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


                                                                                                         /*
                                    C3             _52
                                78.                                  76*                         36*    74*



                                                                               <7
                                                                                                               --@7 75@
         GC
         1000


         N 0
                                                                        C
                                                                        :APE H
            82


                                                                                                                             34

                              North Carolina

                                                           CAPE  LOOKOUT.
                                                                                                                             74'
       30
        6



                                                                      M
         E n-voironme6W As.                                       s_ mt   e-,
                                                                                -.7
                    P,,redg,qd              M6                     IN                              es in:
                                         C
                                                   A
                                             h


               South    Carolina

                                                                                                                             32



                                              '-Port                                         k.H       Dunl
                       'Hollan                           E)t---R        Van Dolah,
                             CHA RLE@O
                                                           and S.M. Upchurch

                                                                                                                 r

        o
       82
                                              Marine Resources Divisio
                                             Technical Report Number @2
                    SAVANNAH
                                                                                                          Q,                -30
                                                       February,
                                                                     1 99@                                                   7e
                Georgia     A -

        2


               ---\BRUNSWICK!
                                                                                                     It  3
                    AACK'ONVILLE




        TD
                            ST. AUG    INE.                   Q)
        195                                                                                                             C)
                                                                Ra W11d#fe and                                                 o
        .D72                                    South.                                            Q,_\                       28
        E577                                  M    ne      S          Depoftent                                                  r--"-
        1993                        DAY     A BEAC H:
                                           ... .. w.
                                    82'                                 80*                                  78o












                           Environmental Assessment for


                    Alternative Dredged Material Disposal Sites

                                in Charleston Harbor







                                           by


                                      A.F. Holland
                                      D.E. Porter
                                    R.F. Van Dolah
                                      R.H. Dunlap
                                       G.H. Steele
                                     S.M. Upchurch







                            Marine Resources Research Institute
                                           and
                              Office of Fisheries Management
                 South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department
                                  Post Office Box 12559
                          Charleston, South Carolina 29422-2559




                                      February 1993
                                                                217 ro'.









                             Executive Summary





           Charleston Harbor is one of the most valuable economic
       resources in South Carolina and has a major role in national
       def ense as a Navy home port.     Large numbers of j obs and tax
       revenues result from the investments made in port facilities. The
       Harbor is also a valuable environmental resource providing spawning
       and nursery habitat for recreationally and commercially important
       fish and shellfish.      The Harbor is used extensively for
       recreational fishing, shrimping, and boating.

           The maintenance and development of navigational channels in
       Charleston Harbor is critical to the regional economy and national
       security. Annually, more than five million cubic yards of material
       must be removed from channels to maintain water depths required by
       shipping traffic. Construction of planned new port facilities and
       deepening of the Harbor to support a broader range of vessels will
       require more than twelve million cubic yards of additional dredged
       material disposal capacity. Activities associated with dredging,
       particularly the disposal of dredged material, may have substantial
       adverse impacts upon environmental resources.

           currently, the majority of material dredged from Charleston
       Harbor is deposited at a site located on the southern portion of
       Daniel Island which has large capacity, low environmental impact,
       and is economical to use. Unfortunate@y, the lease agreement for
       the use of Daniel Island expired in 1992, and the owner plans to
       develop the site into a community including residential housing,
       light industry, a shipping terminal, recreational space, and
       associated support services (e.g., schools).

           Due to the impending loss of Daniel Island as a dredged
       material disposal site, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)
       working with the South Carolina Coastal Council, the State Ports
       Authority (SPA), the U.S. Navy, and the City of Charleston
       initiated a study to identify alternatives to Daniel Island that
       have acceptable economic costs and environmental impacts.       The
       USACOE was lead agency for conduct of the study and was responsible
       for the conduct of economic and engineering studies.      The S.C.
       Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Marine Resources Division
       (MRD), was contracted to conduct analyses to identify alternatives
       to Daniel Island that could sustain acceptable levels of
       environmental impacts. The alternative of not dredging the Harbor
       was not considered because the resultant economic and national
       security impacts were considered unacceptable.











               South Carolina                                         Executive Summary
               Marine Resources Division


                    MRD worked with the USACOE, other state and federal agencies,
               and the public, to identify alternative dredged material disposal
               sites that could be used in lieu of Daniel Island.             Twenty
               prospective sites that had disposal capacities ranging from about
               one million cubic yards to 120 million cubic yards were identified.
               The areal extent of these sites ranged from 49 acres to over 9,800
               acres. Sixteen were diked upland sites, two were diked estuarine
               sites, and two were uncontained ocean disposal sites. Six of the
               sites were existing dredged material disposal areas. The complete
               range of environmental conditions that exists in Charleston Harbor
               was represented by the alternative sites included in the
               evaluation. Multiple engineering configurations were evaluated for
               several sites.

                    MRD convened a workshop to define environmental concerns
               associated with construction and operations of dredged material
               disposal facilities in Charleston Harbor.      Participants at the
               workshop included representatives of state and federal regulatory
               and   resource   management    agencies,   academic     institutions,
               environmental advocacy groups, and cultural resource agencies.
               Environmental concerns associated with dredged material disposal
               facilities identified by participants at the workshop included:

                         Impacts on existing environmental quality,
                         Impacts on water quality,
                         Critical habitat losses,
                         Impacts  on environments adjacent to candidate sites,
                         Impacts  on material cycles,
                         Impacts  on migration and movement patterns,
                         Impacts  on groundwater resources,
                         Impacts  on cultural resources,
                         Impacts  on human uses.

                    Projecting and   contrasting the environmental consequences
               associated with siting of dredged material disposal facilities at
               the alternative sites required data collected in a standardized
               manner for all sites. MRD's review of the, ecological literature
               for these sites found it to be fragmented, incomplete, and limited
               in spatial and temporal coverage. To overcome this problem, MRD
               developed a standardized data base of habitat types for the sites
               that provided data which could be used as a basis for projecting
               and evaluating environmental impacts for each of the environmental
               concerns identified. The habitat-cover data were developed using
               post-Hugo color infrared photography obtained by the National
               Aerial Photography Program (NAPP), existing nautical charts, and
               coastal bottom mapping data collected by the United States
               Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).










       South Carolina                                        Executive Summary
       Marine Resources Division


            MRD developed quantitative measures (i.e., indicators) for
       projecting impacts associated with the environmental concerns
       identified at the workshop except impacts on groundwater and
       cultural resources. The South Carolina Water Resources Commission
       (WRC) was responsible for projecting impacts on groundwater
       resources, and Brockington and Associates, Inc. , a Charleston based
       archaeological consulting firm, was responsible for projecting
       impacts on cultural resources.    The indicators developed by MRD
       incorporated habitat-cover data and scientific knowledge about the
       sensitivity and vulnerability of habitats to estimate the relative
       magnitude of impacts associated with development of dredged
       material disposal facilities. The MRD analytical approach was also
       designed to allow the results obtained from WRC and Brockington and
       Associates, Inc. to be incorporated into the final assessment.
       Cumulative impacts were assessed by summing impacts across all
       environmental concerns.     Environmental concerns were weighted
       equally for the cumulative impact assessment.      Estimates of the
       degree of impact were adjusted for among-site differences in
       capacity to facilitate comparison of the alternatives. The final
       assessment we developed identified alternatives that had both small
       cumulative environmental impact and small environmental costs per
       cubic yard.

            Major Conclusions were:

            0     None of the alternative sites were preferred habitat for
                  threatened or endangered species or blocked migrational
                  routes for recreationally and commercially important
                  species.
            0     Existing diked dredged material disposal facilities at
                  Yellow House Creek, Naval Weapons Station, Drum Island,
                  and Clouter Creek were projected to represent the least
                  threat to environmental resources and were the most
                  acceptable alternatives to Daniel Island. These sites
                  generally have large capacity and are located in regions
                  of the Harbor where impacts on ecologically valuable
                  resources are low. The smaller Ocean Dredged Material
                  Disposal Site was also determined to be an acceptable
                  alternative   to   Daniel   Island   for   disposal     of
                  uncontaminated dredged material. The combined capacity
                  of these existing disposal sites is about 240 million
                  cubic yards. In combination, they provide most of the
                  dredged   material   disposal   capacity   required    for
                  Charleston Harbor for the next 50 years.











              South Carolina                                        Executive Summary
              Marine Resources Division


                   0     The most acceptable "new" site identified was Upper
                         Thomas Island. Development of this site would provide
                         about 25 million cubic yards of additional disposal
                         capacity.

                   0     Most of the sites do not warrant further evaluation as
                         alternatives to Daniel Island because of the high
                         environmental impact which would be associated with their
                         development and use.    Included in this group are the
                         proposed Folly Beach Berm, modifications to the existing
                         Morris Island disposal site, Patriots Point, Middle
                         Shoal, Rodent Island alternatives, Lower Thomas Island,
                         Fort Johnson, Cainhoy Road alternatives, Point Hope
                         Island alternatives, and Parkers Island alternatives.



































                                               iv










                                             ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



               We wish to thank several people who assisted us on this study. Mr. Chris Brooks served
          as the contract officer for the South Carolina Coastal Council and expedited processing of the
          contract. He also provided technical input on the evaluation process. Mr. Mark Nelson served
          as the contract monitor for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District, and served
          as a focal point for data transfers and technical reviews of findings. The cooperation and
          positive interactions that occurred between the South Carolina Marine Resources Division and
          the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of this contract were largely a direct result of Mark's
          enthusiasm and dedication to making the project a success. Several other representatives from
          both state and federal agencies participated in a workshop that was instrumental in developing
          the criteria used in the evaluation of each site (see Table 3-2 for a listing of the participants).
          Rick DeVoe, Dana Beach, David Cupka, Elizabeth Wenner and Heyward Robinson reviewed
          earlier drafts of this report, and Margaret Lentz assisted in its typing and preparation.































                                                           v










                                                          Table of Contents


            EXECUTIVE SLJM@RY                    ......................................


            ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                     ......................................                                      v


            CHAPTER 1: Introduction                .....................................                                     1
            A. Project Overview and Goals              ...................................                                   1
            B. Background Information              .....................................                                     2
            C. Objectives               ..........................................                                           4
            D. Report Organization           ........................................                                        5

            CHAPTER 2: Approach and Rationale                      .............................                             6
            A.   Introduction           ..........................................                                           6
            B.   Coordination           ..........................................                                           6
            C.   Study Scope            ..........................................                                           6
            D.   Identification of Fatal Flaws        ....................................                                   8
            E.   USFWS Responsibilities            ....................................                                      11
            F.   MRD Responsibilities          ......................................                                        12

            CHAPTER 3: Methods and Results                     ..............................                                13
            A.   Task 1: Identification of Alternative Sites and Establishment of Site
                 Boundaries             .........................................                                            13
            B.   Task 2: Identification of Environmental Concerns                  ....................                      16
            C.   Task 3: Review of Ecological Information and Development of a Habitat-
                 Cover Data Base        .........................................                                            18
            D.   Task 4:     Development of Assessment Methods               .......................                         21
            E.   Task 5:     Conduct of Analyses         .................................                                   28
                       1.    Assessment of Impacts on Existing Environmental Quality                   ..........            28
                       2.    Projected Impacts on Water Quality of Receiving Water Body                    ........          30
                       3.    Projected Impacts of Critical Habitat Loss            ....................                      34
                       4.    Projected Impacts to Adjacent Habitats           ......................                         39
                       5.    Projected Impacts on Materials Cycles            ......................                         44
                       6.    Projected Impacts on Migration and Movement Patterns                  ............              52
                       7.    Projected Impacts on Groundwater Resource              ........        I. . . . . . . . . . .   54
                       8.    Projected Impacts on Cultural Resources            . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    58
                       9.    Projected Impacts on Human Uses            . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    63
                       10. Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment                 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    70

            CHAPTER 4: Conclusions and Recommendations                           .....................                       84


            REFERENCES                  .........................................                                            88





                                                                     vi











                                                             List of Tables



            2-1.       List of Representative Important Biota            . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

            2-2.       List of Representative Important Habitats for which habitat-cover information
                       was developed      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    10

            3-1.       List of alternative sites including information on existing status and
                       historical use, proposed disposal method, projected disposal capacity, and
                       number of engineering configurations evaluated             . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    14

            3-2.       List of agencies and individuals that attended the workshop to define
                       environmental concerns associated with construction and operation of dredged
                       material disposal sites in Charleston Harbor          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     17

            3-3.       Summary of land use/land cover data (in acres) for alternative sites                . . ... . . . .   22

            3-4.       Summary of land use/land cover data (in acres) for alternative sites                . . . . . . . .   23

            3-5.       Summary of Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System categories
                       that were combined for this study         . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     24

            3-6.       Proposed analysis scheme        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     25

            3-7.       Scoring scheme used for projecting impact on existing environmental quality                         . 29

            3-8.       Values of relative susceptibility for RIHs to assimilate discharges from
                       dredged material disposal facilities          . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33

            3-9.       Values used for relative importance of RIHs to ecological processes affecting
                       the life cycle and abundance of RIB          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    37

            3-10.      Values used for relative sensitivity of adjacent habitats to construction and
                       operation of dredged material disposal facilities          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    43

            3-11.      Values used for relative importance of RIH's to material cycling processes. . . 50

            3-12.      Scoring scheme used for assessing impacts on migration and movement patterns. 55

            3-13.      Scoring scheme used for assessing potential impacts on groundwater resources 57

            3-14.      Categorical scoring scheme used for assessing impacts on cultural resources                           61



                                                                     vii









                          List of Tables (Continued):.


                          3-15.       Summary of findings for projected relative impacts on cultural resources                          . . . .   62

                          3-16.       Relative value of RIHs for projecting impacts on human uses                        . . . . . . . . . . .    67

                          3-17.       List of human uses considered              . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      68


                          3-18.       Overview of analysis results          . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        73,74

                          3-19.       List of alternative weighting schemes for environmental concerns evaluated.                                 75







































                                                                                       viii









                                                            List of Figures


            2-1.       Schematic showing study approach           .............................                              7

            3-1.       Potential alternative disposal sites for Charleston Harbor             . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

            3-2.       Comparison of normalized size (acres) and normalized disposal capacity data
                       (cubic yards) for alternatives       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27

            3-3.       Projected impacts on existing environmental quality             . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   31

            3-4.       Projected impacts on water quality           . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35

            3-5.       Projected impacts on critical habitat loss       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    38

            3-6.       Effect of assigning a low relative importance value (S) to saltmarsh habitats
                       to the estimate of impacts on critical habitat losses          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40

            3-7.       Effect of setting the relative importance value (S) for all habitats equal on
                       the estimate of impacts on critical habitat loss          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   41

                       Projected impacts on adjacent habitats           . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46

            3-9.       Effects of a low susceptibility (S) for large tidal creeks on projected
                       impacts on adjacent environments         . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    47

            3-10.      Projected impacts on material cycles        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   51

            3-11.      Relationship between projected impacts on material cycling and amount of upland
                       habitat.         . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  53


            3-12.      Projected impacts on migration and movement patterns               . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    56

            3-13.      Projected impacts on groundwater resources            . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   59

            3-14.      Projected impacts on cultural resources          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  64

            3-15.      Projected impacts on human uses          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  69

            3-16.      Projected cumulative environmental impacts             . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  71

            3-17.      Relationship between projected cumulative environmental impacts and size (A)
                       and capacity (B)     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  72


                                                                     ix









                         List of Figures (Continued):



                         3-18.      Effects of weighting projected impacts from critical habitat losses twice as
                                    important as other environmental concerns               . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  76

                         3-19.      Effects of weighting projected water quality impacts five times as important
                                    as other environmental concerns           . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  77


                         3-20.      Effects of weighting projected critical habitat losses and water quality
                                    impacts five times as important as other environmental concerns                 . . . . . . . . . .  78

                         3-21.      Relationship between projected impacts of critical habitat losses and
                                    projected cumulative environmental impacts            . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    80

                         3-22.      Projected cumulative environmental impacts adjusted for capacity                 . . . . . . . . .   81

                         3-23.      Final environmental assessment           . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   82









                                                 List of Appendices


          A. Description of Representative Important Biota      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-1

          B. Description of Representative Important Habitats       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-1








































                                                          xi








                                   Chapter 1

                                  Introduction



       A. Project overview and Goals

            This report presents the findings of a study to identify
       dredged material disposal sites for Charleston Harbor that
       represent the least risk to environmental resources and have
       adequate capacity to meet the short- and long-term disposal
       requirements for port facilities. The general approach used was to
       identify as many alternative sites as possible and then use
       available information to evaluate and select among them based on
       the degree of relative environmental impact. The alternative of
       not dredging Charleston Harbor was not evaluated because the
       economic and national security consequences were considered
       unacceptable.

            The results of this environmental evaluation will be
       integrated with the findings of an economic and engineering
       assessment conducted by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) . The
       integrated assessment will define disposal sites that are projected
       to represent the least risk to environmental resources, have
       adequate capacity to meet short- and long-term disposal capacity
       f or Charleston Harbor, and have acceptable economic cost.        In
       development of the integrated assessment, results of the
       environmental evaluation will be weighted equally with the findings
       of the engineering/economic assessment.          Results of the
       environmental and engineering/ economic evaluations are scheduled
       for completion by February 1993.     The integrated assessment is
       scheduled for completion in Spring 1993. Detailed environmental,
       economic, and engineering studies will then be conducted to better
       define the problems and issues associated with the preferred
       alternative(s).

            The South Carolina Marine Resources Division (MRD) was the
       lead agency for the evaluation of impacts on environmental
       resources. MRD was assisted in this evaluation by the U.S. Fish
       and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Enhancement Field Office.           The
       evaluation conducted by MRD and USFWS did not address impacts on
       groundwater or cultural resources.    MRD and USFWS also did not
       evaluate impacts on human uses other than those associated with
       fishing, hunting, boating, and aesthetic pleasures, such as bird-
       watching. Impacts on groundwater resources were evaluated by the
       South Carolina Water Resources Commission (WRC) at the request of
       the USACOE.   As the state agency responsible for management and
       protection of groundwater resources, WRC had the expertise and
       information required to conduct this assessment. The evaluation of












               South Carolina                                                Introduction
               Marine Resources Division


               impacts on cultural resources was conducted by Brockington and
               Associates, Inc., an archaeological consulting f irm. located in
               Charleston, South Carolina. This f irm, has conducted many previous
               archaeological assessments in the Charleston region and is familiar
               with the findings of previous archaeological surveys for Charleston
               Harbor.   Brockington and Associates, Inc. was contracted by the
               South Carolina Coastal Council to conduct the required assessment
               on cultural resources for the USACOE.            The archaeological
               assessment conducted by Brockington and Associates, Inc., included
               an evaluation of the visual effects of candidate sites on cultural
               resources. The analytical approach developed by MRD for assessing
               environmental impacts was designed to allow the results of
               evaluations conducted by WRC for groundwater resources and
               Brockington and Associates, Inc. for cultural resources to be
               incorporated into an overall assessment of cumulative environmental
               impacts.

               B.    Background Information

                     The port of Charleston is composed of an extensive network of
               commercial, state, and federal facilities.          It includes the
               Charleston Naval Base and commercial port facilities which
               represent the largest containerized cargo shipping and receiving
               facilities in the southeast (SPA 1989).      Significant investments
               have been made to develop these facilities and their value to the
               regional economy is well established (SPA, 1992).        For example,
               1,400 commercial vessels with a combined cargo of over seven
               million tons passed through the Port of Charleston during 1989.
               Port activities support approximately 60,000 jobs, $6.2 billion in
               sales, $1.5 billion in personal income, and $240 million in tax
               revenues annually (SPA 1992). Additionally, the third largest home
               port for the U.S. Navy is located in Charleston Harbor, supporting
               more than 70 surface vessels and submarines as well as a shipyard
               and Naval Weapons' Station.     In 1985, over 59,500 military and
               civilian personnel with a total payroll and local purchases of over
               $1.5 billion resulted from the naval base and related Department of
               Defense facilities (Campbell 1988).

                     Charleston Harbor also includes extensive wetland and
               estuarine habitats that provide spawning and nursery areas for many
               species of fish, shellfish, birds, and other wildlife (Shealy et
               al. 1974; Sandifer et al. 1980; Van Dolah et al. 1990; Chamberlain
               1991).   The Harbor's fishery resources are extensively used by
               recreational fishermen (Campbell 1988; Moore and Chamberlain 1991) .
               Several historical tourist attractions, including Fort Sumter, Fort
               Moultrie, and the Patriots Point Maritime Museum, are located on
               the Harbor, and the scenic views that exist along the Harbor's
               shoreline are a valuable aesthetic resource. The protected waters


                                                 2












       South Carolina                                               Introduction
       Marine Resources Dhrision


       of the Harbor are used for recreational boating with seven
       commercial marinas (approximately 1,200 slips) and 28 public boat
       landings occurring in the Harbor region (Davis and Van Dolah 1992).


            The maintenance and development of navigational channels and
       turning basins in Charleston Harbor is critical to the regional
       economy and national security. Continual dredging activities are
       required to maintain channels and turning basins at desired water
       depths (Kjerfve 1976). About five million cubic   yards of material
       are removed annually from the Harbor bottom since completion of the
       Santee River Rediversion Project (M. Nelson,      USACOE, personal
       communication).    In addition, the Charleston Harbor Deepening
       Project, scheduled for completion in the         mid-1990's, will
       eventually remove more than twelve million cubic yards of material
       from the Harbor.

            Dredging activities significantly       impact environmental
       resources and other uses of the Harbor. Short-term impacts include
       increased turbidity and decreased abundance of bottom dwelling
       biota and fish (Windom 1976, Morton 1977, Allen and Hardy 1980).
       Marine turtles are also at risk of being entrained into some types
       of dredges (Ehrhart 1987, Butler et al. 1987, Dickerson et al.
       1991, Van Dolah et al. 1992).       The environmental impacts of
       greatest long-term concern to the public, however, are those
       associated with the consequences of dredged material disposal upon
       ecological, cultural, and aesthetic resources (Morton 1977).      Of
       particular concern is the conversion of ecologically valuable
       wetland habitat into disposal areas.

            Currently, a large portion of dredged material from Charleston
       Harbor is disposed of at a site located on the southern tip of
       Daniel Island, several disposal sites along the Cooper River, and
       an ocean disposal site south of the Charleston Harbor entrance
       channel. The Daniel Island disposal site has been important to the
       USACOE disposal strategy in Charleston Harbor for much of the past
       decade. Not only does this site have large capacity and relatively
       low ecological impact, but its central location makes it economical
       to use. Although the Daniel Island site has the disposal capacity
       that would allow its use for many more years, the lease agreement
       for Daniel Island between the USACOE and the Guggenheim Foundation
       expired in 1992 and may not be renewed. The Guggenheim Foundation
       plans to develop Daniel Island into a community that includes
       residential housing, light industry, a shipping            terminal,
       recreational space, and associated support facilities (e.g.,
       schools, churches) . The plans to develop Daniel Island potentially
       adversely affect its future use as a disposal site for dredged
       material.



                                        3












               South Carolina                                              Introduction
               Marine Resources Division


                    Due to the impending loss of Daniel Island as a dredged
               material disposal site, the USACOE initiated,a study with the South
               Carolina Coastal Council, South Carolina State Ports Authority
               (SCSPA), the U.S. Navy, and the City of Charleston, to define an
               environmentally acceptable alternative (s) to the use of Daniel
               Island. The USACOE is responsible for conducting the study under
               an interagency agreement with the South Carolina Coastal Council.
               An Executive Steering Committee, composed of representatives of the
               five governmental agencies identified above, advises the USACOE on
               policy issues.     A scientific advisory group, composed of
               representatives of state and federal regulatory and resource
               management agencies and concerned public interest groups, provides
               technical review of study plans and products.

               C.   Objectives

                    As noted above, the goal of this study was to identify dredged
               material disposal sites in Charleston Harbor which were projected
               to have adequate capacity to be an alternative to Daniel Island.
               Specific tasks required to accomplish this goal were to:

                    0 Define the scope of MRD and USFWS technical support
                      activities,

                    0 Develop a list of alternative. dredged material disposal
                      sites including specification of site boundaries,

                    a Define environmental concerns associated with dredged
                      material disposal operations in Charleston Harbor,

                    0 Review and compile available environmental data for
                      alternative disposal sites,

                    0 Develop la nd-use/habitat-cover information f or each site
                      and use it as a basis for mapping site boundaries,
                      development of engineering plans, and projection of
                      environmental impacts,

                    * Develop an analytical approach for projecting impacts of
                      construction and operations of possible dredged material
                      disposal facilities on Charleston Harbor,

                    * Apply the analytical approach to identify environmentally
                      acceptable alternatives to the use of Daniel Island, and

                    0 Document results of the analysis. in an environmental
                      assessment report.



                                               4











       South Carolina                                             Introduction
       Marine Resources Division


       D.    ReRort organization

            An Executive Summary has already been presented that provides
       a brief summary of the approach, findings, conclusions, and
       recommendations. The remainder of this report is organized in the
       following sections:

            ï¿½  Approach and Rationale (Chapter 2): This chapter defines
               the scope of the study and provides an overview of the
               approach used.

            ï¿½  Methods and Results (Chapter 3): This chapter provides a
               detailed description of the methods used for each task and
               presents detailed findings of the analyses, including
               results of sensitivity analyses.

            ï¿½  Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 4): This chapter
               integrates analytical results into conclusions and
               recommendations,      including     identification       of
               environmentally acceptable alternatives to the use of the
               Daniel Island dredged material disposal site.




























                                        5








                                           Chapter 2

                                    Approach and Rationale


               A.   Introduction

                    An overview of the tasks that MRD conducted for this study as
               well as the relationship among them is shown in Figure 2-1. The
               sequence of tasks was designed to identify high priority
               environmental concerns early in the study and f ocus the evaluation
               on these high priority concerns.        Sensitivity analyses were
               conducted to evaluate indicators used and assess the consequences
               of assumptions and subjective judgment on findings. The feedback
               loop in Figure 2-1 between tasks 3 (Review and compile Available
               Data) , 4 (Develop Analysis Methods) , and 5 (Conduct Analysis),
               illustrate the iterative process used to ref ine analytical methods
               and results. Many dif f erent indicators of the degree and extent of
               environmental impacts were evaluated bef ore an appropriate suite
               was selected.     Task 6 provided the means for incorporating
               projected impacts on ground water and cultural resources developed
               by others into the assessment of cumulative environmental impact.

               B.   Coordination

                   IRegulatory and resource management agencies, technical
               experts, environmental groups, and the public were regularly
               informed of the progress and results of each task through brief ings
               and workshops.      This coordination improved the level of
               understanding of study methods and findings.

               C.   Study Scope

                    The list of sites included in the evaluation was developed
               jointly with the USACOE and other state, federal, and local
               resource management and regulatory agencies, academic scientists,
               technical experts, and the concerned public.      The goal of this
               activity was to identify as many prospective sites and alternative
               engineering configurations that could be evaluated given the budget
               constraints of the project.

                    No major new data collection activities were conducted for
               this study. Field surveys were limited to site visits to verify
               existing information and refine site characterizations. ' The
               existing ecological condition (i.e., habitats and assemblages) for
               each site was developed by synthesizing and integrating existing
               ecological data into resource distribution maps that could be used
               to project the relative environmental consequences of construction
               and operation of dredged material disposal facilities.



                                                6











         Figure 2-1. Schematic showing study approach.



                         Task 1
                         Identify Prospective Sites
                              *Defm*e Scope
                              *Establish Boundaries





           Task 2                          Task 3
           Define Environmental            Review & Compile
           Concerns                        Available Data
                                                *Identify Fatal Flaws
                                                *VallidateData







                            Task 4
                            Develop Analysis Methodology
                                 *Approach
                                 eAlgorithms



         Task 6                     Task 5
         Incorporate Data           Conduct Analyses
         From Other Sources              *Scenarios
             *Groundwater          L     -Sensitivity Analyses
             *Cultural





                                   Task 7
                                   Develop Conclusions
                                   and Recommendations




                                     7











              South Carolina                                      Approach and Rationale
              Marine Resources Division


                   Assessment activities were f ocused on selected biota whose
              abundance, distribution, ecological role (e.g., food web linkage),
              or economic importance (e.g., recreationally harvested fish) are
              critical components of indigenous populations of fish, shellfish
              and other wildlife.     These species were called Representative
              Important Biota (RIB) and were biota for which the most detailed
              and extensive ecological information was available.       scientific
              knowledge for RIB provided a basis for projecting impacts with a
              reasonable degree of confidence. Responses of RIB were assumed to
              be indicators of system wide responses.         The RIB assessment
              approach has been extensively used for siting power plants and
              other types of industrial operations (Limberg et al. 1984).

                   RIB included biota that were sensitive to construction and
              operation of dredged material disposal sites as well as biota that
              have economic and ecological value. In addition, RIB selections
              included a range of trophic levels and other ecological
              classifications.    Table 2-1 provides a list of selected RIB
              organized by ecological category.    Appendix A provides a brief
              overview of the life history and ecology for each RIB.

                   In a similar manner, assessment activities were focused on a
              limited number of habitats whose abundance, distribution, and
              ecological value (e.g., nursery habitat for commercially and
              recreationally important species), or economic and ecological
              importance (e.g., live bottom reef habitat) were essential to the
              maintenance of indigenous populations of fish, shellfish, and other
              wildlife.   These habitats were called Representative Important
              Habitats (RIHs). Scientific knowledge for RIHs provided the basis
              for projecting impacts associated with construction and operation
              of dredged material disposal facilities on RIHs. Responses of RIHs
              were considered to be indicators of system-wide responses. A list
              of the RIHs used f or this study is provided in Table 2-2.       This
              list includes habitats which are sensitive to construction and
              operation of dredged material disposal sites, as well as habitats
              of economic and ecological value.     Appendix B provides a brief
              description of each RIH.

              D.   Identification of Fatal Flaws

                   This study was also designed to identify and eliminate
              alternative sites which had fatal flaws. Fatal flaws were defined
              as impacts which were projected to:

                   *Adversely impact an important habitat, particularly a
                     refuge, for a threatened and/or endangered (T&E) species,




                                               8










         South Carolina                                                        Approach and Rationale
         Marine Resources Division


         Table 2-1.    List of Representative Important Biota.



         Habitat Formers


                Reef sponges and soft corals
                Dune plants
                Saltwater marsh plants

         Rare and Endangered Species

                Loggerhead turtle
                Red-cockaded woodpecker
                Canby's dropwort

         Species sensitive to operation and construction of disposal sites

                Reef sponges and soft corals
                Oysters: Intertidal and subtidal
                Freshwater wetland plants

         Commercially/Recreationally Important Species

                White shrimp
                Black sea bass
                .Blue crab
                Red drum
                Eastern wild turkey

         Aesthetically Important Species

                Great blue heron
                River otter
                American bottlenose dolphin










                                                      9










                 South Carolina                                                   Approach and Rationale
                 Marine Resources Division



                 Table 2-2.   List of Representative Lnportant Habitats for which habitat-cover
                              infonnation was developed.



                 Existing Diked Disposal Areas

                 Upland Habitat

                 Freshwater Wetlands


                 Ponds, Borrow Pits, and Impoundments

                 Mixed Estuarine Marshes


                 High Elevation Marsh

                 Low Elevation Marsh


                 Tidal Sand and Mud Flats


                 Small Tidal Creeks


                 Large Tidal Creeks

                 Shallow (<2 m) Estuary

                 Deep (> 2 m) Estuary

                 Coastal Dunes and Beaches


                 Shallow (< 10 m) Coastal Water

                 Deep (> 10 m) Coastal Water

                 Live-Bottom Habitat


                 Off-Shore Berm






                                                          10










       South Carolina                                        Approach and Rationale
       Marine Resources Division


             ï¿½ Adversely impact a cultural resource of national and/or
               regional significance, or

             ï¿½ Block migration and/or movement of recreationally and/or
               commercially important species.

             Adverse impacts to T&E species were those projected to result
       in the permanent loss of a currently used habitat for T&E species
       which cannot be mitigated. Adverse impacts to cultural resources
       were actions projected to result in loss of or damage to resources
       of national or regional significance which cannot be mitigated by
       data collection and data recovery activities.

             The USFWS Enhancement Field Office at Charleston provided MRD
       with species names and the approximate locations and known habitats
       of T&E species in the Charleston Harbor area.          Based on this
       information and discussions with the non-game and endangered
       species staff of the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources
       Department (SCWMRD), none of the candidate sites were determined to
       contain prime habitat for T&E species. T&E species, particularly
       plants, however, had the potential to occur at several of the
       sites.    A detailed T&E evaluation will be required for these
       alternatives if they are selected for development into a dredged
       material disposal facility.

             An evaluation of potential impacts on cultural resources was
       conducted by Brockington and Associates, Inc. (1992). Results of
       this evaluation were incorporated directly into analyses conducted
       for this report. None of the candidate sites were determined to
       have adverse impacts on cultural resources that could not be
       mitigated.

             MRD determined that none of the proposed alternatives blocked
       an important migration route for recreationally and/or commercially
       important species (refer to discussion in Chapter 3, Section E.6).

       E.    USFWS Responsibilities

             USFWS responsibilities included:

             ï¿½ Assisting with evaluations for T&E species,

             ï¿½ Participating in site visits,

             ï¿½ Providing support for development of habitat cover data,

             ï¿½ Planning and participating in technical workshops, and











               South Carolina                                       Approach and Rationale
               Marine Resources Division


                    e Conducting technical reviews.

               P.   XRD Responsibilities

                    MRD was responsible for completion of all tasks. In the next
               chapter, the specific methods used and findings for each task shown
               in Figure 2-1 are described.










































                                                 12








                                     Chapter 3

                               Methods and Results



        A. Task 1: Identification of Alternative Sites and Establishment
            of Site Boundaries

             The USACOE working with other federal [U.S. Environmental
        Protection Agency - Region IV (EPA-IV), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
        Service (USFWS), U.S. Navy, National Marine Fisheries Service
        (NMFS)], state (S.C. Department of Health and Environmental
        Control (DHEC) , MRD, S.C. Sea Grant Consortium, S.C. Water Resources
        Commission (WRC), S.C. Land Resources Conservation Commission
        (SCLRCC)], and local (City of Charleston) agencies developed a
        preliminary list of seventeen alternative sites in September 1991.
        This list was presented to the public, environmental groups, and
        the scientific community at a series of meetings and workshops. As
        a result of these meetings, the list of candidate sites was
        expanded to the twenty listed in Table 3-1 and shown in Figure 3-1.


             Sixteen of the alternative sites are diked upland disposal
        sites, two are diked estuarine disposal sites, and two             are
        uncontained ocean disposal sites. Six sites are currently used for
        dredged material disposal. Four sites were historically used for
        dredged material disposal but are not currently active disposal
        sites. Multiple engineering configurations, representing a range
        of disposal capacities and potential impacts, were developed for
        many of the sites (Table 3-1).        Several of the alternatives
        represent modifications to existing disposal sites (i.e., Morris
        Island and Yellow House Creek).

             The disposal capacity of alternative sites range from slightly
        more than one million cubic yards for Patriots Point to about 120
        million cubic yards for one of the Morris Island alternatives
        (Table 3-1).   The long-term disposal needs of the USACOE (i.e.,
        =240 million cubic yards for the next 50 years) will require use of
        multiple sites. Dredged material containing levels of contaminants
        that are toxic to biota cannot be placed at uncontained ocean
        disposal sites because these materials have a high risk of
        adversely impacting natural resources in ocean environments.

