B08_Att_7_Wetland_Delineation_Report.pdf

http://www.nps.gov/ i

Introduction

Research of Available Documents

U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Maps

Soil Survey Information

National Wetland Inventory Maps

Methods

Hydrophytic Vegetation

Hydric Soils

Wetland Hydrology

Field Data Collection

Results of the Survey

Systems Identified

Wetland 1

Wetland 2

Waters of the United States 1

Wetland Functions and Values

Conclusion

References ii

Appendix A: Figures

Appendix B: Wetland Determination Data Forms

Appendix C: On-Site Photographs

Figure 1. Vicinity Map

Figure 2. Fort Moultrie Area of Review

Figure 3. Topographic

Figure 4. Soil Survey Map

Figure 5. National Wetland Inventory Map

Figure 6. Wetland Delineation Map

Table 1. Mapped Soil Types for the AOR, Charleston County, South Carolina

Table 2. Delineated Features iii

ABA Architectural Barriers Act

AOR Area of Review

DO Director’s Order

E1UBL Estuarine subtidal, unconsolidated bottom

E2EM1/USN Estuarine intertidal emergent persistent/unconsolidated shoreline, regularly flooded wetland

E2US2N Estuarine, intertidal, unconsolidated shore

FAC Facultative

FACU Facultative Upland

FACW Facultative Wetland

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee

GPS Global Positioning System

MLLW Mean lower low water

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NPS National Park Service

NWI National Wetland Inventory

OBL Obligate Wetland

PEM Palustrine Emergent Wetland

PWS Professional Wetland Scientist

UPL Upland

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WUS Waters of the United States

Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie National Historical Park is located southeast of Charleston, South Carolina with Fort Moultrie on Sullivan’s Island (Appendix A, Figure 1). Fort Sumter, the park’s signature cultural resource, is accessible to visitors only by ferry; ferry services use the Fort Sumter dock for visitor access.

This dock also provides administrative access to Fort Sumter. The dock at Fort Moultrie is primarily used for park operations and has also been used for recreational activities including fishing, kayaking, and sightseeing. The docks at each fort are an essential part of the functionality of the park. Both the Fort

Sumter and Fort Moultrie docks have reached the end of their life cycle and are currently deteriorating.

The Fort Moultrie dock is proposed to undergo a complete replacement. The dock is 45 years old and is showing advanced signs of deterioration. The current dock also results in conflict between visitor use and administrative use. The replacement of the dock at Fort Moultrie would ensure administrative access for park operations and facilities at Sullivan’s Island that service Fort Sumter and provide enhanced public recreational use.

Currently, the docks provide limited Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) accessibility and do not adequately serve a variety of types of vessels. Improving the Fort Moultrie and Fort Sumter docks would preserve visitor experience, enhance administrative access, and reduce the need and subsequent cost of ongoing maintenance. The implementation of the proposed replacement docks could extend access to Fort Sumter for visitors and park staff for the next 30 or more years.

On December 1, 2022, all natural and artificial wetlands in the area of review (AOR) were delineated.

The AOR included approximately 2.41 acres encompassing areas around the Fort Moultrie dock and potential haul roads from the visitor center parking lot to the Fort Moultrie dock (Appendix A, Figure 2).

Wetlands were previously delineated at Fort Sumter in 2018 and 2020. To comply with Executive Order

11990, “Wetlands Protection” within the context of the agency’s mission, the National Park Service

(NPS) developed a set of policies and procedures found in Director’s Order (DO) 77-1: Wetland

Protection (NPS 2016) and Procedural Manual 77-1: Wetland Protection.

These policies and procedures emphasize: (1) exploring all practical alternatives to building on, or otherwise adversely affecting, wetlands; (2) reducing impacts to wetlands whenever possible; and

(3) providing direct compensation for any unavoidable wetland impacts by restoring degraded or destroyed wetlands on other NPS properties. If a preferred alternative will have adverse impacts on wetlands, a wetlands statement of findings must be prepared that documents the above steps and presents the rationale for choosing an alternative that will have adverse impacts on wetlands. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 11990 and DO 77-1, NPS is required to perform and provide a delineation and review of the project area’s wetlands and/or “waters of the United States.” The wetland delineation was conducted in accordance with the “Routine Determination” procedures outlined in the

1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf

Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2010). Delineated wetlands were classified according to the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the

United States (Cowardin et al. 1979) and the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the

United States (Federal Geographic Data Committee [FDGC] 2013).

