Mobile Bay Background Information
Mobile Bay Delta Area
Alabama
Historical Change
Tri-State Compact or the "Water War"
Education, Recreation, Water Supply
Labor Force, Median Age, Population Distribution, Income
Background Information
Mobile Bay, Alabama
Bridgehead Quadrangle
Summary information on the Mobile Bay Delta area is a compilation of Open File government documents, Internet accessible data, and articles related to Mobile Bay. General information from multiple sources and data from Internet websites are not cited. The addresses of websites used, however, are listed in the references.
Mobile Bay
Mobile Bay is the largest estuary along the northeastern coast of the Gulf of Mexico and includes the bay proper and the Mobile Tensaw River Delta. Mobile Bay is the sixth largest drainage basin in the United States and receives drainage from almost two-thirds of Alabama and portions of Mississippi and Tennessee totaling over 44,000 square miles (Figure 1). The Bay is eight miles wide and forty miles long. The Bay ends at the Gulf Shores-Fort Morgan Peninsula and Dauphin Island. The Mobile Bay area is broken into 26 quadrangles that line both Mobile and Baldwin Counties. The focus of this case study is the Bridgehead Quadrangle where several rivers flow into the Bay including the Mobile, Tensaw, Apalachee and Blakeley Rivers (Figure 2).
The coastal area of Mobile Bay has a long history of human misuse ranging from garbage dumping during the civil war to current septic tank dumping and dredging. The shallow depth of Mobile Bay, combined with the port's distance of 37km (23 mi) from deep Gulf waters, has required major dredging projects since about 1830 to accommodate ocean-going vessels. Although these channels greatly benefit water commerce, they may have serious environmental consequences. Channel construction alters the bottom habitat by deepening portions of the estuary and filling or reducing the water depth in other areas. Channelization and spoil deposition from a dredging project may increase saltwater intrusion and turbidity, prolong flushing, alter tidal exchange and water circulation patterns, destroy submerged plants, and alter fish behavior and abundance.
Figure 1: Mobile Bay Water Shed
Figure 2: Location of the twenty-six 7.5 min. quadrangles showing the area surrounding Mobile Bay and including the Alabama Coastal Zone.
Since Mobile Bay is a wetland site of national importance threats to the bay's survival are taken seriously. The bay contributes to the economy, food supply, water quality and supply, flood and erosion control of the Mobile Delta region and it provides habitats for fish, wildlife and plant resources along the Gulf Coast. Some threats and damage to the bay are caused by human factors that can be controlled, to some extent, by federal and state regulations. Urbanization, industrialization, agriculture and land use, oil and gas activities, dredging, water quality, fisheries, wetland change, fresh water inflow, endangered and threatened species, and critical habitat are problems that affect all Mobile Bay. For the purposes of this project we are focusing on the effects of freshwater inflow into the Mobile Bay Delta. The increase or decrease of freshwater flowing into the delta and bay vary with the season. Storm passage and human activities can have a marked impact on bay circulation patterns and saltwater intrusions and water quality.
Mobile Bay 's rapid growth in population and industry, while good for the economy, creates problems with the ecology of the bay. Four identified human activities have caused wetland changes in Mobile Bay. These include:
1. Change in sediment input into the bay because of water conservation and agricultural practices.
2. Modification of circulation in the bay from the construction of causeways, residential landfills, and spoil banks adjacent to navigation channels.
3. Resuspension of sediment by dredging navigation channels and oyster shells.
4. Introduction of solid wastes from municipal and industrial plants.
Of these four, changes in sediment input into Mobile Bay is probably having and will continue to have a profound effect on sedimentation rates. Local, state, and federal programs are aware of the negative impact population growth and industry are having in Mobile Bay and are offering some protection against human destruction. (Note: Federal and state regulations govern use of wetlands. A brief description of applicable regulations is in the Reference Manual.)
The following historical explanation of wetland loss for the Mobile Bay Delta is from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wetland Research Center's publications Use of GIS Technologies in Addressing Resource Management Problems in Mobile Bay, Alabama written by E.R. Roach, et al. and Wetland Changes in Coastal Alabama written by E.R. Roach, et al.