             The USACOE was responsible for defining site boundaries.
        Preliminary boundaries for ocean disposal sites were provided to
        MRD as a series of geographic coordinates that defined the size and
        shape of ocean disposal areas.      These boundaries were verified
        using latitudes and longitudes provided by EPA Region IV.
        Preliminary boundaries for the diked (I.e., non-ocean) disposal


                                         13










                South Carolina                                                                                                   Approach and Rationa@
                Marine Resources Division


                Table 3-1.        List of alternative sites including information on existing status and historical use, proposed disposal methe
                                  projected disposal capacity, and number of engineering.configurations evaluated.
                                   Site                              Existing Site Status                Proposed          Projected        Number of
                                                                                                         Disposal           Disposal       Configurations
                                                                                                         Method             Capacity         Evaluated
                                                                                                                          (106CU yds)

                  Yellow House Creek                        Existing disposal site                           D                   91.6              3
                                                                                                                                 52.2
                                                                                                                            & 39.4
                  Rodent Island                             Undeveloped coastal island                       D                   28.6              2
                                                                                                                            & 35.6
                  TC Depot                                  Inactive disposal site                           D                   15.6              1
                  Naval Weapons Station                     Existing disposal site                           D                   20.0              1
                  Upper Thomas Island                       Partially developed coastal island               D                   25.2              1
                  Clouter Creek                             Existing disposal site                           D                 108.8               1
                  Lower Thomas Island                       Partially developed coastal island               D                   21.6              1
                  Old Landfill                              Inactive disposal site                           D                   10.4              1
                  Drum Island                               Existing disposal site                           -D                  10.1              1
                  Patriots Point                            Inactive disposal site                           1)                  1.6               1
                  Middle Shoal                              Natural estuarine shoal habitat                  E                   11.8              1
                  Fort Johnson                              Inactive disposal site                           D                   25.4              1
                  Morris Island                             Existing disposal site                           D                   39.0              3
                                                                                                                                 76.4
                                                                                                                           & 119.0
                  Cainhoy Road                              Undeveloped coastal island                       D                   67.0              2
                                                                                                                            & 74.0

                  Point Hope and Dutchman Islands           Undeveloped coastal islands                      D                   74.2              2
                                                                                                                            & 86.8
                  Parkers Island                            Undeveloped coastal island                       D                   60.8              2
                                                                                                                            & 63.6

                  Town Creek                                Natural tidal creek habitat                      E                   28.0              1
                  Daniel Island                             Existing disposal site                           D                   55.2              1
                  Ocean Dredged Material Disposal           Existing disposal site                           0                   51.0              2
                  S te (ODMDS)                                                                                              & 51.0
                  Folly Beach Berm                          Natural nearshore coastal habitat                0                   5.0


                D = diked upland disposal site
                E = Contained estuarine disposal site
                0 = Uncontained ocean disposal site



                                                                                     14





      POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SITES                      CHARLESTON HARBOR, S'C              :1


                        A




                         G                                                            No rth



                                                                          KEY

                                                                          A Yellow House Creek

                                                                          B Navol Weapons Station

                                                                          CTC Depot
                        K
                                                                          DUpper Thomas island

                                                                           Clouter Creek

                                                                          FLower Thomas Island

                                                                          GRodent island
                                                                           (2 alternatives)

                                                                          HParl<ers Island
          Q                                                                (2 alternatives)

                                                                          IOld Landfill

                                                                          JDrum island

                                                                          KPatriots Point

                                                                           middle "hoci

                                                                          MFor   Jor)nson
                                                       0
                                                                          NMorris island
                                                                           (2 alternatives)

                                                                          0Ocean Dredged Material
                                                                           Disposal

                                                                          PFolly Beach Berm Site    11

                                                                          0Coinhoy Plantation
                                                                           (2 alternatives)

                                                                          RPoint Hope / Dutchman
                                                                           islands (2 alternatives)

                                                                          STown Creek

                                                                          TDaniel island
                                        Qcale 1 200000
                        0io



                                    Data Sources USGS and USACOE


          Figure 3-1.  Potential alternative disposal sites for Charleston Harbor.,

                                                   15












              South Carolina                                        Methods and Results
              Marine Resources Division


              sites were provided as freehand drawings on photocopied 1:24000
              United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps.        These
              preliminary boundaries were transferred to 1:24000 mylar USFWS
              National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps that correspond to 1:24000
              USGS topographical maps representing the Charleston Harbor area
              (i.e., James Island, Charleston, North Charleston, Cainhoy, and
              Fort Moultrie) . The preliminary boundaries were manually digitized--
              using vector-based GIS software.        The southwest, northwest,
              northeast, and southeast corners of each map were used as
              registration points.      Preliminary site boundaries were then
              transformed into Zone 17 of the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)
              projection system. Meters were used as the unit of measure. using
              the information provided by MRD as well as through site visits, the
              USACOE refined the preliminary boundaries into the final
              engineering configurations.

                   Digital files of the preliminary site boundaries for non-ocean
              candidates were provided to the USACOE for review and approval.
              Ancillary information provided to assist the USACOE with the review
              included Post-Hugo National Aerial Photography Program (NAPP)
              1:40000 color infrared photography (CIR) enlarged to a scale of
              1:24000, NWI habitat-cover data, and data on primary and secondary
              roads.


              B. Task 2: Identification of Environmental Concerns:

                   A workshop was convened by MRD on 24 March 1992 to        define
              environmental concerns associated with construction and operations
              of dredged material disposal sites in Charleston Harbor. Workshop
              participants included representatives of state and federal
              regulatory and resource management agencies, academic institutions,
              environmental groups, and cultural resource agenci   es. A list of
              the agencies and participants attending the workshop is provided in
              Table 3-2.

                   Discussions at the workshop concluded that construction and
              operation of dredged material disposal sites in Charleston Harbor
              will adversely impact environmental resources in a broad variety of
              ways. Major environmental concerns that were identified included
              the following:

                   9  Impacts on the existing environmental quality,
                   9  Impacts on water quality,
                   9  Critical habitat losses,
                   e  Impacts on habitats adjacent to candidate sites,
                   9  Impacts on material cycles,
                   e  Impacts on migration and movement patterns,
                   e  Impacts on groundwater resources,


                                               16








             South Carolina                                                                        Approach and Rationale
             Marine Resources Division


             Table 3-2.       List of agencies and individuals that attended the workshop to define environmental concerns
                              associated with construction and operation of dredged material disposal sites in Charleston
                              Harbor.



                     Agency                                                                        Representatives

             Federal Agencies
                U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) Charleston District        ...............         Mr. M. Nelson
                        ..................................................                               Mr. J. Preacher
                        ..................................................                               Mr. J. Woody
                        ..................................................                               Mr. 0qB. Kizer


                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IV        .................          Ms. M. Farzaad
                        ..................................................                               Mr. G. Collins


                United States Fish and Wildlife Service  ..............................                  Mr. E. Eudaly

                National Marine Fisheries Service   .................................                    Dr. G. Scott
                        ..................................................                               Mr. L. Hardy

             Regional Organizations
                South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council    ..........................                Mr. R. Pugliese

             State Agencies
                S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control      ....................            Ms. S. Nunnally

                S.C. State Ports Authority  ......................................                       Mr. L. Setzler

                S.C. Coastal Council    .........................................                        Mr. S. Snyder
                        ..................................................                               Mr. H. Robinson


                S.C. Sea Grant Consortium    ......................             . ............................. Mr. R. DeVoe

                S.C. Land Resources Conservation Commission        ........................              Dr. R. Somers


                S.C. Water Resources Commission       ................................                   Mr. J. Havel


                S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department      ........................              Dr. R. Van Dolah
                        ..................................................                               Dr. F. Holland
                        .................................................                               Dr. E. Wenner
                        ..................................................                               Ms. J. Settle
                        ..................................................                               Mr. R. Dunlap
                        ..................................................                               Mr. W. Anderson
                        ..................................................                               Ms. S. Upchurch
                        ..................................................                               Mr. G. Steele
                        ..................................................                               Mr. C. Moore
                        .................................................                               Mr. D. Porter
                        ..................................................                               Mr. D. Whitaker
             Academic Institutions
                The Citadel   ...............................................                            Dr. R. Porcher


             Environmental Groups
                S.C. Coastal Conservation League    .................................                    Mr. D. Beach


                                                                   17
 










               South Carolina                                            Methods and Results
               Marine Resources Division


                     ï¿½ Impacts on cultural resources, and
                     ï¿½ Impacts on human uses.

               No justification was presented at the workshop which supported the
               position that any specific concern was more important than any
               other.

               C. Task 3: Reviev of Ecological Information and Development of a
                   Habitat-Cover Data Base

                     Projecting    and contrasting the          environmental     impacts-
               associated with the alternative disposal facilities required
               environmental data collected in a standardized way for all sites.
               A literature review, found the available data f or prospective sites
               in Charleston Harbor to be fragmented, incomplete, and limited in
               spatial and temporal scope. only one recent comprehensive study of
               aquatic ecological resources for Charleston Harbor was identified
               (Van Dolah et al. 1990, Davis and Van Dolah 1992).                  Recent
               comprehensive ecological information for ocean disposal sites was
               also limited to relatively few studies (e.g.', Winn et al. 1989).
               Comprehensive ecological information characterizing terrestrial
               ecosystems for alternative disposal sites was not found.

                     Based on the literature review, it was determined that the
               only quantitative environmental information that was available or
               could be developed in a standardized manner for all sites was
               habitat-cover (i.e., land use/land cover) data. Several potential
               sources of habitat-cover information were identified (Lacy et al.
               1991, USGS 1984).      All were based on data collected prior to
               Hurricane Hugo     (i.e.,    21   September    1989)    and    were    not
               representative of existing conditions.

                     Because the existing digital habitat-cover information was not
               representative of existing conditions, MRD developed ".new" habitat-
               cover data for the Representative Important Habitats (RIHs)
               identified in Table 2-2. Habitat-cover data for non-ocean disposal
               sites was developed from Post-Hugo (1 February 1991) NAPP 1:40000
               CIR photography obtained from the National Cartographic Information
               Center  (NCIC). These data were selected because they:

                     ï¿½ Were acquired during time periods when trees did not have
                       leaves allowing a high degree of resolution among wetland
                       classes, and

                     ï¿½ Could be processed using standard photointerpretation
                       methods.

               The cost and time required to obtain and process habitat-cover


                                                   18










        South Carolina                                       Methods and Results
        Marine Resources Division

        data from satellite imagery was determined to be beyond the scope
        of this study. In addition, the degree of resolution f or satellite
        imagery was determined to be inadequate to accomplish study goals.

             The NAPP photography was photo interpretated using level III of
        the Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification system
        (FLUCCS) (Florida Department of Transportation 1985). FLUCCS was
        selected over the Anderson Classification System (Anderson et al.
        1976) and the Cowardin Classification System (Cowardin et al. 1979)
        because it:       (1)  provided for both wetland and upland
        classifications,   and   (2)   was   specifically   developed     for
        Southeastern U.S. coastal applications. The Anderson System does
        not adequately classify coastal wetlands, and the Cowardin System
        does not adequately classify upland systems. Standard stereoscopic
        photointerpretation techniques were used.

             Habitat-cover data were developed for each site and a 200-m
        wide buffer area adjacent to each site.      Habitat cover in the
        buffer areas was obtained because it provided information to
        evaluate effects on adjacent environments.       It also provided
        flexibility should it become necessary to modify site boundaries in
        the future.    Photo interpretation was not accomplished for the
        entire Charleston Harbor region because the costs of acquiring
        these data exceeded the budget available to this project.          In
        addition, these data were not required to accomplish study
        objectives.

             MRD and USFWS conducted site visits to verify and correct the
        preliminary habitat-cover maps.      The "groundtruthing" process
        consisted of verifying the extent', shape, and habitat type using
        available land marks and approximate distances.          Positioning
        instrumentation (e.g., global positioning system, Loran) was not
        used. About 10% of the habitat-cover data was verified. All of
        the habitat-cover data for RIHs were, however         reviewed and
        qualitatively compared against information obtaiLd during site
        visits and the CIR photography from which they were derived.

             The verified photointerpreted data on habitat cover were
        transferred and registered to stable-based mylar USGS 1:24000
        topographic maps and digitized. Registration of the habitat-cover
        data was consistent with the registration of site boundaries. The
        verified data were transformed into the UTM coordinate system, and
        a GIS data layer representing habitat cover for alternative non-
        ocean disposal sites produced.

             Habitat-cover information for aquatic habitats was developed
        using information on water depth available from USGS and National
        Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) nautical charts,


                                         19












             South Carolina                                        Methods and Results
             Marine Resources Division


             field experience of MRD staff, and site visits. These data were
             manually digitized and incorporated into the FLUCCS habitat-cover
             data base.


                   Reliable and documented data on habitat cover were available
             for only portions of alternative ocean disposal sites. Therefore,
             MRD developed habitat-cover information for the portions of
             candidate sites f or which data were available, and used this
             information to infer habitat-cover condition for unsampled areas.
             The data used to produce maps of habitat cover for ocean disposal
             sites were collected by EPA during 1989 and consisted of a series
             of point observations taken along transects that indicated the
             presence or absence of specific habitats (i.e., sand bottom or live
             bottom habitat characterized by reef forming biota and/or
             structures).     The area surveyed included the Ocean Disposal
             Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) as originally defined by the USACOE
             and a buffer area around the ODMDS extending several nautical miles
             to the south. The boundaries of the EPA study area as well as the
             locations of points characterized by live bottom habitat were
             digitized. Based on the distance between transect lines and the
             visual resolution of observational records along each transect, an
             area of 300 meters around data points identified as containing
             fauna characteristic of live bottom habitats was classified as live
             bottom habitat.    The digitized data were transformed into the UTM
             coordinate system and stored.

                  Approximately fifteen percent of the ODMDS surveyed by EPA
             contained biota characteristic of live bottom habitat.            The
             remainder was deep coastal sand bottom habitat. Analyses conducted
             for ODMDS alternative I used a value of fifteen percent live bottom
             cover and the maximum possible areal extent for the ODMDS site that
             has ever been approved by regulatory and resource management
             agencies. The f ifteen percent estimate was considered to represent
             a "worst case" or maximum impact condition for ODMDS alternatives.
             The data on which this estimate is based were collected from
             locations within the ODMDS where live bottom habitat is
             particularly abundant. Substantially less than f ifteen percent of
             the bottom of much of the ocean disposal area is actually live
             bottom habitat. Analyses for ODMDS alternative 2 used an estimate
             of f ive percent live bottom cover and a substantially reduced areal
             extent (i.e., 3,216 acres vs 9,843 acres). ODMDS alternative 2 was
             considered to represent the minimum impact condition for ODMDS
             alternatives.

                  No site specific data were available for estimating the amount
             of live bottom habitat present at the proposed site for the Folly
             Beach Berm.   Based on the experience of MRD staff, we estimated
             that no more than one percent of this site would contain live


                                              20










        South Carolina                                        Methods and Results
        Marine Resources Division


        bottom habitat. Recent surveys suggest that substantial amounts of
        live bottom habitat may occur in the vicinity of the proposed Folly
        Beach Berm suggesting this estimate may be conservative.            A
        detailed survey of the proposed site of the Folly Beach Berm to
        define the extent of live bottom habitat actually occurring will be
        required before a berm could be constructed.            Habitat-cover
        information for candidate sites is summarized in Table 3-3.
        similar data for adjacent areas are presented in Table 3-4.

             The RIHs defined for this study were a subset of the habitat
        classes defined by FLUCCS. Some FLUCCS categories were aggregated
        for analyses. For example, FLUCCS defines several categories of
        .upland habitat (e.g., tree plantations, pine flatwoods, coastal
        scrub rangeland, open land, etc.) . These categories were combined
        into a generic upland RIH class for this evaluation. In addition,
        several FLUCCS classes of freshwater wetlands were combined into
        one RIH freshwater wetland category. Table 3-5 lists the FLUCCS
        habitat classes that were combined to produce the data provided in
        Tables 3-3 and 3-4.


        D. Task 4: Development of Assessment Methods

             An overview of the analysis scheme developed for conducting
        assessments is shown in Table 3-6.      The columns in the matrix
        represent   the   alternative    engineering    configurations    for
        prospective sites. Rows 2-10 represent the environmental concerns
        identified at the workshop as contributing to cumulative
        environmental impacts. The cells in the matrix contain the scores
        calculated for each environmental concern at each site using
        algorithms developed to project the degree of impact associated
        with construction and operation of a dredged material site at that
        location.   Detailst formulas, and discussions of algorithms are
        provided in the following sections of this chapter. In all cases,
        algorithms  were developed so that high scores represented high
        impact and low scores represented low impact.

             Scores for each environmental concern were normalized to range
        between zero and 10 using the formula:

        NomalizedScore Site Score - Minimum score for all sites *10
                           Range of scores for all sites









                                         21








            Table 3-3 Summary of land use/land cover data (in acres) for alternative sites. Asterisks indicate existin
                                                                                                                                                Habitat aand Use/Land and Cover) Category
                  Alternative
                                                    Existing         Upland          Fresh-          Ponds,           Mixed             High             Low             Tidal         Small         Large        Shallow          Deep            Coastal         Shallow
                     Sites                          Disposal         Habitat         water          Borrow          Elevation         Elevation       Elevation          Flats         Tidal          Tidal       Estuary         Estuary        Dunes &           coasts
                                                      Area                          Wetland          Pits,            Marsh            Marsh            Marsh                         Creek          Creek                                        Beaches           Water
                                                                                                      etc.


            Yellow House Creek Alt 1-                   617                 5                                            322                                                              24

            Yellow House Creek Alt 2                   017                 5

            Yellow House Creek Alt 3*                                                                                    322                                                              24

                  Rodent Island - Alt 2                                162                   1  1            1                is 1              41           39                              0             4 1                               1

                  Rodent Island - Alt 2                                210                   1               1                23                57           52                              0             4

                  T C Depot Site'                            53          21                                              102

            Naval Weapons Center Site'                  299                 4                3                                1

                  Upper Thomas Island                                    57                                              196                                                                 0             4

                  Clouter Creek Site        1502              26                     1                             6 1

                  Lower Thomas Island                                  212                   2                                11

                  Old Landfill Site'                    149              15                                                   1

                   Drum Island'                         220

                  Patriots Point Site'                       49

                   Middle Shoal                                                                                                                                                                                                       234                   3

                  Fort Johnson Site'                         5              2                                5           186                                                 22                                           0               7                 7

                  Morris Island - Alt 1*                558              22                                                   4                                                1  1                                                                      48             24

                  Morris Island - Alt 2'                558              24                                                   4                                                1                                                                         79             55

                  Morris Island - Alt 3'                558              22                     1                             4                                  1

            Cainhoy Road Site - Alt         1                          576                29                                                    7                6

            Cainhoy Road Site - Alt 2                                  621                43                                                    7                6

            Point Hope Island Site - Alt    1                          563                46                 1                                  1 a          29

            Point Hope Island Site - Alt 2                             604                46                 1                                  34           88                              8

            Parkers Island Site - Alt 1                                450                99                                                    14               1

            Parkers island Site - Alt 2                                458                99                                                    31               1

                  Town Creek Site                            5                               3                                12                                                                                                      101

                  Daniel Island Site'                   877                 8                                                                                                                              0

                  ODIVIDS - Alt V

                            - Alt 2*

                              Berm                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      46
 



        IT-able 3-4. Summary of land use/land cover data (in acres) for acres adjacent to alternative sites. Asterisks indica
                                                                                                                                          Habitat aand Use/Land Cover) Category
           Altemative Sites                         Existing       Upland         Frost"        Ponds,          Mixed            High            Low           Tidal        Small         Large       Shallow        Deep         Coastal        Shore
                                                   Disposal        Habitat        water         Borrow         Elevation      Elevation        Elevation       Flats        Tidal         Tidal       Estuary         Estuary      Dunes &          Coe
                                                     Area                        Wetland        Pits,           Marsh            Marsh          Marsh                       Creek        Creek                                     Beaches         We
                                                                                                 etc.


               Yellow House Creak Alt1                   22            12                                          144                                                                     315

               Yellow House Creek Alt2*                                  8                                            94                                                                    ill

               Yellow House Creek Alt3*                   22             4                                            50                                                                    204

                      Rodent Island - Alt 1                             33                  1                            1            37             301                        19            69

                      Rodent Island - Alt 2                             19                                               0            27              326                        20            85

                      T C Depot Site'                        7        114                                3            35                                                                       57

             Naval Weapons Center Site'                   18            Be             50                             64                                                         4             48

                      Upper Thomas Island                 25          137                  1                          91                                                                       53

                      Clouter Creek Site'                 29            14                                          249                                                                     359

                      Lower Thomas Island                             102                  3                        111                                                          9

                      Old Landfill Site*                     7          52                                            96                                                         5                                        51

                      Drum Island'                        11                                                          57                                                                                                 204

                      Patriots Point Site'                10            77                                            16                                                                                                  19

                      Middle Shoal                                                                                                                    13                                                                 211                1

                      Fort Johnson Site'                                                                 1            98                                                                                    44            81                7

                      Morris Island - Alt 1 -             22            44                  1                       105                                            31                                       48                            24

                      Morris Island - Alt 2*              22            43                                          113                                            31                                       49                            40

                      Morris Island - Alt 3*              22            44                                          105                                            31                                       48                            30

               Cainhoy Road Site - Alt       1                        259              35                8                            43              59                         6

               Cainhoy Road Site - Alt 2                              217              19   1            8                            43              60                         6                 1

            Point Hope Island Site - Alt     1                          94                 4                                          73              242                        25            57

            Point Hope Island Site - Alt 2                              74                 4                                          60              192                        19            57

               Parkers Island Site - Alt 1                            135              15                                             164             127             6          12            11

               Porkers Island Site - Alt 2                            128              15                                             147             127             6          12            11

                      Town Creek Site                    119                               2                          14                                                         0                                        51

                      Daniel Island Site'                 22          118                                             20                                                                    232

                      ODIVIDS -Alt 1

                      ODIVIDS - Alt 2

                      Offshore Berm                                                                                                                                                                                                                   2


                         Totals
 










                        South Carolina                                                                                      Methods and Results
                        Marine Resources Division


                        Table 3-5. Summary of Florida Land Use, Cover, and Fonrns Classification System (FLUCCS) categories
                                       that were combined for this study.

                        RIH Category



                        Upland                                          110:     Resid., low density (< 2 dwellings/AC)
                        Upland                                          120:     Resid., med. density (2-5 dwellings/AC)
                        Upland                                          140:     Commercial and services
                        Upland                                          155:     Other light industrial
                                                                        188:     Historical Site
                        Upland                                          190:     Open land
                        Upland                                          210:     Cropland and pastureland.
                        Upland                                          310:     Herbaceous rangeland
                        Upland                                          322:     Coastal shrub rangeland
                        Upland                                          330:     Mixed rangeland
                        Upland                                          411:     Pine flatwoods
                        Upland                                          434:     hardwood-conifer mixed
                        Upland                                          440:     Tree plantation
                        Upland                                          741,     Rural land in transitionw/outpos. indicatorsof intended activity
                        Upland                                          815:     Port facilities
                        Upland                                          832:     Electrical power facilities
                        Existing Contained Disposal Area                743:     Spoil area

                        Ponds, Borrow Pits, & Impoundments              524:     Lake < 10 acres
                        Ponds, Borrow Pits, & Impoundments              530:     Reservoirs
                        Ponds, Borrow Pits, & Impoundments              534:     Reservoirs < 10 acres

                        Freshwater wetland                              615-     Stream and lake swamp (bottomland)
                        Freshwater wetland                              630-.    Wetland forested mixed
                        Freshwater wetland                              641 @    Freshwater marsh


                        Mixed Elevation Marsh                           642,     Saltwater marsh
                        Low Elevation Marsh                             6421:    Cordgrass; salt marsh
                        High Elevation Marsh                            6422:    Needlerush. salt marsh

                        Tidal Sand and Mud Flats                        651:     Tidal flats


                        Beaches and Dunes                               710:     Beaches other than swimming beaches











                                                                                    24






                     Table 3-6. Proposed analysis scheme. Algorithms to calculate scores in the matrix are presented in the remaining sections of this
                                       chapter.


                                                                                                                         Alternative Sites                                                                 Weighting
                        Evaluation Criteria                            1        2          3            4           5            6           7           8               9           ...         24            Factor

                        Existing Environmental Quality               10.00         8.75        5.00        7.50        5.00         7.50        1.00        1.00         8.75        ...         1.00               1

                        Discharge Impacts on Water Quality             8.25        4.25   1    5.17        8.67        5.15    1 10.00          0           0.25    1    3.25        ...         7.00               1

                        Loss of Critical Habitat                       8.00      10.00         7.25        7.36        6.75         7.15        2.95        0            3.0         ...         9.95               1


                        Impacts on Adjacent Habitat                  10.00         9.25        5.25        4.15        6.25         7.25        0           0            1.55        ...         9.10               1


                        Impacts on Material Cycles                   10.00         8.70        9.15        3.15        5.50         8.65        0           1.15         1.55        ...         9.25               1
                                                                              1                                                                    -                I

                        Impacts on Migration and Movement            10.00         6.00        6.00        10.00       6.00         3.00        0           0            0           ...         10.00              1

                        Impacts on Human Uses                          8.00        6.75        8.15        8.24        S.51         0           0           3.15         2.15                    10.00              1


                        Impacts on Groundwater Quality                 6.00        5.50        8.20        3.25        2.10       10.00         4.15        5.15         3.25        ...          0                 1

                        Impacts on Cultured                          10.00         5.20        1.00        1.00        0            0           0           0            3.12        ...         9.25               1
                        Resources                                                         I                                    I                                                            I

                        Cumulative Environmental Impact (E)          80.25       64.40        55.17       53.32        42.26      53.55         8.10        10.70        26.62       ...         65.55

                        Capacity (10' cu yds)                          50          10          40          25          35           20             2        150          so          ...         100

                        Capacity Adjusted Score                        1.61        6.44        1.38        2.13        1.21         2.68        4.05        0.07         0.53        ...         0.66
                        (score/10'cu yd)                                      I                                                                                                             I

                        Normalized Cumulative Environmental          10.0          7.80        6.52        6.27        4.74         6.30        0           0.36         2.57        ...         7.96
                        Impact

                        Normalized Capacity Adjusted Score             2.42      10.0          2.06        3.23        1.79         4.10        6.25        0            0.72                    0.93

                        Sum Normalized Cumulative Impact             12.42       17.80         8.58        9.50        6.52       10.40         6.25        0.36         3.29                    8.89
                        and Capacity Adjusted Score
                        Rank Order for Final Assessment                9         10            5           7           4            8           3        -7T             2      1    ...          6












             South Carolina                                         Methods and Results
             Marine R@sources Division

             The normalization process ensured that the relative scores f or each
             environmental concern were equally weighted. However, it may be
             desirable to weight some environmental concerns more than others.
             The ability to differentially weight scores was incorporated into
             the analysis scheme as a series of weighting factors shown in the
             far right column of Table 3-6. Cumulative environmental impacts
             were estimated by summing down the columns in Table 3-6 (i.e.,
             across environmental concerns).

                  Alternative sites dif f er in dredged material disposal capacity
             by over two orders of magnitude (Table 3-1). Large capacity sites
             will generally have a larger cumulative environmental impact than
             small capacity sites but offer a smaller impact per unit volume of
             disposal capacity.     Therefore, before sites are contrasted to
             identify alternatives that represent the least long-term threat to
             environmental resources consideration should be given to among site
             differences in disposal capacity.      Consideration for among-site
             differences in capacity was accomplished by dividing the estimate
             of cumulative environmental impact (i.e., row 11 in Table 3-6) by
             site disposal capacity.     The value that results is a relative
             measure of the environmental impact (i.e., environmental costs) per
             cubic yard of disposal capacity (i.e., benefits). This analytical
             endpoint is analogous to the engineering/economic assessment
             endpoint developed for alternative sites by the USACOE (i.e.,
             dollars/cubic yard).

                  Alternatives that have both relatively small cumulative
             environmental impacts and small environmental costs per cubic yard
             of disposal capacity are the ones which represent the least long-
             term threat to environmental resources.           These sites were
             identified by equally weighting scores for cumulative environmental
             impact and environmental impact per cubic yard of disposal capacity
             and summing the equally weighted scores to obtain line 16 in Table
             3-6. This value represents the best projection of the long-term
             threat of each alternative to environmental resources. Figure 3-2
             shows the relationship between the areal extent of alternatives and
             disposal capacity. Based on this figure, it is clear that disposal
             capacity is not associated with the areal extent of ocean disposal
             alternatives (e.g., ODMDS alternatives 1 -& 2, Folly Beach Berm) .
             This is because the amount of dredged material that is likely to be
             placed at ocean disposal sites is a function of many factors other
             than size such as currents, depth, and the physical and chemical
             characteristics of the material.     Disposal capacity is, however,
             relatively strongly related to the areal extent of alternatives for
             non-ocean alternatives (r2=0.90).





                                               26






                                                                        LZ





                                                                                    



                                                                                                      Patriots Point


                                         Town Creek


                                            Old Landfill                                                         
                                                                                                           0
                                          TC Depot                                                         
                                                                                           0                  
                                                         Drum Island                                        3                  >
                                      Lower Thomas                                                            CA
                                                                                            
                                            Island                                      c-                      0
                                                                                        C-)                    
                                         Middle Shoal                                                         0
                                                                                              
                                                                                                                 
                                      Upper Thomas                                                                                                                                                 
                                           Island
                ad                                                                                               
                                         Fort Johnson
                                         Rodent Island                                                           >

                                     Naval Weapons                                                               N
                                                                                                                 
                                            Station
                                         Yellow House
                                                                                                                )
                                            Creek(3)
                                         Rodent Island                                                           N
                                                                                                                 
                                              (2)
                                            Folly Beach                                                          >
                                                                                                                 
                                              Berm                                                               
                                         Parkers Island                                                          
                                                                                                                 >
                                  
                                    Morris Island (3)                                                            >
                
                                        Parkers; Island                                                         0
                                              (2)               
                                         Cainhoy Road

                                         Yellow House
                                            Creek(2)                                                             >
                                         Cainhoy Road                                                            
                                              (2)                                                                
                                            Point Hope
                                            Island (1)                                                           
                                         Daniel Island                                                           
                                            Point Hope
                                            Island (2)
                                    Morris Island (1)
                                                                                                                 
                                         Yellow House                                                            
                                            Creek(l)
                                                                                                                 
                                    Morris Island (2)                                                            CA

                                         Clouter Creek

                                            ODIVIDS (2)

                                         ODIVIDS (1)
 










             South Carolina                                           Methods and Results
             Marine Resources Division


             E. Task 5: Conduct of Analyses

               1. Assessment of Impacts on Existing Environmental Quality

                   The purpose of this criterion was to ensure that alternative
             sites which were located in areas having good environmental quality
             were scored high (i.e., were projected to have large impact)
             relative to sites which were located in areas having low to
             marginal environmental quality.         The indicator selected for
             defining existing environmental quality was water quality standards
             promulgated by the South Carolina Department of Health and
             Environmental Control (DHEC).        State water quality standards
             consist of numeric and narrative criteria (i.e., limits on
             pollution) designed to prevent degradation, protect designated uses
             (e.g., swimming, fishing, shellfish harvesting), and maintain
             indigenous f ish, shellf ish, and wildlif e populations (SCDHEC 1990) .
             When promulgating standards and criteria, DHEC considered:

                   ï¿½ Physical and chemical characteristics (e.g., size, depth,
                     surface area, volume, hydrodynamics) of the waterbody,

                   ï¿½ The character of bordering lands and its suitability f or
                     supporting designated uses,

                   ï¿½ Present, past, and projected uses of the water body and
                     adjoining lands, and

                   ï¿½ The present quality of the water body.

             Because state water quality standards and criteria are based on a
             general understanding of the physical, chemical, and biological
             characteristics of a water body as well as present, past, and
             projected future uses, they are a good indicator of existing
             environmental quality. EPA assesses the quality of the nation's
             waters by estimating the proportion of its waterbodies that meet
             state standards and designated uses (e.g., USEPA 1990).

                   The procedure used to project impact on existing environmental
             quality consisted of the following:

                   ï¿½ Determine the existing DHEC water quality classification
                     for each site.

                   ï¿½ Score each site using the categorical scoring scheme shown
                     in Table 3-7.







                                                28











        South Carolina                                             Methods and Results
        Marine Resources Division


          Table 3-7.       Scorings scheme used for projecting     impact on
                           existing environmental quality




                DHEC Classification                         Score

                         SFH                                  10

                   SFH/Restricted                              7

                          SA                                   4


                          SB                                   1




















































                                            29











             South Carolina                                       Methods and Results
             Marine Resources Division


             Alternatives with excellent water quality were scored 10, and
             alternatives with poor water quality were scored 1. This approach
             assumes that siting a dredged material disposal facility in a
             location characterized by good water quality has a higher potential
             for causing environmental harm than siting the same facility in an
             area characterized by poor water quality. If sites had multiple
             water quality classifications (e.g., Parkers Island has both an SFH
             and SFH/restricted classification) the average score for the
             multiple classifications was used.

                  Figure 3-3 is a summary of the site specif ic scores for
             projected impact on existing environmental quality. Sites located
             in the Cooper River and lower Charleston Harbor generally were
             projected   to  have   low potential     for   impacting    existing
             environmental quality. Sites in the Wando River, near Clark Sound,
             and the Atlantic ocean were projected to have a relatively high
             potential for adversely affecting existing environmental quality.

               2. Projected Impacts on Water Quality of Receiving Water Body

                  The purpose of this criterion was to identify alternative
             sites which were projected to have large impacts on the water
             quality and score them high relative to sites that were projected
             to have small impacts on water quality.     The indicator used to
             project impact on water quality was:

                                                     16
             Projected Water Quality Impacts = Ci + Z(AJ*S)                   (1)
                                                    j=1


                  where:

                    Ci =  Estimated capacity (cu yds) for the ith alternative.

                        = 1-29 representing the alternative configurations
                          evaluated.

                        = Area of jth Representative Important Habitats (RIHs)
                          that would be susceptible to water quality impact in
                          a 200-m wide buffer zone around non-ocean and 1000-m
                          buffer around alternative ocean disposal sites.

                    Sj =  Categorical variable ranging from 0 (not susceptible)
                          to 3 (very susceptible) representing the relative
                          susceptibility of the jth RIH to water quality
                          impacts.

                    j  = 1-16 representing the RIHs included in the assessment.



                                             30








                                                                            T E


                                                                           a     


                                                                                                                                                        
                                            Yellow House
                                            Creek(l)
                                            Yellow ouse
                                            Creek(2)
                                        Yellow ouse
              a                             Creek(3)
                                            TC Depot
                                      Naval Weapons
                                            Station
              to                       Upper Thomas
                                                                                                             
                                            Island                                                                                                                                                                          
                                           Clouter Creek                                                                                            Lower Thomas                                                           
                                                                                                              0
                                            Island                                                              
                                                                                                              
                                          Old Landfill                                                      a
                                            Drum Island                                                       
                                                                                                              
                                                                                                              >
                                            Patriots Point                                                    0

                                            Middle Shoal
                                                                                                              
                                            Town Creek                                                        
                                                                                                              
                                                                                                              
                                            Daniel Island
                                                                                                              CA
                                          Fort Johnson

                                            Rodent Island
                                                         +                                                    
                                            Rodent Island                                                     
                                              (2)        +                                                    <
                                            Cainhoy Road                                                      
                                              (1)                                                             
                                            Cainhoy Road +                                                    
                                              (2)                                                             
                                            Point Hope   +                                                    
                                            Island (1)
                                            Point Hope
                                            Island (2)
                                            Parkers Island
                                              (1)                                                   1         
                                            Parkers Island+                                                   
                                              (2)
                                      Morris Island (1)

                                      Morris Island (2)

                                      Morris Island (3)

                                            ODIVIDS (1)

                                            ODIVIDS (2)
                                            Folly Beach  +
                                              Berm
 











              South Carolina                                         Methods and Results
              Marine Resources Dhrision


                   Water quality impacts from dredged material disposal
              facilities are a function of:           (1)   the physical/chemical
              characteristics of effluents! (2) the mixing/flushing capacity of
              receiving waters, (3) the amount (i.e., volume) of discharge, and
              (4) the susceptibility of adjacent habitats to effluents.           The
              physical/ chemical characteristics of effluents is a function of the
              kinds of material that will be placed at a site. Data on the kinds
              of material that would be disposed of at each site were not
              available for this analysis.        The kind of material and the
              physical/chemical characteristics of effluents was therefore
              assumed to be similar for all alternatives.        Tidal currents at
              candidate sites are large (mean tidal range 1.6 m, spring tides
              average 1.9 m) and approximately equivalent (Davis and Van Dolah,
              1992).     Therefore, site specific differences in mixing were
              assumed to be negligible.           Because the physical/chemical
              characteristics of effluents and mixing characteristics for
              candidate sites were assumed to be similar across sites, terms for
              these factors were not included in equation 1. These factors were,
              in effect, constants.

                   The indicator used for discharge volume was the estimate of
              disposal capacity provided by the USACOE (term C in equation 1).
              Use of this indicator assumed the larger the capacity, the greater
              the discharge volume.       The indicator used to represent the
              susceptibility of the adjacent environment to water quality impacts
              was the type and amount of habitat adjacent to each alternative
              site (term A in equation 1) multiplied by the projected relative
              susceptibility of each RIH to effluents (term S in equation 1).

                   The procedure used to score sites to assess water quality
              impacts consisted of the following steps:

                   0    obtain an estimate of the areal extent of each RIH within
                        200 m of each non-ocean and 1000 m of each ocean
                        alternative from Table 3-3 (i.e., term A in equation 1) .

                   0    Determine the relative susceptibility of each RIH to
                        assimilate effluents (term S in equation 1). Information
                        in the scientific literature, discussions at the regional
                        workshop, and experience of the scientific staff working
                        on   the   project    provided   the    basis   for    these
                        determinations. Table 3-8 lists the values of S used.

                   0    Multiply the estimates of areal extent for each RIH by
                        their relative susceptibility and sum across all RIHs.
                        Normalize summed products to a scale of 0-5.




                                               32










               South Carolina                                                                                 Methods and Results
               Marine Resources Division




                 Table 3-8.        Values of relative susceptibility for RIH's to assimilate discharges from a dredged
                                   material disposal facility.

                                         Habitat Type                                Susceptibility            Alternate
                                                                                         Index               Susceptibility
                                                                                                                 Index



                 Existing Disposal Area                                                     0

                 Upland Habitat                                                             0

                 Freshwater Wetlands                                                        1                      3

                 Ponds, Borrow Pits & Impoundments                                          2

                 Mixed Estuarine Wetlands                                                   1                      3

                 High Elevation Estuarine Wetlands                                          1                      3

                 Low Elevation Estuarine Wetlands                                           1                      3


                 Tidal Flats                                                                3


                 Small Tidal Creeks                                                         3

                 Large Tidal Creeks                                                         2

                 Shallow Estuary                                                            3

                 Deep Estuary                                                               1                      3

                 Coastal Dunes and Beaches                                                  0

                 Shallow Coastal Waters                                                     1                      3

                   eep oas      Waters                                                      1                      3

                 Live Bottom                                                                3                      1




















                                                                        33











            South Carolina                                       Methods and Results
            Marine Resources Division


                      obtain estimates of site capacity from Table 3-1.
                      Capacity estimates considered the dewatering potential of
                      sites. Normalize capacity estimates to a scale of 0-5.

                 ï¿½    Calculate site scores using equation 1.

                 ï¿½    Normalize scores to a scale of 0-10 using the procedure
                      discussed in the overview of . analysis methods (Section
                      D).

                 ï¿½    Determine the rank order of alternatives.