The wetland delineation was performed by Kathryn Cerny-Chipman (over 12 years of experience conducting wetland delineations), who has her Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) certification, and

Mark Hall (1 year of experience conducting wetland delineation).

Data layers provided by NPS, including aerial photography and proposed limit of disturbance boundaries, were used to create base maps of the AOR for field use. Prior to visiting the site, available mapping, data, and documents, including historical aerial photographs, USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangles, and Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS) soil surveys, were reviewed to identify potential wetland areas and stream channels

(riverine systems) that may be located within the AOR.

The USGS Topographic Map for the AOR (Appendix A, Figure 3) was used as a reference to identify possible wetlands. Topographic maps identify elevations, forested areas, streams, ponds, roads, and structures. The Fort Moultrie quadrangle was used for the AOR, which has little variation in topography, with elevations ranging from approximately 0 to 4 feet. The USGS Topographic Map depicts the northern half of the AOR as a potential wetland or waterway area associated with the Intercoastal Waterway.

The online NRCS Web Soil Survey for Fort Moultrie was reviewed for the AOR (Appendix A, Figure 4).

The Soil Survey identifies two soil series within the AOR (Table 1). According to NRCS, one of the soil types in the AOR is listed as hydric (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] NRCS 2022). Water was also identified as a soil type across much of the AOR.

Wetland data from the USFWS NWI website (USFWS 2022) were reviewed. The NWI map

(Appendix A, Figure 5) shows two wetland types within AOR. These include estuarine intertidal emergent persistent/unconsolidated shoreline, regularly flooded wetland (E2EM1/USN). This wetland type was found in the middle portion of the AOR and is a marine and estuarine wetland. An estuarine subtidal, unconsolidated bottom (E1UBL) wetland was noted in the northern portion of the AOR, which is a marine and estuarine deepwater wetland. The southern portion of the AOR was identified as upland.

All natural and artificial waterways and wetlands were delineated within the AOR according to the guidance in NPS DO 77-1. Wetlands were identified in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers

Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers

Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2010). For

NPS, any area that is classified as a wetland according to the USFWS Classification of Wetlands and

Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979) and the Classification of Wetlands and

Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FDGC 2013) is subject to NPS DO 77-1 (deepwater habitats are not subject to DO #77-1). Under the Cowardin definition, a wetland must have one or more of the following three attributes:

1. At least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes (wetland vegetation).

2. The substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil.

3. The substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.

The Cowardin wetland definition encompasses more aquatic habitat types than the definition and delineation manual used by USACE for identifying wetlands subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water

Act. The 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual requires that all three of the parameters listed above (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, wetland hydrology) be present for an area to be considered a wetland. The Cowardin and FGDC wetland definition includes such wetlands, but also includes some areas that, though lacking vegetation and/or soils due to natural physical or chemical factors such as wave action or high salinity, are still saturated or shallow inundated environments that support aquatic life (e.g., unvegetated stream shallows, mudflats, rocky shores).

Hydrophytic vegetation is defined in the USACE manual and the USFWS federal manual as a community of macrophytes that occurs in areas where inundation or soil saturation is either permanent or of sufficient frequency and duration to influence plant occurrence. A plant-community approach is used to evaluate vegetation and, therefore, hydrophytic vegetation decisions are based on the community of plant species growing in the area rather than the presence or absence of particular indicator species. Common wetland plant species have been categorized regionally by USACE in the 2020 National Wetland Plant List v 3.5

(USACE 2020). Each plant is classified into one of five categories as follows:

▪ Obligate (OBL) = Almost always occur in wetlands.

▪ Facultative Wetland (FACW) = Usually occur in wetlands but may occur in non-wetlands.

▪ Facultative (FAC) = Occur in wetlands and non-wetlands.

▪ Facultative Upland (FACU) = Usually occur in non-wetlands but may occur in wetlands.

▪ Upland (UPL) = Almost never occur in wetlands.

Plants that have an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC are considered to be typically adapted for life in anaerobic soil conditions. When the dominant species in a plant community are typically adapted for life in anaerobic soil conditions, hydrophytic vegetation is present. Several indicators may be used to determine whether hydrophytic vegetation is present on a site; however, the presence of a single individual of a hydrophytic species does not mean that hydrophytic vegetation is present.

