatus 

Atlantic Spanish mackerel 

Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Centropristis striata black sea bass Prob 

Present 

NA NA Native 

Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Paralichthys lethostigma 

southern flounder Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Chilomycterus schoepfii 

burrfish, porcupinefish, striped burrfish 

Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Acipenser brevirostrum shortnose sturgeon Not 

Present 

YES 

Elassoma okatie bluebarred pygmy 

sunfish 

Not Present 

YES 

Enneacanthus chaetodon

blackbanded sunfish Not 

Present 

YES 

164 
165 

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name(s) 

Park 

Status 

Abundance Residency Nativity SCP high 

priority spp. 

Global Rank 

S

R

Lucania goodei bluefin killifish Not 

Present 

YES 

Micropterus notius suwannee bass Not 

Present 

YES 
Appendix H: Herpetofauna (amphibian and reptile species) documented for Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

These species have been cross referenced to the GA Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (GA DNR WDivision 2005) high priority species in the southern coastal plain (SCP); NatureServe’s global and state rankings and the GA DNR listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (GA DNR Wildlife Resources Division 200

Appendix E for explanation of abbreviations. 

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name(s) 

Abundance Residency Nativity SCP high 

priority spp. 

Global Rank 

State 

Rank 

Amphibian species documented in the park: Bufo terrestris Southern Toad Unknown Unknown Native 

Acris gryllus Southern Cricket Frog Unknown Unknown Native 

Hyla cinerea Green Treefrog Unknown Unknown Native 

Hyla squirella Squirrel Treefrog Unknown Unknown Native Pseudacris ocularis Little Grass Frog Unknown Unknown Native Gastrophryne carolinensis Eastern Narrow-Mouthed 

Toad 

Unknown Unknown Native 

Rana sphenocephala Southern Leopard Frog Unknown Unknown Native 

Eurycea cirrigera Southern Two-Lined 

Salamander 

Amphibian species likely to occur within or near the vicinity of the park:Ambystoma opacum Marbled Salamander 

Ambystoma talpoideum Mole Salamander 

Amphiuma means Two-Toed Amphiuma 

Eurycea guttolineata Three-Lined Salamander 

Eurycea quadridigitata Dwarf Salamander 

Notophthalmus viridescens Red Spotted Newt 

Plethodon glutinosus complex 

Slimy Salamander 

Pseudotriton montanus Mud Salamander 

Siren intermedia Lesser Siren 

Siren lacertian Greater Siren 

Acris crepitans Northern Cricket Frog 

Bufo quercicus Oak Toad 

Hyla chrysoscelis /versicolor 

Gray/Cope's Gray Treefrog 

Hyla femoralis Pine Woods Treefrog 

Hyla gratiosa Barking Treefrog 

Pseudacris brimleyi Brimley's Chorus Frog 

166 
Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name(s) 

Abundance Residency Nativity SCP high 

priority spp. 

Global Rank 

State 

Rank 

Pseudacris crucifer Spring Peeper Pseudacris nigrita Southern Chorus Frog 

Pseudacris ornata Ornate Chorus Frog 

Pseudacris triseriata Upland Chorus Frog 

Rana catesbeiana Bullfrog 

Rana clamitans Green Frog Rana grylio Pig Frog 

Scaphiopus holbrookii Eastern Spadefoot Toad 

Priority amphibian species not documented in the park:

Rana capito Gopher Frog YES G3G4 S3 

Ambystoma cingulatum Flatwoods Salamander YES G2G3 S2 

Desmognathus auriculatus Southern Dusky 

Salamander 

YES G5 S3 

Necturus punctatus Dwarf Waterdog YES G4 S2 

Notophthalmus perstriatus Striped Newt YES G2G3 S2 

Stereochilus marginatus Many-Lined Salamander YES G5 S3 

Pseudobranchus striatus Dwarf Siren YES G5 S3 

Reptile species documented in the park: 

Alligator mississippiensis Alligator Unknown Unknown Native 

Ophisaurus ventralis Eastern Glass Lizard Unknown Unknown Native 

Coluber constrictor Black Racer Unknown Unknown Native 

Elaphe guttata Corn Snake Unknown Unknown Native 

Elaphe obsolete Eastern Ratsnake Unknown Unknown Native 

Lampropeltis getula Eastern Kingsnake Unknown Unknown Native 

Nerodia fasciata Southern Water Snake Unknown Unknown Native Opheodrys aestivus Rough Greensnake Unknown Unknown Native 

Anolis carolinensis Green Anole Unknown Unknown Native 

Norops sagrei Brown Anole Unknown Unknown Nonnative 

Eumeces inexpectatus Southeastern Five-Lined 

Skink 

Unknown Unknown Native 

Scincella lateralis Ground Skink, 

Little Brown Skink 

Unknown Unknown Native 

Agkistrodon piscivorus Cottonmouth Unknown Unknown Native 

Crotalus adamanteus Eastern Diamond-Backed 

Rattlesnake 

Unknown Unknown Native 

167 
Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name(s) 

Abundance Residency Nativity SCP high Global 

Rank 

State 

Rank 

priority spp. 