In the continental United States wetland losses in the 20-year period after 1955 totaled more than 9 million acres, or an average of about 458,000 acres per year. Figure 2 shows the most current data available on wetland loss for Mobile Bay. The re-analysis of wetland loss data from 1956, 1978, and 1988 is in progress by the National Wetlands Research Center and should be available Spring of 1998.
Non-fresh 1955 acreage 41,309 1979 acreage 29,282
Marsh Acreage Change -12,027 % change -29%
Non-fresh 1955 acreage 605,010 1979 acreage 595,438
Open Water Acreage Change -9,572 % change -2%
Fresh Open 1955 acreage 3,185 1979 acreage 6,109
Water Acreage Change +2,924 % change +92%
Figure 3: Wetland Change 1955 to 1979
Non-fresh marshes sustained the greatest loss of any wetland type in the upper Mobile Bay with a loss of 10,000 acres between 1956 and 1978. Surprisingly, commercial-residential development accounted for only 7% of the losses, whereas approximately 88% of the losses were accredited to industrial-navigation development, erosion, or natural succession. Between 1978 and 1988 there were no additional losses of non-fresh marsh. Losses of non-fresh marsh did occur during this period, however the losses were offset by gains of emergents developing on dredge spoil materials. Fresh marsh showed an increase of habitat by 467 acres between 1978 and 1988.
The other victim of commercial and residential development is forested wetlands. With the aid of conversion to scrub-shrub areas, to small impoundments, and to commercial and residential development, 486 ha (1,201 acres) of forested wetlands (2.7%) in upper Mobile Bay were eliminated between 1979 and 1988.
Certain federal and state regulations provide some measure of regulation of human activity within the Mobile Bay and delta. Unfortunately, though, not all marsh losses are under the control federal or state agencies via permitting authorities. It is believed that the unregulated causes of marsh loss could result in the loss of all non-fresh marshes in coastal Alabama within the next 125 years.
Mobile Bay estuary is a coastal environment where saltwater and freshwater mix. Freshwater inflow primarily from rivers creates an ecological imbalance that affects plant and animal habitats by increasing and decreasing salinity levels within the bay. Several factors affect the level of freshwater inflow including erosion, severe weather disturbances, sediment changes, river runoff, and human interaction, such as pollution, population pressure, and dredging. A combination of and an interaction between human induced factors and natural occurring events cause change and problems within the bay. Often, it is difficult to separate which is most influential for changes to the bay's ecosystems--natural events or human interaction.
The increase of natural disasters affects the bay's ecosystems. Hurricanes, high winds, excessive waves, and flooding are just a few natural occurring events that increase shoreline erosion, and affect the amount of freshwater inflow and the mixing of salinity levels. This increase has detrimental effects on both vegetation and animal habitats within the Mobile Bay Delta.
The recent landfall of Hurricane Danny (July 1997) caused minimal damage to the bay and delta wetlands, however, the impacts within some residential areas, pecan orchards, and beaches of gulf shores and Point Clear were more severe. As Hurricane Danny approached Mobile Bay, storm winds pushed the water out of the bay to abnormally low water levels exposing large areas of mud flats to the air. There was little storm surge as Hurricane Danny moved across the bay and the water returned to normal or slightly elevated levels. After the hurricane passed, tremendous amounts of precipitation throughout the basin, between 20-42 inches, raised the water level in the upper bay and delta by as much as five feet inundating emergent marsh, uprooting some aquatics, and flushing salt water, contaminants and debris into the lower bay and the Gulf of Mexico. (When the WETMAAP Development Team visited the site ten days after Hurricane Danny, the water level was still three feet above normal.)
Although dredging and spoil disposal have definable impacts upon salinity stratification and alters current patterns of circulation, they may not be as important as the change in fresh water inflow into the delta. During high-flow periods and major flooding the saltwater wedge is pushed further south toward the mouth of the bay. High water also brings higher amounts of sediment into the delta and upper bay and tends to re-suspend and redistribute contaminants throughout the bay. During the low-flow period, from July through December, surface salinities increase, and may extend far upstream from the bay.