Evaluation of the vegetation begins with a rapid field test for hydrophytic vegetation to determine if there is a need to collect more detailed vegetation data. In an area where a rapid test determines that dominant species are OBL or FACW, hydrophytic vegetation is considered to be present. If the area is not dominated solely by OBL and FACW species, the standard dominance test is performed to determine if more than 50 percent of the dominant species are OBL, FACW, or FAC. Most of the dominant vegetation of this region in wetlands will meet these indicators; however, some wetland plant communities may not be considered hydrophytic based only on dominant species. Therefore, in those cases where indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology are present, the vegetation would be reevaluated with the prevalence index giving consideration to non-dominant plant species as well. A plant community is considered hydrophytic if any one of these three tests is passed.

Hydric soils are soils that are saturated, ponded, or flooded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper portion of the soil column (typically within the upper

18 inches). The prolonged presence of water results in the chemical reduction of elements, particularly iron and manganese. Reduced soils often exhibit a gray (or “gleyed”) color that reflects either the leaching of elements or the presence of reduced elements (again, generally iron and manganese). Hydric soils are characterized by morphologies that result from repeated periods of saturation or inundation that last more than a few days where saturation or inundation, when combined with microbial activity in the soil result in the depletion of oxygen. These anaerobic conditions often result in the accumulation of organic matter and the reduction, translocation, or accumulation of iron and other reducible elements.

These processes result in distinctive characteristics that persist in the soil during both wet and dry periods indicative of hydric soils. Soils are often characterized by bright mottles, sometimes called redoxymorphic features, and are an indication of incomplete saturation. They typically represent isolated pockets where elements (mainly iron) have remained oxidized. Another feature of hydric soils is a low matrix chroma in the diagnostic zone, which is typically identified as the upper 18 inches of the soil layer but may vary.

Wetland hydrology supplies the moisture required to support wetland vegetation and creates the conditions necessary for forming hydric soils. Primary indicators of wetland hydrology include, but are not limited to, the presence of surface water, elevated water table, saturation, watermarks, drift deposits, sediment deposits, aquatic fauna, oxidized rhizospheres on living roots, and water-stained leaves.

Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology include, but are not limited to, drainage patterns, soil cracks, moss-trim lines on trees, crayfish burrows, and the FAC-Neutral test. The FAC-Neutral test involves comparing the number of OBL and FACW plant species to the number of FACU and UPL plant species, with FAC species being neutral. If 50 percent or more of the plant species are OBL or FACW, the

FAC-Neutral test is met. Meeting the FAC-Neutral test is considered a secondary indicator of wetland hydrology. An area must contain at least one primary indicator or two secondary indicators of wetland hydrology for the parameter of wetland hydrology to be met.

Locations for the collection of data were established on-site to evaluate the presence or absence of wetlands and waterways and to demonstrate the typical characteristics of uplands and wetlands along the line of delineation. In areas where hydrologic indicators were observed with hydrophytic vegetation, test pits were dug using a shovel into the ground to a depth of generally no greater than 18 inches to observe soil conditions and to classify the soil as either hydric or non-hydric. Surrounding vegetative species and hydrologic indicators were also observed at the sample locations. The field delineation of wetlands consisted of identifying the limits of the wetlands with pink flagging, which was numbered sequentially.

The flag locations were used to create polygons of wetland areas and these wetland boundaries are depicted in the Wetland Delineation Maps (Appendix A, Figure 6). Wetland flagging was located using a sub-meter accurate handheld Trimble Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. The wetland delineation figures in Appendix A depict the GPS-located wetland flagging. Wetland Determination Data Forms were completed for the areas of data collection within the wetland areas, as well as associated upland areas, to support the delineation in the field. USACE determination data forms for the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal

Plain were completed for the AOR. These wetland data forms are included in Appendix B. In addition to the wetland determination data forms, a rapid function and values assessment was completed for each wetland identified and is provided in the “Wetland Functions and Values” section of this report.

Photographs were taken of the wetlands identified and are included in Appendix C. Appendix C also includes photographs of general observations of the upland and surrounding areas outside of the AOR.