                 Sites projected to have the greatest impacts on water quality
           'were alternatives with large capacity (i.e., large volumes of
            effluent) including Clouter Creek, Yellow House Creek, Morris
            Island - alternatives 1 and 2, and Point Hope Island alternatives
            (Figure 3-4). These sites frequently had large amounts of adjacent
            habitats that were sensitive to effluents from dredged material
            disposal facilities. Alternatives projected to have.relatively
            small impacts on the water quality were Patriots Point, Middle
            Shoal, Drum Island, Old Landfill, Folly Beach Berm, Town Creek, and
            TC Depot (Figure 3-4). These sites generally had small capacity
            and small amounts of the habitats adjacent to them which were
            sensitive to effluents from dredged material disposal facilities.

                 sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the influence
            that changes in susceptibility index values (term S in equation 1)
           -had on normalized scores and the rank order of-alternatives. For
            these analyses, the alternate susceptibility index values in Table
            3-8 were used and scores and rank order recalculated.          These
            analyses indicated that applying alternate susceptibility values
            resulted in only small changes in scores and rank order.

              3. Projected Impacts of Critical Habitat Loss

                 The purpose of this criterion was to identify candidate sites
            that were projected to result in losses of large amounts of habitat
            that have important roles in the life cycle of biota (e.g., nursery
            areas) and score them high. Alternatives that were projected to
            result in losses of small amounts of critical habitat for biota
            were scored low. The indicator used to project impacts on critical
            habitat was:










                                             34














                                                                              



                                                                                         Patriots Point

                                      Middle Shoal

                                       Drum Island


                                         Old Landfill
                                         Folly Beach
                                           Berm
                                       Town Creek
              

                                         TC Depot
                                   Lower Thomas
                                        Island
                                 Naval Weapons
                                         Station
                                      Fort Johnson
                                                                                                              
                                    Upper Thomas
                                                                                                              0
                                        Island                                                               
                                         ODIVIDS 2)                                                           

                                       ODMDS     (1)
                                      Rodent Island


                                  Morris Island (3)
                                      Cainhoy Road
                                           (1)
                                      Cainhoy Road
                                           (2)
                                      Rodent Island    +
                                           (2)
                                      Parkers Island
                                                                                                                                                        (1)
                                      Parkers Island
                                           (2)
                                      Yellow   ouse                                                           
                                         (2)                                                                >
                                      Yellow ouse
                                         Creek(3)
                                       Daniel Island
                                         Point Hope
                                         Island (1)    +
                                  Morris Island (1)
                                         Point Hope
                                         Island (2)
                                  Morris Island (2)
                                      Yellow House     +
                                         Creek(l)      +
                                      Clouter Creek
 










             South Carolina                                         Methods and Results
             Marine Resources Division


                                                       16
                   Projected Critical Habitat Loss = Z (A,* V)                   (2)

                    where:

                    A, =   Area of the ith Representative Important Habitat (RIH)
                           for alternative disposal sites.

                    Vi =   Categorical variable ranging from 0 (low value) to 3
                           (high value) representing the relative importance of
                           the ith RIH to ecological requirements of RIB.

                    i =    1-16 represented the RIHs included in the assessment.

                   The consequences of habitat loss to RIB populations are a
             function of: (1) the amount (i.e., acreage) of the loss, (2) the
             type of habitat loss, and (3) the importance of the habitat to
             ecological processes (e.g., reproduction).      All of these factors
             were incorporated into equation 2.

                   The procedure used to calculate scores f or assessing the
             consequences of critical habitat losses consisted of the following
             steps:

                     obtain an estimate of the areal extent of RIH losses (i.e.,
                     term A-in equation 2) for each site from Table 3-3.
                     Estimate the relative value of each RIH to processes
                     influencing the life cycle and abundance of RIB (i.e., term
                     V in equation 2) .         Information @in the scientific
                     literature, discussions at the regional workshop, and the
                     experience of the scientific staff working on the project
                     were used to develop these estimates. Table 3-9 lists the
                     values of V used.

                   ï¿½ Calculate site scores using equation 2.

                   ï¿½ Normalize scores to a scale of 0-10 using procedure
                     discussed in the overview of analytical methods (Section
                     D).

                   ï¿½ Because the initial scores calculated from equation 2.were
                     skewed with the majority of values ranging between 0-1
                     (Figure 3-5), a natural logarithm transformation [i.e.,
                     transformed value = ln (x+l)] was performed to reduce
                     skewness and provide a wider spread of scores for
                     alternatives.    It is apparent from Figure 3-5 that the
                     transformation improved separation for alternatives


                                              -36











         South Carolina                                        Methods and Results
         Marine Resources Division




          Table 3-9. Values used for relative importance of RIH's to
                     ecological processes affecting the life cycle and
                     abundance of RIB.

                     Habitat Type              Importance     Alternate
                                                  Index      Importance
                                                                Index

          Existing Disposal Area                    0
          Upland Habitat                            1             3

          Freshwater Wetlands                       3             1

          Ponds, Borrow Pits & Impoundments         2             1

          Mixed Estuarine Wetlands                  3            1-2

          High Elevation Estuarine Wetlands         3            1-2

          Low Elevation Estuarine Wetlands          3            1-2

          Tidal Flats                               3             1

          Small Tidal Creeks                        3

          Large Tidal Creeks                        3             1

          Shallow Estuary                           3

          Deep Estuary                              2

          Coastal Dunes and Beaches                 2

          Shallow Coastal Waters                    1             3

          Deep C astal Waters                       1

          Live Bottom                               3             1

















                                         37












                                                                           



                                                                              Patriots Point
         
                                 Drum Island
                                 Yellow House
                                    Creek(2)
         
                                 Daniel Island

         
                            Naval Weapons
                                    Station
                                    Old Landfill

                             Morris Island (3)

                                 Clouter Creek

                                 Town Creek                                                            
                               Lower Thomas                                                            0
                                    Island                                                           
         to
                                    TC Depot
                                                 
                             Morris Island (1)
                                                 
                                   Folly Beach                                                        0
                                      Berm
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Middle Shoal                                                3
                                                                                               0
                                 Rodent Island                                             
                                      (1)                                                                 0
                          
                          CA     Rodent Island                                               
                                      (2)        
                               Upper homas                                                             0
                                    Island                                                          >
                                 Fort Johnson                                                0
                                                                                             3
                                 Cainhoy Road                                                
                                                                                             

                             Morris Island (2)                                                           
                                 Cainhoy Road                                                          
                                      (2)                                                              
                                                                                                       CAI
                                 Parkers Island                                                        CAI
                                      (1)                                                              
                                 Parkers Island
                                      (2)
                                    Point Hope
                                    Island (1)
                                 Yellow House
                                    Creek 3)
                                 Yellow House
                                    Creek(3)
                                    .Point Hope
                                    Island (2
                                    ODMDS (2)

                                 ODMDS (1)
                                                                                   . . . .... ....... . ....... .
                                                                           .. ..... .... .......
 










         South Carolina                                       Methods and Results
         Marine Resources Division


                 projected to have small impacts.      This transf ormation,
                 however, had no effect on the overall relationship among
                 alternatives. The skewness resulted because ocean disposal
                 alternatives were several orders of magnitude larger than
                 non-ocean alternatives (Table 3-3).

              9 Determine the rank order of alternatives.

              Scores for the indicator of critical habitat loss projected
         most existing and historically used disposal sites including
         Patriots Point, Drum Island, Yellow House Creek alternative 2,
         Daniel Island, Naval Weapons Station, Old Landfill, Morris'Island
         alternatives, and Clouter Creek would have relatively small impacts
         to RIB (Figure 3-5) .    Critical habitat losses resulting from
         remaining alternatives were projected to be relatively large.

              Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the influence
         that relative importance values.assigned to RIHs (i.e., term V in
         equation 2) had on normalized scores and rank order.      For these
         analyses, relative importance values for RIHs were changed to the
         alternative values shown in Table 3-9, and scores and rank order
         recalculated. These analyses indicated that changes to relative
         importance values had little influence on the magnitude of
         normalized scores or rank order for alternatives.       Figure 3-6
         illustrates the effects of setting the relative importance value
         for salt marsh habitat types equal to I (a low value) vs 3 (a high
         value) used for the nominal analysis (i.e., standard run).       The
         negligible effect of this change is obvious.             Correlation
         coefficients between scores and rank order for the nominal analysis
         and scores obtained using the alternative relative importance
         values in Table 3-9 ranged between 0.99 and 0.97.

              Areal extent was only weakly associated with projected impacts
         on critical habitat loss (r2=0.20).       Figure 3-7 compares the
         standard run scores to those generated by setting all RIH values
         equal to the same values. Equalizing all site scores is equivalent
         to ranking alternatives based on areal extent and normalizing ranks
         between 0 and 10. This analysis demonstrates the relatively small
         effect areal extent had on analysis results.

           4. Projected Impacts to Adjacent Habitats

              The purpose of this criterion was to identify sites that had
         adjacent habitats that were vulnerable to construction and
         operation of dredged material disposal sites and give them high





                                          39









                                                                                                                                        



                                                                                                



                                  Patriots Point


                                  Drum Island
                                  Yellow House
                                     Creek(2)
                                 Daniel Island
                              Naval Weapons
                                     Station
                                     Old Landfill                                                          
                                                                                                         
                             Morris Island (3)                                                             
                                                                                                           (A
                                                                  
                                  Clouter Creek

                                                                                                
                                  Town Creek                                                               
                                                                                                           
                              Lower Thomas                                                  0          In
                                    Island                                                                >
                                                                                                           
                                     TC Depot                                                              >

                                                                                                <          CA
                             Morris Island (1)
                                     Folly Beach                                                      
                                      Berm                                                                 
                                                                                                           
                                  Middle Shoal
                                                                                                       >
                                  Rodent Island                                                 to         
                                                                                                                                         Rodent Island
                                      (2)
                                  Upper homas                                                   
                                                                                                                                                Island

                                  Fort Johnson
                                                                                                        <
                                  Cainhoy Road                                                        (                                      (1)                                              
                                                              
                                                                                              3
                                                                                                
                             Morris Island (2)                                                        
                                  Cainhoy Road
                                                                                                           >
                                      (2)                                                                  
                                  Parkers Island                                                           0
                                                                                                <          
                                  Parkers Island
                                                                                                           >
                                      (2)
                                     Point Hope                                                            
                                     Island (1)                                                      
                                                                                                
                                Yellow House
                                     Creek(3)
                                  Yellow ouse
                                     Creek(2qj)
                                     Point Hope
                                     Island (2)
                                    ODMDS (2)

                                  ODIVIDS (1)
 







                                                                                                                                          



                                     Patriots Point

                                      Drum Island
                                    Yellow House
                                         Creek(2)
                                     Daniel Island
                                                                         
                                 Naval Weapons
                                         Station
               
                                         Old Landfill                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                                          
                               Morris Island (3)

                                     Clouter Creek
                                                       

                                      Town Creek
                                   Lower Thomas
                                         Island                                                               
                                         TC Depot                                                             

                                  Morris Island (1)
                                                                                                              
                                         Folly Beach
                                                                                   Be
                                      Middle Shoal                                                            0
                                     Rodent Island
                                           (1)                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                               >
                                     Rodent Island
                                           (2)                                                >
                                           
                                    Upper homas                                                               <
                                                                                                              
                                         Island
                                     Fort Johnson
                                                                                                 
                                                                                                     
                                     Cainhoy Road                                                             
                                           (1)                                 
                                                                                                     0        >
                                  Morris Island (2)                                                           
                                     Cainhoy Road                                                             0
                                                                                                              
                                           (2)
                                     Parkers Island                                                  <        <
                                                                                                              >
                                           (1)
                                     Parkers Island
                                           (2)                                                                                                                                                                       
                                         Point Hope
                                         Island (1)                                                           <
                                                                                                     
                                     Yellow House
                                         Creek(3)
                                     Yellow 1- ouse
                                         Creek(1)
                                         Point Hope
               M.                        Island (2)
                                         ODMDS (2)
                                       ODMDS (1)        
 











             South Carolina                                          Methods and Results
             Marine Resources Division


             values.   Alternatives that had adjacent habitats that were not
             sensitive to activities associated with construction and operation
             of dredged material disposal sites were given low scores.           The
             indicator used to project relative impact on adjacent habitats was:
                                                              16
                  Projected Impacts on Adjacent Habitats           Z (A, * Si)   (3)

                  where:

                      A,    Area of Representative Important Habitat (RIH)
                            within a 200-m wide buffer zone around non-ocean and
                            1000-m buffer zone around ocean candidate disposal
                            sites.

                      Si    Categorical variable ranging from 0 (low value) to
                            3    (high   value)    representing     the     relative
                            susceptibility of the ith RIH to construction and
                            operations of a dredged material disposal facility.

                      i     1-16 representing      the RIHs included       in the
                            assessment.

                  The environmental consequences of construction and operation
             of a dredged material disposal facility on the adjacent environment
             is a function of: (1) the amount and type of habitat that exists
             in adjacent environments, and (2) the sensitivity of the different
             types of habitat present to perturbations associated with
             construction and operation of dredged material disposal facilities.
             All of these factors were incorporated in equation 3.

                  The procedure used to calculate site scores consisted of- the
             following steps:

                      Obtain an estimate of the areal extent for each RIH within
                      200-m of non-ocean and 1000-m of ocean alternatives (i.e.,
                      term A in equation 3) using data in Table 3-4.

                      Estimate the relative sensitivity of each RIH to
                      activities associated with construction and operation of
                      a dredged material disposal facility (i.e, term S in
                      equation 3).    Information in the scientific literature,
                      discussions at the regional workshop, and the experience
                      of the scientific staff working on the project provided
                      the basis for development of these estimates. Table 3-10
                      lists the values of S used.

                      Calculate site scores using equation 3.

                      Normalize scores to a scale of 0-10 using the procedures

                                               42










         South Carolina                                        Methods and Results
         Marine Resources Division




           Table 3-10.    Values used for relative sensitivity of
                          adjacent habitats to construction and
                          operation of dredged material disposal
                          facilities.

                      Habitat Type              Relative      Alternate
                                                Value Used    Value Used


           Existing Disposal Area                    0
           Upland Habitat                            1

           Freshwater Wetlands                       2

           Ponds, Borrow Pits & Impoundments         3             1

           Mixed Estuarine Wetlands                  1             3

           High Elevation Estuarine Wetlands         1             3

           Low Elevation Estuarine Wetlands          1             3

           Tidal Flats                               1             3

           Small Tidal Creeks                        3

           Large Tidal Creeks                        3             1

           Shallow Estuary                           3             1

           Deep Estuary                              2

           Coastal Dunes and Beaches                 1

           Shallow Coastal Waters                    1             3

           Deep Coastal Waters                       1

           Live Bottom                               3

















                                          43












             South Carolina                                             Methods and Results
             Marine Resources Division


                       discussed in the overview of analysis methods (Section D).

                       Because the initial scores calculated f rom equation 3 were
                       skewed    to    smaller    values,    a    natural     logarithm
                       transformation was used to reduce skewness and provide a
                       more even distribution (i.e., wider spread) for projected
                       scores. This transformation did not alter relationships
                       among alternatives and improved discrimination among
                       alternatives projected to have small impacts.                 The
                       skewness resulted because the size of the adjacent
                       environment f or ocean disposal alternatives was several
                       orders of magnitude larger than that f or alternatives
                       located in terrestrial or estuarine (i.e., non-ocean)
                       environments (Table 3-4).

                       Determine the rank order of alternatives.

             The decision to constrain projections of potential impacts on
             adjacent environment for non-ocean candidate sites to a 200-m wide
             buffer zone was based on the following information:

                   ï¿½   Adverse effects from construction and operation of diked
                       dredged material disposal facilities are based on the
                       experience of the Authors and are generally not visable
                       beyond about 200 m for dredged material disposal
                       facilities in Charleston Harbor.

                   ï¿½   The distribution of habitat types within 200 m of each
                       site was generally similar to (i.e., representative of)
                       habitat    distributions      in   the    region.     Therefore,
                       conclusions reached for a 200-m buffer zone were assumed
                       to be proportional to conclusions that would have resulted
                       had a larger or smaller buffer zone been used for
                       analysis.

             The basis for the 1000-m buffer zone used for ocean. disposal
             alternatives was:

                   ï¿½   Dredged material deposited in uncontained open-water
                       oceanic disposal sites have the potential to be dispersed
                       over large distances (i.e., hundreds to thousands of
                       meters).

                   ï¿½   Some of the habitats characteristic of areas adjacent to
                       proposed open-water ocean disposal alternatives (i.e.,
                       live bottom habitats) are thought to be intolerant to
                       alterations to suspended sediment concentrations and
                       exposure to toxic contaminants at relatively low concentrations.


                                                 44











          South Carolina                                        Methods and Results
          Marine Resources Division


               Alternatives projected to have small impacts on adjacent
          habitats were small sites that had small buffer zones associated
          with them such as Town Creek, Patriots Point, Lower Thomas Island,
          Old Landfill, and TC Depot (Figure 3-8). The size of the buffer
          zone for these sites was usually less than 300 acres (Table 3-4).
          In addition, habitats adjacent to these sites were predominately
          estuarine wetlands or uplands. These RIHs are relatively tolerant
          to adverse effects associated with construction and operation of
          dredged material disposal sites.     Sites projected to have large
          impacts upon adjacent habitats were ocean disposal sites, including
          ODMDS alternatives and the Folly Beach Berm, or large diked sites
          located along large tidal creeks including Clouter Creek, Yellow
          House Creek alternatives 1 and 3, Daniel Island, Rodent Island
          alternatives, and Point Hope Island alternatives (Figure 3-8). The
          areal extent of large tidal creeks occurring in adjacent
          environments was strongly associated with scores for projected
          impacts on adjacent environments (r2=0.67). This was because large
          tidal creeks were projected to be sensitive to construction and
          operation of dredged material disposal facilities (i.e., term S in
          equation 3 f or large tidal creeks was set equal to 3) , and the area
          of large tidal creeks in the environment adjacent to several large
          diked non-ocean sites was substantial.

               Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the influence
          that changes in relative susceptibility values for RIHs (i.e., term
          S in equation 3) had on normalized alternative scores and rank
          order for projected impact on adjacent habitats.          For these
          analyses, relative susceptibility values for RIHs were changed to
          the alternative values shown in Table 3-10, and scores and rank
          orders recalculated.    These analyses suggested that changes in
          relative susceptibility values had little influence on normalized
          scores or rank order. The change in S that had the most ef f ect was
          a shift in the susceptibility value for large tidal creeks from 3
          (the high value used f or the nominal run) to 1 (a low value)
          (Figure 3-9). This change resulted in modest shifts in the rank
          order and projected impacts for several alternatives, particularly
          Yellow House Creek alternatives, Daniel Island, and Clouter Creek.
          The general distribution of alternatives, however, remained
          similar.

           S. Projected Impacts on materials Cycles

               The purpose of this criterion was to identify sites where
          construction and operation of a dredged material disposal facility






                                           45







                                                                  


                                                                            



                                                                                  Town Creek

                                    Patriots Point
                                Lower Thomas
                                     Island
                                    Old Landfill

                                      TC Depot
                                Upper Thomas
                                     Island
                              Morris Island (3)
                                 Cainhoy Road
                                       (2)                                                               0
                                                                                                         
                                    Fort Johnson                                                         
                                                                                                         
                               Naval Weapons
                                    Station                                                              
                                 Yellow House
                                    Creek(2)
                                    Middle Shoal                                                         

                                    Drum Island                                                          0
                                 Cainhoy Road
                           CA    Parkers; Island                                                         
                                       (2)                                                               
                               Morris Island (1)
                                 Parkers Island                                                          
                                       (1)                                                               
                                    Point Hope                                                           0
                                     Island (2)                                                          
                                 Rodent Island    +                                                      
                                       (1)                                                                 
                              Morris Island (2)
                                    Point Hope
                                     Island (1)
                                 Yellow House     +
                                    Creek(3)
                                 Rodent Island    +
                                       (2)        +
                                    Daniel Island
                                 Yellow House     +
                                    Creek(l)      +
                                 Clouter Creek
                                    Folly Beach   +
                                       Berm
                                    ODIVIDS (2)

                                    ODIVIDS (1)
 








                                                                     


                                                                         a     






                                        Town Creek

                                        Patriots Point
           
                                   Lower Thomas
                                        Island                                                 
                                        Old Landfill                                           

                                        TC Depot                                            
                                                                                          
                                   Upper Thomas                                           
                                        Island                                                             
                                                                                                                                            Morris Island   (3)                                                       2
                                                                                                         CA
                                        Cainhoy Road                                           
                                                                                          <    
                                           (2)                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                        FortJohnson                                          
                                                                                               
                                                                                                          0
                                  Naval Weapons                                                            In
                                        Station                                                            >
                                        Yellow House                                                       
                                                                                                           >
                                      Creek(2)
                                        Middle Shoal                                                       
           
                                                    Drum Island
                                                                                                           0
                                        Cainhoy Road

                                                                                                           >
                                        Parkers  Island                                                    
                                           (2)                                                             
                                                                                                           
                                Morris Island (1)
                                        Parkers Island
                                                                                                           >
                                        Point Hope
                                        Island (2)
                                        Rodent Island

                                                                                                           
                                 Morris Island (2)                                                        
                                                                                                           
                                        Point Hope                                                         "a
                                        Island (1)
                                        Yellow House
                                        Creek(3)
                                        Rodent Island
                                           (2)
                                        Daniel Island
                                        Yellow House
                                        Creek(l)
                                       Clouter Creek
                                                             
                                        Folly Beach
                                           Berm
                                        ODIVIDS (2)

                                        ODIVIDS  (1)
 











            South Carolina                                       Methods and Results
            Marine Resources Division


            were projected to have relatively large impacts on material cycling
            processes and assign them high scores. Alternatives projected to
            have small impacts on material cycling processes were given low
            scores. Decreases in export of nitrogen and fine-grained sediments
            were selected as representative processes likely to be affected by
            construction and operation of a dredged material disposal facility
            (Beaulac and Reckhow 1982).      The overwhelming importance of
            nitrogen and fine-grained sediments dynamics to the health of
            marine and estuarine ecosystems is well established (e.g., Nixon
            1986, Nixon and Pilson 1983, Schubel and Carter 1984).

                 The indicator of the relative impacts on material cycling
            processes used was:

                 Projected Impacts on Material Cycling = B    D              (4)

                 where:

                    B    =Measure of the relative magnitude of nitrogen and
                          sediment export before construction and operation of
                          a dredged material disposal facility.

                    D    =Measure of the relative magnitude of nitrogen and
                          sediment export during and after operation of a
                          dredged material disposal facility.

                                 16
                           B = Z    (A, * EJ                                 (5)

                 where:

                    A, = Area of the ith Representative Important Habitat
                          (RIH) at each alternative disposal site

                    Ei =  Categorical variable ranging from 0 (low value) to
                          3 (high value) representing the relative magnitude
                          of nitrogen and sediment export for the ith habitat.

                         =1-16 representing the RIHs        included   in the
                          assessment.


                                 29
                           D = E    (A3' * Ef                                (6)
                                J=1
                 where:


                          Area of   jth proposed dredged material disposal
                          alternative.




                                            48












          South Carolina                                       Methods and Results
          Marine Resources Division


                   Ef = Constant  representing the relative magnitude of
                        sediment  and nitrogen export f or dredged material
                        disposal  sites from Table 3-11.

                   j  = 1-29 representing the alternative configurations
                        evaluated.

               The impact of construction and operation of a dredged material
          disposal facility on material cycling processes is a function of:
          (1) the amount and type of habitat occurring at each site before
          construction, (2) the relative contribution of each habitat to
          nitrogen and fine-grained sediment export, (3) the size of the
          proposed dredged material disposal facility, and (4) the
          contribution of newly constructed dredged material disposal sites
          to nitrogen and fine-grained sediment export. For analyses in this
          report, the contribution of dredged material disposal facilities to
          nutrient and sediment cycles was assumed to be zero because these
          facilities are designed and operated to retain sediment particles
          and nutrients.    Projected impacts on material cycling is the
          difference between conditions before construction and conditions
          during operation.

               The procedure used to calculate scores for alternatives
          consisted of the following steps:

               ï¿½   Obtain an estimate of the areal extent (i. e. , term A in
                   the above equation 5) for each proposed site from Table 3-
                   3.

               ï¿½   Estimate the relative contribution of each RIH to nitrogen
                   and fine-grained sediment export (i.e., term E in equation
                   5) based on information in the scientific literature,
                   discussions at the regional workshop, and the experience
                   of the scientific staff working on the project. Table 3-
                   11 lists the values of E used.

                   Calculate site scores using equations 4-6.

                   Normalize scores to a scale of 0-10 using the procedures
                   discussed in the overview of analysis methods (Section D) .

                   Determine the rank order of alternatives.
               :ites projected to have large impacts on material cycles were
          large upland alternatives including Parkers Island, Point Hope
          Island, and Cainhoy Road alternatives (Figure 3-10).           Upland
          habitats which are abundant at these sites buf f er aquatic habitats
          from excessive inputs of nutrients, sediments, and other nonpoint


                                           49











           South Carolina                                        Methods and Results
           Marine Resources Division




            Table 3-11.     Values used for relative importance of RIHIs
                            to material cycling,processes.
                        Habitat Type              Relative      Alternate
                                                 Value Used    Value Used


            Existing Disposal Area                    0             1
            Upland Habitat                            3

            Freshwater Wetlands                       3             3

            Ponds, Borrow Pits & Impoundments         1             0

            Mixed Estuarine Wetlands                  3             1

            High Elevation Estuarine Wetlands         3             1

            Low Elevation Estuarine Wetlands          3             1

            Tidal Flats                               2

            Small Tidal Creeks                        3             1

            Large Tidal  Creeks                       2

            Shallow Estuary                           3

            Deep Estuary                              2

            Coastal Dunes and Beaches                 0

            Shallow Coastal Waters                    3             1

            Deep Coastal Waters                       1

            Live Bottom                               I

            Subtidal Coastal Berm                     I

















                                            50











                                                                                




                                                                           

                                       Drum Island

                                     Patriots Point

                                       ODMDS (1)

                                       ODMDS (2)
                                     Yellow House
                                         Creek(2)
                                   Naval Weapons
                                         Station
                                      Daniel Island                                                           
                                        Old Landfill                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                Morris Island (3)                                                           0

                                     Clouter Creek                                                            
                                       Town Creek

                                          TC Depot
                                      Middle Shoal                                                            0

                                    Lower Thomas
                                          Island                                                              0
                                      Fort Johnson                                                            
                                    Upper Thomas
                                          Island
                                   Morris Island (1)                                                          
                                      Rodent Island
                                            (1)                                                               
                                        Folly Beach
                                            Berm
                                      Yellow House                                                            0
                                          Creek(3)                                                            
                                      Rodent Island                                                           0
                                                                                                              
                                            (2)                                                               
                                      Yellow ouse
                                          Creek(l)
                                       Parkers) Island
                                   Morris Island (2)
                                      Parkers Island
                                            (2)
                                      Cainhoy Road     4
                                         Point) Hope
                                          Island (1)
                                      CainhoV Road
                                            (2)
                                         Point Hope
                                          Island (2)
 











           South Carolina                                       Methods and Results
           Marine Resources DWision


           source pollutants (Beaulac and Reckhow 1982).          Alternatives
           projected to result in little or no change in nitrogen and fined-
           grained sediment export were either existing disposal sites (e.g.,
           Clouter Creek, Daniel Island) or ocean sites where dredged material
           disposal activities are projected to have little impact upon
           sediment or nitrogen export (e.g., ODMDS alternatives) .        Site
           scores for projected impact on materials cycling was strongly
           related (r2=0.72) to the extent (i.e., acres) of upland habitat
           (Figure 3-11).

                Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the influence
           that values assigned for the relative contribution of RIHs to
           sediment and nitrogen export had on normalized site scores for
           projected impact upon materials cycling. For these analyses, the
           alternative values for E shown in Table 3-11 were used, and
           normalized scores and rank order recalculated. Results of these
           analyses indicated that changes in the values of E had little
           influence on normalized site scores or site rank order.
           Correlation coefficients between site scores for the nominal
           analysis (i.e., standard run) and scores obtained using the
           alternative values of E shown in Table 3-11 ranged between 0.89 and
           1.0.

             6. Projected Impacts on Migration and Movement Patterns

                Construction and operation of dredged material disposal
           facilities can block and/or retard seasonal movement and migration
           patterns of biota if they are poorly sited (e.g., block movement of
           shrimp into spawning habitats) . Blockage of an important migration
           route for biota was considered a "fatal flaw" for this evaluation.
           None of the candidate disposal sites blocked an important migration
           route for RIB.     One alternative (i.e., Town Creek), however,
           potentially restricted movement and migration of biota into a major
           estuarine system within Charleston Harbor.    In addition, several
           alternatives (e.g., Yellow House Creek alternatives, TC Depot,
           Rodent Island alternatives) were located along tidal creeks and/or
           rivers where discharges from a dredged material disposal facility
           (e.g., contaminant and/or turbidity plumes) may retard movement of
           organisms into or out of tidal creeks and rivers.

                The purpose of this criterion was to identify alternatives
           that have the potential to adversely influence movement of fish and
           shellfish to spawning grounds, nursery areas,, feeding areas, or
           overwintering habitats and score them high. Alternatives that were






                                           52









                                                                   
                                                                               


                                                                                    Drum Island


                                      Patriots Point

                                      ODMDS (1)                                   

                                      ODIVIDS (2)
                                                                                                          
                                    Yellow House                                >        
            .so                       Creek(2)                                    
                               Naval Weapons                                                                                                                                          
                                      Station
                                      Daniel Island                               

                                                                                  
                                      Old Landfill                                'a                      
                                                                                      
                                Morris Island (3)                                                   
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                          
                                      Clouter Creek
                                                                                                          >

                                      Town Creek                                                          0
                                                                                                          
                                                                                                          
                                        TC Depot                                                          
                                                                                                          
                                      Middle Shoal                                                        
                                                                                                          
                                                                                                          
                                      Lower Thomas
             Pill
                                      Island
                                                                                                        
                                    Fort Johnson
                                      Upper Thomas                                                        >
                                        Island
                                Morris Island
                                      Rodent Island                                                       >
                                                                                                          
                                      Folly Beach
                                         Berm                                                             
                                      Yellow House                                                        >
                                                                                                          0
                                      Creek(3)                                                            
                                      Rodent Island
                                                                                                          
                                           (2)                                                            
                                      Yellow ouse
                                      Creek(l)                                                            >
                                      Parkers Island                                                      --I
                                                                                                          

                                                                                                          >
                                Morris Island (2)
                                      Parkers Island                                                      
                                         (2)                                                              0
                                      Cainhoy Road                                                        
                                                                                                          
                                      Point Hope
                                        Island (1)
                                      Cainhoy Road

                                      Point Hope
                                        Island (2)
 











           South Carolina                                        Methods and Results
           Marine Resources Division


           not likely to adversely affect movement patterns were scored low.
           The. indicator for projecting relative impact on migration and
           movement of RIB used the categorical scoring scheme shown in Table
           3-12.

                 Figure 3-12 provides a summary of the projected impacts on
           migration and movement patterns.      Most alternatives had small
           impact on migration and movement patterns.          The Town Creek
           alternative was projected to have the largest impacts because it
           blocked a major migrational route for shrimp and fish into the
           Cooper River. Development of a dredged material disposal facility
           at several sites, including Parkers Island - alternative 1, Point
           Hope Island - alternative 1, Old Landfill, Lower Thomas Island,
           Rodent Island - alternatives 1 & 2, had the potential to restrict
           movement of RIB into and out of small creeks and was projected to
           have moderate impacts on migration and movement patterns.

             7. Projected Impacts on Groundwater Resources

                 The purpose of this criterion was to identify alternatives
           that were projected to adversely affect groundwater resources and
           score them high relative to alternatives that were not projected to
           adversely impact groundwater resources. As previously discussed,
           .the evaluation of impacts on groundwater resources was conducted by
           WRC. The information presented below summarizes the findings of
           WRC's assessment presented in a series of letters to the USACOE.

                 The major regional aquifer likely to be impacted by dredged
           material disposal in the Charleston Harbor area is the Floridian
           aquifer.    None of the alternatives would adversely affect the
           Floridian aquifer because the Cooper Formation which overlays it
           provides a protective barrier from contamination by dredged
           material disposal activities (Hockensmith 1992). Shallow aquifers
           occur in sand strata underlying upland sites in the Charleston
           Harbor region.     The greatest threat to groundwater resources
           associated with construction and operation of dredged material
           disposal facilities was the contamination of these aquifers
           (Hockensmith 1992). The mechanisms of contamination for shallow
           aquifers by dredged material disposal are: (1) leaching of salts
           from the dredged material into shallow aquifers, (2) contamination
           of shallow aquifers with saltwater pumped during dredging
           activities, and (3) lateral seawater intrusion. Lateral seawater
           intrusion occurs when poorly-sorted, fine-grained, low-permeability
           dredged material is spread over a site in a manner that diminishes
           the rate of freshwater recharge from precipitation (Hockensmith
           1992).

                 The evaluation approach used by WRC consisted of the


                                            54










          South Carolina                                        Methods and Results
          Marine Resources Division




           Table 3-12.     Scoring scheme used for assessing impacts on
                           migration and movement patterns.


                                Impact Category                       Score


           Projected to alter or restrict @:50 percent of the           10
           available cross-sectional area of a migration or
           movement pathway for RIB in adjacent habitats - High
           Impact
           Projected to alter or restrict movement in @!10 percent      7
           but <50 percent of the available cross-sectional area
           of a migration and movement pathway for RIB in
           adjacent habitats - Moderate Impact
           Projected to alter or restrict movement in <10 percent       4
           of the available cross-sectional area (e.g., a
           discharge plume exists in adjacent habitats but is
           likely confined to a narrow ribbon along the
           s ore ine) - Low Impact
           No projected impact on migration or movement patterns        1
           for RIB in adjacent habitats - No Measureable Impact

























                                           55






                                                                    




                                                                             






                                   Patriots Point


                                   Middle Shoal


                                   Fort Johnson

                               Morris Island (1)

                               Morris Island (2)

                               Morris Island (3)

                                   ODIVIDS (1)

                                       ODIVIDS (2)
                                       Folly Beach                                                        
                                         Berm                                                             0
                                   Yellow House                                                           --I
                                                                                                          
                                       Creek 1)
                                   Yellow House
                                      Creek(2)
                                   Yellow ouse
                                       Creek(3)
                                       TC Depot                                                           
                                Naval Weapons                                                             
                                       Station
                                                                                                          0
                                 Upper Thomas                                                             
                                       Island
                                   Clouter Creek
                                 Lower Thomas      +
                                       Island
                                       Drum Island
                                   Cainhoy Road
                                         (1)                                                              
                                   Cainhoy Road                                                           >
                                         (2)                                                              
                                       Point Hope
                                       Island (2)
                                   Parkers Island
                                         (2)                                                              0
                                   Daniel Island                                                          
                                   Rodent Island                                                          
                                         (1)                                                              
                                   Rodent Island
                                         (2)
                                       Old Landfill
                                       Point Hope
                                       Island (1)
                                   Parkers Island
                                         (1)
                                       Town Creek
                                                   
 










          South Carolina                                        Methods and Results
          Marine Resources Division



           Table 3-13.     Scoring scheme used for assessing potential
                           impacts on groundwater resources


                               Impact Category                        Score


           Significant Impact                                           10

           Moderate Impact                                              6

           Low Impact                                                   3
          rNo Impact                                                    0

















                                           57











           South Carolina                                       Methods and Results
           Marine Resources Division


           categorical scoring procedure shown in Table 3-13. Alternatives
           projected to have relatively large impacts on groundwater resources
           were'upland sites that had sandy underlying strata and associated
           shallow aquifers that have high potential to become contaminated
           including Rodent Island alternatives, Lower Thomas Island, Cainhoy
           Road alternatives, Point Hope Island alternatives, Parkers Island
           alternativesl and Daniel Island (Figure 3-13).          Alternatives
           projected to have no impact on groundwater resources included
           Middle Shoal, Town Creek, ODMDS alternatives, and the Folly Beach
           Berm.

             S. Projected Impacts on Cultural Resources

                The purpose of this criterion was to identify sites that were
           projected to adversely affect cultural resources and score them
           high relative to alternatives that were not projected to adversely
           impact cultural resources. As previously discussed, the evaluation
           of impacts on cultural resources was conducted by Brockington and
           Associates, Inc.    The assessment conducted by Brockington and
           Associates, Inc. included:       (1) the identification of known
           cultural resources within or adjacent to candidate sites, (2) an
           assessment of the effects proposed facilities would likely have on
           existing cultural resources, (3) an evaluation of the extent to
           which adverse effects resulting from construction and operation of
           @prospective disposal sites were likely to detract from the
           significance of culturally important properties, and (4) an
           evaluation of the potential for unknown cultural resources to occur
           at each candidate site.    The paragraphs that follow represent a
           summary of the findings presented in the final report prepared by
           Brockington and Associates, Inc. for the South Carolina Coastal
           Council and the USACOE (Brockington and Associates, Inc. 1992).