Malaclemys terrapin Diamondback Terrapin Unknown Unknown Native YES G4 S3 Terrapene carolina Eastern Box Turtle Unknown Unknown Native 

Trachemys scripta Slider Unknown Unknown Native 

Reptile species likely to occur within or near the vicinity of the park:Apalone ferox Florida Softshell Turtle

Chelydra serpentina Common Snapping Turtle 

Clemmys guttata Spotted Turtle 

Deirochelys reticularia Eastern Chicken Turtle Kinosternon baurii Striped Mud Turtle 

Kinosternon subrubrum Eastern Mud Turtle 

Pseudemys concinna Eastern River Cooter Pseudemys floridana Florida Cooter 

Sternotherus odoratus Common Musk Turtle 

Cnemidophorus sexlineatus 

Six-Lined Racerunner 

Eumeces fasciatus Five-Lined Skink 

Eumeces laticeps Broadhead Skink 

Ophisaurus attenuatus Slender Glass Lizard 

Ophisaurus compressus Island Glass Lizard 

Sceloporus undulatus Fence Lizard 

Macrochelys temminckii Mimic Glass Lizard YES G3 S2 

Eumeces anthracinus Mole Skink YES G4 S3 

Agkistrodon contortrix Copperhead 

Carphophis amoenus Worm Snake 

Cemophora coccinea Scarlet Snake 

Crotalus horridus Canebrake Rattlesnake 

Diadophis punctatus Ringneck Snake Drymarchon corais Eastern Indigo Snake 

Farancia abacura Mud Snake 

Farancia erytrogramma Rainbow Snake 

Heterodon platirhinos Eastern Hognose Snake 

Heterodon simus Southern Hognose Snake 

Lampropeltis triangulum Milksnake Masticophis flagellum Coachwhip 

168 
169 

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name(s) 

Abundance Residency Nativity SCP high 

priority spp. 

Global Rank 

State 

Rank 

Micrurus fulvius Coral Snake Nerodia erythrogaster Plainbelly Water Snake 

Pituophis melanoleucus Pine Snake 

Rhadinaea flavilata Pine Woods Snake 

Sistrurus miliarius Pigmy Rattlesnake 

Storeria dekayi Brown Snake 

Storeria occipitomaculata Redbelly Snake 

Tantilla coronata Southeastern Crowned 

Snake 

Thamnophis sauritus Ribbon Snake 

Thamnophis sirtalis Garter Snake 

Virginia striatula Rough Earth Snake 

Virginia valeriae Smooth Earth Snake 

Priority reptile species not documented in the park: Lampropeltis getula Kemp's Or Atlantic Ridley YES G1 S1 

Lepidochelys kempii Alligator Snapping Turtle YES G3G4 S3 

Ophisaurus mimicus Florida Pine Snake YES G4T3? S3 

Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus 

Florida Worm Lizard YES G4 S1 

Rhineura floridana Florida Crowned Snake YES G5 S1 

Tantilla relicta Eastern Indigo Snake YES G4T3 S3 

Drymarchon couperi Leatherback Sea Turtle YES G3 S2 

Dermochelys coriacea Gopher Tortoise YES G3 S2 

Gopherus polyphemus Southern Hognose Snake YES G2 S2 

Heterodon simus Coal Skink YES G5 S2 

Eumeces egregius Spotted Turtle YES G5 S3 

Clemmys guttata Loggerhead YES G3 S2 Chelonia mydas Green Sea Turtle YES G3 S2 
Appendix I: Bird species documented for Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

These species have been cross referenced to the GA Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (GA DNR WDivision 2005) high priority species in the southern coastal plain (SCP); NatureServe’s global and state rankings and the GA DNR listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (GA DNR Wildlife Resources Division 200

Appendix E for explanation of abbreviations. Bird species were also cross referenced to the Partners in Flight Pri(Partners in Flight 2005) and Audubon WatchList (National Audubon Society 2007). 

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name(s) 

Abundance Residency Nativity Priority 

spp. 

Audobon 

WatchList 

Global Rank 

S

R

Aix sponsa Wood Duck Rare Unknown Native 

Anas discors Blue-winged Teal Rare Unknown Native 

Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup Common Unknown Native Aythya collaris Ring-necked Duck Rare Unknown Native 

Aythya marila Greater Scaup Unknown Unknown Native 

Aythya valisineria Canvasback Rare Unknown Native 

Branta canadensis Canada Goose Rare Unknown Native 

Bucephala albeola Bufflehead Uncommon Unknown Native 

Chen caerulescens Snow Goose Rare Unknown Native 

Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded Merganser Common Unknown Native 

Mergus serrator Red-breasted 

Merganser 

Uncommon Unknown Native 

Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck Rare Unknown Native 

Chaetura pelagica Chimney Swift Common Breeder Native Archilochus colubris Ruby-throated 

Hummingbird 

Uncommon Unknown Native 

Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk Rare Unknown Native 

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk Uncommon Unknown Native 

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk Uncommon Unknown Native 

Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered Hawk Uncommon Unknown Native PIF 

Buteo platypterus Broad-winged Hawk Unknown Unknown Native PIF 

Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier Uncommon Unknown Native 

Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed Kite Unknown Unknown Native SCP/PIF YES G5 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Bald Eagle Uncommon Unknown Native SCP/PIF G4 

Pandion haliaetus Osprey Common Breeder Native 

Anhinga anhinga Anhinga Unknown Unknown Native 

Ardea alba Great Egret Common Breeder Native 

170 
Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name(s) 

Abundance Residency Nativity Priority 

spp. 

Audobon 

WatchList 

Global Rank 

S

R

Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron Common Breeder Native 

Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret Common Unknown Native 

Butorides virescens Green Heron Common Breeder Native Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron Common Breeder Native 

Egretta thula Snowy Egret Common Breeder Native 

Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron Uncommon Breeder Native SCP G5 

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned NightHeron Uncommon Unknown Native 

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover Rare Unknown Native SCP YES G3 

Charadrius semipalmatus 

Semipalmated Plover Common Unknown Native 

Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Common Breeder Native 

Charadrius wilsonia Wilson's Plover Uncommon Breeder Native SCP YES G5 Haematopus palliatus American 

Oystercatcher 

Uncommon Unknown Native SCP G5 

Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked Stilt Rare Unknown Native SCP G5 