Freshwater inflow often directly affects habitats. Low water may cause anoxic conditions within the water column, which are manifested by fish kills, crabs found dead in traps, and the famous AJubilee.@ Change in water circulation and increased salinity stratification is partly responsible for the low oxygen concentrations in base areas of the bay. Dredging has caused more pronounced salinity stratification on the eastern side of the channel because the flow of saltwater from the Gulf has been restricted in the western side. It is the northern section of the Bay, however that the spoil banks have effected both surface and bottom circulation. Low water conditions also can lead to high levels of salinity that may force fresh species of plants and animals further north into the delta and stress freshwater plants covering the delta flats and river banks. Conversely, during high river runoff, including flooding, oyster reefs may become contaminated, particularly by fecal coliform, and oyster harvesting is restricted by the state and federal governments.
Tri-State Compact or the "Water War"
The southeastern United States generally experiences abundant rainfall and the water resources in this region have been developed to serve a variety of purposes including navigation, flood control, hydro power, water supply, water quality, and recreation. While abundant, water is a finite resource. This was vividly demonstrated when periods of drought in 1981, 1986 and 1988, restricted or curtailed some uses and required special conservation measures to endure the shortages.
The water resources of two basins, the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) in the states of Alabama and Georgia and the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, became major issues. These basins both originate in north Georgia and have a common boundary of approximately 233 miles. Both basins have experienced rather extensive water resource development in the form of multiple purpose reservoirs by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and non-Federal interests. There are 10 Corps reservoirs and 21 non-federal reservoirs within the two basins.
Considerable growth has been experienced in the Atlanta metropolitan area that is located near the upper portion of both basins in Georgia. The population of this area has steadily increased from less than one-half million n 1950 to almost three million in 1990. This concentration of people has produced a commensurate demand on the water resources of the two basins.
Over the last 30 years, a number of water resources studies have been conducted by Federal and state agencies in both the ACF and ACT river basins. Over time the issues considered in these studies became more controversial such that in June 1983, the Governors of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida and the Corps signed a Memorandum of Agreement to develop a water management system for the ACF basin. Additionally, during the early 1980's the Corps received requests from several north Georgia communities requesting reallocation of reservoir storage to satisfy increasing water supply needs. Acting upon requests, the Corps prepared draft reports proposing reallocation of storage in three reservoirs from hydro power.
On June 28,1990, the state of Alabama, concerned about the downstream and cumulative impacts of proposed and potential future water resource actions, filed litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The suit challenged the adequacy of the Corps' environmental impact documentation addressing the proposed reallocation and the procedures that the Corps had followed in operating Federal reservoirs.
The periods of droughts experienced during the 1980's sensitized the region to the importance of water. Virtually every citizen of the region experienced some hardships or inconveniences due to the severe and extended droughts. Overall, the situation was tense, polarized, and became contentious. It has become known as the "Water Wars."
Shortly after litigation was filed by Alabama, representatives of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and the Corps began discussions seeking to resolve the conflicts. There was general agreement among the parties that litigation was the least desirable option of resolving the water resource conflicts. The state of Alabama requested the Court stay the litigation while negotiations were pursued; the Court granted the request.
As a result of the dialogue among the parties, a Letter of Agreement was signed by the Governors of the states of Alabama and Georgia, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works on April 29, 1991. The Letter of Agreement addressed certain short-term issues within the ACT river basin.
The U.S. Congress, aware of this regional disharmony, provided funds in 1990, for the Corps to initiate a comprehensive water resources study (The Comprehensive Study). This study would address the availability and anticipated long-term water needs as well as the potential ramifications of various water management options on multiple interests in the two basins.
After 18 months of dialogue and negotiations, on January 3, 1992, the Governors of the states of Alabama, Florida and Georgia and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works signed a Memorandum of Agreement as equal partners through the Comprehensive Study process to seek resolution of water resource issues. The signing of the Memorandum of Agreement signaled the official beginning of a unique partnership approach among the three states and the Corps. The memorandum has been supplemented three times. The completion date of the Comprehensive Study was extended to December 31, 1997.
The three states and the Corps are equal partners in the conduct of the Study and are responsible for all technical aspects and the overall management of the Study process. The total cost of the Study is $15,480,733 off which the three states have contributed funds totaling $4,123,400 in addition to significant in-kind efforts.