                 For their evaluation, Brockington and Associates, Inc.
           determined that the distribution of culturally important resources
           in the Charleston Harbor area was frequently associated with
           proximity to tidally affected waterways and the drainage
           characteristics of soils (Brockington and Associates, Inc. 1992).
           Associations between prehistoric cultural resources and waterways
           were related to the need for prehistoric humans to find food (e.g.,
           fish and shellfish).       The association of historic cultural
           resources with marshes and tidal streams was related to the
           historic use of waterways as transportation routes (South and
           Hartley 1985). Drainage characteristics of soils were related to
           the suitability of sites for human habitation. Dry, well-drained
           soils were more likely to have been inhabited and contain cultural
           resources than poorly drained soils (e.g., Brooks and Scurry 1979).
           Brockington and Associates, Inc. (1992) also determined the
           proximity of known culturally important resources to prospective


                                            58





                                                                   




                                                                          



                                                                        
                                                                          


                                      Middle Shoal


                                      Town Creek

                                      ODMDS (1)

                                      ODMDS (2)
                                      Folly Beach
                                         Berm
                                      Yellow House
                                      Creek (l)
                                      Yellow House
                                      Creek (2)
                                      Yellow House                                                          
                                      Creek(3)                                                             
                                                                                                           
                                        TC Depot                                                           
                                                                                                           
                                  Naval Weapons
                                      Station
                                      Upper Thomas
                                        Island                                                             
                                      Clouter Creek                                                        

                                                                                                          
                                      Old Landfill
                                                                                                           
                                                                                                           
                                      Drum Island
                                                                                                           
                                   Patriots Point                                                       
                                                                                                           
                               
                               
                                      Fort Johnson                                                         

                                 Morris Island (1)

                                 Morris Island (2)
                                                                                                           

                                 Morris Island (3)
                                                                                                           
                                      Rodent Island                                                        
                                          (1)                                                           
                                      Rodent Island
                                          (2)
                                                                                                           
                                      Lower Thomas                                                          
                                        Island                                                             
                                      Cainhoy Road
                                           (1)
                                      Cainhoy Road
                                          (2)
                                             
                                        Point Hope
                                        Island (1)
                                        Point Hope
                                        Island (2)
                                      Parkers Island
                                       (1)
                                      Parkers Island 
                                          (2)        
                                      Daniel  Island
 











           South Carolina                                       Methods and Results
           Marine Resources Division


           sites from the recent archaeological literature. This information
           was summarized on maps.

                Brockington and Associates, Inc (1992) used proximity to
           tidally affected waterways and drainage characteristics of soils to
           estimate the potential for unknown culturally important resources
           to occur at alternative sites. This assessment concluded that the
           Upper Thomas Island site and Morris Island alternatives 1 and 2 had
           high potential to contain unknown cultural resources. Lower Thomas
           Island, Rodent Island alternatives, Middle Shoal, Cainhoy Road
           alternatives, Point Hope Island alternatives, and Town Creek had
           moderate potential for containing unknown cultural resources.
           Yellow House Creek alternatives 1 and 2, TC Depot, Parkers Island,
           Old Landfill, Fort Johnson, ODMDS alternatives, and the Folly Beach
           Berm had low potential for containing unknown cultural resources.
           Existing dredged material disposal sites including Yellow House
           Creek alternative 3, Naval Weapons Station, Clouter Creek, Drum
           Island, Patriots Point, Morris Island alternative 3, and Daniel
           .Island had no potential for containing unknown cultural resources.

                Once the potential for each site to contain unknown cultural
           resources had been determined and the location of known cultural
           resources had been mapped, an assessment of the effects of
           construction and operation of dredged material disposal facility
           for each alternative was completed.      This assessment included
           identification of direct effects that were likely to occur as well
           as the visual effects of construction and operation of dredged
           material disposal facilities on culturally important properties.
           Three categories of cultural resources were determined to be at
           risk. These were: (1) known properties on the National Register of
           Historic Places (NRHP), (2) properties that were eligible or
           potentially eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, and (3) adverse
           effects to unknown resources that may exist at each site.        The
           categorical scoring scheme shown in Table 3-14 was used by
           Brockington and Associates, Inc. (1992) to quantify the projected
           effects for each category of cultural resource at risk.       Scores
           were then summed across the three categories to estimate overall
           impact to cultural resources. The maximum possible score was 15
           (i.e., extreme apparent adverse effects to all three categories of
           cultural resources). The minimum score was zero (i.e., no effect
           on cultural resources).

                Table 3-15 summarizes the findings of the Brockington and
           Associates, Inc. assessment.     Brockington and Associates, Inc.
           scores were normalized to a scale of 0-10 using the normalization
           procedure defined in the overview of analysis methods (Section D).
           This normalization was necessary to ensure that projected impacts
           on cultural resources were equally weighted with the scoring system


                                            60












          South Carolina                                        Methods and Results
          Marine Resources Division




           Table 3-14.     Categorical scoring scheme used for assessing
                           impacts on cultural resources


                                Impact Category                       Score


           Extreme adverse effects                                      5

           Moderate adverse effects                                     3

           Minim 1 adverse effects                                      1

           No projected Impact
                                                                        0



















































                                           61











                        South Carolina                                                                                                         Methods and Results
                        Marine Resources Division


                           Table 3-1S.            Summ ry of findings for projected relative impacts on cultuFa-I -resources.

                                                                                                                   Brockington and              Normalized Score
                                                           Alternate Sites                                         Associates Score            Calculated by MRD

                           Yellow House Creek - Alternative 1                                                                1                           0.7


                           Yellow House Creek - Alternative 2                                                                1                           0.7


                           Yellow House Creek - Alternative 3                                                                1                           0.7


                           Rodent Island - Alternative 1                                                                     3                           2


                           Rodent Island - Alternative 2                                                                     3                           2


                           T C Depot                                                                                         1                           0.7

                           Naval Weapons Station                                                                             0                           0

                           Upper lbomas Island                                                                               5                           3.3

                           Clouter Creek                                                                                     0                           0


                           Lower 11omas Island                                                                               5                           3.3


                           Old Landfill                                                                                      1                           0.7


                           Drum Island                                                                                       0                           0


                           Patriots Point                                                                                    0                           0


                           Middle Shoal                                                                                      8                           5.3


                           Fort Johnson                                                                                      6                           4


                           Morris Island - Alternative 1                                                                     15                          10


                           Morris Island - Alternative 2                                                                     15                          10


                           Morris Island - Alternative 3                                                                     10                          6.7


                           Cainhoy Road - Alternative 1                                                                      3                           2

                           Cainhoy Road - Alternative 2                                                                      3                           2

                           Point Hope Island - Alternative 1                                                                 3                           2

                           Point Hope Island - Alternative 2                                                                 3                           2

                           Parkers Island - Alternative 1                                                                    6                           4


                           Parkers Island - Alternative 2                                                                    6                           4


                           Town Creek                                                                                        3                           2


                           Daniel Island                                                                                     0                           0


                           ODMDS - Alternative 1                                                                             0                           0


                           ODMDS - Alternative 2                                                                             0                           0


                           Folly Beach Berm                                                                                  0                           0




                                                                                                62











           South Carolina                                        Methods and Results
           Marine Resources Division


           used for other environmental concerns.           Normalized scores
           summarizing the findings of the Brockington and Associates, Inc.
           evaluation are summarized in Figure 3-14.

                Sites with low potential for adversely affecting cultural
           resources were mainly existing or historically used dredged
           material disposal areas including the Yellow House Creek
           alternative, Naval Weapons Station, Clouter Creek, Drum Island,
           Patriots Point, Daniel Island, ODMDS alternatives, the Folly Beach
           Bern, TC Depot, and Old Landfill. These sites generally require
           small amounts of new construction and are not located in areas that
           represent historically valuable landscapes.          Although some
           underwater resources may be present at the ocean disposal sites,
           adverse ef f ects to these underwater resources would likely be
           negligible. Rodent Island alternatives, Cainhoy Road alternatives,
           Point Hope Island alternatives, and Town Creek have moderate
           potential f or containing unknown cultural resources but do not
           impact any culturally important properties. The Upper and Lower
           Thomas Island sites have high potential , for containing unknown
           cultural resources and are projected to experience modest adverse
           effects. The Fort Johnson, Parkers Island alternatives, and Middle
           Shoal sites have high potential for adversely affecting cultural
           resources.   The Fort Johnson site would be visible f rom Fort
           Sumter,   and   the Parkers Island site contains           18   known
           archaeological sites; 15 of which are eligible or potentially
           eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. Construction and operation of
           a dredged material disposal facility at Middle Shoal would not only
           potentially degrade scenic views of Castle Pinckney (an NRHP listed
           property) and Charleston Harbor, this site has the potential to
           contain unknown submerged cultural resources (e.g., wrecked ships).
           Morris Island alternatives 1 and 2 represent the greatest threat to
           cultural resources.    These alternatives are located near a NRHP
           property (i.e., the Morris Island Lighthouse) , may incorporate
           resources eligible for inclusion on the NRHP (i.e., two civil war
           wrecks), and also may adversely affect unknown cultural resources
           related to Civil War activities on Morris Island.       The existing
           disposal site at Morris Island (i.e., Morris Island - Alternative
           3) had the next greatest potential for adversely affecting cultural
           resources as it would adversely affect scenic vistas of the Morris
           Island Lighthouse as well as the two Civil War wrecks.

             9. Projected Impacts on Human Uses

                The purpose of this criterion was to identify alternatives
           that were projected to have large adverse effects on human uses
           (i.e., fishing, hunting, shellfish harvesting, swimming, boating,
           aesthetics) and score them high. Alternatives that were projected
           to have small impacts on human uses were scored low. The indicator


                                            63






                                                                    




                                                                       



                                                                                                  


                                    Yellow House
                                      Creek(2)
                                 Naval Weapons
                                      Station
                                    Clouter Creek

                                      Drum Island


                                  Patriots Point
                                    Daniel Island

                                      ODMDS (1)                                                            

                                                                                                             
                                      ODMDS (2)                                                            
                                                                                                             
                                      Folly Beach                                                            
                                          Berm                                                              
                                                                                                             
                                    Yellow House
                                      Creek (1)
                                    Yellow House
                                      Creek(3)
                                                                                                             
                                        TC Depot                                                             

                                                                                                             
                                      Old Landfill                                                           
                                    Rodent Island                                                            
                                          (1)                                                                
                                    Rodent Island                                                            
                                                                                                             
                                          (2)
                                  Cainhoy Road

                                    Cainhoy Road                                                             
                                          (2)
                                      Point Hope
                                                                                                             
                                       Island (1)                                                            
                                      Point Hope                                                             
                                       Island (2)                                                            
                                      Town Creek                                                             
                                                                                                             
                                  Upper Thomas                                                               
                                       Island
                                  Lower Thomas
                                       Island
                                    Fort Johnson
                                    Parkers Island
							(1)
                                    Parkers Island  
                                          (2)       
                                    Middle Shoal

                                Morris Island (3)

                                Morris Island (1)

                                Morris Island (2)
 











           South Carolina                                       Methods and Results
           Marine Resources Division


           used to project adverse impacts on human uses was:

                Projected Human Use Impacts     B - D                       (7)

                where:

                    B   =Measure of the relative magnitude of human use
                         before construction and operation of a dredged
                         material disposal facility.

                    D =  Measure of the relative magnitude of human uses
                         during and af ter operation of a dredged material
                         disposal facility commences.

                               16
                         B         (A, * Vi)                                (8)



                where:

                    A, = Area of the ith Representative Important Habitat at
                         each disposal site.

                    Vi = Categorical variable ranging from 0 (low value) to
                         3 (high value) representing the relative value of
                         the ith habitat for human uses identified in Table
                         3-13.

                    i   =1-16 representing the RIHs        included in the
                         assessment.


                               29
                         Dj    E   (A31 * Ej/                               (9)
                               J=1

                    V =  Area of jth proposed dredged material disposal site.

                    El = Constant representing the relative value of dredged
                         material disposal sites to humans.

                    j   =1-29 representing the alternative configurations
                         evaluated.

                The impacts of construction and operation of a dredged
           material disposal site on human uses are a function of: (1) the
           habitat type present at each site before construction, (2) the
           relative value of each habitat for supporting human uses, and (3)
           the size of the proposed dredged material disposal facility. All


                                           65












           South Carolina                                       Methods and Results
           Marine Resources Division


           of these factors were incorporated into equations 7-9.

                The procedure used to calculate site scores for projecting
           impacts on human uses consisted of the following steps:

                ï¿½  Obtain an estimate of the areal extent of each RIH for each
                   alternative (i.e., term A in equation 8) from Table 3-3.

                ï¿½  Estimate the relative value of each RIH for human uses
                   (i.e., term V in equation 8). Table 3-16 lists the values
                   of V used. The procedure for defining the relative value
                   of RIHs consisted of the following steps: (1) develop a
                   list of potential human uses (Table 3-17), (2) determine
                   the number of uses that was associated with each habitat
                   type, and (3) assign a categorical value ranging from 0-3
                   to each habitat based on the number of human uses that
                   existed at each site.

                ï¿½  Estimate of the areal extent of the proposed dredged
                   material disposal facility (term A' in equation 9) from
                   Table 3-3.

                   Calculate site scores using equations 7-9.

                   Normalize scores to a scale of 0-10 using the procedures
                   discussed in the overview of analysis methods (Section D).

                   Determine the rank order of alternatives.

                Alternatives where development of a dredged material disposal
           facility was projected to have large impacts on human uses were
           large sites composed of diverse habitats that supported multiple
           human uses such as ODMDS alternative 1, Point Hope Island
           alternatives,   Parkers- Island     alternatives,   Cainhoy     Road
           alternatives, and Yellow House Creek alternatives 1 & 3 (Figure 3-
           15). Sites where construction and operation of dredged material
           disposal facilities were projected to have small impacts on human
           uses were small sites or existing disposal sites (e.g., Patriots
           Point, Drum Island, Yellow House Creek alternative 2, Naval Weapons
           Station, and Old Landfill).

                Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the influence
           that changes in the relative value of RIHs for human uses (term V
           in equation 8) on normalized scores and rank order.      For these
           analyses, the alternative use values in Table 3-16 were used and
           scores and ranks recalculated.     These analyses indicated that
           changing any one or several of the human use values resulted in
           only small changes- in the normalized site scores and site rank


                                           66












          South Carolina                                        Methods and Results
          Marine Resources Division




           Table 3-16.    Relative value of RIHs for projecting impacts
                          on human uses.

                      Habitat Type               Human Use    Alternate
                                                   Index      Human Use
                                                                 Index

           Existing Disposal Area                    1
           Upland Habitat                            2           1 & 3

           Freshwater Wetlands                       3             2

           Ponds, Borrow Pits & Impoundments         2             1

           Mixed Estuarine Wetlands                  3             2

           High Elevation Estuarine Wetlands         1             1

           Low Elevation Estuarine Wetlands          2             2

           Tidal Flats                               2

           Small Tidal Creeks                        2

           Large Tidal Creeks                        3
           Shallow Estuary                           2

           Deep Estuary                              3

           Coastal Dunes and Beaches                 2

           Shallow Coastal Waters                    1

           Deep oastal Waters                        1

           Live Bottom                               3



















                                          67











                South Carolina                                                                  Methods and Results
                Marine Resources Division



                Table 3-17.            List of human uses considered.



                               Dredged material disposal

                               Fishing and/or hunting

                               Swimming, boating, diving and/or other aesthetic uses
                               (e.g., bird-watching, natural vistas, hildng)


































                                                                68







                                                                     69




                                                                             



                                                                   
                                     Patriots Point

                                       Drum Island
                                       Yellow House
                                       Creek(2)
                                       Daniel Island
                                      Folly Beach
                                          Berm
                                  Naval Weapons
                                   Station                              
                                        
                                       Old Landfill
              

                                 Morris Island (3)

                                       Clouter Creek

                                 Morris Island (1)
                                                                                                            
                                 Morris Island (2)
                                                                                                            
                                                                                                            
                                        TC Depot                                                            
                                                                                                            
                                                                                                              
                                       Town Creek                                                           

                                       Lower Thomas
                                        Island
                                                                                                            
                                       ODMDS (2)                                                            
                                                                                                            
                                       Rodent Island 
      						(1)                                                 
                                       Rodent Island                                                        
                                           (2)                                                              
                                       Fort Johnson                                                         
                                                                                                            
                                       Upper Thomas
                                        Island
                                       Middle Shoal                                                         
                                                                                                            
                                       Cainhoy Road                                                         
                                           (1)                                                              
                                       Parkers Island
                                          (1)
                                       Yellow House  
                                        Creek(3)
                                       Yellow House   
                                        Creek(l)
                                       Parkers Island
                                           (2)
                                       Cainhoy Road  
                                           (2)
                                        Point Hope                                         
							 Island (1)
                                        Point Hope   
                                        Island (2)   
                                       ODMDS (1)
 











            South Carolina                                         Methods and Results
            Marine Resources Diwision


            order.   Normalized scores f or impacts on human uses were not
            strongly associated with site size or disposal capacity and were
            related to the reduction in the number of human uses that would not
            occur af ter development or the size of the area over which uses
            would be eliminated. Based on results of the sensitivity analyses,
            it was concluded that the indicator for projecting impacts on human
            uses was adequately developed and not likely to be adversely
            influenced by errors that may be associated with assignment of
            human use values.

              10. Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment

                 Figure 3-16 and Table 3-18 present an assessment of projected
            cumulative environmental impacts for the 20 sites and 29
            alternatives.    Projected cumulative environmental impact was
            calculated by summing site scores for all environmental concerns
            evaluated (i.e., summing down columns in Table 3-18). Alternatives
            are rank ordered in Figure 3-16 from the alternative projected to
            have the smallest cumulative environmental impact (far left) to the
            alternative projected to have the largest cumulative environmental
            impact. Associations between projected cumulative environmental
            impacts and size and capacity are presented in Figure 3-17.

                 All environmental concerns were equally weighted in the
            analysis conducted for Figure 3-16. The analytical approach was
            developed, however, in a manner that allowed each environmental
            concern to be weighted to any degree that could be justified. For
            example, agencies responsible for the regulation of dredged
            material disposal sites have traditionally emphasized the loss of
            critical habitats and adverse effects on water quality when siting
            dredged material disposal facilities. During this assessment, the
            weighting schemes shown in Table 3-19 were evaluated to determine
            the degree to which alternative weighting schemes affected results
            and conclusions. Figures 3-18 through 3-20 present representative
            results obtained from applying alternative weighting schemes.
            Weighting factors greater than five were not evaluated because they
            were considered to be unrealistically high.

                 Weighting projected impacts on water quality five times as
            important as other environmental concerns altered the rank order
            and distribution of alternatives to a greater,degree than any of
            the other weighting schemes evaluated (Figure 3-19). None of the
            other weighting schemes evaluated substantially altered the rank
            order or distributional pattern of alternatives (Figures 3-18 and
            3-20). Based on these analyses, it was concluded that the analysis
            approach was robust to reasonable alternative weighting schemes and
            application of alternative schemes would not substantially alter
            results. In addition, discussions at the regional workshop


                                             70










                                                                                 
                                    Patriots Point


                                          Drum Island
                                    Naval Weapons
                                          Station
                                      Yellow House
                                          Creek(2)
                                          Old Landfill

                                         TC Depot

                                          Middle Shoal

                                          Town Crook
                                                                                                             
                                          Daniel Island                                                     
                                                                                                             
                                          Clouter Creek                                                      
                                                                                                             
                                          Folly Beach                                                     
                                             Berm                                                            
                                      Upper Thomas    
                                                                                                             
                                           Island                                                            
                                          Yellow House                                                       
                                          Creek(3)
                                      Lower Thomas
                                          Island
                                                                                                             
                                                                                                             
                                          ODMDS (2)
                                                                                                             
                                  ( Morris Island (3)                                                     

                                          Fort Johnson
                                                                                                             
                                          Yellow House                                                       
                                           Creek(l)                                                          
                                                                                                             
                                          ODMDS (1)                                                        
                                                                                                               

                                     Morris Island (1)
                                          Rodent Island
								(1)
                                          Cainhoy Road

                                          Rodent Island
                                               (2)
                                          Cainhoy Road
                                               (2)
                                          Parkers Island
                                               (2)
                                      Morris Island (2)
                                          Parkers Island
								(1)
                                            Point Hope
                                             Island (2)
                                            Point Hope
                                             Island (1)
 










                        RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SITE SIZE AND PROJECTED CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
               1600                    (Ocean Disposal Sites Not Included)

               1400
                           2
               1200        r  0.21
             A
             c 1000

             r
             e  800

             s
                600


                400


                200


                  0
                   0.0       10.0      20.0      30.0      40.0      50.0       60.0      70.0
                                                     Cumulative Score








                        RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAPACITY AND PROJECTED CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

               120



               100
                           r2  0. 41

             a  80

             p

                60
             c
             i
             t  40
             y


                20



                  0
                  0.0       10.0      20.0       30.0      40.0      50.0       60.0      70.0
                                                    Cumulative Score







               Figure 3-17.  Relationship between projected cumulative environmental impacts and size
                             (A) and capacity (B).


                                                     72


~0




             Table 3-18A.                     Overview of analysis results.

                                                                                                                                         Alternative Sites


                         Evaluation                 Yellow         Yellow      Yellow      Rodent        Rodent        T~C           Naval        Upper         C~louter     ~qUw~er          Old          Drum      Patriots         ~2qM
                          Criteria                  House          House       House       Island~-       Island-    Depot*          W~e~sp~a~s       Thomas        Creek*      Thomas     ~I~m~Wfi~d~l         ~T~a~land     Point*          ~qS
                                                    Creek          Creek       Creek       Alt I         Alt 2                      Center       Island                    Island
                                                    Alt I          Alt 2       Alt 3


                 Existing Environmental             ~q1.0            ~q1.0         ~q1.0         8~.8           8.8           ~q1.0          ~1.0          1.0           ~q1.0         ~q1.0           ~q1.0          1.0          1.0           1
                 Quality

                 Discharge Impacts on               8.1            3.9         4.0         3.1           3.7           1.3          1.7          2.1           10.0        1.6           1.0          0.7          0.0           0
                 Water Quality

                 Loss of Critical Habitat           7~.4            1.9         7.3         6.6           6.8           6.1          3.0          6.9           4.0         5.8           3.1          1.7          0.0           6


                 Impacts on Adjacent                5.1            2.9         3.9         3.8           4.0           2.3          2.8          2.7           5.5         1.6           1.8          3.1          0.2           3
                 Habitat


                 Impacts on Material                4.5            0.1         4.4         3.6           4.4           1.6          0.1          3.3           0.4         2.9           0.2          0            0.0           2
                 Cycles

                 Impacts on Migration ~a~nd           4.0            4.0         4.0         ~q7.0           7.0           4.0          4.0          4.0           4.0         4.0           7.0          4.0          ~q1.0           1
                 Movement


                 Impacts on Human Uses              8.2            2.2         8.1         7.3           7.6           6.8          3.2          7.7           4.6         6~.9           3.6          1.4          0.0           7

                 Impacts on Groundwater             3.0            3.0         3.0         ~10.0          ~10.0          3.0          3.0          3.0           3.0         10.0          6.0          6.0          6.0
                 Quality

                 Impacts on Cultured                0.7            0           0.7         2.0           2.0           0.7          0            3.3           0           3.3           0.7          ~q0            0             5
                 Resources                                                            I

                 Cumulative                         41.8           19.1        36.5        52.2          54.2          26.8         18.8         33.9          32.5        37.2          24.4         17.8         8.2           2
                 ~~viro~runen~tal Impacts
                 (~~)                                                                                                                                                                                                      I

                 Capacity ~q(~1~0~1~c~u ~y~d~q)                91.6           55.2        39.4        28.6          35.6          15.6         20.0         25.2          108.8       21.6          10.4         ~q10.1         21.6          ~4q1

                 Capacity Adjusted Score            0.46           0.37        0.93        1.83          1.52          1.72         0.94         1.35          0.30        1.72          2.35         1.77         5.12          2
                 (~~o~~e~/~1~0~'cuyd)

                 Normalized Cumulative              6.4            2.1         5.4         8.4           8.8           3.5          2.0          4.9           4.6         5.5           3.1          1~.8          0             3
                 Impacts                                   I

                 Normalized Capacity                0.~q3            0.1         ~q1.0         2.4           2.0           2.3          1.0          ~q1.~q7           0           2.3           3.3          2.3          ~q7.~q7           3
                 Adjusted Score                                                                                                                         I

                 Sum Cumulative Impact              6.6            2.2         6.4         10.8          10.7          5.8          3.0          6.6           4.6         7.8           6.3          4.2          7.7           6
                 and Capacity Adjusted
                 Score                                                                                                 7   ~q-~0qF~q2                   ~q1~q1                  ~1                   9      ~1     3
                 Rank Order                         ~q12             1           ~q10          27            25                                                    5           1~q8                                      17


                       Existing disposal sites
 

~0





                Table 3-18B.                       Overview of analysis results.




                            Evaluation                     Morris        Morris         Morris       ~Ca~inhoy        C~ainhoy          Point         Point          Parker$        Par ~r~s          Town           Daniel        ODMD           ODMD           ~q0
                             Criteria                      Island-       Island-        Island-        Road-          Road-          Hope          Hope           Island-        Island-         Creek          Island        $-Aft I*       S-A~lt 2~*       A
                                                           Alt 1*        Alt 2          Alt 3          Alt I          Alt 2          Island-       Island-        Aft 1          Alt 2
                                                                                                                                     Alt I         Alt 2                                 ~q1                                            ~q1               ~q1
                    Existing Envi~ro~r~tm~ent~al                10~.0          ~q10.0           ~q10.0           ~q8~.~q8            ~q8~.~q8            ~q8~.~q8           ~q8~.~q8            ~q8~.~q8            ~q8~.~q3             ~q1~.0            ~q1.0           ~q10.0           ~q10.0           1
                    Quality                                                                                      I                            I
                    Discharge Impacts on                                 7.7            3.1            3.3            3.6            ~q5~.0           5.3            3.8            3~.8             1.2            4.8           2.3            2.2            ~4q1
                    Water Quality                                                                                I
                    Loss of Critical Habitat               6.3     ~1     7.0            3.~9            6.9            7.1            7.2           7.4            7.1      ~1     7.1             5.8            2.3           ~q10.0           8.6            6

                    Impacts on Adjacent                    3.4           3.9            2.7            3.1            2.8            3.9           3~.5            3.4            3.3             0.0            4.4           ~q10.0           8.3            7
                    Habitat                                                                                                                   I

                    Impacts on Material                    3.5           7.5            0.3            7.9            8.7            8.7           ~q10.0           7~.2            7.5             ~q1.1            0.1           0.0            0.0            3
                    Cycles                                                                       I                                                                                                      I                                             I

                    Impacts on Migration and               ~q1.0           ~q1.0            ~q1.0            4.0            4.0            7.0           4.0            7.0            4.0             ~q10.0           4.0           1.0            ~q1.0            1
                    Movement

                    Impacts on Human Uses                  5.5           5.9            4.3            8.1            8~.2            8.3      ~1    8.5            8.1            8.2             6.8            2.7           ~q10.0           7.2            3

                    Impacts on Groundwater                 6.0           6.0            6.0            ~q10.0           ~q10.0           10.0          ~q10.0           ~q10.0           ~q10.0            0              10.0          0              0
                    Quality

                    Impacts on Cultured                    ~q10.0          10.0           6.7            2.0            2.0            2.0           2.0            4.0            4.0             2.0            0             0              0
                    Resources                                      I                             I

                    Cumulative                             ~q50.9          59.0           3~q8.0           54.1           55.0           60.8          59.6           59.3           56.8            27.9           29.4          43.3           37.4           3
                    Environmental Impacts
                    (~)                                                                                                                       I                                                                         I
                    Capacity (~qW~cu yd~)                      76.4          117.0          39.0           67.0           74.0           102.2         86.8           60.8           63.6            28.0           55.2          51.0           51.0           ~4q1

                    Capacity Adjusted Score                0.67          0.50           0.48           0.81           0.74           0.82          0.69           0.9~q9           ~q0~.~q99            ~q1.00           0.53          0.85           0.73           6
                    (~core/~10~'cuyd)                                I                             I

                    Normalized Cumulative                  8.1           9.7            5.7            8.7            8.9            ~q10.0          9.8            9.7            9.2             3.7            4.0           6.7            5.6            4
                    Impacts                                                                                      I                                                                                                      I                             I
                    Normalized Capacity                    0.6           0.3            ~q1.1            ~q0~.~q8            0.7            0.8           0.6            ~q1.1            0.9             1.1            0.4           0.9            0.7            ~4q1
                    Adjusted Score

                    Sum Cumulative impact                  8.7           ~q10.0           6.6            9.5            9.6            10.8          10.4           10.8           ~q10.2            4.9            4.4           7.6            6.2            ~0q1
                    ~~ Capacity Adjusted
                    Score                           I              I
                 F
                L

                                                           0~10





                    Rank Order                             ~q19      ~q1     22             14             20             21             28            24        ~0qP~q26                 23              6              4             ~q15
                            Existing disposal sites
 










              South Carolina                                                                       Methods and Results
              Marine Resourm Division




                Table 3-19. List of alternative weighting schemes of environmental concerns evaluated.
                      Environmental Concern -T                      Weighting Schemes Evaluated

                Impact on Existing Environmental          i
                Quality
                Impact on Water Quality                   1   2     5   1    1    2    1    1     1    2    5


                Critical Habitat Losses                   1   1     1   2    5    2    1    1     1    2    5


                Impact on Adjacent Environments           1   1     1   1    1    1    2    1     1    1    1


                Impact on Material Cycles                 1   1     1   1    1    1    1    2     5    2    5


                Impact on Migration and                   1   1     1   1    1    1    1    1     1    1    1
                Movement

                Impact on Groundwater Resources           1


                Impact on Cultural Resources


                Impact on Human Uses

















                                                                  75


~0




                                                                                                      9L


                                                                                                            ~ ~ ~~


                                                                                                             ~2qP       ~6qP      ~q@4 ~q90 ~q@~0              ~6qR
                                                                         ~q0              ~q0 ~q0 ~q0                ~q0       0      ~q0 0 ~q0                 ~q0


                                                    Patriots Point


                                                    Drum Island
                                               Naval Weapons
                                                        Station
                                                    Yellow House                                                                                        ~4qM
                                                        Creek~q(2)                                                                                        In
                                                                                                                                                        ~4qM
                                                        Old Landfill
                                                                                                                                                        0

                                                                                                                                                        CA
                                                        TC Depot
                                                                                                                                                        0
                           ~qM                        Middle Shoal                                                                                          ~n
                                                                                                                                                        0
                                                    Town Creek
                                                                                                                                                        ~0qz
                                                    Daniel Island                                                                                       ~qG~q)
                                                                                        ~......... .... . ...
                                                                                        ......... ... ...
                                                                                                                                                        ~r~n
                                                    Clouter Creek
                                                        Folly Beach                                                                                     ~6qz
                                                           Berm
                                                Upper Thomas                                                                                            IT~!
                                                                                                          . . . .... . .
                                                                                        . . .......
                                                        Island                       . .. ...
                                                    Yellow House                                                                                        ~8qx
                           ~1~q0~2~.                         Creek~q(3)
                                                Lower Thomas                                                                                            ~0qz
                                                        Island                                                                                          ~4qQ
                                          CA            ODIVIDS (2)
                                                                                                                                                        ~0qz

                                          ~C~D
                                              Morris Island (3)
                                                                                                                                                        0
                                                    Fort Johnson                                                                                        ~qC~-
                                                                                                ...... ...  .................
                                                                                                    ... ..............                                  ~0qM
                                                    Yellow House                                                                                        0
                                                        Creek(l)                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                        ~0qM
                                                    ODIVIDS (1)
                                                                                                    ~qm ~c~n          ..... .. . . .                        0
                                                                                                    ~.~0 ~1~4
                                                                                                    ~r                                                   ~4qC
                                              Morris Island (1)
                                                                                                                            ..... ......
                                                                                                                . . .. .... ..
                                                                                               ~0          ~C~L
                                                    Rodent Island                              ~r~#         ~2~)                                            ~4qC
                                                                                               CA         ~-
                                                                                                          ~C~L
                                                                                               ~0
                                                    Cainhoy Road                                          ~C

                                                                                                                          . . . ... ...
                                                                                               ~0
                                                    Rodent Island                                                                                       IT~!
                                                            (2)
                                                    Cainho~qy Road
                                                                                                                                                        ~8qM
                                                                                                          ~qX
                             ~C~D                     Parkers     sland                                                                                   0
                                                            (2)
                                                                                               3~4q:
                                              Morris Island (2)                                           ~0q2~q).
                              ~2q0                     Parkers Island
                                                                                                          ~qC~qL
                                                        Point Hope
                                                                                                                                 ~qT~-~-
                                                        Isla    d (2)
                                                        Poin~qnt Hope
                                                                                               ....... ....
                              ~2q0                         Island (1)
 

~0




                                                                                                          LL


                                                                                                                    ~ ~ (a



                        ~4qV


                                                              Patriots Point

                                                              Drum Island
                                                    Naval Weapons
                                                              Station
                                                              Yellow House
                    ~q0                                         ~8qCreek~q(2)                                                                                        ~0qM
                                                                                                                                                              ~n
                                                              Old Landfill                                                                                    ~"~n
                                                                                                                                                              ~qM
                                                                                                                                                              0
                                                              TC Depot

                                                              Middle Shoal'                                                                                   0
                                                                                                                                                              In
                                                              Town Creek                                                                                      0

                                                              Daniel Island                                                                                   ~6qz
                                                                                                                                                              G~q)
                                                              Clouter Creek                                                                                   ~0qM
                                                                                                                              777~0q7~q7~q7~0q@
                                                              Folly Beach
                                                                 Berm           I
                                                      Upper Thomas
                                                              Island
                                                              Yellow House                                                                                    G)
                                                              Creek~q(3)
                                                      Lower Thomas
                                                              Island                                      . ..........~q1
                                                                                                                                                              ~qG~q)
                                                              ODIVIDS~ (2)
                                                                                                                                                              0
                                                ~c~a                                                                                                            ~6qz
                                                ~;~w Morris Island (3)
                                                ~M                                 . ... .....

                                                              Fort Johnson                                                                                    0
                                                              Yellow House                                                                                    ~0qM
                                                                                                                                                              0
                                                              Creek(l)              . . ....                   ....... ..              7771
                                                                                                                                                              ~0qM
                                                              ODIVIDS                          E~ql         ~8qN
                                                                                                      ~qM ~C~n
                                                    Morris Island ~q(~q1~q)                                                                                         0
                                                                                             .,a      ~C                                                       ~0qC
                                                              Rodent Island                    ~0          ~C~L
                                                                                               ~r~+
                                                                                                                                                              ~4qC
                                                                                                          ~C~L
                                                              Cainhoy Road                     0
                                                                                                                                                              >
                                                              Rodent Island
                                                                 (2)                                      >
                                                              Cainhoy Road
                                                                                                          ~6q0
                                                                 (2)
                                                              Parkers Island                              ~CD
                                                                                                                                                              ~6q>
                                                                 (2)                                                                                          0
                                                                                               ~qx
                                                    Morris Island (2)
                                                              Parkers Islan

                                                              ~                                                   ~q1~0q(~4q') Hope                                ~qC~qL
                                                              ~                                                   Island (2)             ..... . ......... .. . ... .. .. . .. . . . . ... ..... .. .. ....
                                                              Point Hope
                      ~2q0                                       Island (1)                          . ... .... .
 

~0





                                                                                                ~8L




                                                                                                                    ~2qP ~-~4 ~q90               ~q@~0      ~6qP
                                                                                         ~q0 ~q0 0 0 ~q0 ~q0 ~q0                                    a       ~q0


                                                       Patriots Point


                                                       Drum Island
                                              Naval Weapons
                    ~C                                  Station
                                                                                                                                                       ~qM
                                                       Yellow House                                                                                    In
                                                                                                                                                       ~-~n
                                                       Creek~q(2)
                                                                                                                                                       ~0qM
                                                       Old Landfill                                                                                    ~2q0

                                                                                                                                                       CA
                                                       TC Depot
                                                                                                                                                       0

                                                       Middle Shoal
                                                                                                                                                       0
                                                                                                                                                       ~6qx
                                                       Town Creek            . . .....
                                                                                                                                                       ~0qz
                                                       Daniel Island                                                                                   ~qG~q)
                                                                                                                                                       ~0qM

                                                       Clouter Creek
                                                                                                                                                       ~6qz
                  IQ                                   Folly Beach
                                                          Berm                           . . ...... ...
                                               Upper Thomas                                                                                            ~0qM
                                                                                                                                                       ~qG~q)
                                                       Island
                                                       Yellow House
                                                                                                           -- -----------
                                                       Creek~q(3)
                                                                                                                                                       ~4qz
                                               Lower Thomas                                                                                            ~qG~q)
                                                       Island
                                                                                                                                                       0
                                                       ODMDS (2)                                                                                       ~6qz
                                                                                                         .......... . . . . .
                                                                                                ..... . . .... ... .

                                         ~t~q4 Morris Island (3)
                                                                                                                                                       ~8q0
                                                       Fort Johnson                                                                                    ~0qM
                                                                                                                                                       0
                                                                                         .. ......... .....
                                                                                         ........... . . .. . ..... ..
                                                       Yellow House

                                                                                                ...... .....
                                                                                                     ....... ..
                                                                                                         . . . ........ .........
                                                       Creek(l)                                                          . ......                      ~0qM
                                                                                                                                                       a
                                                       ODIVIDS (1)                              E~ql       ~2q0                                             0
                  ~~                                                                     ~q20         ~qm ~C~n                                               ~4qC
                                             Morris Island.. (~q1)                                ~'~D  ~C
                                                       Rodent Island                            ~0        ~C~L
                                                                                         0
                                                                                                0        ~C~x
                  ~~4                                   Cainhoy Road

                                                                                                ~0                                                      ~0qM
                                                       Rodent Island                            ~c~o       I
                                                                                         ~q:~q:~qE ~c~a
                                                                                         ~f~u              >
                                                          (2)                                   ~0
                                                       Cainhoy Road                             ~-~-~%                                                    ~4qM
                                                                                                         ~4q0
                                                          (2)                            ~6q0
                                                       Parkers Island                                                                                  0
                                                          (2)
                                             Morris Island (2)
                                                       Parkers Isla d
                  ~0~q1
                                                       Point Hope
                                                       Island (2)                               CA
                                                       Point Hope
                                                       Island (1)

                  ~r~A
 











           South Carolina                                           Methods and Results
           Marine Resources Division


           suggested there was little justification for considering any of the
           environmental concerns to be substantially more important than the
           others. Analysis conducted for this assessment therefore, weighted
           all environmental concerns equally.