On November 30, 2022, EA staff conducted a reconnaissance site visit, and on December 1, 2022, a wetland delineation of the AOR was completed to determine the presence of wetlands and waterways as defined by NPS and USACE. Two wetlands were identified during the wetland delineation effort and are described in the following sections of this report. Maps for each delineated wetland are provided in

Appendix A (Figure 6), and these features are outlined in Table 2 below.

Wetland 1 is an estuarine, intertidal, persistent emergent (E2EM1) wetland that is approximately 0.84 acres within the AOR within the northeastern portion of the AOR in the intertidal zone of a coastal inlet on the north side of Fort Moultrie north of Central Road on Sullivan’s Island. Wetland 1 was dominated by saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora). Portions of the wetland were unvegetated during the site visit; however, portions of these unvegetated areas may support saltmarsh cordgrass or other emergent species during the growing season. Primary wetland hydrology indicators included standing water, saturation, drift deposits, aquatic fauna, hydrogen sulfide odor, and a thin muck soil surface, and passing the FAC-neutral test. Eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) were observed in the lower portions of the wetland and a patchy oyster reef was observed at the lower boundary of the wetland where it transitioned to unvegetated mudflat (Wetland 2). The upper boundary of Wetland 1 was an artificially constructed riprap revetment, with higher elevations behind the rock that were comprised of a thin buffer of coastal maritime forest with a large, maintained lawn area. Hydric soils were also identified in Wetland 1, with heavy saturation and hydrogen sulfide odor and mucky silt texture that displayed low chroma and gley color with a value of 2.5 and a chroma 1 from 0 to 16 inches in depth. Wetland 1 is part of a larger saltmarsh marsh complex that continues to the east and west of the AOR.

Wetland 2 is located waterward of Wetland 1 and is characterized as an estuarine, intertidal, unconsolidated shore (E2US2N) and is approximately 0.21 acres. Due to the rising tide, a data point was not taken in this area; however, substrates were predominantly silty with a heavy muck surface. Signs of hydrology noted in this wetland include the presence of crab burrows and Eastern oysters. No vegetation or algal growth was observed during the survey but there may be more vegetative growth during the growing season. The position of Wetland 2 is at a lower elevation than Wetland 1 means it is inundated more regularly and for a longer duration than Wetland 1. The lower boundary of Wetland 2 was not formally delineated but is considered to be the mean lower low water (MLLW), where the wetland would transition to subtidal lands. Subtidal lands are classified in both the NPS Procedural Manual 77-1 and

1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) as deepwater habitats. These areas are considered waters of the United States (WUS) and are discussed below. As noted above and from field observations, Wetland 2 continues to both the east and west of the AOR.

Subtidal lands within the AOR are characterized as deepwater habitats and can be considered WUS.

Within the AOR, all subtidal areas waterward of MLLW were identified as WUS 1. Within the AOR, WUS 1 is a tidally-influenced waterway within an estuarine delta area called The Cove. WUS 1 flows to the west, where it joins the Intracoastal Waterway before flowing to the directly adjacent Charleston

Harbor and Atlantic Ocean. Approximately 254 linear feet of WUS 1 is within the AOR. Wetland 2 described above is essentially contiguous with WUS 1, which is directly adjacent estuarine waters

Charleston Harbor that surrounds Fort Sumter.

Wetland functions are physical, chemical, and biological processes or attributes of wetlands that are vital to the integrity of a wetland system, while wetland values are attributes not necessarily important to the integrity of a wetland system but perceived as valuable to society. In addition to the standard wetland delineation methods, a functions and values assessment was completed for the wetlands delineated within the study area. The method used was USACE–New England District for Wetland Functions and Values:

A Descriptive Approach (USACE 1999). A brief description of the common functions and values assessed with this method is provided below:

▪ Groundwater Recharge/Discharge—The potential for the wetland to contribute water to an aquifer or potential for the wetland to serve as an area where groundwater can be discharged to the surface.

▪ Floodflow Alteration (Storage and Desynchronization)—Effectiveness of the wetland in reducing flood damage by attenuation of floodwaters for prolonged periods following precipitation events.

▪ Fish and Shellfish Habitat—Effectiveness of seasonal or permanent waterbodies associated with the wetland in question for fish and shellfish habitat.

▪ Sediment/Toxicant/Pathogen Retention—Prevents degradation of water quality relating to the effectiveness of the wetland as a trap for sediments, toxicants, or pathogens.