The Comprehensive Study is comprised of 15 study elements grouped into four major categories reflecting the areas of emphasis and relating to the Study objectives. The following is a brief summary of the study elements and tasks:
Population and Employment element B developed econometric models to forecast economic and population variables through 2050. The model has been run to estimate demands for municipal, industrial, and recreational use of water within the basins.
Database element B provided the centralized database for the ACF/ACT Comprehensive Study.
Public Involvement Program B coordinated the interest groups and the general public within the basins as well as Federal and state agencies.
Surface Water Availability element B determined the existing and potential future availability of surface water resources within the basins using a river/reservoir simulation model. This element also provided simulated flow data for all the other study elements' models and analysis.
Groundwater Availability element B determined the existing and potential future availability of groundwater resources within the basins. Groundwater models were developed to describe the groundwater availability and examined the surface water/groundwater relationship throughout the basins. Additionally, for the southwest Georgia sand plain, where irrigation for peanut crops is a huge groundwater withdrawal issue, increased data acquisition and groundwater models were modified for use in this element.
Agriculture Water Demand element B provided a projection of the water needs for five broad agricultural categories (crops and orchards, turf farms, nurseries, aquiculture, and livestock and poultry) to 2050.
Apalachicola River and Bay Water Demand element -- developed and calibrated a three-dimensional model of the Apalachicola Bay which was used to examine changes in salinity, circulation and other physical characteristics resulting from changes in fresh water inflow.
Environmental Water Demand element -- determined significant, water-related water demands including riverine resources, riparian wetlands habitat, reservoir fisheries habitat, protected species, and fish and wildlife management facilities.
Municipal and Industrial Water Demand element B projected the demand for water by municipalities and industries within the two basins using a water demand analysis computer program. Water use estimates for 1990 were developed and have been verified to actual use statistics.
Navigation Water Demand element B determined the water needs to support navigation in each of the two basins, consistent with Congressional authority of the various navigational projects.
Power Resources Water Demand element B described and quantified the existing conditions under which electric power facilities operate within the basins, estimated future electric load and resource needs, determined the potential effects of alternative flow conditions on power generation, and evaluated alternative operating conditions for power generation.
Recreation Water Demand element B developed a process for evaluating the effects of potential water management alternatives on water-based recreational use of water resource projects in the ACF/ACT basins.
Water Quality Water Demand element B described and quantified the existing and forecasted water quality conditions within the ACF/ACT river basins, and determined the effects of varying water management scenarios on water quality conditions.
Comprehensive Management Strategy
The Basin-wide Management study element integrates the results of the water demand and availability studies and allows an assessment of the existing and future capability of the water resources within the ACF/ACT basins to meet expected water needs under current and alternative management scenarios. The objective of the Basin-wide Management element is to develop a framework and tools which the Study Partners can use to estimate future water uses and formulate and evaluate alternatives to current water management practices in order to meet future demands in these basins. This will be accomplished using a process that incorporates stakeholder viewpoints and concerns.
The overall objective of the Coordination Mechanism study element is to utilize an interactive study process involving the four Study Partners and stakeholders (representatives of local, state, Federal governments, private industry, advocacy groups and concerned citizens). The purpose of this process is to recommend to the states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia and the Corps of Engineers a coordinated mechanism for the management of water resources in both the ACT and ACF river basins. A consensus on the nature of coordination needs among the Study Partners has been developed to identify alternative coordination mechanism that might be considered effective in dealing with the water demand need. A consensus based interstate compact, The Tri-State Compact, was presented to the state legislatures in early 1997.
THE REST OF THE STORY IS NOW UNFOLDING.