                The degree to which scores for any specific concern (e.g.,
           impacts on water quality) could be used to represent overall
           cumulative environmental impact was evaluated using a correlation
           matrix.    The concern that best represented overall cumulative
           environmental impacts was projected impacts on critical habitat
           losses (Figure 3-21).      Relationships between scores for other
           environmental concerns and projected cumulative impact were
           substantially weaker (0.2@:r2<_0.4).      Although critical habitat
           losses were a reasonable indicator of cumulative impact, it
           contained only a small portion of the information in the cumulative
           environmental assessment score (r2=0.51).

                Figure 3-22 presents a summary of projected cumulative
           environmental impacts per cubic yard disposal capacity.              This
           analysis endpoint is analogous to the engineering/economic
           assessment endpoint of dollar cost per cubic yard disposal capacity
           and should be considered when evaluating the threat of alternatives
           to environmental resources. This assessment endpoint is, however,
           biased against sites with small capacity (e.g., Patriots Point,
           Drum Island) even if they have relatively small cumulative
           environmental impact.

                Alternatives that have both small cumulative environmental
           impact (far left of Figure 3-16) and have small environmental costs
           per cubic yard disposal-capacity (far left of Figure 3-22) are the
           ones that represent the least long-term threat to environmental
           resources. These sites were identified by combining the results of
           the cumulative environmental impact assessment with those of the
           analysis defining the environmental costs per cubic yard disposal
           capacity. Results of this analysis are presented in Figure 3-23.
           The information presented in Figure 3-23 equally weights cumulative
           environmental impacts and environmental costs per cubic yard
           disposal capacity and is presented on the final two lines of Table
           3-18.   This f inal analysis suggests that the use of existing
           permitted dredged material disposal sites in Charleston Harbor
           including Yellow House Creek alternative 2, Naval Weapons Station,
           Drum Island, Clouter Creek, and ODMDS alternative 2 represent the
           least long-term threat to environmental resources.               Several
           historically used sites also have acceptable impacts on
           environmental resources including TC Depot and Old Landfill. Most
           of the proposed "new" alternatives are distributed on the right
           half of Figure 3-23 indicating that projected impacts to
           environmental resources associated with these alternatives is high.


                                              79









                                                                    FINALANA Chart 4








                          RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROJECTED IMPACT FROM CRITICAL HABITAT LOSSES AND PROJECTED CUMULATIVE IMPACT

               10.0


                9.0

                                  2
                8.0              r   0.51

                7.0                                                                                                 1P
            S
            C   6.0
            0
        00 r    5.0
        o e


                4.0


                3.0


                2.0


                1.0


                0.0
                   0.0             10.0             20.0            30.0            40.0*           50.0            60.0            70.0
                                                                          Cumulative Score





              Figure 3-21.    Relationship between projected impacts of critical habitat losses and projected cumulative environmental
                              impact.


~0








                                                                      ~ ~ ~~


                                                C~)                  ~qW              ~L~n     ~C~)
                                                      ~q0      ~q0


                              C~qlouter Creek

                              Yellow House
                                   Creek~q(2)
                              Yellow House
                                   C~reek(l)
                           Morris island ~q(2)

                                Daniel Island

           ~M               Morris Island (1)
                                                                                                   ~qM
                                   Point Hope                                                      ~4qz
                                   island (2)                                                      <
                                   ODIVIDS (2)                                                     ~2q0
                                Cainhoy Road                                                       ~2qz
                                     (2)                                                           ~r~n
                                Cainhoy Road
                                                                                                   ~4qz

                                   Point Hope
                                   Island (~q1)
                                   ODIVIDS (1)                                                     ~8q0
                                Parkers Island
                                     (2)                                                           ~qC~n
                                Yellow House                                                       "a
                                                                                                   ~qM
                                   Creek~q(3)
                              Naval Weapons                                                        ~8q0
                          CA       Station                                                         ~4qC
                          ~VAMorris Island (3)
                                Parkers Island


                                   Town Creek
                                Upper Thomas
                                    island                                                            CA

                                   FortJohnson
                                   Rodent~qi~s~qtand
                                       (2)
                                                                                                      ~4q0
                                     TC Depot
                                Lower Thomas                                                          ~q)~>
                                     Island                                                           ~0q0
                                   Drum Island
                                   Rodent island


                                   Middle Shoal

                                    Old Landfill


                                   Patriots Point
                                    Fo~6ql~6qiy Beach
                                         Berm
 

~0








                                                                        ~ ~ ~~



                                                       ~r~Q                  ~c~o    ~q0                   a)



                                    Yellow House
                                    Creek~q(2~q)
           It,                 Naval Weapons
                                    Station
                                    Drum Island


                                    Daniel Island

                                    C~qlouter Creek                                                        --A
                                    Town Creek                                                           ~qM
                                                                                                         In
                                      TC Depot                                                           <

                                    ODIVIDS (2)                                                          ~4qz

                                                                                                         ~qM
                                    Old Landfill
                                                                                                         ~4qz
                                    Yellow House  -
                                    Creek~q(3~q)
                                    Upper Thomas  -
                                      Island
                                    Yellow House                                                         >
                                    Creek~q(~ql)                                                             ~4
           PC
                                                                                                         >
                                    Middle Shoal                                                         ~8qz
                               Morris Island (3)                                                         ~qM
                                                                                                         ~4q2
                                                                                                         <
                                    ODIVIDS (1~q)
                                                                                                         ~2q0
                                                                                                         ~8qz
                                    Fort Johnson
                                                                                                         ~qM
                                    Patriots Point
                                    Lower Thomas
                                      Island
                                                                                                         ~8q0
                               Morris Island (1)                                                         CA
                                                                                                         ~4
                                                                                                         ~C~n
                                    Cainhoy Road    -                                                    ~qM
                                        (~q1)                                                              ~qM
                                    Cainhoy Road    -
                                                                                                         ~q0
                                        (2)
                               Morris island (2)
                                    Parkers~ Island
                                                                                                         >
                                        (2)
            ~C~                        Point Hope
            ~~
            ~0qV                         Island (2)
                                    Rodent Island
            ~q0
                                         (2)                                                             ~12q0
                                    Parkers Island  -                                                    CA
                                                                                                         >
            ~9~0                                                                                           ~qr~q-
            ~qV                       Rodent Island   -                                                    ~qc~ql~qi
                                                                                                         ~08q>
                                                                                                         ~8qM
                                      Point Hope                                                         >
                                       Island (1)
                                      Folly Beach
                                         Berm
 











              South Carolina                                                               Methods and Results
              Marine Resotirces Division


              The best of the proposed "new" alternatives from an environmental
              view point are Town Creek, Yellow House Creek alternative 3, and
              Upper Thomas Island. The least acceptable of the proposed "new"
              alternatives is the Folly Beach Berm. It not only was projected to
              have high cumulative environmental impact, it also was projected to
              have high environmental costs per cubic yard.











































                                                              83









                                        Chapter 4

                          Conclusions and Recommendations




                      Charleston Harbor is one of the most valuable economic
                      and national defense resources in South Carolina. It is
                      also a valuable natural resource that provides spawning
                      and nursery grounds for recreationally and commercially
                      important fish and shellfish, and is extensively used by
                      recreational fishermen and boaters. The maintenance of
                      navigational channels and turning basins and development
                      of port facilities in Charleston Harbor is critical to
                      the regional economy and national security.

                      The southern tip of Daniel Island has been used as a
                      disposal site for a large portion of the dredged material
                      removed from Charleston Harbor for the last decade.
                      Plans to develop Daniel Island may make it unavailable as
                      a dredged material disposal site in the future. These
                      plans will adversely affect the regional economy, unless
                      alternatives to the use of Daniel Island which have
                      acceptable environmental impacts and economic costs can
                      be identified.

                      Twenty-nine alternatives to the use of Daniel Island were
                      identified. Alternatives had a disposal capacity ranging
                      from about one million to about 120 million cubic yards.
                      The areal extent of alternatives ranged from 49 to over
                      9,800 acres. Alternatives represented a broad range of
                      environmental conditions, including uncontained ocean
                      disposal sites, diked estuarine disposal sites, and diked
                      upland disposal sites.     The list of alternatives is
                      representative of the range of environmental conditions
                      that exist in Charleston Harbor.

                      A broad range of environmental concerns were identified
                      as being associated with the construction and operation
                      of dredged material disposal facilities in Charleston
                      Harbor.   The degree and extent of adverse ef f ects f or
                      many of these concerns were associated with the areal
                      extent   over which existing       land-use/habitat-cover
                      patterns were altered.    The habitat-cover inf ormation
                      developed for alternative disposal sites was a valuable
                      technical resource for identifying and evaluating
                      potential environmental impacts.      Although combining

                                             84












          South Carolina                             Conclusions and Recommendations
          Marine Resources Division


                     upland land uses into a single category had no adverse
                     ef f ect on the analyses conducted f or this study, the
                     resource maps which were produced might have been more
                     useful if all the upland habitats had been shown. More
                     detailed maps can be produced in the future using
                     currently available data.

               0     None of the alternative sites were preferred habitat for
                     threatened or endangered species or blocked migrational
                     routes for recreationally and commercially important
                     species. Threatened and endangered (T & E) plants have
                     the potential to occur at several sites (i.e., Point Hope
                     Island and Cainhoy Road) . A detailed T&E evaluation will
                     be required for these sites if they are identif ied as
                     preferred alternatives to Daniel Island, or if they
                     become a part of the long-term dredged material disposal
                     strategy for Charleston Harbor.

               0     MRD developed measures (i.e., indicators) for projecting
                     impacts associated with development of alternatives that
                     used habitat-cover data and a matrix-based analytical
                     approach. Analytical methods developed were:

                               quantitative and objective,

                               easy to conduct,

                               not adversely af f ected by small changes in
                               assumptions or inputs,

                               reliable and repeatable,

                               facilitated evaluation of broad range of
                               scenarios, and

                               easy to understand.

                     Other elements of the Daniel Island Alternatives Study
                     should seek similar attributes in the analytical
                     approaches employed.

                     The final assessment endpoint which was developed defined
                     alternative   dredged  material   disposal    sites    for
                     Charleston Harbor that had both small cumulative
                     environmental impacts and small environmental costs per
                     cubic yard.   Alternatives projected to represent the
                     least threat to environmental resources were existing
                     dredged material disposal sites including Yellow House


                                           85












            South Carolina                              Conclusions and Recommendations
            Marine Resources Division


                      Creek alternative 2, Naval Weapons Station, Drum Island,
                      Clouter Creek, and ODMDS alternative 2. Previously used
                      dredged material disposal sites including TC Depot and
                      Old Landfill also represent relatively small risks to
                      environmental resources.       These existing disposal
                      facilities are acceptable alternatives to the use of
                      Daniel Island. The combined disposal capacity of these
                      existing facilities is over 240 million cubic yards, and
                      in combination they provide most of the dredged material
                      disposal capacity required f or Charleston Harbor for the
                      next 50 years.

                      The most promising of the "new" sites evaluated were Town
                      Creek, Yellow House Creek alternative 3, and Upper Thomas
                      Island. Projections of low environmental impact for Town
                      Creek and Yellow House Creek alternative 3 are
                      problematical (Figure 3-22). Development of Yellow House
                      Creek would result in loss of 322     acres of estuarine
                      wetlands and 24 acres of small tidal creeks (Table 3-3).
                      Development of Town Creek would block a major migrational
                      route for biota (e.g., shrimp, fish, and crabs) into the
                      Cooper River.    Projections of low impact from these
                      alternatives resulted because of the small impacts they
                      were projected to have on existing environmental quality,
                      water quality, adjacent environments, materials cycling,
                      groundwater resources, and cultural resources.         The
                      projected low impacts for these environmental concerns
                      clearly overwhelmed the projected impacts on critical
                      habitat loss and migration and movement. Of the proposed
                      "new" candidate sites, Upper Thomas Island appears to be
                      the most reasonable. Development of Upper Thomas Island
                      would provide an additional disposal capacity of about 25
                      million cubic yards. This is roughly equivalent to the
                      disposal capacity that would result from development of
                      Town Creek or Yellow House Creek alternative 3.

                      The high projected impacts for Morris Island alternatives
                      (i.e., alternative 3) was surprising.         These high
                      projections were mainly due to: (1) projected impacts on
                      cultural resources, (2) projected impacts on groundwater
                      resources, and (3) impacts on existing environmental
                      quality (Table 3-18).       Scores for these concerns
                      accounted for 44 to 59 percent of the total score for
                      Morris Island alternatives. This finding suggests that
                      proposed expansions to the existing Morris Island site
                      are not likely to be acceptable from an environmental
                      viewpoint and need to be carefully evaluated.



                                             86











         South Carolina                              Conclusions and Recommendations
         Marine Resources Division


                    The vast majority of the candidate sites do not warrant
                    further evaluation as alternatives to Daniel Island or
                    f or development of a long-term dredged material disposal
                    strategy for Charleston Harbor. The list of sites that
                    do not warrant further evaluation includes: the proposed
                    Folly Beach Berm,- Patriots Point, Middle Shoal, Rodent
                    Island alternatives, Lower Thomas Island, Fort Johnson,
                    Cainhoy    Road   alternatives,    Point   Hope     Island
                    alternatives, and Parkers Island alternatives.

                    The Folly Beach berm was determined to be a particularly
                    poor alternative to Daniel Island. This site had large
                    cumulative environmental impacts, and the environmental
                    cost/benefit ratio (i.e., projected impacts per cubic
                    yard disposal capacity) was much higher than any other
                    site.

                    The most environmentally acceptable strategy for
                    obtaining additional disposal capacity for Charleston
                    Harbor would be to develop Upper Thomas Island.       This
                    would result in about 25 million cubic yards of
                    additional capacity in a location near the center of
                    Charleston Harbor.



































                                           87









                                           References



            Allen, K.O. and J.W. Hardy.          1980.    Impacts of navigational
                  dredging on fish and wildlife: A literature review. United
                  States Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program.
                  FWS/B8-80/07.

            Anderson, J.R., E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach, and R.E. Witmer. 1976. A
                  land use and land cover classif ication system f or use with
                  remote sensor data. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964.
                  United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

            Bara, M.O., R.W. Tiner, and D.C. Newkirk.         1977.   Guidelines for
                  evaluating proposed wetlands alterations in South Carolina.
                  South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department,
                  Columbia, SC.

            Beaulac, M.N. and K.R. Reckhow. 1982. An examination of land use
                  - nutrient export relationships. Water Resources Bulletin 18:
                  1013-1024.


            Brockington and Associates, Inc.         1992.    A cultural resources
                  reconnaissance of possible dredged spoil disposal sites,
                  Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.        Prepared f or the South
                  Carolina Coastal Council and the United States Army Corps of
                  Engineers by Brockington and Associates, Inc., Charleston,
                  SC.

            Brooks, M.J. and J.D. Scurry. 1979. An intensive archaeological
                  survey of Amoco Reality property in Berkeley County, South
                  Carolina with a test of two subsistence hypotheses for the
                  prehistoric period. University of South Carolina Institute of
                  Archaeology and Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series 147,
                  Columbia, SC.

            Butler, R.W., W.A. Nelson, and T.A. Henwood. 1987. A trawl survey
                  method for estimating loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta,
                  abundance in five eastern Florida channels and inlets. Fish.
                  Bul. 85: 447-453

            Campbell, C.A.      1988.    Nomination of Charleston Harbor South
                  Carolina for selection to the National Estuary Program.
                  Prepared by South Carolina Department of Health and
                  Environmental Control for the United States Environmental
                  Protection Agency, National Estuary Program, Washington DC.






                                                88











          South Carolina                                                    References
          Marine Resources Division


          Chamberlain, W.D.       1991.    Habitats of the Charleston Harbor
                estuary.     Prepared for the Charleston Harbor Estuary
                Committee, South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium! Charleston,
                SC.

          Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.E. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.              1979.
                Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the
                United States.     United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
                Biological Services Program, Washington DC.

          Dangermond, J. 1988. A review of digital data commonly available
                and some of the practical problems of entering them into a
                GIS.    Proceedings 1988 ACSM-ASPRS Annual Convention, St.
                Louis, MO. Vol. 5:1-10.

          Davis, K.B. and R.F. Van Dolah.        1992.   Characterization of the
                physical, chemical, and biological conditions and trends in
                Charleston Harbor estuary: 1970-1985. In: Characterization
                of the Physical, Chemical and Biological Conditions and Trends
                in Three South Carolina Estuaries: 1970-1985. Vol. I, South
                Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, Charleston, SC.

          Dickerson, D.D., J.I. Richardson, J.S. Ferris, A.L. Bass, and M.
                Wolf. 1991. Entrainment of sea turtles by hopper dredges in
                Cape Canaveral and King's Bay ship channels. United States
                Army Corps of Engineers Information Exchange Bulletin.

          Ehrhart, L.M. 1987. Marine turtle mortality in the vicinity of
                Port Canaveral, Florida, 1977-84.         pp. 1-65.     In:     W.N.
                Witzell (ed.) , Ecology of East FZorida Sea Turtles.            NOAA
                Technical Report NMFS 53.

          Florida Department of Transportation.        1985.    Florida land use,
                cover and forms classification system.            Second Edition,
                Procedures    No.    550-010-001-a,     Florida    Department     of
                Transportation, State Topographic Bureau, Thematic Mapping
                Section, Gainsville, FL.

          Gosselink, J.G. and L.C. Lee. 1987. Cumulative impact assessment
                principles. Center for Wetland Resources Report LSU-CEI-86-
                08. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.

          Hirsch, A.     1988.   Wetlands ranking - an innovative approach to
                wetland regulation?     pp. 373-381.    In:   Hook E. (ed.) , The
                Ecology and Management of Wetlands. Timber Press, Portland,
                OR.






                                              89











             South Carolina                                                     References
             Marine Resources Division


             Hockensmith, B.L. 1992. Letter to the United States Army Corps of
                   Engineers, Charleston District (Mark Nelson) dated October 5,
                   1992 from the South Carolina Water Resources Commission.

             Jensen, J. R.    1989.    Remote sensing and geographic information
                   system inputs to environmental sensitivity index mapping in
                   the 'coastal zone.     Paper presented at the Association of
                   American Geographers Annual Meeting.              Baltimore, MD.
                   University of South Carolina, Department of Geography,
                   Columbia, SC.

             Kjerfve, B.      1976.    The Santee-Cooper: A study of estuarine
                   manipulation.    pp. 45-56. In: M.      Wiley (ed.).,     Estuarine
                   Processes. Vol. 1. Academic Press, NY.

             Lacy, R.B., P. Beatty, D. Lin, and J.j. Jensen.              1991.     The
                   challenge of producing an accurate statewide land cover
                   classification of digital satellite data.          Proceedings of
                   ACSM/ASPRS Annual Convention. Washington, DC.

             Latham, P.J., L.G. Pearlestine, and W.M. Kitchens.          1987.    Plant
                   patterns and distribution of a South Atlantic coastal tidal
                   marsh. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Meeting of the
                   Society of Wetland Scientists. Seattle, WA.

             Limberg, K.E., C.C. Harwell, and S.A. Levin. 1984. Principals of
                   estuarine impact assessment: Lessons learned from the Hudson
                   River and other estuarine experiences.        Ecosystems Research
                   Center, Carson Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

             Morton, J. W.    1977.    Ecological ef f ects of dredging and spoil
                   disposal: A literature review. United States Department of
                   Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Technical Paper No. 94.

             Moorel C. and W.D. Chamberlain.        1991.   Fisheries of Charleston
                   Harbor. Prepared for the Charleston Harbor Estuary Committee,
                   South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, Charleston, SC.

             National Marine Fisheries Service.         1991.    Biological opinion:
                   Dredging of channels in the Southeastern United States from
                   North Carolina through Cape Canaveral, Florida. Submitted to
                   the United States Army Corps of Engineers by the National
                   Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, DC.

             Nelson, M. personal communication. United States Army Corps of
                   Engineers, Charleston District, Charleston, S.C.




                                                 90












          South Carolina                                                    References
          Marine Resources Division


          Nixon, S.W. 1986. Nutrient dynamics and productivity of marine
                coastal waters. pp. 97-115 In: R. Halnagy, D. Clayton, and M.
                Behbehani (eds.) , Marine Environment and Pollution, The Alden
                Press, Oxford.

          Nixon, S.W. and M. Pilson.         1983.   Nitrogen in estuarine and
                coastal marine ecosystems. pp. 565-648 In: E.J. Carpenter and
                D.G. Capone (eds.) , Nitrogen in the Marine Environment,
                Academic Press, NY.

          Sandifer, P.A., J.V. Miglarese, D.R. Calder, J.J. Manzi, L.A.
                Barclay. 1980. Ecological characterization of the sea island
                coastal region of South Carolina and Georgia.         Volume III.
                Prepared by the South Carolina Marine Resources Division for
                the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC.

          Schubel, J.R. and H.H. Carter. 1984. The estuary as a filter for
                fine-grained suspended sediment. pp. 81-106 In: V.S. Kennedy
                (ed.), The Estuary as a Filter, Academic Press, NY.

          Shealy, M.H., J. Miglarese, and E.B. Joseph. 1974. Bottom fishes
                of South Carolina estuaries - relative abundance, distribution
                and length-frequency distribution.        South Carolina Marine
                Resources Center, Tech. Rept. No. 6.

          South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
                (DHEC).     1990.      Water classifications and standards:
                Regulation  61-68.    South Carolina Department of Health and
                Environmental Control, Office of Environmental Quality
                Control, Columbia, SC.

          South Carolina Water Resources Commission (WRC) . 1990. A plan for
                measurement and mapping of the significant natural resources
                of the Edisto River basin, South Carolina. Report prepared
                for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
                National Ocean Services by the South Carolina Water Resources
                Commission, Columbia, SC.

          South, S.A. and M. Hartley.       1985.   Deep water and high ground:
                seventeenth century low country settlement. pp. 263-286. In:
                R.S. Dickens and H.T. Ward (eds.). Structure and Process in
                Southeastern Archaeology.        University of Alabama Press,
                Birmington, AL.

          State Ports Authority (SPA).            1989.     Port of Charleston
                Encyclopedia.       South Car  olina State Ports Authority,
                Charleston SC.




                                              91












             South Carolina                                                    References
             Marine Resources Division


             SPA. 1992. Port of Charleston fact sheet. South Carolina State
                   Ports Authority, Charleston, SC.

             Tiner, R.W*.    1977.    An inventory of South Carolina's coastal
                   marshes.    South Carolina Marine Resources Center Technical
                   Report No. 23. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources
                   Department, Charleston, SC.

             United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).              1990.
                   National water quality inventory. EPA 440-4-90-003. United
                   States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
                   Washington, DC.

             United States Geological Survey. 1984. Land use and land cover
                   digital data.     Geological Survey Circular 85-E,         National
                   Cartographic Information Center, Reston, VA.

             Van Dolah, R.F., P.H. Wendt, and E.L. Wenner. 1990. A physical
                   and ecological characterization of the Charleston Harbor
                   estuarine system.      Prepared by the South Carolina Marine
                   Resources Division for the South Carolina Coastal Council,
                   Charleston, SC.

             Van Dolah, R.F., P.P. Maier, S.R. Hopkins-Murphy, G.F. Ulrich, and
                   D. M. Cupka.   1992.   A survey of turtle populations in the
                   Charleston Harbor entrance channel. Final Report submitted by
                   the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department to
                   the United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
                   Service, under Agreement No. 14-16-0004-90-944.               South
                   Carolina Marine Resources Research Institute, Charleston, SC.

             Windom, H. L.     1976.   Environmental aspects of dredging in the
                   coastal zone. CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control
                   7: 91-109.

             Winn, R.H., R.F. Van Dolah, A. Frankenburg, and T. Kanna.           1989.
                   Benthic and sedimentological studies of the ocean dredged
                   material disposal site for Charleston, South Carolina, Vol. I-
                   II. Final report submitted to the United States Army Corps of
                   Engineers, Charleston District, by the South Carolina Wildlife
                   and Marine Resources Department under Agreement No. DACW60-87-
                   H-0001. South Carolina Marine Resources Research Institute,
                   Charleston, SC.







                                                92


























                                       APPENDIX A



                         Description of Representative Important Biota



















                                              A-1










                  South Carolina                                                                          Appendix A
                  Marine Resources Division


                  A.      Reef Sponges and Corals

                          In the vicinity of Charleston Harbor, most reef sponges and corals are large relatively
                  long-lived, slow-growing sessile invertebrates that inhabit hard substrates characterized by good
                  water quality (Struhsaker 1969, Buchanan 1973, Parker et al. 1979, Powles and Barans 1980,
                  Wenner 1983, Sedberry and Van Dolah 1984, Wenner et al. 1984, Wendt et al. 1985, and
                  Stender et al. 1991). As they grow and mature, many of these biota produce plant-like
                  structures that extend up to 1 m off the bottom. These structures modify the physical
                  environment and increase habitat complexity. The complex and heterogenous environmental
                  setting that results supports diverse and abundant fish and crab populations and is generally
                  referred to as live bottom habitat. Dominant biota composing the reef sponge coral community
                  in the vicinity of Charleston Harbor include the large sponges (e.g., Ircinia compana, L ramosa,
                  Homaxinella sp., H. waltonsmithi, Halicona virgulata, Speciospongia vesparwn, and Cliona
                  spp.), octocorals (e.g., Titanidiumfirauenfeldi, Leptogorgia virgulata, Lophogorgia sp., and
                  Muficea pendula), and hard corals (e.g., Deulina vaficosa and Solenestrea hyades). An
                  abundant and diverse community of smaller invertebrates that serves as prey for large fish and
                  crabs are associated with reef sponges and corals (Wendt et al. 1985). Reef sponges and corals
                  are an appropriate Representative Important Biota (RIB) for evaluating the potential impacts of
                  dredged material disposal on coastal habitats because they are critical to the formation and
                  maintenance of habitats that favor the accumulation of recreationally and commercially important
                  fish. In addition, they are intolerant to environmental perturbations that may be associated with
                  dredged material disposal operations in coastal environments.

                  Economic Value:


                          Reef sponges and corals have little direct economic value. Habitats where these biota
                  are abundant, however, favor the aggregation of recreationally and commercially important fish
                  including various snappers, groupers, mackerels, and other garnefish (Parker et al. 1979, Powles
                  and Barans 1980, Sedberry and Van Dolah 1984). As a result, commercial fishing vessels,
                  "headboats", and recreational fishermen in coastal South Carolina routinely visit live bottom
                  habitats. Commercial map products have been created that provide fishermen the coordinates
                  for known live bottom areas.


                  Distribution and Ecology:

                          The sponges and corals or live bottom community is best developed and most abundant
                  in water depths greater than 18 rn that have exposed rocky outcrops and a high degree of bottom
                  relief (e.g., Parker et al. 1979, Wenner et al. 1984, Van Dolah et al. 1987). Scattered live
                  bottom habitat also occurs in shallow water, some "almost up to the beach" (Parker et al. 1979).
                  The abundance of "live bottom" habitat has been estimated by this study to comprise from 5-15
                  percent of the bottom area of the present Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS).


                                                                  A-2










              South Carolina                                                                        Appendix A
              Marine Resources Division

              Once established, sponge and coral populations and associated communities are relatively stable
              exhibiting a small amount of seasonal variation in the abundance and mass of dominant
              organisms (Wenner 1983, Wenner et al. 1984).

              Potential hnpacts of Dredged Material Disposal:

                      The abundance of the large sponges and soft corals are dependent upon the availability
              of hard substrate for attachment. Although the substrate need not be exposed, few sponges or
              corals occur when the overburden of sediment is greater than 5-8 cm deep (SCWMRD 1984).
              The overwhelming majority of sponges and corals grow in habitats where the veneer of
              sediments covering the hard substrate used for attachment is <5 cm deep. Activities, such as
              ocean disposal of dredged material which increase the sediment overburden and decrease the
              amount of exposed hard substrate, are detrimental to the growth and recruitment of sponges and
              corals. In addition, increased turbidity and suspended sediment loads from dredged disposal
              activities may adversely impact feeding processes. Because most of the sponges and corals are
              relatively long-lived, their populations are slow to recover from perturbations, like disposal of
              dredged material, that cause high mortality.

              References:


              Buchanan, C.C. 1973. Effects of an artificial habitat on the marine sport fishery and economy
                      of Muffells Inlet, South Carolina. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Mar. Fish. Rev. 35(9):
                      15-22.


              Parker, R.O.Jr., R.B. Stone, and C.B. Buchanan. 1979. Artificial reefs off Murrells Inlet,
                      South Carolina. Mar. Fish. Rev. 41: 12-24.


              Powles, H., and C.A. Barans. 1980. Groundfish monitoring in sponge-coral areas off the
                      southeastern United States. Mar. Fish. Rev. 42(5): 21-35.

              Sedberry, G.R. and R.F. Van Dolah. 1984. Demersal fish assemblages associated with hard
                      bottom habitat in the South Atlantic Bight of the U.S.A. Env. Biol. Fish. 11(4): 241-
                      258.


              South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1984. South Atlantic OCS area
                      living marine resources study. Phase III. Vol. L Final report prepared for the Minerals
                      Management Service under contract 14-12-0001-29185. 223pp.






                                                             A-3









                 South Carolina                                                                        Appendix A
                 Marine Resources Division


                 Stender, B.W., R.F. Van Dolah, P.P. Maier. 1991. Identification and location of live bottom
                         habitats in five potential borrow sites of Myrtle Beach S.C. Final Report submitted to
                         U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service under agreement no. 14-16-0004-
                         91-907.


                 Struhsaker, P. 1969. Demersal fish resources: Composition, distribution, and commercial
                         potential of the continental shelf stocks off the southeastern United States. U.S. Fish.
                         Wildl. Serv., Fish. Ind. Res. 4: 261-300.

                 Van Dolah, R.F., P.H. Wendt, and N. Nicholson. 1987. Effects of a research trawl on a hard-
                         bottom assemblage of sponges and corals. Fisheries Research (5): 39-54.

                 Wendt, P.H., R.F. Van Dolah, and C.B. O'Rourke. 1985. A comparative study of the
                         invertebrate macrofauna associated with seven sponge and coral species collected from
                         the South Atlantic Bight. 1. Elisha Mitchell Soc. 101(3): 187-203.

                 Wenner, C.A. 1983. Species associations and day-night variability of trawl caught fishes from
                         the inshore sponge-coral habitat, South Atlantic Bight. U.S. Fish. Bull. 81: 532-552.

                 Wenner, E.L., P. Hind, D.M. Knott, and R.F. Van Dolah. 1984. A temporal and spatial
                         study of invertebrate communities associated with hard b    'ottom habitats in the South
                         Atlantic Bight. NOAA NMFS Tech. Rep. 18. 104pp.



                 B.      Sea Oats


                         Sea Oats (Unicola paniculata) is instrumental in the formation, maintenance,and growth
                 of coastal dunes (Birkemeier et al. 1984), and the dune environment formed by sea oats provides
                 habitat for a unique assemblage of biota, including nesting areas for threatened and endangered
                 sea turtles. Dune habitats also protect inland areas, particularly homesites, from erosion
                 associated with storms (Hester and Mendelssohn 1991). Because of the key role of sea oats in
                 dune formation and maintenance, this species is considered a keystone species for development
                 and maintenance of dune environments and is an appropriate Representative Important Biota
                 (RIB) for defining and evaluating the potential impacts of construction and operations of dredged
                 material disposal facilities on the marine environment.

                 Economic Value:


                         Although sea oats have no direct economic value, the presence of established dune habitat
                 reduces the risks of adjacent upland environments to damage from storm events. The presence
                 of sea oats therefore makes beachfront property that contain well developed sea oat communities


                                                                A-4










              South Carolina                                                                        Appendix A
              Marine Resources Division

              of higher value to humans.

              Distribution and Ecology:

                      Sea oats are found on coastal dunes (Pinson 1973, Gaddy 1977) from Virginia to Florida
              (Woodhouse et al. 1968). This species thrives in environments that are exposed to high wind
              velocity with attendant salt spray, high evapotranspiration, and substantial sand movement and
              deposition (Oosting and Billings 1942, Wagner 1964, Hester and Mendelssohn 1989). Sea oats
              attains its greatest abundance on the foredunes (Stalter 1974) where the nutrients required for
              growth are abundant from salt spray and materials in the newly deposited sand (Wilson 1959,
              Clayton 1972, Van der Valk 1974, Hester and Mendelssohn 1991). Sea oats are intolerant to
              environmental modifications that reduce the amount of salt spray and sand deposition.

                      Sea oats colonize bare sands through dispersal of seeds (Wagner 1964, Hosier 1975) and
              vegetative growth of the rhizomes (Wagner 1964). Mature seeds are dispersed in the winter by
              the wind, and seeds that were buried under 5 to 10 cm of sand in favorable environments
              germinate the following spring (Wagner 1964). Vegetative growth is confined to established
              stands of sea oats located in the foredunes (Wagner 1964, Woodhouse et al. 1968, Hester and
              Mendelssohn 199 1).

                      The coastal dune community is a seed- and grass-rich environment that provides foraging
              and nursery habitat for many coastal birds including doves, sparrows, and blackbirds (Sandifer
              et al. 1980). Raptors and insectivorous birds prey on the insects, birds, and small mammals that
              forage and nest in sea oats. Sea turtles use dune habitats along South Carolina barrier islands
              as nesting habitat.

              Potential hnpacts of Dredged Material Di@posal:

                      The most serious threat to sea oats from disposal of dredged material is the direct loss
              of habitat by the conversion of established dune habitat into disposal areas. The hydric to mesic
              soil conditions that characterize disposal areas prevent the re-establishment of sea oats and the
              associated flora and fauna.


              References:


              Birkemeier, W. @ R. Dolan, and N. Fish. 1984. The evolution of a barrier island: 1930-1980.
                      Shore and Beach 52(2): 3-12.

              Clayton, J.L. 1972. Salt spray and mineral cycling in two California coastal ecosystems.
                      Ecology 52: 74-81.



                                                             A-5








                  South Carolina                                                                      Appendix A
                  Marine Resources Division

                  Gaddy, L.L. 1977. A physiographic and vegetational study of brown pelican nesting habitat
                         on Deveaux. Bank, S.C. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department,
                         Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, Columbia. 26 pp. (unpubl.)

                  Hester, M.W. and I.A. Mendelssohn. 1989. Water relations and growth responses of Uniold
                         paniculata (sea oats) to soil moisture and water-table depth. Ecologia 78: 289-296.

                  Hester, M.W. and I.A. Mendelssohn. 1991. Expansion patterns and soil physicochemical
                         characterization of three Louisiana populations of Uniola paniculata (sea oats). Journal
                         of Coastal Research 7(2): 387-401.

                  Hosier, P.E. 1975. 'Dune and marsh vegetation. Pages D 1-96 in Environmental Research
                         Center, Inc. Environmental Inventory of Kiawah Island. Prepared for Coastal Shores,
                         Inc.


                  Oosting, HJ and W.D. Billings. 1942. Factors effecting vegetational zonation on coastal
                         zones. Ecology 23(2): 131-142.

                  Pinson, J.N., Jr.   1973. A floristic analysis of open dunes in South Carolina. Ph.D.
                         dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

                  Sandifer, P.A., J.V. Miglarese, D.R. Calder, J.J. Manzi, and L.A. Barclay. 1980. Ecological
                         Characterization of the sea island coastal region of South Carolina and Georgia, Volume
                         III: Biological features of the characterization area. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
                         Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-79/42. 620 pp.

                  Stalter, R. 1974. Vegetation in coastal dunes of South Carolina. Castanea 39: 95-103.

                  Van der Valk, A.G. 1974. Mineral cycling in coastal foredune plant communities in Cape
                         Hatteras National Seashore. Ecology 55: 1349-1358.

                  Wagner, R.H. 1964. The ecology of Uniola paniculata L. in the dune-strand habitat of North
                         Carolina. Ecological Monographs 34(l): 79-96.

                  Wilson, A.T. 1959. Surface of the ocean as a source of air-borne nitrogenous material and
                         other plant nutrients. Nature (London) 184: 99-101.

                  Woodhouse, W.W., E.D. Seneca, and A.W. Cooper. 1968.               Use of sea oats for dune
                         stabilization in the southeast. Shore and Beach 36: 15-21.





                                                               A-6










             South Carolina                                                                      Appendix A
             Marine Resources Division


             C.     Smooth Cordgrass

                    Smooth cordgrass (Spartina altemiflora) is an appropriate Representative Important Biota
             for defining and evaluating the potential impacts of the alternatives dredged material disposal
             sites because:

                    ï¿½      This species has a major role in the material and energy cycle for estuarine
                           habitats (Darnell 1967).

                    ï¿½      Wetland habitats composed of this species are used as a nursery by early life
                           stages of many commercially and recreationally important fish and birds
                           (Chabreck et al. 1982, Mense and Wenner 1989, Wenner et al. 1990, Stender and
                           Martore 1990).

                    ï¿½      Many species of wading birds (e.g., herons) rely upon wetlands composed of
                           smooth cordgrass as foraging habitat.

                    ï¿½      The roots and stems of smooth cordgrass are important in stabilizing shorelines
                           and reducing erosion (Woodhouse et al. 1974).

                    ï¿½      Marshes composed of smooth cordgrass provide scenic vistas that are highly
                           valued by the public.

             Because of the key role of smooth cordgrass in estuarine material cycles and food web dynamics,
             it is often considered a "keystone" species for estuaries.

             Economic Value:


                    Smooth cordgrass has little direct economic value. However, the multimillion dollar
             recreational fishing and commercial shrimping industries of the Southeast Atlantic rely upon
             marshes dominated by smooth cordgrass to provide nursery habitat for early developmental
             stages of these biota. In addition, shorelines dominated by smooth cordgrass are highly desired
             as homesites because of the reduced potential for erosion and scenic vistas.