▪ Nutrient Removal/Retention/Transformation—Ability for the wetland to prevent adverse effects of excess nutrients entering aquifers or surface waters such as ponds, lakes, streams, rivers, or estuaries.

▪ Production Export (Nutrients)—Wetland’s ability to produce food or usable products for humans or other living organisms.

▪ Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization—Effectiveness of a wetland to stabilize stream banks and shorelines against erosion.

▪ Wildlife Habitat—The wetland’s ability to provide habitat for various types and populations of animals typically associated with wetlands and the wetland edge. Both resident and/or migrating species must be considered.

▪ Recreation (Consumptive and Non-Consumptive)—Ability for the wetland and associated watercourses to provide recreational opportunities such as canoeing, boating, fishing, hunting, and other active or passive recreational activities. Consumptive activities consume or diminish the plants, animals, or other resources that are intrinsic to the wetland, whereas non-consumptive activities do not.

▪ Educational/Scientific Value—Value of the wetland as a site for an “outdoor classroom” or as a location for scientific study or research.

▪ Uniqueness/Heritage—Ability for the wetland or its associated waterbodies to produce certain special values. Special values may include archaeological sites; unusual aesthetic quality;

historical events; or unique plants, animals, or geologic features.

▪ Visual Quality/Aesthetics—The presence of visual and aesthetic qualities of the wetland for society.

Wetlands 1 and 2 are contiguous and part of the same marsh complex; therefore, they were assessed as a single wetland system during the functions and values assessment. Both wetlands have the primary function of providing floodflow alteration, fish and shellfish habitat, and sediment/shoreline stabilization.

A functions and value evaluation form is included in Appendix B.

A total of two wetlands were located within the AOR and were delineated in accordance with NPS procedures. The portion of the AOR below MLLW is considered WUS 1 and is deepwater aquatic habitat.

The AOR contained approximately 254 linear feet of WUS 1. dditionally, the features identified in this report meet the definition of wetlands or waterways based on the USACE methodology, DO 77-1, and

Procedural Manual 77-1. These systems would likely be considered jurisdictional by USACE and would require applicable permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as well as a Water Quality

Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act granted by the South Carolina Department of

Health and Environmental Control.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRue

1979 Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 131 pp.

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)

2013 Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-

2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

National Park Service (NPS)

2016 National Park Service Procedural Manual #77-1: Wetland Protection. National Park

Service. Natural Resources Stewardship and Science. Water Resources Division. Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. USACE

Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

1999 The Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement: Wetland Functions and Values, A

Descriptive Approach. New England District. September. Available online:

https://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Portals/74/docs/regulatory/Forms/HighwaySupplement6

Apr2015.pdf.

https://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Portals/74/docs/regulatory/Forms/HighwaySupplement6Apr2015.pdf https://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Portals/74/docs/regulatory/Forms/HighwaySupplement6Apr2015.pdf

2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/ELTR-10-20. U.S. Army Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

2020 National Wetland Plant List, Version 3.5. Available online at: https://cwbi-app.sec.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/v34/home/home.html. Accessed December 16, 2022.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

2022 Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation

Service, Washington, D.C. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey/aspx. Accessed December 16, 2022.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

2022 National Wetlands Inventory. U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/nwi/. Accessed December 16, 2022.

https://cwbi-app.sec.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/v34/home/home.html https://cwbi-app.sec.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/v34/home/home.html http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey/aspx http://www.fws.gov/nwi/

Fort Sumter Study Area

Fort Moultrie Study Area

Legend

Project Study Area

Figure 1 Vicinity Map Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie Charleston, South Carolina

VICINITY MAP

Map Date: 12/16/2022 Source: ESRI 2022 Projection: NAD 1983, State Plane South Carolina, US Feet

0 500 1,000

Feet

\\l ov et on

G

IS

\G

IS

da ta

\F ed er al

\S ou th ea st \S ou th

C ar ol in a\ N

P S

\F or tS um te r_

F or tM ou ltr ie

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \F

O M

O _W et la nd \F

O M

O _W et la nd .a pr x

Map Extent

Fort Moultrie Area of Review

Legend

Area of Review

Figure 2 Fort Moultrie Area of Review Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie Charleston, South Carolina

VICINITY MAP

Map Date: 12/16/2022 Source: ESRI 2022 Projection: NAD 1983, State Plane South Carolina, US Feet

0 100 200

Feet

\\l ov et on

G

IS

\G

IS

da ta

\F ed er al

\S ou th ea st \S ou th

C ar ol in a\ N

P S

\F or tS um te r_

F or tM ou ltr ie

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \F

O M

O _W et la nd \F

O M

O _W et la nd .a pr

Legend

Area of Review

Figure 3 Topography Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie Charleston, South Carolina

VICINITY MAP

Map Date: 12/16/2022 Source: ESRI 2022, USGS Topo Projection: NAD 1983, State Plane South Carolina, US Feet

0 500 1,000

Feet

\\l ov et on

G

IS

\G

IS

da ta

\F ed er al

\S ou th ea st \S ou th

C ar ol in a\ N

P S

\F or tS um te r_

F or tM ou ltr ie

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \F

O M

O _W et la nd \F

O M

O _W et la nd .a pr

Ma

W

Cg

Legend

Area of Review

Soil Type

Cg-Capers silty clay loam

Ma-Made land

W-Water

Figure 4 Soil Survey Map Fort Moultrie Charleston, South Carolina

VICINITY MAP

Map Date: 12/16/2022 Source: ESRI 2022, USGS SURRGO Soil Data Projection: NAD 1983, State Plane South Carolina, US Feet

0 100 200

Feet

\\l ov et on

G

IS

\G

IS

da ta

\F ed er al

\S ou th ea st \S ou th

C ar ol in a\ N

P S

\F or tS um te r_

F or tM ou ltr ie

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \F

O M

O _W et la nd \F

O M

O _W et la nd .a pr

E2USN

E2EM1/USN

E2EM1/USN

E2US2N

E1UBL

Legend

Area of Review

Wetland Type

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Figure 5 National Wetlands Inventory Map Fort Moultrie Charleston, South Carolina

VICINITY MAP

Map Date: 12/16/2022 Source: ESRI 2022, National Wetland Inventory Projection: NAD 1983, State Plane South Carolina, US Feet

0 100 200

Feet

\\l ov et on

G

IS

\G

IS

da ta

\F ed er al

\S ou th ea st \S ou th

C ar ol in a\ N

P S

\F or tS um te r_

F or tM ou ltr ie

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \F

O M

O _W et la nd \F

O M

O _W et la nd .a pr

DP 1-U

DP 2-W

Fort Moultrie Area of Review

Wetland 1

Wetland 2

WET-1

WET-2

WET-3

WET-4

WET-5

WET-6

WET-7

WET-8

WET-9

WET-10WET-11

WET-12

WET-13

WET-14

WET-15

WET-16

WET-17

Waters of the US 1

Legend

Data Point

Wetland Flag

Approximate Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW)

Intertidal Emergent Wetland

Intertidal Unvegetated Mudflat

Deepwater Aquatic Habitat

Area of Review

Figure 6 Wetland Delineation Map Fort Moultrie Charleston, South Carolina

VICINITY MAP

Map Date: 1/25/2023 Source: ESRI 2022 Projection: NAD 1983, State Plane South Carolina, US Feet

0 100 200

Feet

\\l ov et on

G

IS

\G

IS

da ta

\F ed er al

\S ou th ea st \S ou th

C ar ol in a\ N

P S

\F or tS um te r_

F or tM ou ltr ie

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \F

O M

O _W et la nd \F

O M

O _W et la nd .a pr

US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY

Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Surface Water (A1) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2) Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Vis ble on Aerial Imagery (B7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

(includes capillary fringe)

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

Sullivans Island/Charleston County 2022-12-01

NPS

FOMO Dock South Carolina DP 1U

MH, KCC

None 0

-79.856791732.7623483T 153A Filled Marshland

WGS 84

Cg - Capers silty clay loam

Lawn area on historically filled marsh

VEGETATION (Five Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:

Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

= Total Cover 50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:

Sapling Stratum (Plot size: ) 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

= Total Cover 50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:

Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

= Total Cover 50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:

Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

= Total Cover 50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

= Total Cover 50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B)

Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.

(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).

Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.

Shrub – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in height.

Woody vine – All woody vines, regardless of height.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No

Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).

30 ft r Sabal palmetto 15 ✔ FAC Quercus virginiana 5 ✔ FACU

10.0 4.0 20%

0 0 5 10 15 45 45 180 30 150 95 385

4.05

Cynodon dactylon Medicago lupulina Portulaca pilosa

75%

✔ FACU

✔ UPL

FACW

15.037.5

30 ft r

Some sandy bare ground in the sample plot. Other areas of the lawn outside the plot had pennywort (Hydrocotyle spp.), chickweed (Stellaria media), and turkey tangle (Phyla nodiflora). A thin band of maritime forest was present in the upland along the riprap with live oak, southern red cedar (Juniperus silicicola), and sea ox-eye daisy (Borrichia frutescens).

30 ft r

30 ft r

DP 1U

SOIL Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils

Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O) Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B) 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2) Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)

Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A) Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)

Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

0 8 10R 4/4 100 Sand

Soils sandy with some fines.

DP 1U

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY

Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Surface Water (A1) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2) Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Vis ble on Aerial Imagery (B7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

(includes capillary fringe)

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

Sullivans Island/Charleston County 2022-12-01

NPS

FOMO Dock South Carolina DP 2W

MH, KCC

Concave <1

-79.856547832.7627493T 153A Tidal Marsh

WGS 84

E2EM1/USNW - Water

✔ .5 ✔ 0 ✔ 0 ✔

Wetland point taken at low tide in marsh in WET 1. Oysters and thatch present.

VEGETATION (Five Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:

Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

= Total Cover 50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:

Sapling Stratum (Plot size: ) 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

= Total Cover 50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:

Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

= Total Cover 50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:

Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

= Total Cover 50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

= Total Cover 50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B)

Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.

(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).

Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.

Shrub – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in height.

Woody vine – All woody vines, regardless of height.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No

Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).

85 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 85

1.00

Spartina alterniflora 85

85%

✔ OBL

17.042.5

30 ft r

Out of growing season. Heavy thatch drift. Portions of the wetland were unvegetated during the site visit but may show emergent vegetation during the growing season.

30 ft r

30 ft r

DP 2W

SOIL Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils

Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O) Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B) 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2) Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)

Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A) Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)

Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

0 16 10GY 2.5/1 100 Silt

Soil gleyed and mucky, with organic matter and heavy saturation

DP 2W

Total area of wetland________ Human made?_______ Is wetland part of a wildlife corridor?_________ or a "habitat island"?_________

Adjacent land use__________________________________________ Distance to nearest roadway or other development_____________

Dominant wetland systems present_____________________________ Contiguous undeveloped buffer zone present________________

Is the wetland a separate hydraulic system?____________ If not, where does the wetland lie in the drainage basin?__________________

How many tributaries contribute to the wetland?____________Wildlife & vegetation diversity/abundance (see attached list)

Latitude_________ Longitude___________

Wetland I.D.____________________________

Prepared by:_________ Date_______________

Wetland Impact:

Type__________________Area____________

Evaluation based on:

Office_________ Field__________

Corps manual wetland delineation completed? Y_____ N______

Groundwater Recharge/Discharge

Floodflow Alteration

Production Export

Sediment/Toxicant Retention

Nutrient Removal

Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization

Wildlife Habitat

Recreation

Uniqueness/Heritage

Visual Quality/Aesthetics

Endangered Species Habitat

Wetland Function-Value Evaluation Form

Function/Value Suitability

Y / N Rationale (Reference #)*

Principal Function(s)/Value(s) Comments

Notes: * Refer to backup list of numbered considerations.

ES

Other

Educational/Scientific Value

Fish and Shellfish Habitat

Wetland Delineation On-site Photographs Fort Moultrie National Historical Park Dock Replacement Wetland Delineation Photos Taken November 30 – December 1, 2022

Photograph 1: View of Wetland 1 at high tide. Photograph 2: Unvegetated portion of Wetland 1, with layer of thatch.

Photograph 3: Transition from Wetland 1 to Wetland 2, with oyster reef visible.

Photograph 4: Wetland 2 at low tide, with the FOMO dock in the background.

Wetland Delineation On-site Photographs Fort Moultrie National Historical Park Dock Replacement Wetland Delineation Photos Taken November 30 – December 1, 2022

Photograph 5: Thin buffer of coastal maritime forest upland of the riprap revetment.

Photograph 6: View of Wetland 1, with riprap revetment in the foreground.

Photograph 7: Upland area in the southern portion of the AOR. Photograph 8: Upland area south of the dock facing the parking area.