| 1950 | 1960 | 1970 |
1980 |
1990 |
1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | ||
| Alabama | 3,061,743 | 3,266,740 | 3,444,165 | 3,893,888 | 4.040,389 | 4,086,613 | 4,130,905 | 4,181,730, | 4,215,203 | 4,246,205 | 4,273,084 | |
| Mobile, Al | 129,009 | 202,779 | 190,026 | 200,452 | 476,923 | 485,345 | 494,740 | 505,348 | 509,092 | 513,793 | 518,975 | |
| Baldwin county | 40,997 | 49,088 | 59,382 | 78,556 | 98,280 | 102,270 | 106,319 | 111,018 | 115,266 | 119,373 | 123,023 | |
| Mobile County | 231,105 | 314,301 | 317,308 | 364,980 | 378,643 | 383,075 | 388,421 | 394,330 | 393,826 | 394,420 | 395,952 |
Population, 1960-1996 percent change
TOTAL CHANGE 1960-1990 ESTIMATED CHANGE 1991-1996 1960 1970 1980 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Alabama 6.7 5.4 13.1 3.8 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.6 Mobile, Al 57.2 5.5 17.6 2.1 1.8 1.9 2.1 0.9 0.9 1 Baldwin County 19.7 21 32.3 2.5 4 4 4.4 3.8 3.6 3 Mobile County 36 1 15 3.7 1.1 1.4 1.5 -0.1 0.1 0.4 Mobile, Al
Location: 30.67745 N, 088.08895 W
Population (1996): 518,975
Number of: Schools Teacher Students Enrolled Elementary
School54 1,971 31,760 Middle School 19 830 15,637 High School 15 1,069 17,388 Public & Private
Schools40 700 14,400
State Vo-tech Schools 5 2 year colleges 3 4 year colleges 3 The level and availability of education provides insight into the people living in the area. Education is able to heighten environmental awareness.
Public Tennis Courts 94 Golf Courses 11 Parks 66 Amateur Theaters 7 Movie Theaters 41 Skating & Swimming 5
Bowling 3 Ice Skating 1 Auto & Greyhound
Race tracks1 Types of recreation show demands on the land. These tables indicate that much of the land is being used to build tennis courts and parks. Parks help restore and prevent wetland loss, but tennis courts destroy the land they are built upon.
Water supplies by Mobile Water Service
Source: Converse Lake System Mobile River Daily Capacity 125,000,000 360,000,000 Average
ConsumptionPotable
40,000,000 GPDRaw Industry
95,000,000 GPDStorage
CapacityElevated
9 mi. gallonsGround
48 mi. gallonsWater availability, source, and average consumption show the demand on surrounding estuaries and aquifers.
City of Mobile Mobile County Baldwin County Civilian labor force 249,900 194,380 55,523 Percent unemployed 6.4% 6.9% 4.8%
City of Mobile 32.5 Mobile County 31.9 Baldwin County 35.5
City of Mobile Baldwin Mobile County County White 117,022 254,853 84,565 Black 76,406 117,872 12,640 Indian, Eskimo
or Aleut443 1,940 630 Asian or
Pacific1,992 3,398 221 Other Races 414 580 224 Income
Percent of Households Effective Buying Income
City of Mobile Baldwin Income Mobile County County $0-9999 19.1% 17.8% 12.2% $100000-19999 17.5% 17.4% 16.9% $20000-34999 22.5% 23.4% 24.6% $35000-49999 16.6% 17.4% 18.3% $50000 & over 24.3% 24.0% 28.3% Alabama's Fastest Growing Occupations
Projected Projected Occupational Title Percent Change Occupational Title Percent Change (1990-2005) (1990-2005) Physical Therapists 64.8% Home Health Aides 62.6% Medical Secretaries 61.2% Corr. Officers & Jailers 60.7% Computer Engineers 59.4% Radiological Technologists 58.0% Computer Programmers 57.0% Dental Assistants 57.0% Medical Records Tech. 53.9% Physical Therapy Assistants 50.0% Psychologists 47.7% Electrical & Electronic Tech 49.8% Human Services Workers 47.2% Receptionists, Info. Clerks 45.8% Elect. & Electronic Engineers 45.7% Registered Nurses 44.6% Cooks, Short Order 44.5% Cooks, Restaurant 44.1% Offset Lith. Press Setters 42.5% Property & Real Estate Mgrs. 41.8% Commun., Transp., Util Mgrs. 40.9% Construction Managers 39.3% Nursing Aides & Orderlies 38.7% Food Prep., Serv. Fast Food 38.3% Alabama's Fastest Declining Occupations