             Distribution and EcolpU:

                    Smooth cordgrass is the dominant vegetation in higher salinity tidal marshes from
             northern Florida to Maine (Reimold 1977). This species attains its greatest abundance and
             productivity in the lower elevation marsh zone (Woodhouse et al. 1974, Lagna 1975, McKee
             and Patrick 1988). The distribution and abundance of smooth cordgrass in low elevation salt
             marshes in Charleston Harbor are mainly influenced by salinity. In areas with an average


                                                           A-7










                  South Carolina                                                                        Appendix A
                  Marine Resources Division


                  salinity of 20 ppt or greater, such as along Wando River and in the protected waters between
                  Fort Johnson and Morris Island, large monoculture stands of smooth cordgrass are found.
                  However, in areas with an average salinity of :5 10 ppt, such as in the Cooper River, smooth
                  cordgrass co-occurs with needlerush (Juncus rome7ianus). Needlerush survives in the low
                  elevation marsh zone when the salinity is :5 10 ppt (Wiegert and Freeman 1990). As very low
                  salinity (< 1 ppt), such as in the upper portions of the Cooper River near the Yellow House
                  Creek site, smooth cordgrass is almost completely replaced by needlerush and cattail (7ypha
                  sp.).

                         Smooth cordgrass exhibits considerable heterogeneity in height and productivity
                  depending upon environmental conditions. Three relatively distinct forms occur: tall, medium,
                  and short (Mooring et al. 1971, Shea et al. 1975). The tall form may have an annual production
                  2-4 times greater than the medium and short forms (Keefe 1972, Turner 1976). Many factors
                  control the growth form of smooth cordgrass including soil concentrations of salinity (Smart and
                  Barko 1978, Webb 1983), dissolved oxygen concentration, nitrogen concentration (Linthurst and
                  Seneca 1981), sulfide levels (King et al. 1982), and the availability of iron (Adams 1963). In
                  established stands of smooth cordgrass, the primary mode of reproduction is by means of
                  rhizomes (Woodhouse et al. 1968). Seed dispersal is the primary mode for establishing "new"
                  stands of cordgrass.

                         Estuarine wetlands dominated by smooth cordgrass serve as nursery grounds for many
                  aquatic invertebrates, including crabs and shrimp (Mense and Wenner 1989, Wenner et al. 1990,
                  Slender and Martore 1990) as well as fishes, such as red drum, spotted seatrout, and spot
                  (Chabreck et al. 1982, Mense and Wenner 1989, Wenner et al. 1990, Stender and Martore
                  1990). It is also an important foraging habitat for wading birds, such as the great blue heron,
                  and terrestrial mammals, such as the raccoon. Smooth cordgrass also plays a key role in the
                  estuarine material cycles and food web dynamics, and is the dominant source of detritus
                  supporting the complex food web of estuaries adjacent to salt marshes (e.g., Teal 1958).

                  Potential hripacts of Dredged Material Disposal:

                         The most serious threat to smooth cordgrass from operation of dredged material disposal
                  facilities is the conversion of habitats dominated by this species into dredged material disposal
                  areas. Environmental conditions in disposal areas do not favor reestablishment of smooth
                  cordgrass because elevation and water movement patterns are severely altered. In addition, the
                  lonew" environment that is created inside spoil disposal areas does not provide a habitat that can
                  function as a nursery for commercially and recreationally important fish and crustaceans. The
                  "new" habitat also has a much reduced role in material and energy cycles.





                                                                 A-8










             South Carolina                                                                      Appendix A
             Marine Resources Division


             References:


             Adams, D.A. 1963. Factors influencing vascular plant zonation in North Carolina salt
                    marshes. Ecology 44(3): 445-456.

             Chabreck, R.H., J.E. Holcombe, R.G. Linscombe, and N.E. Kinler. 1982. Winter foods of
                    river otters from saline and fresh environments in Louisiana. Proceedings of the Annual
                    Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 36: 473-483.

             Darnell, R.M. 1967. Organic detritus in relation to the estuarine ecosystem. Pages 376-382
                    in G.H. Lauff (ed.). Estuaries. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Publication No. 83, Washington,
                    DC.

             Keefe, C.W. 1972. Marsh production: A summary of the literature. Contributions in Marine
                    Science 16: 164-181.


             King, G.M., M.J. Klug, R.G. Wiegert, and A.G. Chalmers. 1982. Relation of soil water
                    movement and sulfide concentration to Spartina alterniflora production in a Georgia salt
                    marsh. Science 218: 61-63.


             Lagna, L. 1975. The relationship of Spartina altemiflora to mean high water. State University
                    of New York, Marine Sciences Research Center, Stony Brook.

             Linthurst, R.A and E.D. Seneca. 1981. Aeration, nitrogen and salinity as determinants of
                    Spartina alterniflora Loisel. growth response. Estuaries 4(l): 53-63.

             McKee, K.L. and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1988. The relationship of smooth cordgrass (Spartina
                    alterniflora) to tidal datums: a review. Estuaries 11(3): 143-151.

             Mense, D.J. and E.L. Wenner. 1989. Distribution and abundance of early life history stages
                    of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, in tidal marsh creeks near Charleston, South
                    Carolina. Estuaries 12(3):157-168.

             Mooring, M.T., A.W. Cooper, and E.D. Seneca. 1971. Seed germination response and
                    evidence for height ecophenes in Spartina altemiflora from North Carolina. American
                    Journal of Botany 58: 48-55.

             Reimold, R.J. 1977. Mangals and salt marshes of eastern United States. Pg. 157-164 in V.J.
                    Chapman (ed.). Wet coastal ecosystems of the world. Elsevier Science Publishing Co.
                    Inc., New York.



                                                           A-9










                  South Carolina                                                                          Appendix A
                  Marine Resources Division


                  Shea, M.L., R.S. Warren, W.A. Neiring. 1975. Biochemical and transplantation studies of the
                          growth form of Spartina altemiflora on Connecticut salt marshes. Ecology 461-466.

                  Smart, R.M. and J.W. Barko. 1978. -Influence of sediment salinity and nutrient on the
                          physiological ecology of selected salt marsh plants. Estuarine and Coastal Marine
                          Science 7: 487-495.


                  Stender, B.W. and R.M. Martore. 1990. Finfish and invertebrate communities. Pages 241-287
                          in R.F. Van Dolah, P.H. Wendt, and E.L. Wenner. 1990. A physical and ecological
                          characterization of the Charleston Harbor estuarine system. South Carolina Wildlife and
                          Marine Resources Department, Marine Resources Division, Charleston.

                  Teal, J.M. 1958. Distributions of fiddler crab in Georgia salt marshes. Ecology 39(2): 185-
                          189.


                  Turner, R.E. 1976. Geographic variation in salt marsh macrophyte production: A review.
                          Contributions in Marine Science 20: 47-68. '


                  Webb, J.W. 1983. Soil water salinity variations and their effects on Spartina altemiflora.
                          Contributions in Marine Science 26: 1-13.


                  Wenner, C.A., W.A. Rournillat, J.E. Moran, Jr., M.B. Maddox, L.B. Daniel, III, and J.W.
                          Smith.    1990.   Investigations on the life history population dynamics of marine
                          recreational fishes in South Carolina: Part 1. S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources
                          Department, Marine Resources Division.

                  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).

                  Woodhouse, W.W., E.D. Seneca, and A.W. Cooper. 1968. Use of sea oats for dune
                          stabilization in the southeast. Shore and Beach 36: 15-21.

                  Woodhouse, W.W., Jr., E.D. Seneca, and S.W. Broome. 1974. Propagation of Spartina
                          altemiflora for substrate stabilization and salt marsh development. North Carolina State
                          University, Technical Memorandum No. 46.


                  D.      The Loggerhead Turtle

                          The loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) is a large marine reptile which at various stages
                  of its life cycle uses a variety of marine habitats in the vicinity of Charleston. This species was


                                                                 A-10










             South Carolina                                                                         Appendix A
             Marine Resources Division

             added to both the federal and state List of Threatened and Endangered Species in 1978 and is
             still considered threatened on both lists. Much debate has arisen in recent years over the
             protection and maintenance of the loggerhead turtle populations (Murphy and Murphy-Hopkins
             1989). High turtle mortalities associated with shrimp trawling and hopper dredge operations are
             of particular concern. In addition, many programs to protect sea turtle nesting habitats have
             been initiated. Because of concerns over declining turtle populations, as well as this species'
             dependence upon beach-front habitats that are proposed for use as disposal areas for dredged
             material for successful reproduction, the loggerhead turtle is considered to be an appropriate
             threatened and endangered biota for use in evaluating the effects of construction and operations
             of dredged material disposal facilities on environmental resources.

             Distribution and Ecoiny:

                    Loggerhead turtles are found circum-globally. They inhabit a variety of marine
             environments including coastal waters, bays, lagoons, and estuaries in temperate, sub-tropical,
             and tropical waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. In the Atlantic Ocean, hatchlings
             and juveniles apparently circulate within the North Atlantic gyre until they reach a size of about
             40 cm, at which time they take up residence in lagoons, estuaries, bays, and river mouths (Dodd
             1988). Favored aggregation areas along the U.S. southeast coast include Chesapeake Bay
             (Lutcavage and Musick 1985) and the Indian River lagoon system of Florida (Ehrhart 1983).
             Loggerhead turtles also congregate in channel habitats during summer and fall months including
             the Charleston Harbor channel (Van Dolah et al. 1992). Some of the loggerheads along the
             southeastern U.S. coast move northward in spring and southward again in autumn (Dodd 1988).


                     Loggerheads are gonochoristic, and the adults are.sexually dimorphic (Dodd 1988). The
             most obvious differences between the sexes are the longer tail and recurved claws of the male
             (Hughes 1984). Both features apparently aid in mating. Loggerheads nest on ocean-front
             beaches well above the high-tide mark, often within vegetation behind the fore dune system
             (Carr 1952, Caldwell 1959). Low dunes backing a high beach are preferred nesting sites
             (Caldwell 1959). Nesting activity may be aborted as a result of human or animal disturbance,
             improper substrate characteristics, or improper or unexpected temperature cues (Dodd 1988).
             In South Carolina, nesting usually begins in mid-May, and lasts through mid-August (NMFS and
             USFWS 1991, Hopkins and Murphy 1984). Estimated age of loggerhead turtles at maturity is
             13-15 years (Zug et al. 1983, 1986). Carapace lengths of mature females from the southeastern
             U.S. range from about 70 cm to over 124 cm with a mean of about 95 cm. Body mass of
             nesting females range from 80 to 180 kg, with a mean of 116 kg (Dodd 1988). Male
             loggerheads are about the same size as females (Dodd 1988).

                     Nest construction begins with the excavation of a body pit. The pit is scooped out with
             the hind flippers (Dodd 1988). Egg laying commences within seconds of nest completion. Eggs


                                                            A-11










                  South Carolina                                                                        Appendix A
                  Marine Resources Division


                  are laid singly or in groups of two or three. Clutch sizes in South Carolina range from 64-198,
                  with an average size of 126 eggs (Caldwell 1959). Incubation period is inversely correlated with
                  nest temperature (McGhee 1979). The mean incubation period in South Carolina is 55 days, and
                  the hatching success is about 73 percent (Caldwell 1959).

                         Hatchlings remain in the nest for about 7 days (Dodd 1988). This nestling phase allows
                  time for development to be completed. Hatchlings usually emerge from nests at night (Dodd
                  1988). Visual and geotropic clues guide hatchlings to the ocean where they engage in about 20
                  hours of non-stop swimming (Dodd 1988). Young loggerheads apparently spend the first 4-6
                  years of their life in the North Atlantic Gyre, drifting and feeding along the upwellings and
                  convergences which concentrate food in the sparse oceanic environment (Carr 1986).

                         The loggerhead turtle feeds on a wide variety of bottom dwelling marine invertebrates.
                  A preferred food in the southeastern U.S. is the horseshoe crab, Limulus polyphemus (Dodd
                  1988). Loggerheads also have been reported feeding on jellyfish near the surface (Dodd 1988).
                  Hatchlings and juveniles feed on macroplanktonic food items entrained in drift lines and
                  convergences (Carr 1987).

                         Adult loggerheads are large and well-armored animals, and have few predators. Large
                  sharks, particularly tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuviefi), are probably responsible for the missing
                  flippers frequently observed and are probably a major predator (Dodd 1988). Hatchlings and
                  juveniles are more vulnerable to shark attacks than adults. Hatchlings are preyed upon before
                  reaching the water by ghost crabs (Ocypode quadrata), and during daylight hours, by a variety
                  of birds. Other predators of hatchlings include racoons, foxes, dogs, and cats (Dodd 1988).

                  Potential Impacts of Dredge Material Disposal:

                         Loggerhead turtles sporadically occur in the Charleston Harbor estuarine system, except
                  in the entrance channel where they consistently occur during spring, summer, and fall (Van
                  Dolah et al. 1992). Establishment of dredged disposal material sites in the mid to upper reaches
                  of the Harbor would therefore have few if any negative effects on loggerhead turtles. Disposal
                  of dredged material in the vicinity of the Charleston Harbor entrance channel may, however,
                  adversely affect loggerhead turtle populations residing there. Development of beachfront
                  dredged material disposal sites (e.g., Morris Island) may also adversely affect nesting activities
                  of loggerhead turtles (Nelson and Dickerson 1988).

                  References:


                  Caldwell, D.K. 1959. The loggerhead turtle of Cape Romain, South Carolina. (abridged and
                         annotated manuscript of W.P. Baldwin, Jr. and J.P. Loftin, Jr.). Bull. Fla. State Mus.
                         Biol. Sci. 4: 319-348.



                                                                A-12










            South Carolina                                                                      Appendix A
            Marine Resources Division


            Carr, A.F. Jr. 1952. Handbook of Turtles. The turtles of the United States, Canada.and Baja
                    California. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY.

            Carr, A.F. Jr. 1986. Fips, FADS and little loggerheads. Bioscience 36: 92-100.

            Carr, A.F. Jr. 1987. Impact of nondegradeable marine debris on the ecology and survival
                    outlook of sea turtles. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18(6B): 352-356.

            Dodd, C.K. Jr. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta
                    caretta (Linnaeus 1758). United States Fish Wildl. Biol. Rep. 88(14). 1 lop.

            Ehrhart, L.M. 1983. A survey of nesting by the green turtle, Chelonia mydas, and the
                    loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, in South Brevard County, Florida. Unpubl. Report
                    to the World Wildl. Fund - U.S., Washington, DC. 49p.

            Hopkins, S. and J. Richardson (eds.). 1984. Recovery plan for marine turtles. National
                    Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, DC.

            Hopkins-Murphy, S.R. and T.M. Murphy. 1984. Distribution of loggerhead turtle nesting
                    activity in South Carolina by aerial beach survey. Study completion report, October 1,
                    1979 through September 30, 1982, E-1 Study No. VI-A-2. South Carolina Wildlife and
                    Marine Resources Department. 60pp.

            Hughes, G.R. 1984. Saving Tongaland's Turtles. Pages 91-103 In:- P.J. Mundy (ed.),
                    Proceedings of the symposium "The Extinction Alternative, " 19-20 May, 1983 . Pretoria.

            Lutcavage, M. and J.A. Musick. 1985. Aspects of the biology of sea turtles in Virginia.
                    Copeia 1985: 449-456.

            McGhee, M.A. 1979. Factors affecting the hatching success of loggerhead sea turtle eggs
                    Caretta caretta caretta. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando.

            Murphy, T.M. and S.R. Hopkins-Murphy. 1989. Sea turtle and shrimp fishing interactions:
                    A summary and critique of relevant information. Published by the Center for Marine
                    Conservation, Washington, DC.
            Nelson, D.A., and D.D. Dickerson. 1988. Hardness of nourished and natural sea turtle nesting
                    beaches on the east coast of Florida. Unpubl. Report. United States Army Engineer
                    Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.






                                                         A-13









                   South Carolina                                                                          Appendix A
                   Marine Resources Division

                   National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Recovery plan
                           for U.S. population of loggerhead turtle.          National Marine Fisheries Service,
                           Washington, DC.

                   Van Dolah, R.F., P.P. Maier, S.R. Hopkins-Murphy, G.F. Ulrich, and D.M. Cupka. 1992.
                           A survey of turtle populations in the Charleston Harbor entrance channel. Final Report
                           prepared for: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under
                           agreement No. 14-16-0004-90-944.

                   Zug, F.R., A. Wynn, and C. Ruckdeschel. 1983. Age estimates of Cumberland Island
                           loggerhead sea turtles. Mar. Turtle newsl. 25: 9-11.

                   Zug, G.R. 1986. Age determination of loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, by incremental
                           growth marks in the skeleton. Smithson. contrib. Zool. No. 427.


                   E.      Red-Cockaded Woodpecker

                           The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) is a rare but permanent resident of
                   upland habitats in the low country of South Carolina. This species was placed on the Federal
                   Register of endangered species in 1970 because of declines in abundance associated with loss
                   of preferred habitat (Murphey 1939, Sprunt and Chamberlain 1949). Because suitable habitat
                   for the red-cockaded woodpecker potentially occurs in upland areas of some of the candidate
                   dredged material disposal sites (e.g., Cainhoy Road, Parkers Island), it is an appropriate rare
                   and endangered species to use for defining and evaluating the potential impacts of alternative
                   dredged material disposal sites.

                   Distribution and Ecology:

                           The red-cockaded woodpecker is a non-migratory, endemic bird of upland pine forests
                   of the southeastern U.S. (Hopkins and Lynn 1971, Baker 1982, Locke and Conner 1983) and
                   prefers relatively pure stands of living pines with an open understory that are dominated by
                   grasses, forbs, and low shrubs (DeLotelle et al. 1983, Wood 1983, Miller 1978, Ramey 1980,
                   Hooper and Lennartz 1981, Hopkins and Lynn 1971, Grimes 1977, Locke 1980). Although
                   pines are the preferred nesting and foraging habitat, red-cockaded woodpeckers will forage upon
                  -hardwoods (Ramey 1980) and cypress (DeLotelle et al. 1983). Red-cockaded woodpeckers
                   avoid pine forests with dense hardwood understories (Van Balen and Doerr 1978, Wood 1983).
                   In the 1800's, this species was abundant from New Jersey to Texas and inland as far as
                   Tennessee (Audubon 1839). However, by the mid-1900 this species was abundant in only a few
                   southeastern coastal states (USFWS 1985). Population declines were attributed to loss of
                   suitable pine forest habitat (Wahlenber 1946, 1960, USFWS 1985).



                                                                  A-14










              South Carolina                                                                         Appendix A
              Marine Resources Division


                     Red-cockaded woodpeckers are colonial birds that generally occur as breeding pairs or
              in clans consisting of a breeding pair and the most recent offspring (Lennartz and Harlow 1979,
              Lennartz 1983). The foraging range for a clan ranges from 74-483 acres (Hooper et al. 1982).
              Reproductive success is related to the amount of suitable foraging habitat available. Pairs
              average about one young per nest in forest plots less than 100 acres in size, but almost three
              young per nest when the amount of foraging habitat exceeds 150 acres. About 125 acres of
              mature pine (> 30 years old) and pine-hardwood stands provide adequate foraging resources for
              a clan of red-cockaded woodpeckers. The ecological role of the red-cockaded woodpecker is
              poorly understood. As a foraging insectivore, however, they probably contribute to control of
              insect populations, particularly pests, in pine and mixed pine-hardwood forests.

              Potential Ifimpacts of Dredge Material Disposal:

                     The most serious threat to red-cockaded woodpeckers associated with construction and
              operation of dredged material disposal sites, is the conversion of mature pine forests to dredge
              material disposal sites. In addition, infrequent excessive (>90 decibels) noise and human
              activity lasting more than a few minutes near a colony during the nesting season could cause
              nesting failure (Jackson 1983).

              References:


              Audubon, J.J. 1839. Ornithological biography, Vol. 5. Edinburgh.

              Baker, W.W. 1982. The distribution, status and future of the red-cockaded woodpecker in
                     Georgia. Pages 82-87 in R.R. Odum and J.W. Guthrie (eds.). Proceedings of the
                     Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Symposium. Georgia Department of Natural
                     Resources, Game and Fish Division. Technical Bulletin WL 5.

              DeLotelle, R.S., J.R. Newman, and A.E. Jerauld. 1983. Habitat use by red-cockaded
                     woodpecker in central Florida. Pages 59-67 in D.A. Wood (ed.). Proceedings of the
                     Symposium on the Ecology and Management of Red-cockaded Woodpecker, II. Florida
                     Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

              Grimes, T.L. 1977. Relationships of red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) productivity
                     to colony area characteristics. M.S. thesis, Clemson University, South Carolina.

              Hooper, R.G. and M.R. Lennartz. 1981. Foraging behavior of the red-cockaded woodpecker
                     in South Carolina. The Auk 98: 321-324.


              Hooper, R.G., L.V. Niles, R.F. Harlow, and G.W. Wood. 1982. Home ranges of red-
                     cockaded woodpeckers in coastal South Carolina. The Auk 99: 675-682.



                                                             A-15










                 South Carolina                                                                     Appendix A
                 Marine Resources Division


                 Hopkins, M.L. and T.E. Lynn, Jr. 1971. Some characteristics of red-cockaded woodpecker
                        cavity trees and management implications in South Carolina. Pages 140-169 in R.L.
                        Thompson (ed.). Proceedings of the Symposium on the Ecology and Management of
                        Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Bureau of Sport Fishery and Wildlife and Tall Timbers
                        Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida.

                 Jackson, J.A. 1983. Possible effects of excessive noise on red-cockaded woodpeckers. Pages
                        38-40 in D.A. Wood (ed.). Proceedings of the Symposium on the Ecology and
                        Management of Red-cockaded Woodpecker, III. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
                        Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

                 Lennartz, M.R. 1983. Sociality and cooperative breeding of red-cockaded woodpeckers
                        (Picoides borealis). Ph.D. dissertation. Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina.

                 Lennartz, M.R. and R.F. Harlow. 1979. The role of parent and helper red-cockaded
                        woodpeckers at the nest. Wilson Bulletin 91: 331-335.

                 Locke, B.A. 1980. Colony site selection by red-cockaded woodpecker in east Texas. M.S.
                        Thesis, Austin State University, Texas.

                 Locke, B.A. and R.N. Conner. 1983. A statistical analysis of the orientation of entrances to
                        red-cockaded woodpecker cavities. Pages 108-109 in D.A. Wood (ed.). Proceedings
                        of the Symposium on the Ecology and Management of Red-cockaded Woodpecker, II.
                        Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

                 Miller, G.L. 1978. The population, habitat, behavioral and foraging ecology of the red-
                        cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) in southeastern Virginia. M.A. Thesis. The
                        College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.

                 Murphey, E.E. 1939. Red-cockaded woodpecker, Dryobates borealis borealis (Vieillot) in
                        A. C. Bent (ed.). Life histories of North American woodpeckers. Bulletin of the United
                        States National Museum 174: 72-79.

                 Ramey, P. 1980. Seasonal, sexual, and geographical variation in the foraging ecology of red-
                        cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). M.S. Thesis, Mississippi State University,
                        Mississippi State, Mississippi.

                 Sprunt, A., Jr. and E.B. Chamberlain. 1949. South Carolina bird life. University of South
                        Carolina Press, Columbia.





                                                             A- 16










             South Carolina                                                                          Appendix A
             Marine Resources Division

             U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Red-cockaded woodpecker recovery plan. U.S. Fish and
                     Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.

             Van Balen, I.B. and P.D. Doerr. 1978. The relationship of understory to red-cockaded
                     woodpecker activity. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern
                     Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 32: 82-92.

             Wahlenber, W.G. 1946. Longleaf pine - its use, ecology, regeneration, protection, growth,
                     and management. School of Forestry, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

             Wahlenber, W.G. 1960. Loblolly pine - its use, ecology, regeneration, protection, growth,
                     and management. School of Forestry, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

             Wood, D.A.        1983.    Foraging and colony habitat characteristics of the red-cockaded
                     woodpecker in Oklahoma Pages 51-58 in D.A. Wood (ed.). Proceedings of the
                     Symposium on the Ecology and Management of Red-cockaded Woodpecker, II. Florida
                     Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.


             F.      Canby's Dropwort

                     Canby's dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi) is a rare plant found in a variety of wetland habitats,
             including wet pine savannas, shallow pineland ponds, and sloughs of the southeastern U.S. It
             was placed on the Federal Register of endangered species in 1986, and is officially listed as a
             threatened species of national concern by the State of South Carolina (USFWS 1986). Because
             suitable habitat for this species could potentially occur at some of the upland candidate dredged
             material disposal sites (e.g., Rodent Island), Canby's dropwort is an appropriate rare and
             endangered species to use for defining and evaluating the potential impact of alternative dredged
             material disposal sites.

             Distribution and EcolqfX.

                     Canby's dropwort prefers habitats that are rarely inundated to depths greater than 12
             inches and are saturated with water year-round (Bowling 1986, Rayner et al. 1987). The soils
             in the preferred habitat of Canby's dropwort should be poorly drained sandy loams or acidic
             peat-mucks with medium to high organic content which are underlain by clay layers (Aulbach-
             Smith 1985). The largest and most vigorous populations of Canby's dropwort occur in open
             bays or ponds that are wet for most of the year (USFWS 1990). Canby's dropwort can tolerate
             droughts if the water table remains near the soil surface (- 35 cm). However, when the water
             table drops below 150 cm, high mortality occurs to Canby's Dropwort (Rayner 1988, Rayner
             et al. 1987, Boyer 1988). Ditching and draining of wetlands in a manner that lowers the water


                                                            A-17










                   South Carolina                                                                       Appendix A
                   Marine Resources Division


                   level in the wetland generally adversely affect populations of Canby's dropwort (Ormes et al.
                   1985, USFWS 1986). Extreme floods also adversely impact Canby's dropwort. Although there
                   is no documentation of Canby's dropwort in the study area, the soils in the vicinity of Rodent
                   Island has characteristics suitable for supporting populations of this plant (Long 1980). Most
                   existing populations of Canby's dropwort are maintained through asexual reproduction by means
                   of rhizomes (Aulbach-Smith 1985, USFWS 1990), but this plant also produces seeds.
                   Mechanisms of seed disposal are not known, nor is the importance of vegetative versus sexual
                   reproduction (USFWS 1990). At this time, there are not data that describe how Canby's
                   dropwort colonizes new wetland systems.

                   Potential Impacts of Dredge Material Disposal:

                          The most serious threat to Canby's dropwort resulting from construction and operation
                   of dredged material disposal sites in Charleston Harbor is the conversion of suitable freshwater
                   wetland habitats into dredge material disposal sites. In addition, creation and operation of
                   dredged material disposal sites that may alter hydroperiod in adjacent wetlands adversely
                   affecting this rare plant.

                   References:


                   Audubon, J.J. 1839. Ornithological biography, Vol. 5. Edinburgh.

                   Aulbach-Smith, C. 1985. Element stewardship abstract for Oxypolis canbyi. South Carolina
                          Office of The Nature Conservancy, Columbia, SC. 6 pp.

                   Bowling, S. 1986. The status of Canby's dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi) in Georgia. Report
                          submitted to the Eastern Heritage Task Force, The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA.
                          11 pp.

                   Boyer, M. 1988. Monitoring Oxypolis canbyi in Big Cypress Meadow (McIntosh Bay),
                          Scotland County, North Carolina, 1986-1988. Unpublished report, North Carolina Plant
                          Conservation Program, Raleigh, NC. 16 pp.

                   Long, B.M. 1980. Soil survey of Berkeley County, South Carolina. United States Department
                          of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service.

                   Ormes, M., L. Morse, and M. Barnett. 1985. TNC element global ranking form for OXYpolis
                          canbyi. Southearstern Regional Office of the The Nature Conservancy, Chapel Hill,
                          North Carolina.






                                                                A-18










             South Carolina                                                                           Appendix A
             Marine Resources Division

             Rayner, D., J. Nelson, and S. Hutto. 1987. Canby's dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi) - results of
                     1986 Monitoring Program. Bulletin of the South Carolina Academy of Science
                     (Columbia) 47: 89-90.

             Rayner, D. 1988. Colleton Cowbane Heritage Preserve Management Plan. South Carolina
                     Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries
                     Administration, Nongame and Heritage Trust Section, Columbia. 21 pp.

             U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.        1986. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;
                     determination of Oxypolis canbyi (Canby's dropwort) to be an endangered species.
                     Federal Register 51(37): 6690-6693.

             U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Canby's dropwort recovery plan. U.S. Fish and
                     Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.


             G.      OyAers

                     The American, or eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is widely distributed throughout
             the  eastern U.S. including the Charleston Harbor and is harvested commercially and
             recreationally for human consumption. In addition, oysters have important roles in estuarine
             material and energy cycles (Dame and Patton 1981; Dame et al. 1984, Ulanowicz and Tuttle
             1992). Oyster shells, and the reefs they form, provide habitat for abundant populations of
             worms and crustaceans (Manzi et al. 1985; Burrell 1986) that are preferred prey of many
             commercially and recreationally important fishes (e.g., red drum, spotted seatrout). Oyster reefs
             also provide cover and foraging habitat for crabs and shrimp (Burrell 1986). During low tide,
             oyster reefs are the preferred foraging habitat for numerous species of wading birds (e.g.,
             oystercatchers, willets, and tumstones). Because of their key roles in estuarine material cycles
             and food web dynamics, oysters are often considered a "keystone" species for estuaries.

             Distribution and EcolM:

                     Oysters are adapted to live within a wide range of environmental conditions and can
             tolerate extreme short-term fluctuations in conditions such as temperature, salinity and dissolved
             oxygen by closing their shells and maintaining metabolic activity at basal levels (Galtsoff 1964;
             Loosanoff 1965). Oysters inhabit salinities from full-strength seawater (- 35 ppt) to brackish
             water areas as low as 8-10 ppt. In southeastern estuaries (e.g., Charleston Harbor), oysters live
             in both subtidal and intertidal habitats, although greatest biomass and densities occur intertidally
             (Bahr 1974; Dame 1979; Burrell 1986). In Charleston Harbor, extensive beds of subtidal
             oysters occur in the Wando River and several of its tributaries (Gracy and Keith 1972). Subtidal
             oyster populations are mainly confined to lower salinity habitats (Manzi et al. 1977). Reduced


                                                            A-19









                  South Carolina                                                                         Appendix A
                  Marine Resources Division

                  abundance of oyster predators at lower salinities, including drills (Urosalpinx cinerea, Eupleura
                  caudata) and boring sponges (Clione cellata), has been implicated as factors. contributing to the
                  presence of subtidal oyster beds.

                         Burrell et al. (1984) reported that oysters spawn intermittently from May to November,
                  with a peak in mid-summer for subtidal oysters and two narrower peaks in early summer and
                  fall for intertidal oysters. Oyster larvae are planktonic and remain in the water column for 10
                  to 21 days depending on temperature, salinity, and the availability of suitable food. The larvae
                  settle to the bottom and attach to hard substrates at a size of about 3 mm. Oyster larvae, or spat
                  as the newly attached oysters are known, show a marked preference for settling on oyster shell
                  compared to other hard substrates (Galtsoff 1964; Loosanoff 1965; Burrell 1986). In the
                  Charleston area, spatfall is heaviest subtidally, but survival is best intertidally. Growth is
                  relatively rapid (1-4 mm/month) and continuous throughout the year (Manzi et al. 1977; Burrell
                  et al. 1981).

                  Potential -Impact of Dredged Material Disposal:

                         Although oysters can tolerate extreme environmental fluctuations, they are sensitive to
                  changes in conditions associated with creation and operation of dredged material disposal sites,
                  including increases in turbidity, high sedimentation, and chemical contamination. Excessive
                  turbidity clogs the filtering apparatus of oysters, reducing growth, and may ultimately cause
                  mortality (Loosanoff 1962; Galtsoff 1964). In addition, shellfish such as oysters bioaccumulate
                  chemical and microbial contaminants in their tissues making them less desireable for human
                  consumption (Kopfler and Mayer 1969; Huggett et al. 1973).               High concentrations of
                  contaminants in oyster tissues also has ecological implications. The National Shellfish Sanitation
                  Program samples oysters as sentinels of microbial contamination, and the National Status and
                  Trends Monitoring Program (NOAA 1989) use oysters as indicators of the degree and extent of
                  chemical contamination in estuarine waters.


                  References:


                  Bahr, L.M. 1974. Aspects of the structure and function of the intertidal oyster reef community
                         in Georgia. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Georgia, Athens.

                  Burrell, V.G. Jr., J.J. Manzi, and W.Z. Carson. 1981. Growth and mortality of two types of
                         seed oysters from the Wando River, South Carolina. J. Shellfish Res. l(l): 1-7.

                  Burrell, V.G. Jr., M.Y. Bobo, and J.J. Manzi. 1984. A comparison of seasonal incidence and
                         intensity of Perkinsus marinus between subtidal and intertidal oyster populations in South
                         Carolina. J. World Maricul. Soc. 55: 301-309.




                                                                A-20










             South Carolina                                                                           Appendix A
             Marine Resources Division


             Burrell, V.G. Jr. 1986. Species Profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of
                     coastal fishes and invertebrates (South Atlantic) - American Oyster. U.S. Fish. Wildl.
                     Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.57). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR-EL-82-4. 17pp.

             Dame,   R.F. 1979. The abundance, diversity and biomass of macrobenthos on North Inlet,
                     South Carolina, Intertidal oyster reefs. Proc. Natl. Shellfish. Assoc. 69: 6-10.

             Dame,   R.F. and B.C. Patton. 1981. Analysis of energy flows in an intertidal oyster reef.
                     Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 5: 115-124.

             Dame,   R.F., R.G. Zingmark, and E. Has@in. 1984. Oyster reefs as processors of estuarine
                     materials. J. Exper. Mar. Ecol. 83: 239-247.

             Galtsoff, P.S. 1964. The American oyster, Crassostrea virginica Gmelin. U.S. Fish. Wildl.
                     Serv. Bull. 64 480pp.

             Gracy, R.C. and W.J. Keith. 1972. Survey of the South Carolina oyster fishery. Tech. Rep.
                     No. 3. South Carolina Marine Resources Department.

             Huggett, R.J., M.E. Bender, and H.D. Sloane.               1973.    Utilizing metal concentration
                     relationships in the eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) to detect heavy metal pollution.

             Kopfler, F.C. and J. Mayer. 1969. Studies on trace metals in shellfish. Proc. Gulf and So.
                     Atl. Shellfish Sanitation Research Conference, March 1967, Gulf Coast Marine Health
                     Science Laboratory, Dauphin Island, Alabama.

             Loosanoff, V.L. 1962. Effects of turbidity on some larval and adult bivalves. Proc. Gulf
                     Caribb. Fish. Inst. 14: 80-95.


             Loosanoff, V.L. 1965. The American or Eastern Oyster. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Ser. Bureau of
                     Comm. Fish. circular 205. 36pp.

             Manzi, J.J., V.G. Burrell, Jr., K.J. Klemanowica, N.H. Hadley, and J.A. Collier. 1985.
                     Impacts of a mechanical harvester in intertidal oyster communities in South Carolina.
                     Final Report. Coastal Energy Impact Program, Office of the Governor, Columbia, SC.
                     31pp.

             Manzi, J.J., V.G. Burrell, Jr., and W.Z. Carson. 1977. A comparison of growth and survival
                     of subtidal Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin) in South Carolina salt marsh impoundments.
                     Aquaculture 12: 293-310.




                                                             A-21










                  South Carolina                                                                         Appendix A
                  Marine Resources Division


                  NOAA. 1989. A summary of data on tissue contamination from the first three years (1986-
                          1988) of the mussel watch project. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOA OMA 49.

                  Ulanowicz, R.E. and J.H. Tuttle.          1992.    The trophic consequences of oyster stock
                          rehabilitation in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 15(3): 298-306.



                  H.      Freshwater Marsh Plants


                          Freshwater wetland plants have functional roles in controlling flooding and erosion of
                  adjoining lands. They also are important in maintaining the water quality of streams, rivers,
                  lakes, estuaries, and coastal waters and are preferred habitat for many types of wildlife. These
                  plants, however, respond to changes in hydrology which may be associated with construction
                  and operation of dredged material disposal facilities with large changes in abundance and
                  distribution. Freshwater wetland plants are therefore an appropriate selection as a Representative
                  Important Biota for evaluating alternative dredged material disposal sites on the Charleston
                  Harbor ecosystem.

                  Economic Value:


                          Some of the larger trees that occur in freshwater wetlands are harvested as timber (e.g.,
                  cypress). Freshwater wetland plants also provide habitat for migratory waterfowl and other
                  wildlife that contribute to the state's hunting industry (McGilvrey 1966, Kerwin and Webb 1972,
                  Sandifer et al. 1980).