Pluvialis dominica American GoldenPlover Rare Unknown Native YES 

Pluvialis squatarola Black-bellied Plover Common Unknown Native 

Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture Common Breeder Native 

Coragyps atratus Black Vulture Rare Unknown Native 

Mycteria americana Wood Stork Uncommon Unknown Native SCP G4 Falco columbarius Merlin Rare Unknown Native 

Falco sparverius American Kestrel Common Unknown Native SCP/PIF G5T4 

Gavia immer Common Loon Uncommon Unknown Native 

Chlidonias niger Black Tern Uncommon Unknown Native 

Larus argentatus Herring Gull Common Breeder Native 

Larus atricilla Laughing Gull Common Breeder Native 

Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull Common Breeder Native 

Larus fuscus Lesser Black-backed 

Gull 

Unknown Unknown Native 

Larus marinus Great Black-backed 

Gull 

Rare Unknown Native 

Larus philadelphia Bonaparte's Gull Uncommon Unknown Native 

Rynchops niger Black Skimmer Uncommon Breeder Native SCP YES G5 

171 
Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name(s) 

Abundance Residency Nativity Priority 

spp. 

Audobon 

WatchList 

Global Rank 

S

R

Sterna antillarum Least Tern Uncommon Breeder Native SCP YES G4 

Sterna caspia Caspian Tern Uncommon Unknown Native 

Sterna forsteri Forster's Tern Common Breeder Native 

Sterna hirundo Common Tern Common Unknown Native 

Sterna maxima Royal Tern Common Breeder Native 

Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich Tern Uncommon Unknown Native 

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

American White Pelican 

Rare Unknown Native 

Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican Common Breeder Native 

Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested 

Cormorant 

Common Breeder Native 

Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe Rare Unknown Native 

Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe Rare Unknown Native 

Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper Uncommon Unknown Native 

Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone Uncommon Unknown Native 

Calidris alba Sanderling Unknown Unknown Native YES 

Calidris alpina Dunlin Common Unknown Native 

Calidris canutus Red Knot Common Unknown Native SCP YES Calidris maritima Purple Sandpiper Unknown Unknown Native 

Calidris mauri Western Sandpiper Uncommon Unknown Native YES 

Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper Uncommon Unknown Native 

Calidris minutilla Least Sandpiper Uncommon Unknown Native 

Calidris pusilla Semipalmated 

Sandpiper 

Uncommon Unknown Native YES 

Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 

Willet Common Breeder Native 

Gallinago gallinago Common Snipe Common Unknown Native 

Numenius americanus Long-billed Curlew Rare Unknown Native YES A1 

Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel Uncommon Unknown Native SCP G5 Scolopax minor American Woodcock Rare Unknown Native 

Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs Uncommon Unknown Native 

Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs Uncommon Unknown Native 

Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper Uncommon Unknown Native 

Tryngites subruficollis Buff-breasted 

Sandpiper 

Rare Unknown Native YES 

172 
Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name(s) 

Abundance Residency Nativity Priority 

spp. 

Audobon 

WatchList 

Global Rank 

S

R

Morus bassanus Northern Gannet Unknown Unknown Native 

Eudocimus albus White Ibis Common Unknown Native 

Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis Uncommon Unknown Native 

Columba livia Rock Dove Common Breeder NonNative 

Columbina passerina Common Ground-Dove Rare Breeder Native 

Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove Common Breeder Native 

Megaceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher Common Breeder Native 

Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo Uncommon Breeder Native 

Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite Common Breeder Native SCP 

Porzana carolina Sora Rare Unknown Native 

Rallus limicola Virginia Rail Rare Unknown Native 

Rallus longirostris Clapper Rail Common Breeder Native YES 

Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing Common Unknown Native 

Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren Common Breeder Native 

Cistothorus platensis Sedge Wren Rare Unknown Native 

Polioptila caerulea Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Uncommon Breeder Native 

Thryothorus ludovicianus 

Carolina Wren Common Breeder Native PIF 

Troglodytes aedon House Wren Uncommon Unknown Native 

Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow Unknown Unknown Native 

Corvus ossifragus Fish Crow Common Breeder Native 

Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay Common Breeder Native 

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird Common Breeder Native 

Ammodramus caudacutus 

Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow 

Uncommon Unknown Native YES 

Ammodramus leconteii Le Conte's Sparrow Rare Unknown Native YES 

Ammodramus maritimus 

Seaside Sparrow Uncommon Unknown Native PIF YES 

Ammodramus nelsoni Nelson's Sharp-tailed 

Sparrow 

Unknown Unknown Native YES 

Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal Common Breeder Native 

Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch Common Unknown Native 

Carpodacus purpureus Purple Finch Uncommon Unknown Native 

Chondestes grammacus Lark Sparrow Occasional Vagrant Native 

173 
Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name(s) 

Abundance Residency Nativity Priority 

spp. 

Audobon 

WatchList 

Global Rank 

S

R

Dendroica caerulescens 

Black-throated Blue Warbler 

Uncommon Unknown Native 

Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped 

Warbler 

Common Unknown Native 

Dendroica discolor Prairie Warbler Common Unknown Native PIF YES 

Dendroica dominica Yellow-throated 

Warbler 

Uncommon Unknown Native 

Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler Rare Unknown Native 

Dendroica magnolia Magnolia Warbler Rare Unknown Native 

Dendroica palmarum Palm Warbler Uncommon Unknown Native 

Dendroica pensylvanica 

Chestnut-sided Warbler Rare Unknown Native 

Dendroica petechia Yellow Warbler Unknown Unknown Native 

Dendroica pinus Pine Warbler Common Breeder Native PIF 

Dendroica striata Blackpoll Warbler Uncommon Unknown Native 

Dendroica tigrina Cape May Warbler Uncommon Unknown Native 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Uncommon Unknown Native 

Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat Uncommon Breeder Native 

Guiraca caerulea Blue Grosbeak Uncommon Unknown Native 

Helmitheros vermivorus 

Worm-eating Warbler Uncommon Unknown Native PIF 

Icteria virens Yellow-breasted Chat Uncommon Unknown Native 

Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole Rare Unknown Native 

Icterus spurius Orchard Oriole Common Breeder Native PIF 

Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed Junco Rare Unknown Native 

Melospiza georgiana Swamp Sparrow Common Unknown Native 

Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow Rare Unknown Native 

Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow Common Unknown Native 

Mniotilta varia Black-and-white 

Warbler 

Uncommon Unknown Native 

Molothrus ater Brown-headed 

Cowbird 

Common Breeder Native 

Oporornis agilis Connecticut Warbler Rare Unknown Native 

Oporornis formosus Kentucky Warbler Rare Unknown Native PIF YES Parula americana Northern Parula Uncommon Breeder Native PIF 

174 
Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name(s) 

Abundance Residency Nativity Priority 

spp. 

Audobon 

WatchList 

Global Rank 

S

R

Passerculus sandwichensis 

Savannah Sparrow Common Unknown Native 

Passerina ciris Painted Bunting Common Breeder Native SCP/PIF YES G5 

Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting Uncommon Unknown Native PIF 

Pheucticus ludovicianus 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak 

Rare Unknown Native 

Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Eastern Towhee Uncommon Breeder Native PIF 

Piranga rubra Summer Tanager Uncommon Breeder Native PIF 

Protonotaria citrea Prothonotary Warbler Rare Unknown Native PIF YES 

Quiscalus major Boat-tailed Grackle Common Breeder Native 

Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle Common Breeder Native 

Seiurus aurocapillus Ovenbird Uncommon Unknown Native Seiurus motacilla Louisiana Waterthrush Rare Unknown Native 

Seiurus noveboracensis Northern Waterthrush Uncommon Unknown Native 

Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart Common Unknown Native 

Spizella passerina Chipping Sparrow Uncommon Unknown Native 

Spizella pusilla Field Sparrow Uncommon Breeder Native PIF 

Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark Uncommon Unknown Native 

Vermivora celata Orange-crowned 

Warbler 

Uncommon Unknown Native 

Vermivora peregrina Tennessee Warbler Rare Unknown Native 

Wilsonia canadensis Canada Warbler Rare Unknown Native YES 

Wilsonia citrina Hooded Warbler Rare Unknown Native PIF 

Zonotrichia albicollis White-throated 

Sparrow 

Common Unknown Native 

Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned 

Sparrow 

Rare Unknown Native 

Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow Common Breeder Native 

Petrochelidon  pyrrhonota 

Cliff Swallow Unknown Unknown Native 

Progne subis Purple Martin Common Unknown Native 

Riparia riparia Bank Swallow Rare Unknown Native 

Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

Northern Roughwinged Swallow 

Uncommon Unknown Native 

175 
Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name(s) 

Abundance Residency Nativity Priority 

spp. 

Audobon 

WatchList 

Global Rank 

S

R

Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow Common Unknown Native Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Uncommon Breeder Native SCP G4TEQ 

Catharus fuscescens Veery Rare Unknown Native 

Catharus guttatus Hermit Thrush Unknown Unknown Native 

Catharus minimus Gray-cheeked Thrush Rare Unknown Native 

Catharus ustulatus Swainson's Thrush Rare Unknown Native 

Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush Uncommon Unknown Native PIF YES 

Sialia sialis Eastern Bluebird Uncommon Breeder Native 

Turdus migratorius American Robin Common Unknown Native 

Baeolophus bicolor Tufted Titmouse Uncommon Breeder Native 

Poecile carolinensis Carolina Chickadee Common Breeder Native 

Anthus rubescens American Pipit Uncommon Unknown Native 

Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned Kinglet Common Unknown Native 

Regulus satrapa Golden-crowned 

Kinglet 

Uncommon Unknown Native 

Sitta canadensis Red-breasted Nuthatch Uncommon Unknown Native 

Sitta pusilla Brown-headed 

Nuthatch 

Rare Unknown Native PIF 

Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird Common Unknown Native 

Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird Common Breeder Native 

Sturnus vulgaris European Starling Common Breeder NonNative 

Toxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher Uncommon Breeder Native PIF 

Contopus virens Eastern Wood-Pewee Uncommon Unknown Native PIF 

Myiarchus crinitus Great Crested 

Flycatcher 

Uncommon Breeder Native 

Sayornis phoebe Eastern Phoebe Uncommon Unknown Native 

Tyrannus dominicensis Gray Kingbird Rare Breeder Native 

Tyrannus forficatus Scissor-tailed 

Flycatcher 

Occasional Vagrant Native 

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird Common Breeder Native PIF 

Tyrannus verticalis Western Kingbird Unknown Unknown Native 

Vireo griseus White-eyed Vireo Common Breeder Native PIF 

Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo Common Unknown Native 

Vireo philadelphicus Philadelphia Vireo Rare Unknown Native 

176 
Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name(s) 

Abundance Residency Nativity Priority 

spp. 