Projected Projected Occupational Title Percent Change Occupational Title Percent Change (1990-2005) (1990-2005) Directory Assistance Oper. 43.3% Statistical Clerks 32.3% Foundry Mold Assem./Shake. 31.7% Electrical, Electronic Assem 27.0% Rail-Track Laying Equip. Oper. 19.6% Switchboard Operator 19.2% Meter Readers, Utilities 19.2% Railroad Brake, Signal, Switch 19.1% Electromechan. Equip. Assem. 17.1% Child Care Work., Pvt House 17.1% Rail Car Repairers 18.4% Farm Workers 15.5% Typists, Incl. Word Proc. 13.1% Textile Machine Operators 12.6% Textile Draw-out Mach. Oper. 12.1% Textile Machine Setter/Oper. 11.6% Slaughterers & Butchers 9.2% Chemical Plant System Oper. 9.2% Tire Building Machine Operator 7.9% Refuse Collectors 5.8% 1st Line Supr., Ag., Fores., Fish 4.9% Dental Lab Tech. 4.5%
TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED ANNUAL PAYROLL
Mobile Baldwin Mobile Baldwin Alabama County County Alabama County County
Total 1,478,717 146,635 30,799 32,299,078 3,170,254 515,359 Agricultural Services,
Forestry, and Fishing8,942 615 262 157,231 9,577 4,4227 Mining 9,980 453 33 419,322 20,921 860 Construction 88,305 12,129 1,791 1,908,640 248,526 32,779 Manufacturing 383,440 23,730 5,512 9,972,482 765,162 110,983 Transportation and Public
Utilities81,351 8,946 1,354 2,588,476 253,179 32,798 Wholesale Trade 86,363 10,334 1,213 2,305,222 263,067 34,477 Retail Trade 309,221 32,641 9,569 3,725,181 385,099 114,746 Finance, Insurance, and
Real Estate78,412 6,840 1,756 2,102,015 182,877 37,413 Services 431,600 50,852 9,215 9,105,391 1,039,205 146,261 Aerial Photography and Maps
Aerial photography for this workshop was acquired from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), High Altitude Mission Program at Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California.
U.S. Geological Service, National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, Louisiana provided copies of all other topographic and National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps.
Friend, John, H., Madeline Lyon, Nancy N. Garrett, John L. Borom, Judy Ferguson, and Grady C. Loyd. Alabama Coastal Region Ecological Characterization Volume 3 A Socioeconomic Study. U.S. Department of Interior--National Biological Service. Washington, DC.
Gulf of Mexico. 1994 Progress Report-Gulf of Mexico.
Available: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/ coastalamerica/1994gm.htmlHardin, J.D., C.D. Sapp, J.L. Emplaincourt, K.E. Richter. Information Series 50 Shoreline and Bathymetric Changes in the Coastal Area of Alabama: A Remote-Sensing Approach. University, Alabama (1976)
Journal of Environmental Law & Practice. Nov/Dec95. , Vol. 3 Issue 3, p52, 5p. Item Number: 9601071221. Available: http://www.epnet.com/ehost/login.html
LaRoe, Edward T., Gaye S. Farris, Catherine E. Puckett, Peter D. Doran, Michael J. Mac. Our Living Resources. U.S. Department of Interior--National Biological Service. Washington, DC (1995).
National Wildlife. Apr/Mar97, Vol. 35 Issue 3, p62, 3/4p. Item Number: 9703240326. Available: http://www.epnet.com/ehost/login.html
Roach, E.R., Mary C. Watzin, James D. Scurry, and James B. Johnston, Use of GIS Technologies in Addressing Resource Management Problems in Mobile Bay, Alabama. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services; National Wetland Research Center.
Roach, E.R., Mary C. Watzin, James D. Scurry, James B. Johnston, Wetland Changes in Coastal Alabama, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services; National Wetland Research Center.
Stout, Judy. Applied Wetlands Science.
Available: http://ns1.maf.mobile.al.us/users/sealab/ stout.html.
Roscigno, Pasquale F., Marcia E. Mcniff, Mary C. Watzin, and Wei Ji. The use of Geographic Information System technology to Compare the Environmental Impacts of Human Development on Mobile Bay, Alabama, and Galveston Bay, Texas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services; National Wetland Research Center.
Internet References Consulted
http://129.66.172.4/dir/alalmi.htm
http://kingfish.ssp.nmfs.gov/coastamer/1994gm.html
http://pelican.gmpo.gov/gulfofmex/fwi/fwi.html
http://www.census.gov
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/wet10.html
http://www.gmpo.gov/gulfofmex/gmpo/streams.html