                  Distribution and Ecology:

                          The species composition and abundance of freshwater wetland plants is controlled by the
                  duration of flooding (hydroperiod) and soil characteristics. These major hydroperiod classes that
                  occur in the Charleston region are: intermittently-flooded, temporarily-flooded, and seasonally-
                  flooded freshwater marshes. Intermittently-flooded marshes are inundated for variable amounts
                  of time throughout the year. Temporarily-flooded freshwater wetlands are inundated briefly
                  during the spring and summer growing season. Seasonally-flooded freshwater wetlands are
                  inundated for most of the spring and summer growing season. Intermittently-flooded marshes,
                  commonly called depression meadows, are dominated by smartweeds (Polygonum spp.),
                  milkworts; (Polygala spp.), butterworts (Pinquicula spp.), water primroses (Ludwigia. spp.),
                  meadow beauties (Rhexia spp.), and yellow-eyed grasses (Xyfis spp.). Temporarily-flooded
                  marshes are dominated by hydrophylic species of bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), sedges (Carex spp.),
                  nutrushes (Sclefia spp.), spikerushes (Eleochafis spp.), and umbrella-sedges (Cyperus spp.).
                  Grasses (Panicum spp.) and blue flags (Iris spp.) are also frequently found in temporarily-
                  flooded marshes (Nelson 1986). The dominant vegetation characteristic of seasonally-flooded


                                                                 A-22










             South Carolina                                                                       Appendix A
             Marine Resources Division


             marshes include arrowweeds (Saginafia spp.), pickerelweeds (Pontedalis spp.), mosquito fem
             (Azolla spp.), duckweeds (Lemna spp., Spirodela spp., Wofflia spp.), water lilies (Alymphaea
             spp.), and floating hearts (ATymphoides spp.). Many of the above freshwater wetland plants are
             an important food item for many birds and other wildlife species (Bellrose and Trudeau 1988,
             Sandifer et al. 1980). Several endangered and threatened species of wildlife are intimately
             associated with freshwater wetlands. For example, Bachman's warbler, a rare summer resident
             (perhaps now extinct, [Laurie, pers. comm.]) of the South Carolina low country, appears to be
             dependent upon freshwater wetlands (Shuler 1977). These wetlands also provide refuges and
             nursery habitat for more abundant wildlife including deer, bobcat, fox, beaver, and many species
             of waterfowl and wading birds (Schroeder 1985). Freshwater wetland plants also serve as sinks
             for nutrients and trap sediments helping maintain the quality of the nations water bodies.

             Potential impacts of dredge material disposal:

                    Construction and operation of dredged material disposal facilities in low lying areas will
             result in direct losses of freshwater wetland habitat by converting them to disposal areas.
             Because of altered hydroperiod, environmental conditions in disposal areas do not favor re-
             establishment of freshwater wetland plants. In addition, creation and operations of disposal
             facilities may alter hydroperiod in adjacent lands adversely affecting freshwater wetland plants.
             Large scale decreases in the abundance of freshwater marsh plants may adversely impact
             regional water quality.

             References:,

             Bellrose, F.C. and N.M. Trudeau. 1988. Wetlands and their relationship to migrating and
                    winter populations of waterfowl. Pg. 183-194 in Hood, D.D., W.H. McKee Jr., H.K.
                    Smith, J. Gregory, V.G. Burrell Jr., M.R. DeVoe, R.E. Sojka, S. Gilbert, R. Banks,
                    L.H. Stolzy, C. Brooks, T.D. Mathews, and T.H. Shear (eds.). The ecology and
                    management of wetlands, Vol. 1: ecology of wetlands.            Timber Press, Portland,
                    Oregon. (MRRI QH541.5M3E29).

             Kerwin, J.A. and L.G. Webb. 1972. Foods of ducks wintering in coastal South Carolina,
                    1965-1967. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of
                    Game and Fish Commissioners 25: 223-245.


             Laurie, P.B.       Personal Communication.         Office of Conservation, Education, and
                    Communication, S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, P.O. Box 12559,
                    Charleston, S.C. 29412.

             McGilvrey, F.B. 1966. Fall food habits of ducks near Santee Refuge, South Carolina. Journal
                    of Wildlife Mangement 30(3): 577-580.


                                                           A-23










                   South Carolina                                                                         Appendix A
                   Marine Resources Division


                   Nelson, J.B. 1986. The natural communities of South Carolina. Division of Wildlife and
                           Freshwater Fisheries, S.C. Wildl. & Mar. Resour. Dept., Columbia, S.C. 48pp.

                   Sandifer, P.A., J.V. Miglarese, D.R. Calder, J.J. Manzi, and L.A. Barclay. 1980. Ecological
                           characterization of the sea island coastal region of South Carolina and Georgia, Vol. III:
                           Biological features of the characterization area. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office
                           of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-79/42. 620pp.

                   Schroeder, R.L. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: eastern wild turkey. U.S. Fish and
                           Wildlife Services. Biological Report 82(10.106). 36pp.

                   Shuler, J. 1977. Bachman's warbler habitat. Chat 41(2): 19-20.


                   1.      White Shrimp:

                           The white shrimp (Penaeus setiferus) is included as a Representative Important Biota on
                   the basis of its economic value as a commercially and recreationally harvested shellfish.
                   However, this species also has an important role in material and energy cycles within South
                   Carolina estuaries.


                   Economic Value:


                           Commercial shrimp landings in South Carolina totaled over 3 million pounds in 1990,
                   and almost 6 million pounds in 1991 (SCWMRD landings data), making shrimp the state's most
                   valuable fishery.   Of these totals, 70-75% of the catch was white shrimp. In addition,
                   recreational "shrimpers" landed 2.75 million pounds of shrimp in the fall of 1990 with an
                   estimated economic value of > $7 million. Most of the shrimp taken by recreational shrimpers
                   are white shrimp.

                   Distribution and Ecology:

                           White shrimp are abundant in nearshore and estuarine waters throughout the Southeast.
                   In nearshore waters between Cape Canaveral and Cape Fear, they are the most abundant
                   decapod in trawl surveys (Wenner and Wenner 1989). White shrimp are also abundant in
                   estuarine habitats occurring over a wide range of sediment types, salinity zones, depth strata,
                   and wetland types (Bishop et al. 1980, Stender and Martore 1990). This species is a preferred
                   food resource for numerous species of recreationally and commercially important finfish and
                   plays an important role within the estuarine and coastal habitats (Muncy 1984).

                           White shrimp have a complex life cycle involving 11 larval stages (Muncy 1984).


                                                                 A-24










             South Carolina                                                                          Appendix A
             Marine Resources Division


             Spawning occurs in the nearshore oceanic waters, and larval stages are transported      shoreward
             by currents. White shrimp enter estuaries as postlarvae at a size of about 7 mm         during late
             spring and early summer and disperse into tidal creeks and estuarine headwaters         to begin a
             bottom-dwelling existence (Bearden 1961, Williams 1965, Muncy 1984). As they grow, a
             steady movement toward higher salinity environments culminates in emigration from the estuary
             at a size of about 100 mm (SAFMC 1981). Declines in water temperature that occur in fall
             hasten the off-shore movement (Lindner and Anderson 1956).               Once offshore, shrimp
             movements parallel the coastline. They generally move southward in winter and northward in
             early spring (Lindner and Anderson 1956).

                    Postlarvae consume decaying organic matter, mainly marsh grasses, and microorganisms
             in.the sediments (Odum 1971, Carr and Adams 1973). Adults and juveniles are omnivorous.
             Growth of white shrimp is rapid (18-30 mm/month) but variable depending on environmental
             conditions including temperature and salinity, and on population density (SAFMC 1981).
             Shrimp abundance in any given year is determined primarily by environmental factors mainly
             winter temperature and spring rainfall (Muncy 1984, SAFMC 1981). Juvenile shrimp are most
             abundant in lower salinity habitats at the marsh/tidal creek interface.

             Potential hnpacts of Dredge@ Material Disposal:

                    Juvenile white shrimp are dependent upon salt marshes and associated tidal creeks as
             nursery habitat. Destruction or degradation of this habitat to create dredge material disposal
             sites would adversely affect productivity of the shrimp fishery. Increased siltation and/or
             chemical contamination of sediments in salt marshes or tidal creeks may also adversely impact
             juvenile shrimp and propagate contaminants through the estuarine food chain. Offshore activities
             associated with dredged material disposal may adversely affect egg and/or larval development
             or interfere with movement or migration of white shrimp at some candidate sites (i.e., Folly
             Beach berm creation and large-scale dumping in the ODMDS area).

             References:


             Bearden, C.M. 1961. Notes on postlarvae of commercial shrimp Penaeus in South Carolina.
                    Contributions from Bears Bluff Laboratories No. 33.


             Bishop, J.M., J.G. Gosselink, and J.H. Stone. 1980. Oxygen consumption and hemolymph
                    osmolality of brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus. Fish. Bull., U.S. 78(3): 748-757.

             Carr, W.E. andC.A. Adams. 1973. Food habits of juvenile marine fishes occupying seagrass
                    beds in the estuarine zone near Crystal River, Florida. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 102(3):
                    511-540.




                                                            A-25











                   South Carolina                                                                        Appendix A
                   Marine Resources Division

                   Lindner, M.J. and W.W. Anderson. 1956. Growth, migrations, spawning and size distribution
                          of shrimp Penaeus setiferus. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv. Bull. 56: 554.-645.

                   Muncy, R.J. 1984. Species Profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal
                          fishes and invertebrates. South Atlantic -- White Shrimp. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv.
                          FWS/OBS-82/11.27. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. TR-EL-82-4. l9pp.

                   Odum, W.E. 1971. Pathways of energy flowing a south Florida estuary. University of Miami
                          Ph.D. Dissertation. Dissert. Abst. Univ. Mich. 70-18, 156: 1898B.

                   South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1981. Profile of the penaeid shrimp fishery in
                          the South Atlantic. Publ. of the Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA. 306pp.

                   SCWMRD Landings Data. Office of Fisheries Management. South Carolina Wildlife and
                          Marine Resources Department, PO Box 12559, Charleston, SC, 29422.

                   Stender, B.W. and R.M. Martore. 1990. Chapter VIII. Finfish and invertebrate communities
                          In: A physical characterization of the Charleston Harbor estuarine system, R.F. Van
                          Dolah, P.H. Wendt, and E.L. Wenner (eds.). Final Report to S.C. Coastal Council,
                          Grant #NA87AA-D-CA068: 241-288,


                   Wenner, E.L. and C.A. Wenner. 1989. Seasonal composition and abundance of decapod
                          crustaceans from coastal habitats, southeastern United States. Fish. Bull., U.S. 87(l):
                          155-176.


                   Williams, A.B. 1965. Marine decapod crustaceans of the Carolinas. Fish. Bull. 65(l): i-xi +
                          298pp.


                   J.     Black Sea Bass

                          The black sea bass (Centropristis striata) is included as a Representative Important Biota
                   because they are: (1) an important recreational and commercial species of nearshore coastal
                   habitats (Low and Waltz 1991), and (2) a numerically dominant species inhabiting shallow water
                   live bottom habitats (Powles and Barans 1980).


                   Economic Value:


                          In 1988, recreational anglers in South Carolina landed an estimated 751,000 black sea
                   bass. This was almost six times the combined total of all other offshore recreational bottomfish
                   landings (Waltz et al. 1990). Black sea bass along the South Carolina coast are also harvested


                                                                 A-26










             South Carolina                                                                          Appendix A
             Marine Resources Division


             commercially; in recent years, commercial catches have averaged about 15 percent of
             recreational landings (Low 1982).

             Distribution and EcolWgr.

                    Black sea bass are found along the Atlantic coast from Cape Cod south to Cape
             Canaveral and occasionally as far south as the Florida Keys (Fischer, 1978). They typically
             occur in depths ranging from 10 to 120 rn but are most abundant in the 20 to 60 rn range
             (Struhsaker 1969, Sedberry and Van Dolah 1984, Mercer 1989). The age and size of black sea
             bass increases with increasing water depth (Cupka et al. 1973, Waltz et al. 1979, Low and Waltz
             1991). In the Charleston area, juvenile black sea bass inhabit high salinity shell bottoms of
             estuaries (Cupka et al. 1973). Juveniles and young-of-the-year are also found in the proximity
             of inshore jetties and piers (Mercer 1989).

                    North of Cape Hatteras, black sea bass exhibit seasonal movements: inshore and
             northward in spring, offshore and southward in fall (Mercer 1989). In the South Atlantic Bight,
             black sea bass movements are mainly changes in distributional patterns that accompany growth
             and increased age (Cupka et al. 1973, Low and Waltz 1991).

                    Black sea bass are protogynous hermaphrodites. That is, most individuals mature and
             function first as females, and later undergo a sexual change to become functional males (Wenner
             et al. 1986, Mercer 1989). Although specific spawning sites are unknown, spawning clearly
             occurs in offshore environments (Mercer 1978, Wenner et al. 1986, Mercer 1989). The major
             spawning period is from January through April (Cupka et al. 1973, Wenner et al. 1986). A
             minor spawning peak occurs from September through October. Fecundity is directly related to
             size and age, with older fish producing up to 50 times more eggs than smaller fish.

                    Black sea bass eggs are pelagic and hatch in 3-5 days depending on temperature (Wilson
             1891, Hoff 1970). The pelagic phase of the larvae lasts for several weeks, ending at a size of
             about 13 mm, when the juveniles become demersal (Kendall 1972). An unknown percentage
             of the black sea bass larvae enter coastal estuaries, and use environments containing oyster shell
             as nursery habitat (Cupka et al. 1973, Low 1982, Mercer 1989). Juveniles also use shallow live
             bottom and algae patches. in offshore areas as nursery habitat (George Sedberry pers. comm.).

                    Black sea bass reach the legally harvestable size of 204 mm, or about 124 gm, within 3
             years (Wenner et al. 1986). Females comprise over 50% of the population up to about 200 mrn
             (age 4). After age 4, males dominate black sea bass populations (Wenner et al. 1986). Females
             mature rapidly with over 90 % of age 2 and 99 % of age 3 females capable of reproduction. The
             current state record black sea bass was caught near Charleston in 1975. It weighed 3,515 grams
             and had an estimated total length of 683 mm. Up to 10 age groups have been identified for
             black sea bass populations in the South Atlantic Bight (Waltz et al. 1979, Wenner et al. 1986,


                                                            A-27










                   South Carolina                                                                          Appendix A
                   Marine Resources Division

                   Mercer 1989). Fishing pressure is the major factor controlling mortality and size distributions
                   of black sea bass populations (Wenner et al. 1986).

                           The black sea bass is a carnivorous predator and feeds on invertebrates and small fish
                   associated with live bottom habitats including crustaceans, fishes, mollusks, and echinoderms
                   (Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928, Link 1980, Mercer 1989). Adults feed mostly on larger crabs
                   and fish, while juveniles eat mostly smaller shrimp, isopods, and amphipods (Mercer 1989).
                   Cupka et al. (1973) reported that adults also graze on barnacles and tunicates. Black sea bass
                   are a numerically dominant member of the fish community inhabiting shallow water live bottom
                   and artificial reef habitats. Other associated fishes include round scad, scup, tomtate, sand
                   perch, porgys, and wrasses.

                   Potential hnpacts of Dredge Spoil DiSDosal:

                           Known aspects of the life history and ecology of black sea bass suggest a potential for
                   adverse impacts from disposal of dredge material in two major areas: (1) loss and/or adverse
                   impacts to the estuarine and nearshore nursery habitat (e.g., shell bottom and nearshore live
                   bottom), and (2) loss and/or adverse impacts to live bottom habitat which is the primary habitat
                   for young females. Adverse impacts include reduction in the amount and kind of cover (e.g.,
                   sponges and corals) and food (e.g., amphipods and crabs) from direct deposition of dredged
                   material on nearshore live bottom and estuarine shell habitat, and/or resuspension and movement
                   of newly deposited dredged material into live bottom habitats by natural hydrodynamic
                   processes. Reductions in water quality (e.g., increased turbidity) may also adversely impact the
                   biota (i.e., reef forming sponges and corals) upon which black sea bass depend for cover and
                   food.


                   References:


                   Cupka, D.M., R.K. Dias, and J. Tucker. 1973. Biology of the Black Sea Bass from South
                           Carolina waters.     S.C. Wildlife and marine Resources Department (Unpublished
                           Manuscript). 93pp.

                   Fischer, W. (ed.). 1978. FAO species identification sheets for fishery purposes. Western
                           Central Atlantic. FAO, Rome. Vol. 4.

                   Hildebrand, S.F. and W.C. Schroeder. 1928. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. U.S. Bur. Fish.
                           Bull. 43. 366pp.

                   Hoff, F.H. Jr. 1970. Artificial spawning of the black sea bass, Centropristes striatus melanus
                           Ginsburg, aided by chorionic gonadotrophic hormones. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar.
                           Res. Lab. Spec. Sci. Rep. No. 25. l7pp.


                                                                  A-28










             South Carolina                                                                         Appendix A
             Marine Resources Division

             Kendall, A.W. Jr. 1972. Description of black sea bass, Centropristis stfiata (Linneaus), larvae
                    and their occurrences north of Cape Lookout, North Carolina, in 1966. U.S. Natl. Mar.
                    Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull. 70(4): 1243-1260.

             Link, G.W. Jr. 1980. Age, growth, reproduction, feeding and ecological observations on three
                    species of Centropfistis (Pisces: Serannidae) in North Carolina waters. Ph.D. thesis.
                    University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 277pp.

             Low, R.A. 1982. The South Carolina fishery for Black Sea Bass Centropristis striata, 1977-
                    1981. South Carolina Marine Resources Center Technical Report No. 53.

             Low, R.A. and C.W. Waltz. 1988. South Carolina marine recreational fishery statistics survey
                    1987. South Carolina Marine Resources Center Technical Report No. 68.

             Low, R.A. and C.W. Waltz. 1991. Seasonal utilization and movement of Black Sea Bass on
                    a South Carolina artificial reef. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:
                    131-138.


             Mercer, L.P. 1978. The reproductive biology and population dynamics of black sea bass,
                    Centropristis striata. Ph.D. Thesis, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg VA.
                    196pp.

             Mercer, L.P. 1989. Species Profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal
                    fishes and invertebrates (South Atlantic) -- Black Sea Bass. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv. Biol.
                    Rep. 82(11.99). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR-EL-82-4. l6pp.

             Powles, H. and C.A. Barans. 1980. Groundfish monitoring in sponge coral areas off the
                    southeastern United States. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Mar. Fish. Rev. 42(5): 21-35.

             Sedberry, G.R. and R.F. Van Dolah. 1984. Demersal fish assemblages associated with hard
                    bottom habitat in the South Atlantic Bight of the U.S.A. Enviorn. Biol. Fish. 11(4):
                    241-258.


             Sedberry, G.R. Pers. Comm. South Carolina Marine Resources Research Inst., PO Box
                    12559, Charleston, SC 29422.

             Struhsaker, P. 1969. Demersal fish resources: Composition, distribution and commercial
                    potential of the continental shelf stocks off the southeastern United States. U.S. Fish.
                    Wildl. Serv. Fish. Ind. Res. 4(7): 261-300.





                                                           A-29










                  South Carolina                                                                         Appendix A
                  Marine Resources Division


                  Waltz, C.W., W.A. Roumillat, and P.K. Ashe. 1979. Distribution, age structure and sex
                          composition of the black sea bass, Centropfistis striata, sampled along the southeastern
                          coast of the United States. S.C. Marine Resources Center Tech. Rept. No. 43. l8pp.

                  Waltz, C.W., D.B. Stone III, U. West, E. Hens, and R.A. Low. 1990. South Carolina marine
                          recreational fish and shellfish surveys, 1988. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine
                          Resources Dept., Marine Resources Division, Office of Fisheries Management, Technical
                          Rept. No. 75.

                  Wenner, C.A., J.C. McGovern, R. Martore, H.R. Beatty, and W.A. Roumillat. 1986.
                          Ichthyofauna. In: M.R. DeVoe and D.S. Baughman (eds.), South Carolina Wetland
                          Impoundments: Ecological Characterization, Management, Status and Use. Vol. II,
                          Technical Synthesis, S.C. Grant. 415-523.

                  Wilson, H.V. 1891. The embryology of the sea bass Serranus atratius. U.S. Fish. Comm.
                          Bull. for 1889. 9: 209-277.



                  K.      The Blue Crab


                          The blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) is abundant and widely distributed throughout the
                  Charleston Harbor estuarine system and the adjacent offshore areas (Wenner and Wenner 1988,
                  Mense and Wenner 1989, Archambault et al. 1990). It supports substantial commercial and
                  recreational fisheries (Low et al. 1987), and plays an important part in material and energy
                  cycles of estuaries (Van Den Avyle 1984). For these reasons, it is considered an appropriate
                  Representative Important Biota for evaluating the effects of construction and operation of
                  dredged material disposal sites on estuarine environments.

                  Economic Value:

                          Among the commercial fisheries of South Carolina, blue crab ranks second to white
                  shrimp in dollar value and pounds landed (Eldridge and Waltz 1977). Over the last five years,
                  total landings of blue crab have averaged about 6 million pounds with an average ex-vessel value
                  of $2.6 million (SCWMRD landings data). An extensive recreational fishery for blue crabs also
                  exists, the dollar value of which has not been estimated (Eldridge and Waltz 1977). About 24
                  percent of shore based recreational fishermen reported crabbing as their exclusive activity, while
                  27% of the boaters surveyed reported some crabbing activities (Low et al. 1987). Although
                  recreational crabbers are allowed the unlicensed use of up to two crab pots (per head of
                  household), most recreational crabbing is by means of bait and dipnet, and takes place on and
                  around public and private docks, piers, and bridges (David Whitaker, pers. comm.).



                                                                 A-30











             South Carolina                                                                           Appendix A
             Marine Resources Division


             Distribution and Ecolqg3q

                     Blue crabs are broadly distributed along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Their distribution
             within estuaries is dependant on the life stage and sex of the individuals and on the time of year.
             Male crabs are most abundant in South Carolina tidal creeks (Lunz 1951). Females are more
             abundant in nearshore waters (Eldridge and Waltz 1977). Blue crabs mate in low to moderate
             salinity waters (Williams 1965, Tagatz 1968). After mating, the female begins a migration
             toward higher salinity where she will produce one or more egg masses ("sponges") over a one
             to two year period (Van Engle 1958, Williams 1984). The fertilized eggs are extruded by the
             female,and incubate from 12 to 17 days while attached to the abdominal appendages (Churchill
             1921, Sandoz and Rogers 1944). Ovigerous females are found in Charleston Harbor as early
             as March 14 and as late as November 24; the peak in reproduction, however, occurs between
             April and August (Archambault et al. 1990).

                     Like other crustaceans, blue crabs develop through a series of larval, juvenile, and adult
             stages, often undergoing dramatic changes in appearance and behavior. The first larval stages
             are called zoea, and, depending on temperature and salinity, may last from 31 to 49 days (Van
             Den Avyle 1984). Zoea are planktonic, and occur mainly in surface waters (Darnell 1959,
             Tagatz 1968, Low et al. 1987). Larvae which hatched inshore are transported by surface
             currents into offshore waters where they continue their development (Mense and Wenner 1989).
             The final molt of the zoea results in a crablike form known as a megalops, which lasts from 6
             to 20 days (Van Den Avyle 1984). The free swimming megalopae orient toward the bottom and
             are transported into estuaries by currents where they metamorphose into juvenile crabs (Tagatz
             1968, Mense and Wenner 1989). Megalopae are more abundant in higher salinity areas of
             estuaries while juveniles are more abundant in brackish water habitats suggesting that after
             metamorphosis, juvenile crabs migrate to lower salinity waters (Mense and Wenner 1989). Peak
             abundance of megalopae occurs during March and October. Peak juvenile abundance occurs in
             January and September.

                     Growth takes place in conjunction with molting and is influenced by temperature,
             availability of food, and growth stage (Milliken and Williams 1984). In South Carolina, highest
             growth occurs from March through October (Low et al. 1987). Male crabs in Charleston
             Harbor reach maturity 11 to 12 months after hatching, and females mature after 15-20 months
             (Archambault et al. 1990). Adult blue crabs rarely move from one estuarine system to another
             (Van Den Avyle 1984). Upon reaching maturity, males tend to remain in lower salinity areas
             while females move to higher salinity waters after mating (Williams 1965, Van Den Avyle
             1984). In winter, crabs move to deeper, warnier water, and return to creek and marsh habitats
             in the spring (Livingston 1976).

                     The various stages in the life cycle of the blue crab afford it a variety of functions within
             the ecosystem. The larvae are planktivorous (Darnell 1959, Tagatz 1968). Megalopae are


                                                             A-31










                  South Carolina                                                                        Appendix A
                  Marine Resources Division


                  omnivorous, and adults function as scavengers, carnivores, detritivores, and omnivores (Darnell
                  1959, Adkins 1972, Van Den Avyle 1984). Dominant food items include: dead and live fish,
                  crabs, organic debris, shrimp, mollusks, and plant parts. Adults are a major predator of benthic
                  infauna, particularly clams (Virnstein 1977, Darnell 1958). Throughout their life cycle, blue
                  crabs are preyed upon by a wide range of organisms. Adkins (1972) reported blue crab eggs
                  to be a favorite food of many fishes. Larval blue crabs are consumed by fishes, jellyfish and
                  comb jellies, and mollusks (Van Engle 1958). Juvenile blue crabs are important prey for inshore
                  fish species, such as red drum and sheepshead (Van Den Avyle 1984). Adults are consumed
                  by a variety of mammals and birds and are an important prey item for large fish, especially
                  sharks and rays (Castro 1983).

                  Potential Impacts of Dredge Material Disposal:

                          The most serious threat from dredged material disposal to the blue crab population is the
                  potential for destruction and/or degradation of salt marsh which is the nursery grounds for
                  juveniles. Many authors (Weinstein, 1979, Low et al. 1987, Mense and Wenner 1989, Orth and
                  Montfrans 1990) have stressed the importance of a stable salt marsh habitat to the sustainability
                  of blue crab populations.

                  References:


                  Adkins, G. 1972. A study of the blue crab fishery in Louisiana. La. Wildl. Fish. Comm.,
                          Oyster, Water Blooms and Seafood Div. Tech. Bull. No. 3. Baton Rouge, LA. 57pp.

                  Archambault, J.A., E.L. Wenner, and J.D. Whitaker. 1990. Life history and abundance of
                          blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, at Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. Bull.
                          Mar. Sci., 46(l): 145-158.

                  Castro, J.I. 1983. The sharks of North American waters. Texas A & M Univ. Press. 180 pp.

                  Churchill, E.P. Jr. 1921. Life history of the blue crab. Bull. Bur. Fish. 36: 91-128.

                  Darnell, R.M. 1958. Food habits of fishes and larger invertebrates in Lake Ponchartrain,
                          Louisiana, an estuarine community. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 5: 353-416.

                  Darnell, R.M. 1959. Studies of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, in Louisiana
                          waters. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 88: 294-304.


                  Eldridge, P.J. and C.W. Waltz. 1977. Observations on the commercial fishery for blue crabs,
                          Callinectes sapidus, in estuaries in the southern half of South Carolina. South Carolina
                          Marine Resources Center Technical Rept. No. 21.


                                                                A-32










            South Carolina                                                                         Appendix A
            Marine Resources Division


            Livingston, R.J. 1976. Diurnal and seasonal fluctuations of organisms in a north Florida
                    estuary. Estuarine Coastal Mar. Sci. 4: 373-400.

            Low, R.A., R. Rhodes, E.R. Hens, D. Theiling, E.L. Wenner, and J.D. Whitaker. 1987. A
                    profile of the blue crab and its fishery in South Carolina. South Carolina Marine
                    Resources Center Technical Rept. No. 66.

            Lunz,   G.R. 1951. Investigations of trawling for crabs in inshore waters of South Carolina.
                    Report to the S.C. Board of Fisheries. Bears Bluff Lab, Wadmalaw Is., S.C. l2pp.

            Mense, D.J. and E.L. Wenner. 1989. Distribution and abundance of early life history stages
                    of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, intertidal marsh creeks near Charleston, South
                    Carolina. Estuaries 12(3): 157-168.

            Millikin, M.r. and A.B. Williams. 1984. Synopsis of biological data on the blue crab,
                    Callinectes sapidus Rathbun. NOAA Tech. Rept. NMFS 1, FAO Fisheries Synopsis No.
                    138. 39pp.

            Orth, R.J. and J. Van Montfrans. 1990. Utilization of marsh and seagrass habitats by early
                    stages of Callinectes sapidus: a latitudinal perspective. Bull. Mar. Sci. 46(l): 126-144.

            Sandoz, M. and R. Rogers. 1944. The effect of environmental factors on hatching, molting,
                    and survival of zoea larvae of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun. Ecology 25:
                    216-228.


            South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. Unpublished county landings
                    reports. Office of Fishery Management. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources
                    Department, P.O. Box 12559, Charleston, SC 29422.

            Tagatz, M.E. 1968. Biology of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, in the St. Johns
                    River, Florida. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull. 67: 17-33.

            Van Den Avyle, M.J. 1984. Species Profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements
                    of coastal fishes and invertebrates (South Atlantic) -- Blue Crab. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv.
                    FWS/OBS-82-11.19. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR-EL-82-4. l6pp.

            Van Engle, W.A. 1958. The blue crab and its fishery in Chesapeake Bay. Part I.
                    Reproduction, early development, growth, and migration. Comm. Fish. Rev. 20(6): 6-
                    17.






                                                           A-33










                   South Carolina                                                                       Appendix A
                   Marine Resources Division

                   Virnstein, R.W. 1977. The importance of predation by crabs and fishes in benthic infauna in
                          Chesapeake Bay. Ecology 58: 1199-1217.

                   Weinstein, M.P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary nurseries for fish and shellfish,
                          Cape Fear River, North Carolina. U.S. Natl. Mar. fish. Serv. Fish. Bull. 77: 339-357.

                   Wenner, E.L. and C.A. Wenner. 1988. Seasonal composition and abundance of decapod and
                          stomatopod crustaceans from coastal habitats, southeastern United States. Fish. Bull.
                          U.S. 87(l): 155-176.

                   Whitaker, J.D. Pers. Comm. S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Dept. P.O. Box 12559,
                          Charleston, S.C. 29422.

                   Williams, A.B. 1965. Marine decapod crustaceans of the Carolinas. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.
                          Fish. Bull. 65: 1-298.


                   Williams, A.B. 1984. Shrimp, lobsters, and crabs of the Atlantic coast of the United States,
                          Maine to Florida. Smithson. Inst. Press. 550pp.



                   L.     Red Drum


                          The red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) is arguably the most sought after inshore and
                   nearshore gamefish, and expenditures related to the recreational fishery for red drum generate
                   significant cash flow in the coastal economy. This species is also an abundant member of the
                   estuarine fish community in Charleston Harbor and has important roles in food web dynamics
                   (Shealy et al. 1974, Wenner et al. 1990). Thus, red drum is an appropriate Representative
                   Important Biota for evaluating the impacts of construction and operation of dredged material
                   disposal operations on the Charleston Harbor ecosystem.

                   Economic Value:


                          In surveys of recreational fishermen in coastal South Carolina (Low et al. 1986, Low and
                   Waltz 1988, Waltz et al. 1990), red drum was consistently ranked as one of the major target
                   species and a substantial portion of South Carolina's estimated $200 million marine recreational
                   fishing industry is associated with red drum. Estimates of the red drum recreational catch for
                   1987 and 1988 were 509,000 and 511,000 fish respectively (Waltz et al. 1990).

                   Distribution and Ecology:

                          The red drum ranges from Laguna Madre, Mexico to south Florida in the Gulf of


                                                                A-34










            South Carolina                                                                       Appendix A
            Marine Resources Division


            Mexico, and along the United States Atlantic coast to New York (Fischer 1978). Juvenile and
            sub-adult red drum occur within the estuary; adult spawning populations almost exclusively
            inhabit nearshore waters (Wenner et al. 1990). In South Carolina, juvenile red drum inhabit a
            broad variety of estuarine habitats including flooded marshes as well as tidal creeks (Wenner et
            al. 1990). Salinity tolerances range from 0.8 to 33.7 ppt. Temperature tolerance ranges from
            90 to 300C (Wenner et al. 1990).

                   Red drum spawn in nearshore waters in proximity to inlets (Mercer 1984). In South
            Carolina, they spawn from mid-July through September (McGovern 1986, Wenner et al. 1990).
            Males mature at age three; females are mature by age four (Wenner et al. 1990). Depending
            on their size and age, females produce 0.5 to 3.5 million eggs (Pearson 1929). The optimal
            environmental condition for hatching is 25'C and 30 ppt (Buckley 1984).

                   Shallow brackish marsh areas of the upper estuarine reaches are the primary nursery
            habitat for juvenile red drum in South Carolina (Cain and Dean 1976, Wenner et al. 1990).
            Larvae and juveniles enter these areas from August through October. Growth is temperature
            dependant and rapid for the first two years (Lyczkowski-Schultz et al. 1988). The average red
            drum grows to about 300 mm in length during the first year. The maximum size of red drum
            was estimated by Welsch and Breder (1924) to be no greater than 160 cm. The estimated
            maximum age of red drum is about 50 years (J. Ross, NCDNR in Wenner et al. 1990).

                   Adult red drum composing offshore populations along the Atlantic Coast move northward
            and inshore as water temperature rises in spring, and southward and offshore as temperatures
            drop in the fall (Yokel 1966). Within estuaries, juveniles move to deeper water in winter, and
            return to shallower areas as temperature rises in spring (Wenner et al. 1990). Juveniles
            generally do not move between estuaries or migrate along the coast.

                   Red drum are predatory fish, and their dietary preferences change as they develop and
            grow. Fish less than 15 mm feed exclusively on mysids and copepods (Wenner et al. 1990).
            Red drum in the 60-90 mm size range feed mainly on grass shrimp. Crabs ( e.g., Callinectes
            spp., Arenaeus cribatius, Portunus spp. Uca spp.) and fishes (Brevoortia tyrannus, Leiostomus
            xanthurus, Mugil spp.) are the preferred prey of large adult red drum (Yokel 1966, Overstreet
            and Heard 1978, Wenner et al. 1990). Large red drum (430-1,020 mm SL) also feed on sand
            dollars and sea cucumbers (Overstreet and Heard 1978).

            Potential Impacts of Dredge Material Disposal:

                   Red drum are an estuarine dependant species and the long term success of their
            populations requires adequate nursery habitat. Activities that result in the destruction or
            degradation of estuarine nursery habitats of red drum, mainly shallow tidal creeks and salt
            marshes, would have adverse effects upon their abundance. In light of the paucity of data


                                                         A-35










                  South Carolina                                                                     Appendix A
                  Marine Resources Division


                  regarding specific mating and spawning behavior of red drum, it would also be prudent to
                  exercise caution when contemplating disposal operations in nearshore areas, especially during
                  the mid to late summer peak spawning period.

                  References:


                  Buckley, J. 1984. Habitat suitability index models: larval and juvenile red drum. U.S. Fish.
                         Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.74. l5pp.

                  Cain, R.L. and J.M. Dean. 1976. Annual occurrence, abundance, and diversity of fish in a
                         South Carolina creek. Mar. Biol. (Berl.)36: 369-379.

                  Fischer, W. (ed.). 1978. FAO species identification sheets for fishery purposes. West central
                         Atlantic (fishing area 31). FAO, 6 Vols. pag. var.

                  Holt, J.R. and C.R. Arnold. 1981. Effects of temperature and salinity on egg hatching and
                         larval survival of red drum, Sciaenops ocellata. Fish. Bull. 79(3): 569-573.

                  Low, R.A., C.W. Waltz, R. Martore, and C.J. Moore. 1986. South Carolina marine
                         recreational fishery surveys, 1985 and 1986. South Carolina Marine Resources Center
                         Technical Rept. No. 65.

                  Low, R.A. and C.W. Waltz. 1988. South Carolina marine recreational fishery statistics survey
                         1987. South Carolina Marine Resources Center Technical Rept. No. 68.

                  Lyczkowski-Shultz, J., J.P. Steen, Jr., and B.H. Comyns. 1988. Early life history of red drum
                         (Sciaenops ocellatus) in the North-central Gulf of Mexico. Final Report Miss.-Ma. Sea
                         Grant Consort. Proj. No.: F/LR-12, pt.

                  McGovern, J.C. 1986. Seasonal recruitment of larval and juvenile fishes into impounded and
                         non-impounded marshes.      M.S. Thesis, College of Charleston, Charleston, South
                         Carolina. 123pp.

                  Mercer, L.P. 1984. A biological and fisheries profile of red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus.
                         Special Scientific Report No. 41. North Carolina DNR and Community Development,
                         Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC, 28577.

                  Overstreet, R.M. and R.W. Heard. 1978. Food of the red drum, Sciaenops ocellata, from
                         Mississippi Sound. Gulf Res. Rep. 6(2): 131-139.





                                                              A-36










            South Carolina                                                                          Appendix A
            Marine Resources Division


            Pearson, J.C. 1929. Natural history and conservation of red fish and other commercial
                    sciaenidae of the Texas coast. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 44: 129-214.


            Ross, J. Pers. comm. (In: Wenner, C.A. et al. 1990). North Carolina DNR and Community
                    Development. Manteo, N.C. 27954.

            Shealy, M.H., J.V. Miglarese, and E.B. Joseph. 1974. Bottom fishes of South Carolina
                    estuaries - relative abundance, seasonal distribution, and length-frequency relationships.
                    South Carolina Marine Resources Center Tech. Rept. No. 6. 189pp.

            Waltz, C.W., D.B. Stone III, U. West, E. Hens, and R.A. Low. 1990. South Carolina marine
                    recreational fish and shellfish fishery surveys, 1988. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine
                    Resources Dept., Marine Resources Division, Office of Fisheries Management, Technical
                    Report No. 75.

            Welsch, W.W. and C.M. Breder. 1924. Contribution to the life history of the Scianidae of the
                    eastern United States. Bull. U.S. Bur. fish. 39: 141-201.


            Wenner, C.A., W.A. Rournillat, J.E. Moran, Jr., M.B. Maddox, L.B. Daniel III, and J.W.
                    Smith. 1990. Investigations on the life history and population dynamics of marine
                    recreational fishes in South Carolina, Chapter 4. Final Report for the state of South
                    Carolina. Funded through the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act, Project F-37.

            Yokel, B.J. 1966. A contribution to the biology and distribution of the red drum, Sciaenops
                    ocellata. M.S. Thesis. U. of Miami, Coral Gables, FL. 160pp.


            M.      Eastern Wfld Turkey

                    Eastern wild turkey (Meleagils gallopayo sylvestfis) is a highly sought-after game bird
            known to inhabit upland habitats in the Charleston Harbor area. In addition, considerable
            resources have been expended restoring turkey populations and habitat in this region. This
            species, therefore, is an appropriate Representative Important Biota for defining and evaluating
            the potential impacts of alternative dredged material disposal sites on upland sites.