Audobon 

WatchList 

Global Rank 

S

R

Vireo solitarius Solitary Vireo Uncommon Unknown Native Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker Common Unknown Native PIF 

Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker Rare Unknown Native 

Melanerpes carolinus Red-bellied 

Woodpecker 

Common Breeder Native 

Picoides pubescens Downy Woodpecker Uncommon Breeder Native 

Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-bellied 

Sapsucker 

Uncommon Unknown Native 

Caprimulgus carolinensis 

Chuck-will's-widow Uncommon Breeder Native PIF 

Caprimulgus vociferus Whip-poor-will Uncommon Unknown Native 

Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk Uncommon Breeder Native 

Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Rare Unknown Native YES 

Bubo scandiacus Snowy Owl Occasional Vagrant Native 

Bubo virginianus Great Horned Owl Uncommon Breeder Native 

Strix varia Barred Owl Rare Unknown Native 

Tyto alba Barn Owl Uncommon Breeder Native SCP G5 S

Priority species not documented in the park:

Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's Sparrow SCP/PIF YES 

Ammodramus henslowii 

Henslow's Sparrow SCP/PIF YES 

Ammodramus  savannarum 

Grasshopper Sparrow SCP 

Grus Canadensis  pratensis 

Florida Sandhill Crane SCP 

Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern SCP G4 

Laterallus jamaicensis Black Rail SCP YES G4 S

Limnothlypis swainsonii 

Swainson's Warbler SCP/PIF YES G4 

Limosa fedoa Marbled Godwit 

(James Bay Pop.) 

YES 

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker 

SCP/PIF YES 

Rallus elegans King Rail SCP YES G4G5 

Sterna nilotica Gull-billed Tern SCP YES G5 

177 
178 

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name(s) 

Abundance Residency Nativity Priority 

spp. 

Audobon 

WatchList 

Global Rank 

S

R

 Dendroica virens Black-throated Green 

Warbler 

PIF 

 Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler SCP/PIF 

Vermivora chrysoptera Golden-winged 

Warbler 
Appendix J: Mammal species documented for Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

These species have been cross referenced to the GA Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (GA DNR WDivision 2005) high priority species in the southern coastal plain (SCP); NatureServe’s global and state rankings and the GA DNR listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (GA DNR Wildlife Resources Division 200

Appendix E for explanation of abbreviations. 

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name(s) 

Park 

Status 

Abundance Residency Nativity SCP high Global 

Rank 

Sta

priority spp. Ra

Species documented in the park: Odocoileus virginianus White-Tailed Deer Present Abundant Breeder Native 

Mustela vison Mink Present Rare Unknown Native 

Procyon lotor Raccoon Present Abundant Unknown Native 

Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose Dolphin Prob 

Present 

N/A N/A Native YES G5 S

Tadarida brasiliensis Brazilian Free-Tailed 

Bat 

Present Uncommon Unknown Native 

Eptesicus fuscus Big Brown Bat Present Uncommon Unknown Native 

Lasiurus borealis Eastern Red Bat, Red 

Bat 

Present Uncommon Unknown Native 

Lasiurus intermedius Northern Yellow Bat Present Uncommon Unknown Native YES G4G5 S2

Lasiurus seminolus Seminole Bat Present Uncommon Unknown Native 

Nycticeius humeralis Evening Bat Present Uncommon Unknown Native 

Pipistrellus subflavus Eastern Pipistrelle Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Didelphis virginiana Virginia Opossum Present Common Unknown Native 

Sylvilagus palustris Marsh Rabbit Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Mus musculus House Mouse Present Unknown Unknown NonNative Oryzomys palustris Marsh Rice Rat Present Unknown Unknown Native 

Rattus rattus Black Rat Present Uncommon Unknown NonNative 

Sigmodon hispidus Hispid Cotton Rat Present Unknown Unknown Native Sciurus carolinensis Eastern Gray Squirrel Present Abundant Unknown Native 

Priority species not documented in the park: Condylura cristata Star-Nosed Mole Not 

Present 

YES G5 S2

179 
180 

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name(s) 

Park 

Status 

Abundance Residency Nativity SCP high 

priority spp. 

Global Rank 

Sta

Ra

Corynorhinus rafinesquii 

Rafinesque's Big-Eared Bat 

Not Present 

YES G3G4 S3

Eubalaena glacialis North Atlantic Right 

Whale 

Not Present 

YES G1 S1 

S

Geomys pinetis Southeastern Pocket 

Gopher 

Not Present 

YES G5 S

Neofiber alleni Round-Tailed Muskrat Not 

Present 

YES G3 S

Sciurus niger shermani Sherman's Fox Squirrel Not 

Present 

YES G5T2 S

Trichechus manatus West Indian Manatee Not 

Present 

YES G2 S1

Megaptera novaeangliae 

humpback whale Not 

Present 
181

Background

This document is an addendum to the 3.3.1 Air Quality section of the Fort Pulaski National 

Monument (NM) Natural Resource Condition Assessment. The original air quality condition 

assessment utilized EPA criteria designated for pollutants that are considered problematic for

human health. While these metrics are significant, it is important to note that a difference exists 

between air quality measurements pertaining to the human dimension and those pertaining to the 

natural resource dimension. Because the original condition assessment focused on the human 

dimensions of air quality, this addendum was developed to include air quality measures and 

target values from the perspective of natural resource planning and management. We used 

methods developed by the National Park Service (NPS) Air Resources Division (ARD) to

evaluate air quality conditions within national parks. 

3.3.1 Air Quality

3.3.1.a Current condition: 

The ARD approach to air quality assessment includes thresholds for ozone, atmospheric (wet) 

deposition in the form of nitrogen and sulfur, and visibility (National Park Service 2007). Based 

on certain criteria, these categories are given a score of “good,” “moderate,” or “significant 

concern.” Although Fort Pulaski NM does not have any air quality monitoring stations on-site, 

the ARD interpolates data from all available monitors in the region into five-year averages. This 

document utilizes the most recent data interpolations from the 2003 – 2007 period for ozone, wet 

deposition, and visibility. 

Ozone (O3) 

The ARD criterion for ozone utilizes the newly revised 2008 national standard for ozone air 

quality as a baseline. The national standard requires that the 3-year average of the fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area 

over each year must not exceed 75 parts per billion (ppb) (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 2009). In assessing air quality within national parks, the ARD mandates that if the 

interpolated five-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations is greater than or equal to 76 ppb, then ozone is classified as a “significant 

concern” in the park. If the interpolated five-year average is between 61 ppb and 75 ppb, 

concentrations greater than 80-percent of the national standard, then the park is classified as 

“moderate.” To receive a “good” ozone rating, a park must have a five-year average ozone 

concentration less than 61 ppb (concentrations less than 80-percent of the national standard). 