            Distribution and Ecolpgr.

                    Eastern wild turkey is tolerant of a wide range of environmental conditions (Dickson et
            al. 1978). The original range of the wild turkey included 39 states (covering the entire eastern
            U.S.) but was reduced to 20 states by 1948 (Trippensee 1948). Twenty-five years ago, wild
            turkeys were almost non-existent in South Carolina (Fleming 1974). As a result of increased


                                                           A-37











                  South Carolina                                                                      Appendix A
                  Marine Resources Division

                  protection and restocking efforts in suitable but unoccupied habitat, the turkey population has
                  increased in abundance over much of its range including South Carolina (Bailey and Rinnell
                  1968, Webb unpublished data).

                          The eastern wild turkey occupies a wide range of upland habitats (Dickson et al. 1978),
                  Bailey et al. 1981), including hardwood forests, pine forests, and scrub/shrub areas. In South
                  Carolina, turkeys are found in mixed pine-hardwood forests with a relatively open understory
                  (Fleming 1974). In the study area, turkeys were observed on the Parkers Island and Cainhoy
                  Road sites. Female turkeys build their nests on the ground in scrub/shrub areas with fairly
                  dense cover of brush, vines, deep grass, or fallen tree tops. Hens generally lay one clutch of
                  about nine eggs (Mosby and Handley 1943). They may produce another clutch if the first clutch
                  is lost to predators (Mosby and Handley 1943, Williams et al. 1969, Williams et al. 1976).

                          Eastern wild turkeys are non-migratory birds. They do, however, move extensively
                  throughout their home range which is typically about 5,000 acres of a multi-aged, mixed pine-
                  hardwood forest, interspersed with ample meadow and grassy openings (Holbrook 1970, Davis
                  1976). The exact amount of foraging habitat required by wild turkeys is dependent on the
                  availability of food (Wheeler 1948, Lewis 1963). The adults feed principally on plants, ranging
                  from 86 percent plant material in winter to 98 percent plant material in summer. Important food
                  items are oak and dogwood shoots, greenbrier, blackgum shoots, grasses, and pine shoots.
                  Insects are an important food source for young turkeys (3 to 7 days old).

                  Potential hoacts of Dredge Material DLsposal:

                          The major potential impact of construction and operation of alternative dredged material
                  disposal sites on wild turkey populations would be loss or degradation and nesting or forage
                  habitat. Declines in wild turkey populations have been observed in areas where prime nesting
                  or foraging habitat have been destroyed or degraded (Holbrook 1970, Everett et al. 1985).

                  References:


                  Bailey, R.W. and K.T. Rinnell. 1968. History and management of the wild turkey in West
                          Virginia. West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, Division of Game and Fish
                          Bulletin No. 6. 59 pp.

                  Bailey, R.W., J.R. Davis, J.E. Frampton, J.V. Gwynn, and J. Shugars. 1981. Habitat
                          requirements of the wild turkey in the southeast Piedmont. Pages 14-23 in P.T. Bromley
                          and R.L. Carlton (eds.). Wild turkey management, current problems and programs.
                          Missouri Chapter of the Wildlife Society and University of Missouri Press, Columbia.





                                                               A-38










            South Carolina                                                                     Appendix A
            Marine Resources Division

            Davis, J.R. 1976. Management for Alabama wild turkeys. Alabama Dept. Conserv., Special
                   Report 5, 130 pp.

            Dickson, J.G., C.D. Adams, and S.H. Hanley. 1978. Response of turkey populations to
                   habitat variables in Louisiana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 6(3): 163-166.

            Everett, D.D., D.W. Speake, and W.K. Maddox. 1985. Habitat use by wild turkeys in
                   northern Alabama. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association
                   of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 39: 479-488.

            Fleming, W.H. 1974. Study of home ranges and gobbling activities of wild turkeys during the
                   1973 breeding season. S. C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Division of
                   Game and Freshwater Fisheries. Project No. W-38-10.

            Holbrook, H.L. 1970. Management of wild turkey habitat in southern forest types. Pages 245-
                   252 in G.C. Sanderson and H.S. Schultz (eds.). Wild turkey management, current
                   problems and programs. Missouri Chapter of the Wildlife Society and University of
                   Missouri Press, Columbia.

            Lewis, J.C. 1963. Observations on the winter range of wild turkeys in Michigan. Journal of
                   Wildlife Management 27(l): 98-102.

            Mosby, H.S. and C.O. Handley. 1943. The wild turkey in Virginia, its status, life history, and
                   management. Division of Game Commission, Inland Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia.

            Trippensee, R.E. 1948. Wildlife management, vol. l..McGraw-Hill, New York. 479 pp.

            Webb, L.G. (unpublished data). 1973. Annual report: statewide wildlife research project. S.C.
                   Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Division of Game and Freshwater Fisheries.

            Wheeler, R.J., Jr. 1948. The wild turkey in Alabama. Alabama Department of Conservation,
                   Walker Printing Co., Montgomery. 92 pp.

            Williams, L.E., Jr., D.H. Austin, N.F. Eichholz, T.E. Peoples, and R.W. Phillips. 1969. A
                   study of nesting turkeys in southern Florida. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of
                   the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners 22: 16-30.


            Williams, L.E., Jr., D.H. Austin, and T.E. Peoples. 1976. The breeding potential of the wild
                   turkey hen. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of
                   Game and Fish Commissioners 30: 371-376.




                                                        A-39











                   South Carolina                                                                        Appendix A
                   Marine Resources Division


                   N.     Great Blue Heron


                          The great blue heron (Ardea herodias) is the terminal link in many aquatic food chains
                   and the condition of heron populations reflect changes originating at several different trophic
                   levels of the ecosystem (Custer and Osborn 1977). Reproductive success of blue herons is also
                   sensitive to chemical contamination and habitat modification. Because of these characteristics,
                   the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has used wading birds (herons and related species) as
                   biological indicators of the coastal environmental conditions since the mid-1970's (Custer and
                   Osborn 1977). The great blue heron is therefore an appropriate Representative Important Biota
                   for evaluating the potential impacts of construction and operation of alternative dredged material
                   disposal sites on the Charleston Harbor ecosystem.

                   Distribution and Ecolpml

                          Great blue herons range throughout North America and are permanent residents of South
                   Carolina (Sprunt and Chamberlain 1970). They are found throughout the Charleston Harbor
                   estuary in a variety of habitats ranging from freshwater lakes and wetlands to estuarine marshes
                   and maritime forests (Short and Cooper 1985). Historically, herons nested on the Drum Island
                   site, and currently, there is an active rookery adjacent to a borrow pit at the Point Hope Island
                   site. Herons reuse colony sites year after year (Custer and Osborn 1977) although the specific
                   location of the active nesting area will change slightly (Custer et al. 1980). Herons generally
                   only abandon a rookery if the availability of food in the area diminishes (Custer et al. 1980).

                          Great blue herons mate in spring and summer (Sprunt and Chamberlain 1970) and rear
                   their young in rookeries. The female lays one clutch (- 3 eggs/clutch) during the breeding year
                   (Sprunt and Chamberlain 1970). Rookeries are usually located in stands of tall trees near water
                   (McCrimmon 1978, Gibbs et al. 1987, Sprunt 1954, Burleigh 1958, Gibbs 1991). A variety of
                   other wading birds may co-occur in heron rookeries including the great egret, little blue heron,
                   Louisiana heron, and black-crowned night heron. Adult and juvenile blue herons forage in the
                   adjacent shallow waters, meadows, pastures, fields, ditches, and marshes for fish, insects,
                   salamanders, crabs, lizards, snakes, and small rodents (Meyerrieck 1960, Bayer 1978). At low
                   tides, herons also forage on exposed tidal flats, feeding on crabs and mollusks.

                   Potential Impacts of Dredge Material Disposal:

                          Habitat destruction that results in the loss of nesting and foraging habitats has been the
                   most important factor contributing to declines in great blue heron populations in recent years
                   (Kelsall and Simpson 1980, McCrimmon 1981). Therefore, the greatest potential impact of
                   construction and operation of dredged material disposal sites in Charleston Harbor on great blue
                   heron populations would be loss of foraging and/or nesting habitat.



                                                                 A-40










             South Carolina                                                                          Appendix A
             Marine Resources Division


             References:

             Bayer, R.D. 1978. Aspects of an Oregon estuarine great blue heron population. Wading birds.
                    National Audubon Society Research Report 7:99-103.

             Burleigh, T.D. 1958. Georgia birds. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

             Custer, T.W. and R.G. Osborn. 1977. Wading birds as biological indicators: 1975 colony
                    survey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Special Scientific Report-Wildlife No. 206.

             Custer, T.W., R.G. Osborn, and W.F. Stout. 1980. Distribution, species abundance, and
                    nesting-site use of Atlantic coast colonies of herons and their allies. The Auk 97: 591-
                    600.


             Gibbs, J.P. 1991. Spatial relationships between nesting colonies and foraging areas of great
                    blue herons. The Auk 108: 764-770.


             Gibbs, J.P., S. Woodward, M.L. Hunter, and A.E. Hutchinson. 1987. Determinants of great
                    blue heron colony distribution in coastal Maine. The Auk 104: 38-47.

             Kelsall, J.P. and K. Simpson. 1980. A three year study of the great blue heron in southwestern
                    British Columbia. Proceedings of the 1979 Conference. Colonial Waterbird Group 3:69-
                    74.

             McCrimmon, D.A., Jr. 1978. Nest-site characteristics among five species of herons on the
                    North Carolina coast. The Auk 95: 267-280.


             McCrimmon, D.A. 1981. The status and distribution of the great blue heron (Ardea herodias
                                                                                                              j
                    in New York State: results of a two year census effort. Colonial Waterbirds 4:85-90.

             Meyerrieck, A.J. 1960. Comparative breeding behavior of four species of North American
                    herons. Nuttal Ornithol. Club Publ. 2. 158 pp.

             Short, H.L. and R.J. Cooper. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: Great blue heron. U.S.
                    Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 82(10.99). 23 pp.

             Sprunt, A. 1954. Florida bird life. Coward-McCann, New York.

             Sprunt, A., Jr. and E.B. Chamberlain. 1970. South Carolina bird life. University of South
                    Carolina Press, Columbia.




                                                            A-41










                   South Carolina                                                                         Appendix A
                   Marine Resources Division


                   0.      River Offer


                           River otter (Lutra canadensis latarina) is a commercial fur bearing species that is hunted
                   for its pelt (Chabreck et al. 1982). Otters are also an aesthetically important species because
                   many people enjoy watching them. play and swim. Because they are top predators in the aquatic
                   ecosystems, the condition of otter populations is generally thought to reflect overall ecosystem
                   health. The river otter is therefore an appropriate Representative Important Biota for defining
                   and evaluating the potential impacts of construction and operation of alternative dredged material
                   disposal sites on the Charleston Harbor ecosystem.

                   Economic Value:


                           Otters are fur bearing animals that are harvested for their pelts, and during the 1976-1977
                   trapping season in Louisiana, 11,900 animals having a value of $535,000 were captured and sold
                   for their pelts (Chabreck et al. 1982). The value of the river otter in South Carolina is
                   negligible. The greatest value of river otters is, however, as indicators of ecosystem health and
                   for the aesthetic pleasure they provide the environmentally aware public.

                   Distribution and Ecology:

                           River otters are well established throughout South Carolina but are most abundant in the
                   coastal marshes and blackwater swamps (Baker and Carmichael 1989). High abundances of
                   river otter in coastal marshes have generally been attributed to the abundance of cover and food
                   characteristic of these habitats. Otters mate in late winter and early spring (McDaniel 1963,
                   Baker and Carmichael 1989), and the young, from 1 to 5 per litter, are born in early spring of
                   the next year (Wilson 1959). The young stay with the mother for about a year and probably
                   disperse just before the next litter is born (Baker and Carmichael 1989). River otters are seldom
                   found far from an aquatic environment (Lowery 1974). They typically build nests in protected
                   places near the water, such as in old banks, under a stump, in hollow trees, or in thick cane
                   patches. Otters forage in saline and freshwater environments, feeding on fish, crayfish, crabs,
                   mollusks, turtles, and waterfowl. Fish is their preferred food (McDaniel 1963, Wilson 1954,
                   Lauhachinda and Hill 1977, Chabreck et al. 1982, Baker and Carmichael 1989).

                           River otters may cover 50 to 60 miles of a stream course in a year and families range
                   about 3 to 10 miles in a season (Liers 1951). During the spring and summer months, otters
                   spend most of their time within an area of about 4 square miles. There is limited evidence that
                   some otters leave the natal range, but the timing of dispersal is not known (Wilson 1959).
                   Dispersal of family members from the natal range is probably related to the availability of food
                   (Melquist and Hornocker 1983, Chabreck et al. 1985).





                                                                 A-42











           South Carolina                                                                         Appendix A
           Marine Resources Division

           Potential hoacts of Dredge Material Disposal:

                   The river otter is very sensitive to changes in food availability within its range. Any
           habitat modifications that cause declines in local fish and invertebrate populations may force the
           otter to abandon the area. Therefore, the greatest potential impacts of construction and operation
           of dredged material disposal sites on river otters would be habitat alterations or losses that
           adversely affected the amount and kind of food available.

           References:


           Baker, O.E., III, and D.B. Carmichael, Jr. 1989. South Carolina's furbearers. Wildlife and
                   Marine Resources Department, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, Columbia.

           Chabreck, R.H., J.E. Holcombe, R.G. Linscombe, and N.E. Kinler. 1982. Winter foods of
                   river otters from saline and fresh environments in Louisiana. Proceedings of the Annual
                   Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 36: 473-483.

           Chabreck, R.H., T.L. Edwards, and G. Linscombe. 1985. Factors affecting the distribution
                   and harvest of river otters in Louisiana. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
                   Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 39: 520-527.

           Lauhachinda, V. and E.P. Hill. 1977. Winter food habits of river otters from Alabama and
                   Georgia. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish
                   and Wildlife Agencies 31: 246-253.

           Liers, E.E. 1951. Notes on the river otter (Lutra canadensis). Journal of Mammalogy 32(l):
                   1-9.


           Lowery, G.H. 1974. The mammals of Louisiana and its adjacent waters. Louisiana State
                   University Press, Baton Rouge. 565 pp.

           McDaniel, J.C. 1963. Otter population study. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of
                   Game and Fish Commissioners 17: 163-168.


           Melquist, W.E. and M.G. Hornocker. 1983. Ecology of river otters in west central Idaho.
                   Wildlife Monographs 83: 1-60.

           Wilson, K.A. 1954. The role of mink and otter as muskrat predators in northeastern North
                   Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management 18(2): 199-207.





                                                          A-43










                   South Carolina                                                                        Appendix A
                   Marine Resources Division


                   Wilson, K.A. 1959. The otter in North Carolina. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of
                           the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 13: 267-277.


                   P.      Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin

                           Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) is a top predator in South Carolina
                   coastal ecosystems, preying on juvenile fish and shrimp. Populations of these large mammals
                   are dependant upon abundant prey, and their presence in high abundance is considered to be an
                   indicator of healthy estuaries. Dolphins are also a charismatic species that have high aesthetic
                   value to the public. Because of their recognized value to the public as well as their importance
                   as top predators, dolphins are an appropriate Representative Important Biota to use for defining
                   and evaluating the impacts of construction and operation of alternative dredged material disposal
                   sites in the Charleston Harbor ecosystem.

                   Distribution and Ecology:

                           The Atlantic bottlenose dolphin is a cosmopolitan species, occurring along the coasts of
                   North and South America, Europe, Africa, and Australia (Tomilin 1957, Caldwell and Golley
                   1965, Sergeant et al. 1970, Ross 1977, Lear and Bryden 1980, Lichter and Hooper 1984). In
                   the Southeast, dolphins mainly reside in the tidewater channels between the sea islands and along
                   the ocean beaches (Golley 1966). Most bottlenose dolphins are year-round residents of a
                   particular area (Caldwell and Golley 1965, Wursig and Wursig 1979). Distributions, however,
                   vary seasonally, probably in response to food availability arvine et al. 1981).

                           Female dolphins reach sexual maturity at 5-12 years and 220-235 cm. Males mature at
                   10-13 years and 245-260 cm (Odell 1975). Calving occurs in most months with a peak usually
                   occurring in spring (Mead and Potter 1990). Most Atlantic bottlenose dolphins reside within a
                   natal home range. Adults forage around nearshore reefs and sand bottoms, as well as in the
                   deep estuaries. Calves (up to I year) primarily feed in shallow waters of the estuaries
                   (Cockcroft and Ross 1990). In South Carolina, major prey species for dolphins are fish and
                   shrimp (Mead and Potter 1990).

                   Potential Lnpacts of Dredge Material Disposal:

                           Because bottlenose dolphins are top predators, the condition of their population -reflect
                   the overall condition of the Charleston Harbor ecosystem.            Activities associated with
                   construction and operation of dredged material disposal sites in Charleston Harbor that adversely
                   affect spawning and nursery habitats for dolphin prey (fish and shrimp) or that adversely affect
                   migration and movement of fish and shrimp would be expected to adversely affect the bottlenose
                   dolphin abundance. Calves of bottlenose dolphins would be especially vulnerable since they feed


                                                                 A-44










            South Carolina                                                                         Appendix A
            Marine Resources Division


            primarily in estuaries.

            References:


            Barros, N.B. and D.K. Odell. 1990. Food habits of bottlenose dolphins in the southeastern
                   United States. Pages 309-328 in S. Leatherwood and R.R. Reeves (eds.). The bottlenose
                   dolphin. Academic Press, Inc., New York.

            Caldwell, M.C. and F.B. Golley. 1965. Marine mammals from the coast of Georgia to Cape
                   Hatteras. Journal of Elisha Mitchell Science Society 81: 24-32.

            Cockcroft, V.G. and G.J.B. Ross. 1990. Food and feeding of the Indian Ocean bottlenose
                   dolphin off southern Natal, South Africa. Pages 295-308 in S. Leatherwood and R.R.
                   Reeves (eds.). The bottlenose dolphin. Academic Press, Inc., New York.

            Golley, F.B. 1966. South Carolina mammals. The Charleston Museum, Charleston, South
                   Carolina.


            Irvine, A.B., M.D. Scott, R.S. Wells, and J.H. Kaufmann. 1981. Movements and activities
                   of the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, near Sarasota, Florida. Fishery
                   Bulletin 79(4): 671-688.

            Lear, R.J. and M.M. Bryden. 1980. A study of the bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, in
                   eastern Australian waters. ANPWS Occasional Papers 4, 25 pp.

            Lichter, A. and A. Hooper. 1984. Guia para el Reconocimiento de los Cetaceos del Mar
                   Argentino. Fundacion Vida, Silvestre Argentina, Buenos Aires. 96 pp.

            Mead, J.G. and C.W. Potter. 1990. Natural history of bottlenose dolphins along the Central
                   Atlantic Coast of the United States. Pages 165-195 in S. Leatherwood and R.R. Reeves
                   (eds.). The bottlenose dolphin. Academic Press, Inc., New York.

            Odell, D.K. 1975. Status and aspects of the life history of the bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops
                   truncatus, in Florida. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32: 1005-1058.

            Ross,  G.J.B. 1977. The taxonomy of bottlenosed dolphins Tursiops species in South African
                   waters, with notes on their biology. Ann. Cape Prov. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) 11(9): 135-194.

            Scott, G.P. 1990. Management-oriented research on bottlenose dolphins by the Southeast
                   Fisheries Center. Pages 623-639 in S. Leatherwood and R.R. Reeves (eds.). The
                   bottlenose dolphin. Academic Press, Inc., New York.


                                                          A-45










                 South Carolina                                                                  Appendix A
                 Marine Resources Division


                 Sergeant, D.E., A.W. Mansfield, and B. Beck. 1970. Inshore records of Cetacea for eastern
                        Canada. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 27(11): 1903-1915.

                 Tomilin, A.G. 1957. Mammals of the U.S.S.R. and adjacent countries. Volume IX, Cetacea.
                        Israel Program for Scientific Translation (No. 1124), Jerusalem. 738 pp.

                 Wursig, B. 1986. Delphinid foraging strategies. Pages 347-359 in R.J. Schusterman, J.A.
                        Thomas, and F.G. Woods (eds.). Dolphin cognition and behavior: A comparative
                        approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, New Jersey. 393 pp.

                 Wursig, B. and M. Wursig. 1979. Behavior and ecology of the bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops
                        truncatus, in the South Atlantic. Fishery Bulletin 77: 399-412.




































                                                           A-46


























                                     APPENDIX B



                      Description of Representative Important Habitats




















                                             B-1










                   South Carolina                                                                           Appendix B
                   Marine Resources Division


                   A.      Existing Contained Disposal Areas

                           Active contained dredged material disposal areas were included in this Representative
                   Important Habitat (RIH) category. These environments have little ecological value as habitat
                   for Representative Important Biota (RIB) and are designed to retain the sediments that are placed
                   in them. Existing contained disposal areas include the Yellow House Creek, Naval Weapons
                   Station, Clouter Creek, Drum Island, and Morris Island sites.


                   B.      Upland Habitat

                           For the purpose of this study, all non-wetland land cover and uses are included in this
                   RIH category including: residential, industrial, commercial, utility right-of-ways, historical,
                   cleared areas, and natural plant communities (coastal shrub and forested communities). Much
                   of the primary production in wooded coastal habitats falls to the ground where it decomposes.
                   These decompositional processes are important in controlling the flux of materials, especially
                   nutrients, from upland to aquatic habitats. Coastal wooded upland habitats are also important
                   foraging and nesting places for many terrestrial animals including amphibians, reptiles, birds,
                   and mammals. Diverse bird communities nest and forage in the pine forests, including the pine
                   warbler, Bachman's sparrow, bobwhite quail, and screech owl. Terrestrial birds, such as the
                   ground dove, red-winged blackbird, and mockingbird, nest and forage in coastal shrub
                   communities. Bird populations tend to be more diverse and abundant in buffer areas between
                   upland habitat types. Mammals inhabiting coastal upland habitats including rodents, white-tailed
                   deer as well as predators, like the bobcat and fox. Three Representative Important Biota are
                   found in the coastal upland habitats: eastern wild turkey, the great blue heron, and the red-
                   cockaded woodpecker. Wild turkey roosts in pine trees, great blue herons establish nesting
                   colonies in pine forests near water, and the red-cockaded woodpecker is endemic to pine forests.


                   C.      Freshwater Wetlands


                           The freshwater forested and emergent wetlands that are scattered throughout the candidate
                   upland sites in the low-lying areas (e.g., Parkers Island, Rodent Island, Naval Weapons Station,
                   Point Hope Island) were included in this RIH category. Major freshwater wetland types
                   characterized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
                   (NWI) that were included are: temporarily-flooded hardwood forests and evergreen forests,
                   seasonally-flooded hardwood forests, semi-permanently flooded emergent wetlands, temporarily-
                   flooded emergent wetlands, and temporarily-flooded shrub/scrub wetlands. The degree and
                   duration of flooding is dependent on the soil type and amount and degree of relief. The
                   temporarily-flooded hardwood wetlands are typically dominated by oaks (i.e., willow, swamp,
                   chestnut, and water oaks), sweetgum, and red maple. The seasonally-flooded evergreen


                                                                   B-2










           South Carolina                                                                         Appendix B
           Marine Resources Division


           wetlands are dominated by loblolly and slash pine. The seasonally flooded hardwood wetlands
           are typically dominated by sweetgum, black gum, and red maple. The semi-permanently flooded
           emergent wetlands are shallow marshes. These marshes are dominated by emergent plants such
           as pickerel weed, water lilies, and spikerushes. The temporarily-flooded emergent wetlands are
           predominantly found in cut over forested wetland areas where the hardwoods were salvaged after
           Hurricane Hugo. These wetlands are in an early successional stage, and will eventually revert
           to a oak-dominated forested wetland. During site visits, oak seedlings were observed scattered
           among emergent plants. The emergent wetlands found in cutover forested areas resemble
           temporarily-flooded emergent wetlands and are dominated by spikerushes, bulrushes, sedges,
           and blue flag. The temporarily-flooded scrub/shrub wetlands are found along ditches and in
           open areas within cutover forested wetlands. The dominant species commonly found in this
           wetland type are: wax myrtle and holly. Freshwater forested and emergent wetlands provide
           habitat for many rare biota (e.g., Canby's dropwort) and are nursery habitat for amphibians and
           insects that are an important food source for raptors (e.g., owls), wading birds (e.g., herons),
           and insectivorous birds. Emergent wetlands are preferred foraging habitat for migratory
           waterfowl and mammal species, providing a excellent source of grasses and forbs. The
           hardwood wetlands supply the wild turkey populations with their most important food source -
           acorns. Forested hardwood and evergreen wetlands provide nesting habitat for herons (i.e.,
           great blue heron) and related species. All types of freshwater wetlands have important roles as
           sinks for nutrients and sediments protecting the water quality of streams, rivers, and estuaries.
           These wetlands also have critical roles in controlling hydroperiod and flooding for upland areas.


           D.      Ponds, Borrow Pits, Irnpoundments

                   Borrow pits and impoundments are the two habitat types in this RIH category that
           occurred at candidate dredged material disposal sites. Borrow pits occur at the Rodent Island
           and Point Hope Island sites, and impoundments occur at the Lower Thomas Island and Cainhoy
           Road sites. Borrow pits are excavated areas that function as freshwater ponds. These pits vary
           in shape from circular pits with steep banks and no rooted vegetation to oblong pits with sloping
           banks and abundant vegetation cover. Borrow pits frequently provide rookery and foraging
           habitat for herons and related species. The Point Hope Island borrow pits are documented
           rookeries for the great blue heron. Borrow pits with steep banks have less productive and
           diverse aquatic communities and are not optimal foraging habitat for wading birds.

                   All but one of the impoundments occurring at candidate dredged material disposal sites
           are diked salt marshes. The remaining impoundment is a diked small creek. All are inundated
           with saltwater during spring and storm tides. The food webs in impoundments are similar to
           those of adjacent brackish marshes. Impoundments provide nursery habitat for amphibians and
           wading birds. Otters, raptors, migratory waterfowl, and other estuarine-dependent mammals
           also forage in the impoundments. Because they attract dense waterfowl populations, recreational


                                                          B-3










                    South Carolina                                                                        Appendix B
                    Marine Resources Division


                    hunters use impoundments as preferred hunting sites.



                    E.     Mixed Estuarine Marshes


                           Estuarine marshes are a dominant feature of the Charleston Harbor ecosystem. Marsh
                    vegetation characteristic of this habitat, mainly smooth cordgrass and black needlerush, produces
                    an enormous amount of organic material exceeding the productivity of most terrestrial
                    communities of comparable size, even intensively managed cropland. The high productivity of
                    estuarine marshes is mainly due to the diel inundation by water containing relatively high
                    concentrations of nutrients augmented by nutrients in surface runoff from adjacent terrestrial
                    environments. Two salt marsh types (low and high elevation) occur along the Wando River.
                    The low elevation marsh is found primarily in the intertidal zone and is dominated by smooth
                    cordgrass; whereas the high elevation marsh is found above the high tide mark and is dominated
                    by black needlerush. Along the Cooper River, a sharp boundary between the low and high
                    elevation marshes does not exist. In this region, estuarine marshes were classified as mixed
                    elevation salt marsh because plant species characteristic of both high and low elevation zones
                    co-occurred. Only a small amount of the grass which is produced in salt marshes is consumed
                    directly by grazers. Most of it falls to the marsh surface when the plant dies and is decomposed
                    by microbial organisms and small invertebrates. This decaying marsh grass is called detritus
                    and forms the base of a complex salt marsh food web. Low elevation estuarine marshes are
                    important foraging habitat for many wading birds (e.g., great blue heron), waterfowl (e.g.,
                    clapper rail), raptors (e.g., osprey), aquatic mammals, and fish (e.g., mummichog, bay anchovy,
                    red drum, summer and southern flounder). This wetland type is also a nursery habitat for many
                    recreationally and commercially important species including red drum, blue crab, and white and
                    brown shrimp. High elevation marshes are important nursery habitat for many birds including
                    the clapper, virginia, king, and sora rails. A few small mammals nest in the high marsh,
                    including the marsh rabbit and rice rat.



                    F.     Tidal Sand and Mud Flats


                            Tidal sand and mud flats are usually unvegetated although salt tolerant species such as
                    saltwort and salt grass can be found on some high elevation sand flats. Mud flats are generally
                    found lower in the intertidal zone than the elevation at which emergent vegetation flourishes.
                    Occasionally, however, mud flats occur within the smooth cordgrass community. Sand flats are
                    found in the transitional zone between upland areas and high elevation salt marshes or near the
                    mouths of inlets and creeks. Tidal flats were abundant on the Parkers Island, Point Hope Island,
                    and Rodent Island sites, as well as at the Fort Johnson site. The major primary producers of
                    tidal flats are benthic microalgae, such as diatoms and blue-green algae. The production of these
                    bottom-occurring algae frequently exceed phytoplankton production in shallow and turbid,


                                                                  B-4










            South Carolina                                                                         Appendix B
            Marine Resources Division

            coastal waters and may contribute up to one third of overall ecosystem primary production. The
            permanent residents on sand and mud flats are mainly bottom dwelling invertebrates which live
            in and on the sediments including oysters, clams, and crabs as well as segmented worms and
            small crustaceans. These biota have important roles in the breakdown of detritus, and many
            species of fish, birds, and small mammals come to tidal flats to feed upon them. Several
            Representative Important Biota feed extensively on mud flats (i.e., red drum, blue crab, great
            blue heron). Tidal flats also have important roles in estuarine material cycles.



            G.     Small Tidal Creeks


                   This RIH habitat category encompasses tidal creeks and their tributaries with an average
            depth of < 2 meters (6.6 feet) at mean high water. Because the tidal amplitude in the Charleston
            Harbor ranges from 1. 8 to 2. 0 m, small tidal creeks and their tributaries are exposed during low
            tide. The bottom dwelling organisms that permanently reside in this habitat, including the
            oysters and clams, are physiologically adapted to the extreme changes in environmental
            conditions that are associated with the rising and falling of tides. These shallow tidal creeks are
            particularly important nursery grounds for many commercially and recreationally important
            marine species (e.g., red drum, spotted seatrout, summer and southern flounder, blue crabs, and
            penaeid shrimp). Shallow tidal creeks are also important foraging habitat for wading birds and
            many mammals. Recreational fishermen frequently fish in small tidal creeks on rising tides to
            catch larger predatory fish that are entering the small tidal creeks to forage on the abundant
            populations of smaller organisms.


            H.     Large Tidal Creeks and Rivers

                   This RIH habitat category encompasses all creeks with an average depth > 2 meters (6.6
            feet) at mean high tide. It mainly includes the Wando and Cooper rivers. Deep tidal creeks are
            permanently flooded and provide migrational routes for movement of seasonal migrants like
            white shrimp, blue crab, and red drum to their nursery habitat. Migratory fish (e.g., herrings,
            striped bass, eels) also use large tidal creeks as conduits to and from their spawning grounds.
            During winter, the deeper portions of large tidal creeks provide a refuge for overwintering fish
            (e.g., red drum, spotted seatrout), white shrimp, and blue crab from extreme winter
            temperatures. Selected deeper portions of large tidal creeks, such as the portion of the Wando
            River in the vicinity of the Cooper River Bridge, are known to be spawning sites for spotted
            seatrout. Many species of diving birds (e.g., gulls, terms, skimmers, pelicans) prey upon the
            abundant populations of juvenile fish that accumulate in large tidal rivers. Large tidal creeks
            and rivers are also preferred fishing sites for humans, particularly the portion of the Cooper
            River in the vicinity of the north end of Drum Island. The port and Naval facilities in
            Charleston Harbor are located in large tidal rivers.


                                                           B-5










                    South Carolina                                                                             Appendix B
                    Maxine Resources Division



                    1.      Shallow Estuary

                            Subtidal estuarine areas :!@2 meters (6.6 feet) deep with a salinity greater than 20 ppt
                    were included in this RIH category. These areas are found between the Fort Johnson site and
                    the existing Morris Island dredged material disposal site in Clark Sound. Because the tidal
                    amplitude in Charleston Harbor ranges from 1. 8 to 2. 0 m, shallow estuarine habitats are usually
                    flooded during high tide and exposed at low tide. Shallow estuarine habitats serve all the
                    ecological functions previously discussed for small tidal creeks. Because they are characterized
                    by particularly abundant populations of oysters, clams, and shrimp, these habitats are extensively
                    used by humans for shellfishing. Shallow estuarine habitat is also preferred foraging habitat for
                    wading birds.


                    J.      Deep Estuary

                            Subtidal estuarine areas @!: 2 meters (6.6 feet) deep with a salinity @!: 20 ppt were included
                    in this RIH category. These areas were predominantly found from the confluence of the Wando
                    and Cooper rivers to the mouth of the Charleston Harbor proper. Deep estuarine habitat serves
                    all the ecological and human use functions previously discussed for large tidal creeks and rivers.
                    In addition, this RIH is extensively used by humans for boating. It also provides transportation
                    routes for shipping traffic to port facilities.



                    K.      Coastal Dunes and Beaches


                            Intertidal beaches as well as coastal dunes were included in this RIH category. In the
                    study area, beaches were found in the vicinity of the Middle Shoal site and at the Fort Johnson
                    and Morris Island sites. Coastal dunes were found only at the Morris Island site. Coastal
                    beaches and dunes represent physically extreme environments, and relatively few biota have the
                    adaptations to occur here. As a result, the biodiversity of the coastal dune and beach habitat is
                    low. The bottom dwelling biota that can tolerate the extreme conditions of coastal beaches are,
                    however, frequently abundant and provide forage for the many species of shorebirds (e.g.,
                    sandpipers, plovers) and nearshore fishes (e.g., whiting, spot). Coastal dunes are important
                    nesting habitat for sea turtles, and the endangered loggerhead turtle has been reported to nest
                    on coastal beaches near the Morris Island site. Coastal dune habitats are a seed- and grass-rich
                    environment, providing food for many birds such as doves, sparrow, and blackbirds. Raptors
                    and insectivorous birds also frequent the dunes, preying on the insects, birds and small mammals
                    that forage and nest in the area. Dunes are an important nesting and resting habitat for the
                    American oyster catcher, black skimmer, various gulls and tems. Perhaps the most important
                    function of coastal dunes is the protection it provides adjacent upland habitats from erosion


                                                                     B-6










           South Carolina                                                                        Appendix B
           Marine Resources Division


           during storms. Humans use coastal beaches for fishing, swimming, and other recreational
           activities.



           L.     Shallow Coastal Water


                  Coastal ocean habitats between beachfront and 10 m (< 33 ft) were included in this RIH
           category. These areas provide important nursery habitat for many species of commercially and
           recreationally important fish including Atlantic croaker, spot, spotted seatrout, weakfish, and
           whiting. Shrimp are particularly abundant in this habitat in summer and fall as they migrate
           from their estuarine nursery habitats into coastal waters, and most of the commercial shrimp
           catch is taken from shallow coastal waters. Shallow coastal waters are accessible to small boats
           and are used by a range of recreational fishermen seeking to catch Spanish mackerel, king
           mackerel, red drum, and other large predator fish that prey upon the small fish that use this
           habitat as a nursery.


           M.     Deep Coastal Water

                  Coastal ocean habitats @t 10 m (- 33 ft) in depth were included in this RIH category.
           These oceanic environments generally have high water quality and provide habitat for many
           pelagic game fish which are highly sought by recreational fishermen including dolphin, Spanish
           and king mackerel, wahoo, tuna, white and blue marlin, and sailfish. These predatory fish feed
           on the abundant supply of pelagic forage fish that occur in this habitat (e.g., menhaden, mullet,
           herrings, flying fish). The sand bottom habitat that is characteristic of this environment is
           dominated by bottom dwelling organisms that burrow below the sediment surface. It is generally
           not as productive as comparable estuarine bottom habitats.



           N.     Live Bottom Habitat


                  Live bottom habitats are best developed in coastal waters Z!! 18 m (- 60 ft) where
           exposed rocky outcrops and a high degree of bottom relief occurs. They, however, do occur
           in shallow coastal waters.      These habitats contain diverse assemblages of large sessile
           invertebrates (e.g., sponges, soft and hard corals, tunicates and sea fans). Abundant and diverse
           populations of small invertebrates that are prey for larger fish are associated with the sponges
           and corals. Many recreationally and commercially important fish (e.g., snapper, grouper,
           mackerel) aggregate in the vicinity of live bottom habitats. In a sense, live bottom habitats
           resemble an oasis in a desert. Compared to adjacent sand bottom habitat, the amount of live
           bottom habitat in coastal waters is limited (5-30% in the mid-Atlantic). Because of the abundant
           populations of fish, live bottom habitats are also locations where offshore fishermen aggregate.


                                                          B-7



























                                                                                                 - DATE DUE -













                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                               GAYLORDIN.. 2333                                   IPRINTED 17,11 U SA















                              .44n@




                                                                                                                                     Iw



                                                                                       77@
                                                                                                                   4@w
                                                                                                        !W
                                          %
                                                                                                            Ap

                                                                                                                  00.
                               'a.                                                                                r7_



                      ow           k


                                                                                                                VP
                                                                                                 Tv.


                                                                          041,
                                                                               ;ik


    aim
                        lo;
                                                                                    4v
                                                                                       MEL&-
                  Ile
                                                                       00"7

                                         FIRM
                                               IT.

















         AA
                    0,4r;,4pow Ar
                                                                 OF

                                    ;<VM
                                                           49
                                                 #400


                        46                    Ile


                                  00
                                                                                                                 ZZ-2



































                                                                           AgAp
                                                                                A




                                                             R 6668 14104 1'14.5