Table 1 illustrates how ARD uses the five-year average concentrations to classify ozone air 

quality conditions in national parks. The ARD mandates for ozone air quality are designed to 

reflect the idea that simply meeting the national standard does not guarantee “unimpaired” parks 

for future generations. 

 

Table 1. Air Resources Division ozone air quality condition classifications and corresponding 

condition status. The 5-year average ozone concentration at Fort Pulaski NM was 69.7 ppb. 

ARD Condition Condition Status Ozone concentration (ppb) 

Significant Concern Poor ≥ 76

Moderate Concern Fair 61 – 75 

Good Condition Good ≤ 60

$LU4XDOLW\$GGHQGXP-XO\
Vegetation sensitivity to ozone is also taken into consideration when conducting air quality 

assessments in national parks. A 2004 vegetation risk assessment identified fourteen plant 

species present at Fort Pulaski NM that are sensitive to ozone (National Park Service 2004). This 

risk assessment indicated that the risk of injury to plants is low at Fort Pulaski NM due to 

relatively low ozone levels and the regular occurrence of mild to severe drought, which inhibits 

ozone uptake by plants. The 2004 report also identifies eight bioindicator species that can be 

monitored at Fort Pulaski NM to indicate increased ozone injury to vegetation. The ARD uses 

the vegetation risk evaluation to modify the average ozone concentration air quality condition 

status when assigning parks a final ozone condition rating. If a park is evaluated as a high risk of 

plant injury, the ARD would assign that park the next more severe ozone condition status (i.e., 

reclassify “moderate” to “significant concern”). In the case of Fort Pulaski NM, the 5-year (2003 

– 2007) average ozone concentration was 69.7 ppb, earning the park a “moderate” or “fair”

ozone condition rating. The 2004 vegetation risk assessment indicated that Fort Pulaski NM is at 

low risk for plant injury, and the ARD consequently maintained the original ozone air quality 

condition status of “moderate.”

Atmospheric Deposition 

The ARD uses wet deposition in evaluating atmospheric conditions in national parks, primarily 

due to the general lack of available dry deposition data. Using wet deposition data, however, may 

be problematic for accurately assessing atmospheric deposition in parks situated in arid climates

where dry deposition data would prove to be more useful. In the continental United States, wet 

deposition is calculated by multiplying nitrogen (N from nitrate and ammonium ions) or sulfur (S 

from sulfate ions) concentrations in precipitation by a normalized precipitation value. The 

precipitation values, obtained from the PRISM database, are normalized over a 30-year period to 

minimize interannual variations in deposition caused by interannual fluctuations in precipitation

(Oregon State University 2008). The nitrogen and sulfur deposition concentrations used for 

interpolation are obtained from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (University of 

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 2009). The ARD takes natural background deposition estimates 

and deposition effects on ecosystems under consideration when evaluating atmospheric 

deposition conditions. Table 2 illustrates how the ARD rates atmospheric deposition conditions 

according to the amount of estimated wet deposition at a park. Estimates of natural background 

deposition for total deposition are approximately 0.25 kilograms per hectare per year (kg/ha/yr) 

in the West and 0.50 kg/ha/yr in the East, for either N or S. For wet deposition only, this is 

roughly equivalent to 0.13 kg/ha/yr in the West and 0.25 kg/ha/yr in the East. Although the 

proportion of wet to dry deposition varies by location, wet deposition is at least one-half of the 

total deposition in most areas. Certain sensitive ecosystems respond to levels of deposition on the 

order of 3 kg/ha/yr total deposition, or about 1.5 kg/ha/yr wet deposition (Fenn et al. 2003, Krupa 

2003).

182
Table 2. Air Resources Division wet deposition condition classifications and corresponding 

condition status. The wet deposition values refer to either nitrogen or sulfur individually, not the 

sum of the two. The total wet nitrogen deposition at Fort Pulaski NM is estimated at 3.2 

kg/ha/yr; total wet sulfur deposition is estimated at 4.3 kg/ha/yr. 

ARD Condition Condition Status Wet Deposition (kg/ha/yr)

Significant Concern Poor > 3

Moderate Concern Fair 1 – 3 

Good Condition Good < 1

Using the sources and methods discussed above, the ARD has classified atmospheric deposition 

at Fort Pulaski NM as a “significant concern” or “poor” condition status. The total wet nitrogen 

deposition at Fort Pulaski NM is estimated at 3.2 kg/ha/yr, and the total wet sulfur deposition is 

estimated at 4.3 kg/ha/yr. There is no current information to indicate whether ecosystems at Fort 

Pulaski NM are sensitive to nitrogen or sulfur deposition, but deposition is elevated. Nitrogen 

deposition, in particular, may affect the integrity of vegetation communities at Fort Pulaski NM

because excess nitrogen has been found to encourage growth of invasive plant species at the 

expense of native species.

Visibility

Individual park scores for visibility are based on the deviation of the current Group 50 visibility 

conditions from estimated Group 50 natural visibility conditions, where Group 50 is defined as 

the mean of the visibility observations falling within the range between the 40th and 60th

percentiles. Natural visibility conditions are those that have been estimated to exist in a given 

area in the absence of anthropogenic visibility impairment. Visibility is described in terms of a 

Haze Index, a measure derived from calculated light extinction, and expressed in deciviews (dv) 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2003). Visibility worsens as the Haze Index increases. 

The visibility condition is expressed as: 

Visibility Condition = (current Group 50 visibility) – 

 (estimated Group 50 visibility under natural conditions) 

As illustrated in Table 3, parks with a visibility condition estimate of less than two dv above 

estimated natural conditions receive a “good” visibility condition classification. Those parks with 

visibility condition estimates between two and eight dv above natural conditions are classified as 

“moderate,” and parks with visibility condition estimates greater than eight dv above natural 

conditions are classified as a “significant concern.” While the dv ranges for each category are 

somewhat subjective, they reflect as nearly as possible the variation in visibility conditions 

across the visibility monitoring network. The visibility condition at Fort Pulaski NM is classified 

as a “significant concern” because the current Group 50 visibility is 12.3 dv above estimated 

Group 50 natural conditions. 

183
Table 3. Air Resources Division visibility condition classifications and corresponding condition 

status. The current Group 50 deviation at Fort Pulaski NM is 12.3 dv. 

ARD Condition Condition Status

Current Group 50 – Estimated 

Group 50 Natural (dv)

Significant Concern Poor > 8

Moderate Concern Fair 2 – 8 

Good Condition Good < 2

Air Quality Trends 

Trends cannot be evaluated from interpolated 5-year averages. However, the NPS ARD 

evaluates 10-year trends in air quality for parks with on-site or nearby monitoring. Maps in the 

most recently available progress report show trends in ozone, deposition, and visibility that can 

be used to discern regional trends (National Park Service 2007). For the period 1996 – 2005, 

ozone concentrations and nitrogen and sulfur deposition in the Southeast appear to be decreasing, 

while visibility is relatively unchanged.

3.3.1.b Condition status summary: 

As previously discussed, a 2004 risk assessment determined that the ozone threat to vegetation at 

Fort Pulaski NM is low. Risk of plant injury is low, despite moderate ozone exposure at the park, 

because the low soil moisture conditions that prevail during periods of high ozone exposure limit 

stomatal uptake of ozone (National Park Service 2004). 

The NPS Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Program is currently conducting risk assessments to 

evaluate the threats from several sources. The assessments will evaluate nitrogen deposition 

(complete in late 2009), acidic deposition from nitrogen and sulfur (complete in 2010), and 

mercury deposition (complete in 2010) in national parks. These I&M assessments will be 

available on the NPS ARD website and will assist managers in determining what park resources 

are at risk from air pollution, and what type of air quality monitoring might be needed. 

Table 4. Air quality condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data quality 

was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside park 

boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The 

colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1).

Category Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Ozone 

1 1 1 

Fair 0.5 3 out of 3 

Atmospheric Deposition 

1 0 1 

Poor 0.17 2 out of 3 

Visibility

1 0 1 

Poor 0.17 2 out of 3 

Air quality total 3 1 3 

Poor 0.28 7 out of 9 

184
Executive Summary Update

The goal of this assessment is to provide an overview of natural resource condition status to 

allow Fort Pulaski National Monument (NM) to effectively manage National Park Service (NPS) 

trust resources through Resource Stewardship Strategies (RSS) and General Management Plans. 

An ancillary benefit is that it will aid the park in meeting government reporting requirements, 

such as the land health goals under the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA). This

assessment is primarily based on existing data and information from the NPS Inventory & 

Monitoring Program, and from other Federal and State natural resource agencies.

A natural resource assessment should provide a concise, understandable, and accurate summary 

of the condition of the ecological system. Reporting on this ecological condition will provide for 

better decision-making (Young and Sanzone 2002). As such we found that collaborating with 

decision-makers was an important part of this project. 

Precise measurements and objective analysis are preferred for assessing the condition of natural 

resources. Wherever possible, we used quantitative data and established thresholds, but in some 

cases only qualitative measures were available to rate important categories. Rather than remove 

these categories all together, we simply report on the type of data that was available and the 

methods used to compare these data to a desired condition. In all cases, straightforward tables, 

charts, maps, and geospatial data are provided to summarize findings. 

The National Park Service (NPS) monitors the condition of their natural resources using an 

ecological monitoring framework that has been widely used among other agencies (Fancy et al. 

2008). There are six basic level 1 categories: 1) air and climate; 2) geology and soils; 3) water; 4) 

biological integrity; 5) human use; and 6) ecosystem pattern and process. This framework is 

based on earlier work including the Environmental Protection Agency’s ecological condition 

framework that uses similar essential ecological attributes as their upper-level categories (Young 

and Sanzone 2002). We found the NPS categories to be uncomplicated and intuitive. This 

framework is also familiar to NPS personnel and will allow the users to compare current vital 

sign monitoring plans to this assessment. We have, however, reorganized the NPS framework to 

go from small-scale (broad) to large-scale (detailed) analysis, beginning with a primary threat 

and stressor: ecosystem pattern and process (landscapes). 

Throughout this assessment, several data under each category are given a condition status score. 

Some of these scores are based on predesigned systems, but all have been cross referenced to a 

good, fair, poor scoring system (Table 5). 

Table 5. Condition status scoring system for Fort Pulaski National Monument Natural Resource 

Assessment.

Score Range Midpoint

Good 0.67 – 1.00 0.84 

Fair 0.34 – 0.66 0.50 

Poor 0.00 – 0.33 0.17 

185
In addition, we provide a data quality rating based on three categories, thematic, spatial, and 

temporal. We gave thematic a 1 or 0 (yes or no) based on whether these data were from the best 

available source. Spatial received a 1 or 0 based on the spatial proximity of these data (in-park 

data or out-of-park data). We also gave temporal a 1 or 0 based on how recently these data were 

acquired. Temporal was somewhat dependent on data type, but generally, if the data were from 

the last 5 years they received a 1. A sample is shown in Table 6. These tables are combined and 

an overall condition status is reported in the conclusion of this document. The user can also 

access these scores in the provided spreadsheet to view calculations, update data, and modify 

importance ratings as management goals change.

Table 6. Example condition status table. Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best 

source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), 

and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to 

good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 5).

Category Condition 

Status

Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Condition Group A 1 0 0 

Good 1 out of 3 

Condition Group B

1 1 0 

Fair 2 out of 3 

Condition Group C

1 1 1 

Poor 3 out of 3 

The overall condition status for Fort Pulaski NM is in the fair range (0.61; Table 7). Midpoint 

scores were averaged for NPS ecological monitoring framework level 2 categories (Fancy et al. 

2008) to come up with the overall condition status for the monument. 

Landscape dynamics, fire dynamics, human effects, visitor use, and hydrology scored in the 

good range. Landscape, fire, and human effects are broad-scale assessment categories upon 

which Fort Pulaski NM has limited management influence. Consistent reporting and 

collaboration are essential for these categories. Visitor use is relatively consistent and this fort is 

visited at an average level compared with other forts managed by the NPS. Hydrology will move 

further into the good range when the erosion on the north shoreline of Cockspur Island is 

addressed.

Biological integrity (biotic) received a fair rating. The species assemblages present do not appear 

to reflect the more complete biotic communities observed in the surrounding area. This is 

perhaps due to the relatively recent establishment of upland habitat and may be due in part to a 

lack of comprehensive survey efforts. Other categories that scored in the fair range included 

climate, hydrology, water quality, and geology and soils. Climate and water quality are 

categories that will need coordination with other management organizations to improve. 

Collecting additional water quality data within park boundaries would allow better assessment of 

in-park resources. Geology and soils have remained relatively consistent, with the only limiting 

factor being the flooding frequency. 

186
The only category in this assessment to receive a poor rating was air quality. Despite a fair ozone 

exposure score, the poor rating was a result of high levels of estimated atmospheric deposition 

and poor visibility due to a high Haze Index score. Similar to landscape, fire, and human effects, 

air quality is a broad-scale assessment category upon which Fort Pulaski NM has limited 

management influence.

Spatial proximity and thematic (best source) are the limiting factors in data quality. Thematic is 

often in the fair range for data quality, mostly due to needing more local-scale data. This 

National Monument was established primarily to protect cultural resources, so a minimal amount 

of natural resource data has been collected on-site. There are plans to map vegetation 

communities and continue species and community inventory and monitoring. An observation 

that was present in several of the assessment categories is the importance of coordination with 

outside management organizations. It was also noted in several categories that additional localscale data collection could improve assessment and management.

The good, fair, poor scoring system has its limitations. It is somewhat subjective, especially 

when pre-established thresholds and criteria are missing. However, in most cases we were able to 

find thresholds from other agencies or peer-reviewed publications. We made note of the cases 

where established rating systems or thresholds were not available. With these caveats in mind, 

we effectively reported on the condition status of important natural resource management 

categories while providing further information on data quality. 

187
Table 7. Overall condition status summary for Fort Pulaski National Monument. Data quality 

was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside park 

boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The 

colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 5).

Category Condition 

Status Score Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Landscape dynamics total 0 3 0 

Good 0.84 3 out of 9 

Fire dynamics total 0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Human effects total 2 2 2 

Good 0.67 6 out of 6 

Visitor use total 0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Air quality total 3 1 3 

Poor 0.28 7 out of 9 

Climate total 5 1 5 

Fair 0.50 11 out of 15 

Hydrology total 1 6 6 

Good 0.70 13 out of 18 

Water quality total 4 0 0 

Fair 0.42 4 out of 12 

Soil total 3 3 3 

Fair 0.62 9 out of 9 

Biotic total 5 1 6 

Fair 0.39 12 out of 18 

FOPU overall 23 19 27 

Fair 0.61 69 out of 102

This project provided a comprehensive amount of organized tabular data and many geospatial 

data layers and maps that will aid in the management of Fort Pulaski NM. These data are 

provided on an accompanying disk and can be used to compare current status to future 

conditions. This is merely a first step to compiling data and reporting on current condition status, 

data gaps, and threats and stressors. A well-established assessment protocol will include followup and future analysis. 

188
Literature Cited

Fancy, S. G., J. E. Gross, and S. L. Carter. 2008. Monitoring the condition of natural resources in 

US National Parks. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (In Press). 

Fenn, M. E., J. S. Baron, E. B. Allen, H. M. Reuth, K. R. Nydick, L. Geiser, W. D. Bowman, J. 

O. Sickman, T. Meixner, D. W. Johnson, and P. Neitlich. 2003. Ecological Effects of 

Nitrogen Deposition in the Western United States. BioScience 53:404-420. 

Krupa, S. V. 2003. Effects of atmospheric ammonia (NH3) on terrestrial vegetation: a review. 

Environmental Pollution 124:179-221. 

National Park Service. 2004. Assessing the Risk of Foliar Injury From Ozone On Vegetation In 

Parks In the Southeast Coast Network. 

(http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/03Risk/secnO3RiskOct04.pdf). Accessed June 

2009. 

National Park Service. 2007. 2006 Annual Performance & Progress Report: Air Quality in 

National Parks. (http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/gpra/GPRA_AQ_Conditions

TrendReport2006.pdf). Accessed June 2009. 

Oregon State University. 2008. Prism Climate Group. (http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/). 

Accessed June 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Program. EPA-454/B-03-005. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, NC. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf). 

Accessed June 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Ground-level Ozone Air Quality Standards. 

(http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/standards.html). Accessed June 2009. 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2009. National Atmospheric Deposition Program. 

(http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/). Accessed June 2009. 

Young, T. F. and S. Sanzone. 2002. A framework for assessing and reporting on ecological 

condition. 

189

The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities. 

NPS D-172, May 2009
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM