AN ENVIRONMENTAL, GEOLOGIC
AND HYDROLOG I C STUkJY OF
SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
PROJECT # R-0041!O-Ol-0
-------
AlA$$2. 52.
R-004110-01-0
November, 1975
AN ENVIRONMENTAL, GEOLOGIC AND
HYDROLOGIC STUDY OF SOUTH MOBILE
Ralph L. Chermock
Paul H. Moser
Maurice F. Mettee
With Contributions By
P. A. Boone
0. J. Clarke
J. D. Hardin
R. E. Kidd
K. E. Richter.
A. F. Sartwell
,M. W. Szabo
Project Officer
John T. Marlar
Water Division
Technical Support Branch
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
ATLANTA,;GEORGIA 30309
COUNTY, ALABAMA
By
-------
ABSTRACT
The report presents baseline data on the environment of south
Mobile County. Included in the report is detailed information on the
history, geography and topography, geology, soil, meteorology, offshore
bathymetry and hydrology, land use, plant and animal life, endangered
plants.and animals, demography, transportation and community facilities
and energy resources of the area. Results of the ground water investi-
gations to determine the depth of the freshwater-saltwater interphase
are presented as well as water quality data for selected surface and
ground water sites.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract/Grant Number
R-004110-01-0 by the Environmental Division of the Geological Survey
of Alabama under the sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Work was completed as of November, 1975.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF TABLES xii
xii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xv
INTRODUCTION 1
HISTORY by A. F. Sartwell 2
GEOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHY 15
Topography 15
Mississippi Sound 17
Mobile Bay 17
Gulf of Mexico 20
Water Development Projects 20
Past Coastal Changes, by J. D. Hardin and K. E. Richter 22
Southwestern Shore of Mobile Bay 22
Mississippi Sound, North Shore 25
Dauphin Island 29
Entrance to Mobile Bay 31
Pelican Island 35
Petit Bois Pass 35
Mobile 45
GEOLOGY by P. A. Boone 48
Physiography 48
Southern Pine Hills 48
Coastal Lowlands 50
Mobile Bay 50
Mississippi Sound 51
Mississippi-Alabama Shelf 51
Stratigraphy 53
Pre-Jurassic Strata 53
Jurassic System 53
Cretaceous System 55
Lower Cretaceous Series 55
iii
-------
Page
Upper Cretaceous Series 55
Tertiary System 55
Quarternary System 56
Surface and Shallow Subsurface Stratigraphy of Southern
Mobile County 56
Citronelle Formation 56
Undifferentiated Quarternary Sediments of the Coastal
Lowland 57
Bottom Sediment Distribution—Mobile Bay and Mississippi
Sound 59
Bottom Sediment Distribution--Mississippi-Alabama Shelf 62
Mineral Resources by 0. J. Clarke, Jr. 62
Heavy Minerals 64
Clay Resources 65
Sand 67
Seismic Hazards 67
SOILS by M. W. Szabo 69
Subsurface 69
Surface 76
METEOROLOGY 79
Temperature 79
Precipitation 82
Relative Humidity 82
Visibility 87
Cloudiness 87
Wind 87
Hurricanes 95
Tornadoes 103
Air Pollution 108
WATER RESOURCES by R. E. Kidd 113
Ground Water 115
Water-bearing Units 115
Miocene Series Undifferentiated 117
Citronelle Formation 117
Ground Water Quality 118
Surface Water 120
Surface Water Quality 122
Saltwater-freshwater Relationships 123
OFFSHORE BATHYMETRY 127
iv
-------
Page
Mississippi Sound 127
Mobile Bay 130
Gulf of Mexico 134
OFFSHORE HYDROLOGY 136
Freshwater Discharge 136
Tides 143
Currents and Circulation 149
Waves 155
Water Temperature 155
Salinity 157
Trace Metals 166
Nutrients 167
Pollution 173
Bacterial and Viral Pollution 173
Organic Pollution 178
Eutrophication 181
Toxic Chemical Pollution 181
Oil Pollution 182
Thermal Pollution 182
Physical Modification and Sediment Pollution 183
LAND USE 184
Undisturbed Land 185
Agricultural Land 188
Urban and Suburban Use 188
Industry 190
Recreation 195
Education and Research Organizations 201
PLANT LIFE 204
Marine and Estuarine Phytoplankton 205
Marine and Estuarine Algae 206
Submerged Marine and Estuarine Plants 208
Tidal Marshes 209
Saline Marshes 211
Brackish Marshes 213
Intermediate Marshes 213
Freshwater Marshes 215
Freshwater Swamps 216
Flora of Dauphin Island 216
Flora of South Mobile County Mainland 224
v
-------
Page
ANIMAL LIFE 228
Invertebrates 230
Protozoa 231
Crustacea 255
Mollusca 258
Fishes 258
Amphibians 271
Reptiles 274
Birds ¦ 278
Mammals 290
Seafood Industry 294
Shrimp 297
Fishes 297
Oysters 302
Blue Crab 305
Hunting 307
Fishing 312
Jubilees 318
ENDANGERED ANIMALS AND PLANTS 321
Invertebrates 326
Fishes 331
Amphibians 332
Reptiles 332
Birds 334
Mammals 336
Plants 337
DEMOGRAPHY 338
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 345
Air Service 345
Highways 352
Water Transportation 352
Railroads 360
COMMUNICATIONS 366
ENERGY AVAILABILITY 368
Oil and Gas 368
Electricity 370
REFERENCES 375
vi
-------
Page
FACTORS FOR CONVERTING BRITISH UNITS TO INTERNATIONAL
SYSTEM (SI) UNITS 392
APPENDICES
A. Records of Wells in Mobile County '393
B. Chemical Analysis of Water from Wells in Mobile County 399
C. Chemical Analysis of Water from Streams in Mobile County 405
vii
-------
FIGURES
No.
Page
1
Study area in south Mobile County
16
2
Shoreline changes between Dog River Bridge and Fowl River
Point between 1917 and 1967
24
3
Cumulative erosion at Cedar Point from 1917 to 1974
26
4
Areas of shoreline changes at Dauphin Island between 1917
and 1942
30
5
Areas of shoreline changes at Dauphin Island between 1942
and 1974
32
6
Cumulative erosion from 1917 to 1974
33
7
Cumulative accretion for che western tip of Dauphin Island
34
8
Bathymetric contours, Mobile Bay entrance and associated
passes, 1929
36
9
Bathymetric contours, Mobile Bay and associated passes,
1941
37
10
Bathymetric contours, Mobile Bay entrance and associated
passes, 1961
38
11
Bathymetric contours, Mobile Bay entrance and associated
passes, 1973
39
12
Changes in the configuration of Petit Bois Pass between
1848 and 1942
40
13
Changes in the configuration of Petit Bois Pass between
1942 and 1974
41
14
Bathymetric contours, Petit Bois Pass, 1917 and 1933
42
15
Bathymetric contours, Petit Bois Pass, 1961 and 1973
44
16
Physiographic provinces of Alabama
49
17
Log of well from Mobile County
54
18
Sediment distribution, Mobile Bay
60
19
Sediment distribution, Mississippi Sound
61
20
Mississippi-Alabama shelf-sediment facies
63
21
Percent heavy metals in offshore sands in Mobile County,
Alabama
66
22
Existing construction in relation to geology
70
viii
-------
No.
Page
23
Logs of drill holes in Citronelle Formation
74
24
Logs of drill holes in coastal deposits
75
25
Distribution of potential construction sands
77
26
Soils of south Mobile County
78
27
Average monthly temperature for Mobile, Alabama
81
28
Monthly variation in rainfall in Mobile, Alabama, between
1941 and 1974
84
29
Climograph for Mobile, Alabama
85
30
Average monthly frequency of precipitation and thunder-
storms in the Mobile area--30 year record
86
31
Average monthly relative humidity for Mobile, Alabama--
9 year record
89
32
Average monthly frequency of heavy fog in the Mobile
area--30 year record
90
33
Cloud cover for Mobile, Alabama
92
34
Wind chart, Mobile, Alabama
94
35
Monthly frequency of hurricanes affecting Alabama since 1711
96
36
Paths of hurricanes affecting Alabama
98
37
Heavy rainfalls associated with tropical cyclones
j.04
38
Number of times destruction was caused by tropical storms,
1901-1955
105
39
Speeds of winds associated with a moving tornado
107
40
Probable dustfall patterns
110
41
Probable average suspended particulate values
111
42
Ground water and surface water sampling stations for
south Mobile County
114
43
Schematic diagram showing artesian and water-table
conditions
116
44
Chloride content of water in selected tidal streams
124
45
Schematic of hydrologic conditions in an unconfirmed
coastal water system
126
46
Bathymetry of Mississippi Sound
129
47
Mobile Bay bathymetry, 1847-1851
131
48
Mobile Bay bathymetry, 1960-1962
132
49
Mobile Bay, depth changes between 1849-1851 and 1960-1961
133
50
Bathymetry of offshore Alabama
135
51
Average annual rainfall for the Mobile River Basin
137
52
Monthly mean discharge of the Alabama River
142
53
Monthly mean discharge of the Tombigbee River
142
54
Monthly mean discharge of the Escatawpa River
145
55
Variations of predicted tidal ranges associated with lunar
declination and phase for Mobile, Alabama
146
56
Significant water levels relative to low water datum for
Mobile Bay
150
57
October, 1952, flood tide in Mobile Bay
152
58
October, 1952, ebb tide in Mobile Bay
154
ix
-------
No.
Page
59
Monthly average temperatures for Alabama estuaries
156
60
Bimonthly surface isothermal maps of Mobile Bay and
Mississippi Sound
158
61
Bimonthly bottom isothermal maps of Mobile Bay and
Mississippi Sound
159
62
Annual salinity variation at selected stations in Mobile
Bay as related to the discharge of the Mobile River
161
63
Bimonthly surface isohaline maps of Mobile Bay and
Mississippi Sound
162
64
Bimonthly bottom isohaline maps of Mobile Bay and
Mississippi Sound
163
65
Salinity depth section, lower Mobile ship channel
165
66
Location of sediment cores and water samples for background
physical and chemical analyses taken in October, 1971
169
67
Station locations of bottom cores for physical and chemical
analyses collected in May, 1972
170
68
Monthly average concentrations of micronutrients in Missis-
sippi Sound, Alabama, January, 1968-March, 1969
175
69
Monthly average concentrations of micronutrients in Mobile
Bay, Alabama, January, 1968-March, 1969
176
70
Areas permanently closed to harvest of shellfish in south
Mobile County
179
71
Statistical areas as designated by the South Alabama
Regional Planning Commission
187
72
Land use in the south Mobile County area (Agricultural)
189
73
Population density in Mobile County, Alabama
191
74
Land use in the south Mobile County area (Residential
and Industrial)
192
75'
Map of Theodore Project Area
193
76
Project alternatives
194
77
Recreational facilities in the south Mobile County area
197
78
Distribution of Alabama salt marshes
210
79
Plant zonation in saline marsh
212
80
Zonation of tidal marshes
214
81
Plant associations of eastern Dauphin Island
217
82
South beach-dune complex of Dauphin Island
219
83
Cross section of eastern end of Dauphin Island showing
floral associations
220
84
Cross section of western Dauphin Island showing floral
associations
223
85
Water depth and location of sample stations in Mobile Bay
251
86
Average salinity from sampling over the period March-May,
1969
251
87-
Distribution of representative species of Foraminiferida
in Mobile Bay
252
88
Protozoal collecting stations
254
X
-------
No.
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
Page
256
295
298
300
300
301
301
303
304
306
313
317
339
340
343
346
348
349
350
353
354
355
356
358
359
361
362
363
364
365
369
371
372
374
Average number of adult copepods per cubic metre by months
Generalized diagram of the life cycle of shrimp in Mobile
Bay
Landings of shrimp and commercial fish in Alabama
Pounds of commercial seafood landed in Alabama ports in 1972
Commercial value of seafood landed in Alabama ports in 1972
Commercial value of shrimp landed in Alabama ports in 1972
Value of commercial fishes landed in Alabama ports in 1972
Living oyster reefs
Landings of oysters and crabs in Alabama
Active and dead oyster reefs
Fishing camps and marinas in coastal Alabama
Location of natural and artificial fishing reefs along
coastal Alabama
Population of Mobile County-projected to the year 2020
1960 & 1970 census in the Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (SMSA) in south Mobile County
Increase in populated areas in south Mobile County, 1940-
1974 '
Air fields within 250 miles of the south Mobile County area
Air cargo at Bates International Airport
Emplaned passengers at Bates International Airport
General aviation forecase—southeast Alabama region
Major highways within 250 miles of the south Mobile County
area
Highway transportation in the south Mobile County area
Motor vehicle registration--Mobile County
Traffic density in the south Mobile County area
Major ship channels in coastal Alabama
Waterborne traffic on the Gulf Intercoastal waterway; Pensa-
cola Bay, Florida-Mobile Bay, Alabama
Total water borne tonnage at the Port of Mobile
Mainline routes of the Southern Railroad Company
Mainline routes of the Illinois Central Railroad Company
Mainline routes of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad
Company
Mainline routes of the Frisco Railroad Company
Oil production in Alabama
Petroleum processing plants, and electric power generating
facilities and transmission lines
Oil and gas fields and transmission pipelines
Electrical power requirements--1940-1960
xi
-------
TABLES
No.
Page
1
Dimension of Mississippi Sound, Alabama, estuary at mean
high tide
18
2
Dimension of Mobile Bay estuary at mean high tide
19
3
Navigation channels in Alabama estuaries
21
4
Shoreline changes measured at selected points along the
western shore of Mobile Bay
23
5
Shoreline changes measured at selected identifiable points
along the northern shore of Mississippi Sound
27
6
Changes in area and average erosion rates for selected areas
in Mississippi Sound
28
7
Accretion for the western tip of Dauphin Island
31
8
Width and westward migration of Petit Bois Pass at various
periods between 1848 and 1974
43
9
Tonnage of principal commodities for Mobile, Alabama, 1972
47
10
Stratigraphic column of ^coastal Alabama
52
11
Characteristics of soil associations and interpretations
for selected uses in south Mobile County
71
12
Average and extreme monthly temperatures for Mobile, Alabama
80
13
Monthly variation in rainfall in Mobile, Alabama, between
1941 and 1971
83
14
Average monthly relative humidity for Mobile, Alabama
88
15
Cloud cover for Mobile, Alabama
91
16
Wind data for Mobile (1872-1930)
93
17
Hurricanes affecting Alabama, 1711~1972
97
18
Tropical storms affecting Alabama, 1886-1964
99
19
Extreme pressure and wind data of hurricanes recorded along
the Alabama coast since 1892
101
20
Hurricane surges in Alabama, 1772-1969
102
21
Some water quality characteristics and their significance
119
22
Stream flow in selected streams in south Alabama
121
23
Area and depth of Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound in
Alabama
128
xii
-------
No.
Page
24
Watershed area of streams and their mean annual discharge
into Alabama estuaries
138
25
Monthly mean discharges of streams into Mobile Bay, in'
cubic metres per second and cubic feet per second
139
26
Extreme maximum and minimum discharges of streams into
Mobile Bay
140
27
Maximum and minimum monthly mean discharges of streams into
Alabama estuaries
141
28
Discharge of Escatawpa River near Wilmer, Alabama
144
29
Mean diurnal tide range in Alabama coastal waters
147
30
Tidal differences in Mobile Bay based on prediction for
Mobile
148
31
Average diurnal tidal current velocities in knots
151
32
Average annual surface and bottom temperatures in Alabama
estuaries
160
33
Average annual surface and bottom salinities (ppt)
164
34
Bottom water samples, October, 1971
168
35
Physicochemical parameters of sediment cores taken from
Mobile Bay, October, 1971
171
36
Physicochemical parameters of sediment cores taken from
Mobile Bay, May, 1972
172
37
Average concentrations of micronutrients (ug/l) in Alabama
estuarine areas from April, 1968-March, 1969
174
38
Fish fills in Mobile River and Mobile Bay
180
39
Land use in Mobile County
184
40
Land use characteristics by statistical area in south Mobile
County
186
41
Summary of existing regional recreation open space in Mobile
County
196
42
Inventory of recreational facilities south Mobile County
198
43
List of algae from coastal Alabama
207
44
Plants of the pine savannah
225
45
Invertebrates of the estuaries and open Gulf of Alabama
232
46
Relative abundance of Foraminiferida in Alabama waters
250
47
Percentage of significant species of Foraminiferida at
stations in Mobile Bay
253
48
Monthly occurrence of copepods collected in Mississippi
Sound
257
49
Freshwater crayfishes of Mobile County
259
50
Land snails of Mobile County
260
51-
The fishes of south Mobile County
262
52
Species restricted to one habitat or dispersed within
various habitats in south Mobile County
261
53
Salamanders of Mobile County
272
54
Frogs and toads of Mobile County
273
55
Reptiles of Mobile County
275
xiii
-------
No
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
Page
Birds of south Mobile County 279
Mammals of. south Mobile County 291
Commercial landings of seafood in Alabama ports from
1970 through 1972 296
Total landings of commercial fish and shrimp in Alabama,
1960-1974 299
Results of waterfowl-hunter bag checks, Mobile Delta,
1952-1973 308
Species composition of ducks killed in Mobile Delta 309
January aerial counts on Mobile Bay 310
Hunting and fur catchers licenses issued by the Mobile
County License Commissioner and Duck Stamps sold by the
United States Post Office, 1970-1974 311
Waterfowl--hunters and kill, Mobile Delta 311
Number of days of operation and gross income of Alabama's
charter fishing fleet during 1969 314
Fishing and boat licenses issued 1969-1974 315
Natural and artificial fishing reefs along coastal Alabama 316
Sport shrimping data collected by the Alabama Marine Resource
Lab under Federal Project 2-208-R (PL-88-20) 319
Endangered and threatened invertebrates of Mobile County 327
Endangered and threatened vertebrates of Mobile County 328
1970 population and towns> of the SMSA in the south Mobile
County area 342
Population growth of Mobile County 344
Airports within the south Mobile County study area 347
Forecasted general aviation activity 351
Radio and television stations in Mobile, Alabama 367
Oil and gas exploration and production in Alabama, 1964-1974 368
Power generating facilities in southwestern Alabama 373
xiv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The south.Mobile County study was funded by the Environmental
Protection Agency. Supplemental funding was received by the Alabama
Coastal Zone Management Board which allowed for a more detailed analy-
sis of the hydrology of the study area. Both of these organizations
are acknowledged for their financial support.
Several state and federal agencies furnished valuable, unpublished
data which was incorporated into the report. Contributors which should
be acknowledged include the:
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Alabama Department of Forestry
Alabama Department of Recreation
Alabama Development Office--Coastal Zone Management Board
South Alabama Regional Planning Commission
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service
Final preparation of the manuscript required the assistance of
several additional professional personnel, draftsmen and secretaries.
Their contribution to the completion of this report was significant
and is hereby acknowledged.
x-v
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 1. Report No. 2.
SHEET
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subt itlc
An Environmental, Geologic and Hydrologic Study of South
Mobile County, Alabama
5. Report Date
November, 1975
6.
7. Auchor(s)
Ralph L. Chermock, Paul H. Moser, and Maurice F. Mettee
8. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Environmental Division
Geological Survey of Alabama
P.O. Drawer 0
University, Alabama 35486
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
R-004110-01-Oa
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
Region IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia. 30309
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
The report presents baseline data on the environment of south Mobile County.
Included in the report is detailed information on the history, geography and topog-
raphy, geology, soil, meteorology, offshore bathymetry and hydrology, land use,
plant and animal life, endangered plants and animals, demography, transportation
and community facilities and energy resources of the area. Results of the ground
water investigations to determine the depth of the freshwater-saltwater interphase
are presented as well as water quality data for selected surface and groundwater
sites.
17. Ke y Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
geography, geology, engineering geology, meterology, hydrology, bathymetry, land
use, plants, animals, demography, transportation, communications, energy.
17b. Identif iers/Open-Fnded Terms
ecology, efficient land use, maximum use of resources and preservation of the
environment demographic trends, data for maximum development potential analysis.
17c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This
,21. No. of Pages
R epurt)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. Security Class (This
22. Price
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
FORM NTIS-33 (REV. 10-731 EN DO RSE D B Y ANSI AN D UN F.SCO. THIS FORM MAY 13E REPRODUCED uscomm-dc 0285-P74
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
{/'lease read Instructions on the reverse bejorc completing)
1. REPORT NO, 2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI^NO.
i. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
An Environmental, Geologic and Hydrologic Study of
South Mobile County, Alabama
B. REPORT DATE
November, 1975
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Ralph L. Chermock, Paul H. Moser and Maurice F. Mettee
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORG %NIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Division
Geologica Survey of Alabama
P.O. Box 0
University, Alabama 35486
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R-004110-01-0a
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Region IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The report presents baseline data on the environment of south Mobile County.
Included in the report is detailed information on the history., geography and topog-
raphy, geology, soils, meteorology, offshore bathymetry and hydrology, land use,
plant and animal life, endangered plants and animals, demography, transportation
and community facilities and energy resources of the area. Results of groundwater
investigations to determine the depth of the freshwater-saltwater interphase are
presented as well as water quality data for selected surface and groundwater sites.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI I'icltl/C.roiip
geography, geology engineering
geology, meteorology, hydrology,
bathymetry, land use, plants, animals,
population, transportation, communications
energy.
ecology
efficient land use,
maximum use of resources
and preservation of the
environment, demographic
trends, data for maximum
development potential an
ilysis.
1S. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19 SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
INTRODUCTION
The area encompassed by this study is located in Mobile County,
Alabama, south of 30° 35' north latitude. It is bordered on the west
by the state of Mississippi, to the east by Mobile Bay and to the south
by the Mississippi,Sound-Gulf of Mexico complex. Because of the mild
temperate climate and close association to the Gulf, the two largest
economic endeavors in south Mobile County are tourism and the seafood
industry. Since the completion of the Dauphin Island Bridge in 1956,
Dauphin Island has become a favorite summer vacation and recreational
area on the northern Gulf Coast. Coden and Bayou La Batre have become
centers for commercial fishing boat construction and seafood landings
in the southeastern U.S.
In recent years coastal Alabama and particularly Mobile. County
have experienced a period of rapid growth and development. The port
of Mobile has expanded its ship docking and maintenance facilities so
that it is presently an international trade center. Another period
of expansion is predicted for the port pending the completion of the
Tennesee-Tombigbee Waterway which will connect Mobile to many indus-
trial centers in the mid-western United States. Recently, several
industries have selected locations in the study area as favorable sites
for the placement of new factories and production mills. The construc-
tion in and around the Theodore Industrial Park is part of this indus-
trial growth. New discoveries of oil and gas in south Alabama will
undoubtedly add stimulus to this period of growth.
Although Mobile and much of its associated growth and development
are outside the immediate study area, its environmental and economic
influence are nevertheless expected to be considerable. In order to
utilize the natural resources of the area most expediently, and at the
same time maintain healthy environmental standards, careful planning
by responsible people is necessary. Of primary importance in this
planning process is access to basic environmental data. The purpose
of this study is to provide a thorough compilation of the environmental
data on south Mobile County that can be used as a source of baseline
data and as a stimulus to initiate future studies for the benefit of
the entire area.
1
-------
HISTORY OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY AND ENVIRONS
By Alexander Sartwell
The history of the area of southern Mobile County is so tied with
the history of the city of Mobile as to be at times indistinguishable
from the history of that city. It should not be assumed, however,
that this has always been the case. Before Mobile was the mother city,
it was the infant whose very life blood depended on that territory
south of Mobile. In successive waves the settlers came--first the In-
dians in pre-Columbian times, then the Spanish, French, and English in
that order. Then again came the Spanish and finally the Americans.
Even the Americans were not lasting, for they separated as a nation
with the establishment of the Confederate States of America.
The present study area has experienced the advances of every major
colonizing and exploiting group attempting to seek refuge and wealth in
North America. To read the history of this area is to read in micro-
cosm the history of the city of Mobile, and in a larger sense, the his-
tory of the south-eastern United States.
The area about Mobile was inhabited in pre-Columbian times by
Indians of the Muscogee family whose language was of the Choctaw lin-
guistic group. When encountered by early Spanish and French explorers,
the tribal name was rendered variously as Mauvila by De La Vega in
1540; Mauilla by the Gentleman of Elvas in 1540; Mabila by Ranjel in
1540; Mavila by Biedma in 1544; Mobile by Penicaut in 1699; and by Du
Prat in 1758 as Mowill. The name "Mobile" as it stands today probably
comes from the Choctaw work "Moeli" meaning either "to row" or "to pad-
dle." The name of the tribe most likely meant "the paddlers" (Read,
1937).
Little is known about these early Mobilian Indians. They were
part of the Choctaw tribe and joined with the Chickasaws and the Creeks
in kinship in being part of the large Muscogee family. The Mobile In-
dians, having the Choctaw physical characteristics of being thick and
heavy set were quite different from their tall athletic Creek cousins.
2
-------
The Choctaws were more like the Chickasaws in physical appearance.
They inclined to fight only defensive wars and their chiefs were chosen
on merit rather than inheritance. They were the most democratic of all
the southern tribes. They were energetic and industrious, skilled ag-
riculturists and not overly dependent on hunting. They traded corn
with the Chickasaws and in later times often supplied the European colo-
nist with produce. Their winter houses were Circular clay dwellings
while their summer dwellings were oblong or oval structures. In 1650,
there were an estimated 15,000 Choctaws, but in 1758, there were only
about a hundred warriors in the Mobile and two neighboring tribes com-
bined (Wimberly, 1960).
The main seat of the Mobilian Indians was on the Mobile River in
present day northern Mobile County. The Mobilians were "paddlers" of
the rivers as their name indicates and not sailors. These Indians were
not sea going for their canoes were not suited for rough water. There
are a few evidences of their permament settlements on the Gulf Coast
at the shell mounds near Portersville Bay on Mississippi Sound and of
their burials on the southwestern extremity of Dauphin Island. Inland,
however, mounds and shell middens are more plentiful on Bayou La Batre,
Bayou Coden and Fowl River.
The Indians retreated inland with the coming of the white man,
giving up the Gulf Coast in favor of the forest, as they depended
more on the forest to support their way of life than the sea. It was
the sea that was of the first importance to the white man. The early
settlers could carry on commerce with the natives in the interior and
still maintain vital communication and supply routes with Europe from
the coast.
The Pope divided the new world between the Spanish and the Portu-
guese with the Line of Demarcation in 1493. This division gave the
Spanish all mainland and islands it discovered to the west of an imag-
inary north-south line 370 leagues (approximately 1,786 km or 1,000 mi)
west of the Azore and Cape Verde Islands, that is, between 48° and 49°
west of Greenwich. The Portuguese received everything to the east of
this Line of Demarcation which provided the legal basis for the Portu-
guese claim to Brazil. The Gulf of Mexico fell to Spain which in time
made the Gulf a Spanish Lake. The Spanish Governor of Jamaica suppos-
ing Florida to be an island sent Alonzo Pineda to find a passage to the
Pacific west of Florida. In 1519, Pindea was the first recorded Euro-
pean to sail into Mobile Bay. lie found the shores of the Bay thickly
inhabited with Indians and named the Bay "Bahia de Spiritu Santo," Bay
of the Holy Spirit.
However, Pineda might not have been the first European to see
Mobile Bay. The 1513 map of one of Columbus' admirals shows a Rio de
la Palma which may be Mobile Bay. There is also the legend of the
thirteenth century Welsh Prince Madoc or Madog who sailed twice to
3
-------
the new world, bringing with him settlers. There is much evidence
that they settled in the region about Mobile Bay for hundreds of years
before being driven out by Indians. They were forced to migrate inland
and what happened to them is conjecture. Legends of Welsh speaking
white Indians abound. There is some belief that Dog River is a short-
ened form of Ma Dog River (Deacon, 1966), but this is mostly legend
and not fact.
It is a fact that in 1528, the king of Spain named Paufilo de
Narvaes, Governor of "Florida, Rio de las Palmas and Spiritu Santo."
Narvaes explored the Gulf Coast and sailed into Mobile Bay looking for
water.
In the unquenchable Spanish search for gold, De Soto landed in
Florida with orders for his Admiral, Maldonado, to meet him in Mobile
Bay the next year, 1540. After De Soto's disastrous encounter with
the Indians at Mauvilla somewhere a few miles north of the present
city of Mobile, he decided to turn inland, thereby missing Moldonado
who was waiting for him in Mobile Bay with Lady Isabella, the wife of
De Soto. Little did they know how close De Soto had come to Mobile
Bay. Moldonado and the Lady Isabella sailed back to Cuba. De Soto
discovered the Mississippi River the following year, 1541.
Mobile Bay at this time was generally well known as is shown on
the maps of the period. It was called by Moldonado "Ochuse" and on
Ortelius' map of 1570, it was shown as "Baia de Culata" or Gunstock
Bay: a term which is understandable when considering its shape. The
Indians told the early Spanish explorers of a large river--the Missisr
sippi--emptying into the Gulf of Mexico. It is supposed that the Span-
ish thought that the Mississippi emptied into Mobile Bay, in fact, it
is shown to do so on Franquelius1 map of 1681 (Hamilton, 1910).
In 1558, the Viceroy of Mexico sent Guido de las Bazares to select
a site for a military post and settlement on the Gulf Coast of Florida.
Bazares named the Mobile Bay "Filipina" for Philip II of Spain and chose
Don Tristan de Luna y Arellano, otherwise known as De Luna, to super-
vise the establishment of the colony in 1559. When De Luna arrived
with 1,500 settlers and soldiers on the Bay of the Holy Spirit, or
Ichuse (Ychuse), a hurricane destroyed, the fleet in the Bay. After
several forays into the interior, most of the men mutinied and returned
to Mexico in 1561. De Luna lost his mind; a cruel pun on his name,
perhaps? This inglorious end obscures the fact that it was near the
present city of Mobile, somewhere on Mobile Bay, that the first Euro-
pean colony to be established within the present boundaries of the
United States was established in 1559. St. Augustine was founded in
1565; Jamestowrij in 1607 and Santa Fe, in 1610.
4
-------
With the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 by the English,
Spanish power declined and in the New World Spanish colonial expansion
came to a halt. There were various visitors to the Gulf Coast around
Mobile, but for all practical purposes, the area was forgotten for over
a century.
The next wave of serious explorers of the Gulf of Mexico were the
French. In April of 1682, Robert Cavelier, Sieur de la Salle came
from Canada looking for the mouth of the Mississippi River. Because
of the deltaic character of the mouth of this great river, La Salle
did not find it. He died a short time later on the Texas coast.
In 1698, the Sieur de Iberville was chosen by the French to locate
the mouth of the Mississippi and to settle the area. Iberville and his
younger brother, Bienville, sailed into Pensacola Bay and saw the small
settlement which had been founded by the Spanish a short time before.
Sailing westward they entered Mobile Bay on January, 1699. Stopping
long enough to name what is now Dauphin Island "Massacre Island" because
of the exposed bones of Indian burials, he again sailed west and found
the mouth of the Mississippi on March 2. Failing to find a suitable
place to establish a settlement at the mouth of the Mississippi, Iberville
returned to Mississippi Sound and established "Fort de Maurepas" on the
back bay near Biloxi.
Iberville sailed to France in 1701. Returning the same year to
the Gulf Coast, he gave orders to colonize the Mobile region. The
Biloxi settlement was abandoned and everything was moved to Massacre
Island (Dauphin Island) for the convenience of transporting supplies
to the new settlement at Twenty-seven mile Bluff on the Mobile River
near the present Mt. Vernon landing. Iberville's younger brother,
Bienville, early in 1702, founded this new settlement of Fort Louis de
la Louisianne which Iberville from the beginning called Mobile.
Near the new settlement of Fort Louis lived the Mobile Indians,
whose Muscogee dialect was the inter-tribal language, the trade jargon,
of the Indians from the Mississippi to the Atlantic. This was fortu-
nate for the French who were more interested in trade and commerce
with the Indians than they were in engaging in agriculture.
When Iberville died in Havana in 1706, the Crown appointed a new
governor who was so unimpressed with the new settlement that he sug-
gested that it be renamed "Immobile." In 1710-1711, due to a scries
of floods which lasted a month, the tiny settlement of Fort Louis de
la Louisianne was moved from Twenty-seven mile Bluff to the present
site of the city of Mobile. The new fort, Fort Conde, was erected on
the Bay with the town laid out behind it. There was no wall nor moat
making Mobile the first modern American city without a wall or being on
an island.
5
-------
Due to poor communications with Europe, news of changes were long
in coming to the tiny settlement of Mobile. In 1712, the French Crown
gave the colony to a rich merchant, the Marquis de Chatel (known to
history as Crozat) for a period of fifteen years. In 1713, there was
a rude shock to the early French settlers of Mobile when they first
heard the news of the changes in the colony's administration from Bien-
ville's replacement as governor, De la Mothe Cadillac. Cadillac had
considerable experience as a colonial administrator before he came to
Mobile. In 1701, he had established Detroit on the Detroit River near
Lake Erie to protect France's fur trade monopoly against the Iroquois
and the English. The new governor was not at all impressed with Mobile,
nor with Bienville and complained bitterly to Crozat. After a period
of time, Crozat realized that he would receive no profits from the colony
and begged the King to relieve him of his fifteen year grant. The King
assented and Cadillac was recalled in 1717. Bienville then became
governor.
After the failure of Crozat, the French Crown did not wish to be
bothered with the administration of Louisiana and gave it to John Law.
A Scotsman and the first great "promoter" of modern times, John Law
was given a twenty-five year charter for the development of Louisiana.
The period of John Law's Western Company was a prosperous one for Loui-
siana as a whole. Settlers, workmen and soldiers came from France. This
new prosperity and influx of settlers caused a demand for increased
labor and in 1719, the first Negro slaves were imported to Dauphin Is-
land. But this period of growth and prosperity for Louisiana as a whole
was also a period of eclipse for Mobile; in 1720, the capital of Loui-
siana was moved to Biloxi with Mobile being named a District within
Louisiana in 1721. And in the spirit of this period of change, the Gov-
ernors changed often. Bienville left for France in 1724, but returned
as governor in 1731.
During this period in history, the area south Mobile also saw many
changes. A good harbor was found on the eastern part of the Island,
described as better than Pensacola and one of the best on the Coast.
In 1701, Iberville built a magazine for merchandise and barracks for
soldiers on the Island, and it was from Dauphin Island that the French
directed the settling of Mobile at Twenty-seven Mile Bluff. During this
time Dauphin Island had a commanding place in the life of the colony.
All sea-going vessels unloaded at Dauphin Island,' and cargoes were
transferred to smaller draught vessels to be taken up river. Du Pratz
in writing about early Louisiana called Mobile the birthplace of the
colony with Dauphin Island being its cradle. But in fact the two made
up one place for they were so interdependent.
The Island was so prosperous that in 1707, several families moved
from the Mobile settlement of Twenty-seven Mile Bluff to the Island.
A new fort was built as well as a beautiful church. When Cadillac was
6
-------
governor, he was forced to build houses on the Island for its growing
population. In 1710, there were reported to be twenty houses at Port
Dauphine. The name was changed in 1711, by Bienville from Massacre
to "Dauphine Island," naming it after the wife of the Dauphin, the
heir-apparent to the French throne. In the church records of the time,
the word "island" was seldom used when referring to Dauphin Island;
however, the name "Massacre" was used in reference to the Island as
late as 17 62. Was Port Dauphin the new name of the settlement whose
old name was "Massacre"? The spelling change of "Dauphine" to "Dauphin"
was effected some time after the arrival of the English.
Pirates from British Jamaica ruthlessly destroyed a larger part of
the inhabitation on the Island in 1711, but in the War with Spain in
1719, the French were successful in defending the Island from an attack,
by the Spanish from Pensacola.
The sand bar which sheltered the Island harbor silted over in 1717
and caused many people to move to the new settlement of Biloxi which had
just become the new capital of the French colony of Louisiana in 1720.
But it appears that Dauphin Island was not abandoned, for Bienville and
his younger brother Chateaugue were to leave Dauphin Island for France
in 1724. Dauphin Island diminished in importance as a settlement and
in 1740, a hurricane washed half the Island away with a great loss of
many cattle. By this time people were ready to leave the settlement of
Mobile itself because of the threat of the Indians.
The earliest land grant to be made in the Mobile vicinity of which
there is any knowledge lies within the study area south of Mobile across
Grants' pass from Dauphin Island. Known today as Mon Louis Island, it
was granted to Nicolas Bodin in 1710, and held by his descendents until
1829. When the French were first settling the Mobile area, it was called
Miraqouin or Mosquito Island. Bodin was then called "Sieur de Miraqouin"
or Knight of the Mosquito and "Miraqouin" became the family name in
church records. When Bodin died, it was noted that he came from Mont
Louis in the Archbishopric of Tours, France. The Island was then called
Mont Louis after Bodin's birthplace and later the name was corrupted to
Monlouis and still later Mon Louis. A large part of the everyday local
history of a place can be discerned in its names. Riviere D'Erbane
which was named for a Frenchman who drowned there, become River Laba-
terie for a French battery on the west bank. Later the name was cor-
rupted to our present day Bayou La Batre. The word "Bayou" is a French
adaptation and corruption of the Choctaw word "bogue" or "bok." Early
settlers often left their names as placenames or the names of their
villages and birthplaces as is illustrated in the story of Mon Louis
Island. Chickasabogue was at first named Riviere a Boutin and on
French maps of 1732, Little Dauphin Island was known as "Isle a Guil-
lori." The local characteristics or peculiarities of a place which
7
-------
distinguished it might lend a name: Cedar Point was named Point aux
Hiustres because of the great abundance of oysters, but there is no
explanation why Dog River and Fowl River or Isle aux Oies were so
called by the French. The native American Indians had no fowl—un-
less they were talking about the turkey, which the French called Coq
d1 Inde--chicken of the Indies. At a much later date, Coq d' Inde
was corrupted to the name of the settlement of Coden.
Slowly this land of swamp and gently rolling hills was developed.
The early French settlers had come for commerce, to engage in the tra-
ding of hides and lumber rather than to be active in agriculture and
permanent settling. The Western Company which John Law founded, chan-
ged this commercial attitude and encouraged settlement and agriculture.
French influence which left its mark and flavor on the Alabama Gulf
Coast lasted only for a period of 64 years. The French power was on
the wane and the monarchy and financial structure of the empire had
been weakened by the failure of John Law's banking ventures. At the
end of the Seven Years War, France lost most of her North American
holdings.
The Treaty of Paris of 1763 gave New Orleans to Spain and Mobile
and Florida was ceded to England with the British taking possession
late that year. King George III divided the new territory, into two
colonies with the peninsula of Florida becoming East Florida and the
panhandle of Florida and Mobile becoming West Florida with Pensacola
as the capital. This was south of the 31° latitude, roughly the pre-
sent boundary between the states of Florida and Alabama. Mobile was
placed in Charlotte County.
The strategic importance of Mobile was amplified with the division
of the old French holdings of both Mobile and New Orleans between dif-
ferent powers. With New Orleans becoming Spanish in the Treaty of
Paris, Mobile became a base of supplies and operation for the British
control of the area east of the Mississippi Valley. Mobile's stra-
tegic location required an increased military force. There are few
references to Dauphin Island at this time. The British Army had a
summer encampment on Dauphin Island due to the constant threat of
yellow fever at Mobile. During 1766 to 1767, the British had a pilot
on the Island named Samuel Parr who had been granted the Island whole
or in part. It is known that he cut the timber on the island and killed
its cattle. The latter of which was of great value to the settlers.
This may be the reason for his transfer to Mobile l'oint across the bay.
The British Admiralty Chart of Mobile Bay and environs of 1771 is one
of the first instances in which the official spelling of Dauphine Is-
land becomes Dauphin dropping the final "E."
In 1771, there were reports of bold attacks by Creek Indians on
Mobile environs causing the "abandonment of three plantations on the
8
-------
bay near the pass of Dauphin Island" (Hamilton,.1910) • This
is in itself most odd because the famous Indian half-breed Alexander
McGillivray had his summer home south of Mobile on Dog River. Also
a resident of Dog River and a slave holder, possibly a neighbor of
McGillivray's, was Pierre Rochon, who was hired to repair the old
French Fort Conde which the British had renamed Fort Charlotte.
Other than the Great Hurricane of 1772, which caused extensive
flooding in Mobile lasting for days, there is little record of any-
thing happening until William Bartram visited the Alabama coast on a
botanical expedition in 1777. William Bartram of Philadelphia was the
son of the famed botanist John Bartram. In studying the local flora,
he spent a night camping on Dog River. Upon returning from the Missis-
sippi Coast, while reentering Mobile Bay, Bartram's "boat ran aground
on the sunken oyster banks -between Dauphin Island and the wester cape
of Mobile Bay." Bartram dutifully noted in his journal that he had
forwarded his botanical collection to London through a Mobile firm,
but made no mention of the American Revolution which was in progress
at this time.
The citizens of Mobile seemed undisturbed by the American Revolu-
tion while it was in progress, but not so with the Spanish who governed
New Orleans at this time. Ancient enemies of the Protestant British,
the Spanish authorities in New Orleans recognized the independence of
the American colonies in 1779. Galvez, the Spanish governor of New
Orleans, thought it an advantageous time to acquire the Gulf Coast
from the English while they were occupied elsewhere. He attacked and
captured the British forts along the Mississippi Coast, but returned
to New Orleans for the winter. The Americans were well aware of the
developments of the Spanish advances on the English holdings on the
Gulf Coast. With the Spanish at the back door of the colonies of Geor-
gia and South Carolina, the Americans hoped that the British would be
distracted enough to relieve Redcoat pressure against the American
Patriots in the southern and central Atlantic colonies.
The British commander of Pensacola, however, refused to believe
reports of the Spanish attacks on the Mississippi Forts and was caught
completely by surprise when in the following spring of 1780, Galvez
landed south of Mobile at Choctaw Point. Galvez began attacking Fort
Charlotte, burning parts of Mobile in the process. The fort was forced
to surrender due to hunger and the lack of support from the British in
Pensacola.
Mobile, now in Spanish hands, became a base of operation against
the British in Pensacola. In 1781, Pensacola surrendered to the
Spanish. The town of Mobile was known in this second period of Span-
ish control as "Plaza de la Movila" and old West Florida including
9
-------
Biloxi, Cat Island, and Pass Christian was governed from Mobile. The
British rule had lasted from 1763-1780, a period of only seventeen
years; the second Spanish period lasted thirty-three years, from 1780-1
1813.
The Spanish granted Dauphin Island to Joseph Moro of New Orleans,
while at the same time the King of Spain maintained on Dauphin Island
a pilot and four sailors at an annual expense of $696. A plantation
of four arpents (1.3 ha. or 3.3 a.) on Fowl River was sold by the first
Spanish governor to a Daniel Ward for $240.
A man of French descent named Joseph Bousage (Basage or Baussage)
was granted land by the Spanish governor on "Bayou BaUree" (Batteree
to the Spanish at this time) bounded on tVe West by Pine Point and
on the east by Lisloy or Ocas Island. When the Spanish came, the
English surnames and customs disappeared, but the social strata re-
mained French as it always had, as is shown in the grant to Joseph
Bousage. The Americans or natives of the English colonies on the eas-
tern seaboard were beginning to infiltrate in small numbers, but in
fact Mobile remained essentially a French Community governed by the
Spanish.
In 1798, the young republic of the United States created the Missis-
sippi territory resulting in a dispute over the boundary between Span-
ish West Florida and the southern boundary of the territory. This dis-
pute was finally settled with the running of Ellicott's line on the
31st parallel, which is now the southern boundary of Alabama along the
Florida panhandle.
In 1803, the United States bought from France, a large tract of
land known as the Louisiana Purchase. There was a disagreement as to
whether or not Mobile was part of this purchase. The United States
claimed that the purchase included the land eastward to the Perdido
River between Pensacola and Mobile. Spain claimed that Great Britain,
in 1763, made Mobile westward to the Mississippi part of West Florida
and this in turn had been conquered by Galvez in 1780 and was never
ceded to France by Spain. This argument was the beginning of the
United States justification in obtaining West Florida.
In 1810, the American citizens of Spanish West Florida raised an
army at Baton Rouge establishing the Republic of West Florida. They
set out to capture Mobile, but never reached it. President Madison was
asked to recognize the infant republic, but refused saying that the
territory already belonged to the United States because of the Loui-
siana Purchase. Madison then annexed West Florida to the Perdido River
for the United States and was later directed by Congress to take pos-
session of all Florida east of the Perdido River. The Republic of West
10
-------
Florida disappeared, not having lasted a month. In 1812, the district
from the Pearl River to the Perdido was annexed into the Mississippi
Territory.
As late as 1813, the Spanish still held Mobile allowing the British
in the War of 1812 to use the port as freely as if it were their own
to stir up the Indians on the interior of Alabama. President Madison
ordered the military commander of New Orleans to take possession of
Mobile. Giving little resistance, the Spanish surrendered. The American
troops built Fort Bowyer on Mobile Point to guard the passage to Mobile
Bay.
Before the actual capture of Mobile from the Spanish, Mobile County
was created in 1812, and included everything south of the 31st latitude
from the Perdido River westward to the ridge between the Mobile and
Pascagoula Rivers. This includes present day Baldwin and Mobile Counties.
On his way to capture New Orleans, General Andrew Jackson came
down the Alabama River to Mobile in 1814. Jackson redefended Fort
Bowyer which the British attacked by sea with the Brig Hermes. A
shot from the Fort cut the moorings and caused the ship to drift under
the fire of the fort where she was raked and exploded. Jackson then
marched to Pensacola and captured it and late in the year, marched to
New Orleans which he captured early in 1815. While Jackson was in New
Orleans, the British arrived off Fort Bowyer with a fleet, capturing
the fort and Dauphin Island. The British barely had enough time to
bury their dead on Dauphin Island, when both sides finally learned that
the Treaty of Ghent had been signed the previous year. A heated contro-
versy ensued between the British and the Americans over the slaves the
British held on Dauphin Island. The British looked on the slaves as
refugees, not recognizing human beings as private property. The slaves
finally returned to their American owners on their own accord.
Mobile was incorporated as a county in 1814. Before Mississippi
became a state in 1817, the Mississippi Convention of 1816-1817 wanted
everything west of the Tombigbee River, which included Mobile and St.
Stephens. If they had gotten Mobile, the shape of Alabama would have
been altered when it became a state.
Settlers began to pour into the new Alabama territory which became
the state of Alabama in 1819. The population of Mobile doubled and
tripled with a constant influx of immigrants. One of the most famous
groups to pass through Mobile on their way into the interior was the
French Napoleonic refugees who founded the Vine and 01Lve Company near
Demopolis. The 1820's saw periods of even greater change with the com-
ing of the steamboat. The steamboat made Mobile a bustling port at
the mouth of a large river system which drained a state whose economy
was based on cotton. Mobile was at Alabama's threshold to the outside
world, and cotton was the key which unlocked the door. The steamboat
11
-------
caused Mobile to eclipse its up-river rival, St. Stephens, which became
just another river stop. In fact, the principle reason for the growth
and importance of Mobile is explained in the terms of the Alabama Ri-
ver System after the coming of the steamboat.
In the early period of trade, the depth of Mobile Bay was a great
handicap to commerce. The first attempt to remedy this problem was in
1826 when a channel was dredged with the aid of $25,000 of federal
money. In 1839, the channel was widened to 200 feet and deepened to
10 to 11 feet, making it deep enough for ships to cross the Dog River
Bar to go to Mobile from the Gulf. This was sufficient in the days of
shallow draught vessels, but vessels were becoming larger. During the
1850's, the merchants of Mobile contributed over $25,000 to various ex-
periments for deepening the channel--all proved to be failures. By
1857, the federal government had spent over $228,000 on successful dred-
ging operations of the Mobile Ship Channel.
During the colonial period cotton was of little importance; in
fact, it did not grow very well in Mobile County. In 1793, with the
invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney, cotton became the key to
Mobile's prosperity. Any fluctuation in the value and cost of slaves,
land and cotton affected the other and thereby affected Mobile. With
Alabama being such an agricultural state, Mobile County itself was a
poor representative, for during the ante-'oellum period Mobile ranked
low in agriculture. In the various statistics of different crops,
Mobile would rank 47th out of the then forty-nine counties, the only
exception being in potatoes when Mobile County ranked twenty-second.
From this one draws several conclusions about Mobile in the ante-
bellum period. First, that economically, the rural county was over-
shadowed by the city. Second, that Mobile County was less an agricul-
tural than a commercial area. Third, that there was a large contrast
between the agricultural state and Mobile County with the state's largest
city. Lastly, that Mobile's interest in cotton was commercial rather
than agricultural (Summersell, 1949).
Pensacola threatened to rival Mobile with the building of the Ala-
bama and Florida Railroad. In 1848, Mobile began the Mobile and Ohio
Railroad which was completed in the 1850's. This was a prosperous
time for Mobile. The city's population increase between the years 1840
and 1850 was an astonishing 61.97o.
With the election of Lincoln and the gathering clouds of the Civil
War, Governor A. B. Moore of Alabama averted,a Charlcstown llarbor-Fort
Sumter situation by seizing Forts, Morgan and Gaines (on Mobile Point)
and the federal arsenal at Mount Vernon in January of 1861. When New
Orleans was captured in 1862 by Union troops, Mobile became the most
12
-------
valuable port on the Gulf Coast for blockade runners. With her con-
nections into the interior being intact and her direct rail communica-
tion with Richmond, Mobile was a vital port for the movement of supplies
and medicines.
In 1864, the Mobile forts were heavily armed and Fort Powell was
under construction to guard Grant's pass between Mobile Bay and Missis^
sippi Sound near Cedar Point. Mobile itself was one of the best defen-
ded cities in the Confederacy with a triple ring of defenses. In spite
of this formidable land defense, Mobile only had four ships available-
three gunboats and the ironclad "Tennessee" for defence in the Bay.
The famous Battle of Mobile Bay began on 23 February 1864, with
the Union Admiral Farragut attacking Fort Powell. However, he waited
until early August for favorable winds when he sailed into the bay
proper and fought and sand the "Tennessee." Fort Morgan fell on the
12th of August, 1864, but the City of Mobile held until it was sur-
rendered on April 12, 1865.
Mobile went through a seven-year depression (1878-1885) due to the
various effects of the Civil War, reconstruction and the decline in the
cotton trade. In this period, Mobile's population declined by 9.17o be-
tween the census of 1870 and 1880. One of the major reasons for this
slump was the railroads which by-passed Mobile. Also, Mobile had ne-
glected to keep the channel to the Gulf of Mexico dredged as Pensacola
and New Orleans had done.
This neglect was remedied when the, Ship channel was dredged in the
Bay in 1876 to a depth of 13 feet and two years later to a depth of 17
feet; in 1888 it was deepened to 23 feet. It was also in that year that
Mobilians saw the first ocean-going steamship.
As the railroads had contributed to Mobile's decline in the cotton
trade in the 1890's, it aided Mobile's growing lumber exporting industry,
and as a port of entry, the rails helped the growing banana and fruit
trade.
With the opening in 1915 of a series of locks and dams on the
Tombigbee and Black Warrior Rivers, Mobile became connected with Ala-
bama's "Mineral Belt." A year later the first paved highway to Mont-
gomery was completed, just before the boom that accompanied the United
States' entry into World War I in 1917.
Between 1902 and 1926, the ship channel was deepened to 23 feet
and widened to 450 feet. In 1933, it was deepened to 32 feet. This
deepening of the channel in combination with the founding of the Alabama
State Docks Commission in 1923, and the creating of the Intra Coastal
Waterway helped to make Mobile the sixth port in the United States in
tonnage of imports and exports..
13
-------
Peter Hamilton, one of the primary historians of Mobile and the
Gulf region, quoted Edward A. Freeman as saying that "the territory
about the Bay of Mobile (was) the greatest historical puzzle of which
he knew. Modern Louisiana was never under the English flag, and Florida
was not under the French, except in part as the temporary fruit of war,
while the Mobile country saw and honored all five standards." (Hamilton,
1910).
It has been said that the Spanish were the explorers, the French
the openers of commerce, the English the settlers, and the Americans the
molders of the nation about Mobile, and the land south of Mobile has
been the cradle and witness of all this. When the first Spaniard sailed
into the Bay of Mobile, he was seen from the woods by the Indian who
had preceeded the white man. Then came the French who cleared a little
land, but came mainly to trade. The French man stayed while the English,
Spanish and the American came in successive waves. Each cleared the
land, married, died and left his descendants and place-names on the
land. Today Mobile and south Mobile County are rich in the history of
these people who came to this once wild land, settled it and left the
legacy of their five flags.
14
-------
GEOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHY
TOPOGRAPHY
The study area is that part of Mobile County, Alabama, south of
latitude 30° 35' (a line about 3.2 km north of Theodore) to 4.8 km off-
shore in the Gulf of Mexico. To the east, it is bounded by longitude
88° 01' 30": (a line in western Mobile Bay approximately along the ship
channel) and by the Alabama-Mississippi border to the west (Figure 1).
The southern part of Mobile County comprising the study area con-
sists of about 107.2 ha. (265 sq mi) of land. It also includes a
complex estuarine system, including Mississippi Sound and Mobile Bay
separated from the Gulf of Mexico by Dauphin Island.
Elevations on the mainland are generally low and flat to slightly
higher and gently rolling. The southern lowlands and marsh are charac-
terized by a flat to very gently rolling topography. The northern part
of the area is slightly higher, ranging up to 51.82 m (170 ft) or more
above sea level near Theodore and St. Elmo. This northern part is
characterized by gently rolling terrain. Configuration of the land is
continually changing. Due to erosion by water and wind over long peri-
ods of time, the most noticeable natural changes occur along the beaches
where the material is transported by the action of wind, waves, or cur-
rents.
Dauphin Island is a barrier island about 23.3 km (14.5 mi) long,
and varies in width from 2.01 km (1.25 mi) at the forested eastern por-
tion to .4 km (.25 mi) at the western end. The average elevation on
the eastern portion is over 1.5 metres and decreases to the west. Maxi-
mum elevations of the island have been reported as 12.2 -to 19.8 m (40
to 65 ft) above sea level (Deramus, 1970). These are located along the
sand dunes on the southern side of the island at the eastern end. These
vary slightly in configuration and height and are formed by the north-
ward-blowing wind. The dunes are slowly migrating northward and encroac-
hing on the pine forests and man-made structures. Dunes on the western
15
-------
MiO<« i x 5
Figure 1. Study area in
O ^ South Mobile County.
(J
o
c...
16
-------
end of the island are relatively low.
MISSISSIPPI SOUND
The Alabama portion of Mississippi Sound is 25.7km (16 mi ) long
and extends from the Dauphin Island bridge westward to the Mississippi
state line. It is separated from the Gulf of Mexico to the south by
Dauphin Island. Mississippi Sound opens directly into the Gulf of
Mexico through Petit Bois Pass which is 8.3 km (5.1 mi) wide and located
west of Dauphin Island. There is a two mile wide opening between Dau-
phin Island and Cedar Point into Mobile Bay, and a 45.7 m (150 ft)
opening at Heron Bay Cutoff.
Mississippi Sound has a surface area of 3^516 ha. (92,702 a.)
and a total volume of 1,153.7 cu km (935,696 a.-ft) of water (M1IW)
Its average depth is 3.1 m (10.09 ft) (MHW). The average diurnal tide
range varies from .3 m (1.1 ft) in Dauphin Island Bay to about .5 m
(1.7 ft) in Bayou Coden (Table 1). Most of its 201.1 km (125 mi) of
shoreline is undeveloped except for the fishing villages of Bayou La
Batre, Coden, and Heron Bay, and the tourist resort area at the eastern
end of Dauphin Island (Crance, 1971).
Several islands are located in the northern portion of Mississippi
Sound, the largest being Isle Aux Herbes with 282.9 sq hm (699 a.)
Marsh Island, Big Island, Cat Island, and Barton Island are much smaller.
West Fowl River and Little River flow southward and enter the nor-
thern part of Mississippi Sound.
Hydrographic data for various portions of Mississippi Sound is
shown in Table 2.
MOBILE BAY
Mobile Bay is a submerged river valley about 49.9 km (31 mi) long
from its mouth to the Battleship Parkway at its northern end. It is
about 37 km (23 mi) across at its widest portion between Mississippi
Sound and the eastern shore of Bon Secour Bay. The average width is
17.4 kin (10.8 mi). The opening of Mobile Bay into the Gulf of Mexico
is over 4.8 km (3 mi) wide. Mobile Bay is connected to Mississippi
Sound through Pass aux Herons which is about one mile wide (Chermock,
1974).
17
-------
-------
Table 2. DIMENSIONS OF MOBILE HAY EST'JARY AT MEAN HIGH WATER
(After Crance, 1971)
Sur face
area
A
/erage
Vo L U.TiC
o i
Diu
raal tide
o£ open
water
depth
open vater
range
Subarea
Hec tares
Acres
Metres Feet
ilectorr.etres
Acre-Feet
Me t r
es Feet
Mobile Bay, south of Battleship
Parkway, vest of ship channel
31,965
76,935
2.9
9.42
929 .0
753,459
0.5
1.3
Pelican Bay
3,029
7,435
4.1
13.49
124.5
100,97 3
0.4
2
Dog River
577
1,426
1.4
4.5
7.9
6 ,417
0.5
1.5
Halls Mill Creek
33
94
1.2
4.0
0.5
376
0.3
1.0
Rabbit Creek
32
73
1.1
3.5
0.3
273
0.3
1.0
Alligator i^avou
19
47
1.2
4.0
0.2
133
0.3
1.0
Perch Creek
10
25
1.2
4 .0
0.1
100
0.3
1.0
Robinson Bayou
9
22
0.9
3.0
0.1
66
0.3
1.0
Rattlesnake Bayou
6
13
1.2
4.0
0.1
52
0 . 3
1.0
Moore Creek
3
s
1.1
3.5
0.03
28
0.3
1.0
East Fowl River
255
629
2.0
6. 70
5.2
4,214
0.5
1. 5
Deer River, Middle and North Fork
16
40
3.4
11.0
0.5
440
0.5
1.5
Dear River, South Fork
3
7
1.1
3.5
0.03
25
0,5
1.5
Total
35,961
88,859
1,068.5
866,611
-------
Several rivers, all distributaries of the southward flowing Mobile
Basin, flow into the northern part of Mobile Bay. In addition to these,
Dog River and East Fowl River enter the bay along the western shore.
There are approximately 30.6 km (19 mi) of shoreline along the
western part of Mobile Bay which is heavily urbanized from Mobile south
to East Fowl River. From there south to Alabama Port, it is intermit-
tently developed with permanent homes or cottages. From Alabama Port
to Cedar Point there is only limited development. The western and
northern shores vary from .9 to 3.1 m (3 to 10 ft) above sea level
(Table 2).
GULF OF MEXICO
Alabama's Gulf Coast extends for a distance of about 90.1 km (56
mi) from the Florida to the Mississippi line. In Mobile County there
are about 24.1 km (15 mi) of excellent sandy beaches along the south
shore of Dauphin Island which have contributed to the development of
coastal Alabama as a vacation and resort area.
WATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The major water development projects of Alabama's estuaries have
been the construction of channels and other facilities associated with
navigation. These comprise a vital part of the transportation system.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been responsible for the con-
struction of most of these projects and for their maintenance, opera-
tion, and administration. However, in a few instances, navigational
facilities have been built by the Alabama State Docks and local inter-
ests (Table 3).
Channel construction generally deepens a part of an estuary, but
the spoil usually reduces the water depth in another area or is used
to create spoil islands. Dredging to maintain these channels continues
this change. Ryan (1969) reported that the construction of the Mobile
ship channel has resulted in the northern intrusion of salt water in
Mobile Bay altering the normal salinity and circulation patterns. Other
effects of channelization and spoil deposition are segmentation of the
bay, shoaling, alteration of water exchange, increased turbidity, and
changes in sedimentation. These effects are variable and may be either
harmful or beneficial to the ecosystem depending on their location
(Crance, 1971).
The building of causeways, bridges, and breakwaters also can
20
-------
Table 3. NAVIGATION CHANNELS IN A LA RAMA ESTUARIES
(After Crance, 1971)
Surface
Control
ling
Length
;Ut:
Lh
area
dept
u
Es tua ry
Sta
of
and Ch^ir.cl
Kilometres
MI1B3
Metrea
Feet
Hectares Acres
Metres
Feet
Comp
let ion*
Agency**
Mi S3 lii S 1-Jp - SO'J'^d
I n: i a c o a s t a 1 1a t e r~ a y
1J.7
8.5
45.7
150
62.7
155
3.7
12.0
C
CE
12.5
7.3
22.9- 30.5
75-100
33.2
82
3.4
11.2
C
CE
4.7
2.9
13.3- 30.5
60-100
11.3
28
2.4
3.0
c
CE
Alee T-V-'
2.6
1.5
30.5
100
7.7
19
2.0
6.5
c
CE
Co .'j-'-'tcp t Cue
i _ q
1.2
12.2- 45.7
40-150
4.6
15
1.2-2.1
4-7
c
CE
L*/11113*' _I^]cinc P~ay
4.S
3.0
12.2
40
4.6
15
2.1
7.0
c
LI
Ornveil"C :lay
1.3
0.3
12.2
40
1.2
4
2.1
7.0
c
LI
A la ca 'ui ""Li r i
o ^
! . 5
[2.2
40
i i
7
1 . 5
5,0
c
LI
Subtei.11
43.9
27 3
99. I
325
vob_lc Zzy
'lomlo Snip C'.T.!,aei
46.7
2V.0
121.9
400
429.5 1
409
11.3
37 .0
c
CE
I:i:racec.;" ta 1 V'atervay
2-'-. 3
15.1
38.1- "5.7
125-150
76. 5
251
3.7
12 .0
c
CE
Ari.p^ton Channel
2. 2
1.4
45.7
150
7.9
26
6.6
21.5
G
CE
Carre-s 3c*i
-------
influence the hydrographic and hydrologic characteristics of the
estuaries. Alteration of currents can modify patterns of siltation,
land formation, and erosion. This has been true for the Dauphin Island
Bridge which has slowly altered the shape of the land, reduced the size
of the salt marshes, and decreased the exchange of water between Mobile
Bay and Mississippi Sound, increasing the salinity of the sound and
altered deposition patterns in Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound.
PAST COASTAL CHANGES by J. D. Hardin and K. E. Richter
Although man's activities such as dredging and filling have altered
the coastline of south Mobile County, natural occurring processes have
also changed the shorelines. These changes are the result of the inter-
action of currents, tides, winds, siltation, and abnormal weather condi-
tions .
Southwestern Shore of Mobile Ba
The western shore of Mobile Bay south of the Brookley Aerospace
Complex is interrupted by three major tidal creeks--Dog River, Deer
River, and Fowl River. Otherwise, the coast consists of a narrow sandy,
rarely marshy shoreline backed mostly by actively eroding seacliffs
ranging from 1.5 to 4.5 m (5 to 15 ft) high as far south as Alabama
Port. Tree stumps offshore and felled trees along the shore are evi-
dence of the constant process of erosion.
All along this western shore there has occurred a persistent and
significant erosional trend of from less than 1.52 m (5 ft) per year in
most areas to as much as 2.60 m (8.56 ft) per year and averaging 0.97 m
(3.17 ft) per year at Cedar Point based on various intervals of time.
Table 4 shows measurements made of the shoreline changes at points iden-
tifiable on U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic sheets. As
this table shows, erosion at measured points has ranged from 12 m~ (39
ft) at Pt. Judith to 149 m (488 ft) at Cedar Point during 1917-1974.
The areas between Dog River Point and Fowl River Point and along Cedar
Point show the most severe amounts of erosion.
Shoreline changes between Dog River liridgc and Fowl River Point
during various time periods between 1917 and 196/ are shown in Figure
2. The persistent and severe erosion shown in this area is broken only
by accretion caused by spoils disposal in an area north of the Hollin-
gers Island Channel (proposed Theodore Ship Channel). Erosion in the
area is threatening waterfront residents throughout the area.
22
-------
1.
2,
3
4,
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Table 4. SHORELINE CHANGES MEASURED AT SELECTED
POINT'S ALONG THE WESTERN SHORE OF MOBILE RAY
Location Change Time Period Average Annual
Change
Dog River Point (at -83.8m
bench mark) (-275 ft)
Mobile Yacht Club -120.1m
(at pier) (-394 ft)
Deer River Point -47.9m
(at new pier) (-157 ft)
Belief ontaine -36.0m
(-118 ft)
Sunny Cove -52 .7m
(-173 ft)
Fowl River Point -43.3m
(at Bench mark) (-142 ft)
Mon Louis -24.1m
(-79 ft)
Faustinas -29.9m
(-98 £l)
Pt Judith -11.9m
(-39 ft)
Alabama Port -43.3m
(-142 ft)
Cedar i'oint (at -107.9m
Heron Bay cutoff) (~354 ft)
Cedar Point" (at -148.7m
southern tip) (-488 ft)
1917-1967
1.68m
(5.51 ft
1917-1967
2 .40m
(7.87 It
1917-1967
0 .96m
(3.15 ft
1917-1958
0.88in
(2.88 ft
1917-1958
1.29m
(4.23 ft
1917-1958
1.05m
(4.23 ft
1917-1958
0.59m
(1.93 ft
1917-1958
0.7 3m
(2.40 ft
1917-1974
0.20m
(0.68 ft
1917-1974
0 .76m
(2.49 ft
1917-1974
1 .90m
(6.22 ft
1917-1974
2.61m
(8.56 ft
23
-------
Figure 2. Shoreline changes between Dog River Bridge
and Fowl River Point between 1917 and 1967.
24
-------
The severe erosion along the shore between Alabama Port to the tip
of Cedar Point has already partly destroyed a railroad right-of-way to
the east of Highway 163. Erosion is now threatening the highway itself
at some points. The Cedar Point area is very important to the continued
protection of the salt marshes of Heron Bay and southern Mississippi
Sound from the full effects of winds, waves, and currents from Mobile
Bay. The southern tip of Cedar Point has persistently shown one of the
highest rates of erosion recorded for the coastal area. Between 1917
and 1974, 149 m (488 ft) of erosion has been measured. The change in
rate of erosion for various time periods is shown in Figure 3.
Mississippi Sound. North Shore
The northern shoreline of Mississippi Sound is mostly made up of
low-lying salt marsh with numerous tidal creeks, the principal ones
being West Fowl River, Bayou Coden, and Bayou La Batre. The shoreline
of Mississippi Sound, including the barrier islands to the south, totals
201 km (125 mi), excluding the length of tidal streams, of which 162
km (101 mi) consists of tidal marsh (Crance, 1971). Most of the region's
4,762 ha. (11,762 a.) (Crance, 1971) of tidal marsh is found around
Grand Bay, Fowl River Bay, Heron Bay, and on the numerous small islands
in the Sound. With the exception of residential and commercial fish-
eries development in the principal tidal creeks, most of the northern
shoreline remains in a natural state. The southern shoreline of Missis-
sippi Sound is comprised of sandy barrier islands that protect the nor-
thern marshy coast from the full impact of erosional agents.
Between 1917 and 1958, most of the northern shoreline of Missis-
sippi Sound experienced net shoreline erosion. The amount of erosion
measured at selected points identifiable on U.S. Ceological Survey 7.5-
minute topographic maps of the area varied between 47.85 m (157 ft) on
Marsh Island (Grand Bay) and 132.28 m (434 ft) on Marsh Island (Porters-
ville Bay) as shown in Table 5. These represent erosional trends rang-
ing from 1.17 m (3.84 ft) per year to 3.77 m (10.56 ft) per year'for
those specific points. The changes in the rate of erosion for selected
points over various time periods are shown in Table 4. Most of the ero-
sion of Mississippi Sound has occurred on exposed marshy headlands and
on exposed shorelines at the numerous islands. Cat Island lost an
average of 59.89 m (196.5 ft) of its southern shore, and Isle aux Herbes
lost an average of 99.06 m (325.0 ft) of its southwestern shore between
1917. and 1958 (Tabic 6). It is estimated that many exposed shorelines
of Mississippi Sound are eroding at an average rate of 1 to 2 m (3.28
to 6.56 ft) per year, on the basis of measurements made at selected
points and average rates measured.
25
-------
Figure 3. Cumulative er sion at Cedar Point from 1917 to 1974.
-------
Table 5. SHORELINE CHANGES MEASURED AT SELECTED IDENTIFIABLE POINTS
ALONG T11E NORTHERN SHORE OF MISSISSIPPI SOUND
Location
liarron Point
Cot Island (south-
east shore)
Marsh Island (south-
east shore) (Porters-
ville iiay)
Isle aux 11erbcs
(eastern shore)
Isle aux Dames
(88° 18' 00'-W.
longtitudc)
Point aux I'ius (at
ran^e line)
Marsh Island (mi.d-
island) (Grand Hay)
Grand Uatture Islands
(South Rigolets L si and,
1,000 ni east of state
line)
Chanee
-96.0 m
(315 i:t)
-101 m
(-331 it)
- 132 in
(-434 it)
- 7 1. 'J m
(-236 ft)
- 81. J in
(-276 ft)
-71.9 m
(-236 ft)
-4 7. 9 in
(-157 ft)
-120 m
(-393 ft)
Time
period
1917-1935
1917-1958
1917-1958
J 917-1958
1917-1958
1917-1958
1917-1958
1917-1958
Average Annual
erosion
2.34 m
(7.68 ft)
2.46 m
(8.07 ft)
3.7 7 m
(10.56 ft)
1-/0 in
(5.76 ft)
2.05 m
(6.72 ft)
1.75 m
(5.76 ft)
J . i 7 in
(3.84 ft)
2.93 m
(9.60 ft).
27
-------
Table 6. CHANGES IN AREA AND AVERAGE EROSION RATES FOR
SELECTED AREAS IN MISSISSIPPI SOUND
KJ
00
Ave rage
Location Area in Area in Change Average a.ir.i.al
1917 1 ,J58 in area eros: on _ erosion
1. Barron Point Co Barry - - -5.72 1.12 m
PoIp.l area (150.Of:) (3.66 £t)
2. Cat Island 9.29 ha 9.29 ha. 0 59.89 .t. 1.46 n
(22.96 a.) (22.96 a) (196.5 ft) (4.79 ft)
3. I-Ursh Island 36.06 ha. 27.14 ha. -8.92 ha. 87.08 ^ 2.12
(Portersville Bay) (89.02 a.) (67.03 a) (-22.4 a) (285.7 ft) (6.97 ft)
4. Isle aux Herbes 314.15 ha. 267.30 ha. -46.85 ha. 99.Co rr. 2.42 m
(775.94 a) (660.24 a) (-115.7 a.) (325.0 ft) (7.93 ft)
41.76 -,(3) 1.02 m
(137.0 ft) (3.34 ft)
5. Point aux Pins " - -9.67 ha. 79.25
1.93 a
(-23.37 a) (260.0 ft) (6.34 ft)
(1) Shore having southern exposure
(2) Shore having southwestern exposure
(3) Shore having eastern exposure
-------
Dauphin Island
Dauphin Island is part of a chain of barrier islands protecting
Mississippi Sound from erosional forces from the Gulf of Mexico. These
islands absorb almost the full impact of winds, wave action, tides, and
currents; and their configuration is constantly changing.
Dauphin Island is 24.35 km (15.13 mi) long and varies from 305"
549 m (1,000-1,800 ft) wide across the western sandy spit to 2.6 km
(1.6 mi) wide across the forested main body of the island near the
eastern end. Elevations at the east end of the island are generally
between 1.5 and 3 m (5 and 10 ft), excepting a large east-west trending
dune system as much as 14 m (45 ft) above mean sea level. Most of the
population of Dauphin Island is concentrated in the eastern 11 km (7
mi) of the island, either along the bay margins of the main body of the
island or along the first 5 or 6 km (3 or 4 mi) of the spit, where much
new residential development has occurred.
The shorelines of Dauphin Island have been greatly modified through-
out its known history. Shortly after 1717, a Frenchman, Sr Du Sault,
produced a map of the island that indicated strongly that at that date,
Dauphin Island and Petit Bois Island, presently immediately west of
Dauphin Island, were connected. At some later date the island was
breached permanently separating the two islands. This conclusion was
reached because the "Isle Dauphine," shown on the circa 1717 map, has a
hump on the western spit very similar to the hump of the present day
Petit Bois Island. Also, the next island to the west on the circa 1717
map was called "Isle a Corne," Horn Island, which is the island to the
west of the present day Petit Bois Island.
Between 1909 and 1917, a hurricane breached Dauphin Island, divid-
ing it into two smaller islands separated by 8.5 km (5.3 mi) of open
water, shoals, and scattered remnants of the former island. The western
island was 6.1 km (3.8 mi) long and the eastern island was 6.7 km (4.2
mi) long (Figure 4).
Between 1917 and 1942, the hurricane-created tidal inlet filled
with sediment, thus rejoining the two islands to form one island. Air
photos taken on March 23, 1950, show Dauphin Island again breached by
the hurricane of September 4, 1948. Tides generated by this hurricane
were reported to be 1.8 m (6 ft) above normal at Coden and Bayou La
Batre (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973). The island was breached
about 1,219 m (4,000 ft) west of Oro Point. The breached area was
approximately 427 m (1,400 ft) wide and, by the date of the photos, was
probably covered only at high tide. A washover fan extended over much
of the length of the island, but was best developed for a distance of
3.2 km (2 mi) west of Bayou Heron channel.
29
-------
Figure 4. Areas of shoreline changes at Dauphin Island between 1917 and 1942.
-------
Extensive residential development has occurred in this area since
1950. Because this area has been breached twice by hurricanes in this
century, there is every reason to believe that it will again be breached,
at great cost to private property in the area. Paradoxically, most of
the new residential development has occurred in areas most susceptible
to storm damage, while large tracts of subdivided land in the eastern
part of the island protected by the large primary dunal complex and a
forest of pines are relatively undeveloped.
The barrier dune complex slowly migrated north as much as 156 m
(513 ft) between 1917 and 1942, forming a precipitation ridge where it
is slowed or halted by the forest edge. No measurable movement was de-
tected between 1942 and 1958.
There has been a general trend of erosion along the gulf shore of
the island and general elongation along the western end of the island.
The accompanying Figure 5 shows the rate of erosion for various time
periods at locations along the Gulf shore of the island. Shoreline
erosion on the part of the island that was westernmost in 1917 averaged
176.0 m (577.5 ft) over the period 1917 to 1974 or 3.09 m (10.13 ft)
per year. The maximum measured erosion was 201.1 m (660 ft), an aver-
age of 3.53 m (11.58 ft) per year for the period 1917 to 1974. Shore-
line erosion on the entire gulf shore for the period 1942 to 1974
averaged 63.70 m (209 ft) or 1.93 m (6.34 ft) per year excluding the
accretion on the western tip of the island (Figures 6-7). This accretion
has added a total of 2.9 km (1.8 mi) to the length of Dauphin Island
from 1917 to 1974. The accretion measured at the western tip of the
island for various intervals of time is shown in Table 7. Because of
the different orientations of the longest axis of change, the amounts
for the various time periods do not equal the total for the period of
measurement.
Table 7. ACCRETION FOR THE WESTERN TIP OF DAUPHIN ISLAND
1917-1942 1,270 m (4,166 ft)
1942-1958 635 m (2,083 ft)
1958-1974 1,429 m (4,687 ft)
1917-1974 2,730 m (8,957 ft)
Entrance to Mobile Ba^
The bathymetry of the Mobile Bay entrance and the passes associated
with Little Dauphin Island is heavily influenced by dredging and asso-
ciated spoil accumulation. The Mobile Ship Channel and Pass aux Herons
31
-------
Figure 5. Areas of shoreline changes at Dauphin Island between 1942 and 1974.
-------
Bienville 3eccH, Douohin Island —1¦
>
r
O
tn
-i
>
Wei' Centrol Dauphin Island
Figure 6. Cumulat_ve erosion from 1917 to 1974.
-------
Figure 7. Cumulative accretion for the western tip of Dauphin Island.
-------
(Pass Heron) are both dredged regularly, and the spoil from this is
added to the sedimentalogical regime of the bay entrance. The areas
adjacent to the main entrance are filling, and the relief of the Gulf
bottom is becoming flatter (Figures 8-11). Passes that are not regularly
dredged are closing or have closed, such as Big Pass Margaret, Little
Pass Margaret, Bayou Matagua, and Pass Drury (Gazzier, 1972). Pass
Drury has been replaced by an artificial channel between Little Dauphin
and Dauphin Island, parallel to the long axis of Little Dauphin. Sev-
eral areas of drifting sandbanks have formed near Peavy Island and in
Dauphin Island Bay (Gazzier, 1972).
The bathymetric contours for 1929 show a depression with depths of
more than 6 m (20 ft) south of the east end of Dauphin Island. 'By 1973,
this depression accumulated an average of 1.22 m (4 ft) of sediment in
its deepest part between 1929 and 1973.
Pelican Island
Southwest of the Mobile Bay entrance is Sand/Pelican Island, an
emergent bar of an ebb-tidal delta. The bar is in a dynamic state and
its shape, size, and location have changed continuously throughout
historic times. It is especially affected by severe weather distur-
bance. The bar increased steadily from 1929 to 1973 and the present
island is approximately 2.74 km (1.70 mi) long and supports vegetation
on the southeast end.
East of Sand/Pelican Island adjacent to the Mobile Ship Channel
is a small, intermittently subaerial bar called Sand Island on the Fort
Morgan 7^-minute quadrangle map of 1958. This is probably a channel-
margin bar (Hayes and others, 1973).
Petit Bois Pass
Concurrent with the accretionary trend of the western tip of
Dauphin Island there has been a pronounced change in the configuration
of Petit Bois Pass, which separates Dauphin Island and Petit Bois Island.
As previously mentioned, circa 1717, the pass probably was not in exis-
tence. The earliest coastal survey available, the survey of 1848,
shows the pass to be wel.1 developed. The width oL: Petit Bois Pass has
varied from 2.61 km 0.62 mi) in 1848 to 7.51 km (4.66 mi) in 1974
(Table 8). During this same interval the pass migrated 12.40 km (7.71
mi) westward. Figures 12 to 15 illustrate the changes in the configu-
ration of Petit Bois Pass between 1848 and 1974. The widening of the
pass and its westward migration are clearly shown. However, not only
35
-------
Figure 8. Bathymetric concurs, Mobile Bay entrance and
associated passes^ 1929 (data from USCGS chart 1266, 1929).
-------
GJ
Figure 9. Bathymetric contours, Mobile Bay and associated passes, 1941
(data from USCGS chart 1266, 1941) .
-------
u>
Qc
\ CEDAR POINT
^ ( (-o
MOBILE
\v \ Vv n"7 Pon Matqar
Vw;¦ b,.du uo »
^W. V—\\LiTrLE DAUPHIN ISLAND
^DAUjVlM, ~ [iLAJ''?
© ftf%=; ~)
'*¦"0) ^ u I mo8il e b'a '¦ ^ ',| )/
>a,c,Nls^fei X^V ^ t/dal pa5Si, J I ''//^"
=:-—' ^ £». yCL, - n c
¦PEMlfisULA"
Figure 10. Bathymetric contours, Mobile Bay entrance and associated
passes, 1961 (data from USCCS chart 872, 1962).
-------
Figure 11. Bathymetric contours, Mobile Bay entrance and
associated passes, 1973 (data from USCGS chart 1266, 1973).
-------
x>
c
Figure 12. Changes in the configuration of Petit Bois Pass between 1848 and 1942.
-------
Figure 13. Changes in the configuration of Petit Bois Pass between 1942 and 1974.
-------
Figure 14. Bathymetric cont'urs, Petit Bois Pass, 1917 and 1933
(data from USCG5 charts 1267, 1917 and 1933).
-------
has the pass been modified in width and location, but also changes in
the configuration of the bottom have occurred.
Table 8. WIDTH AND WESTWARD MIGRATION OF PETIT BOIS
PASS AT VARIOUS TIME PERIODS BETWEEN 1848 AND 1974
Year
Width
Westward Migration*
1848
2.61
km (1.62 mi)
1917
6.52
km (4.05 mi)
8.57 km (5.32 mi) 1848-1917
1942
7.64
km (4.75 mi)
2.61 km (1.62 mi) 1917-1942
1958
8.48
km (5.27 mi)
1.31 km (0.81 mi) 1942-1958
1974
7 .51
km (4.66 mi)
Imperceptible 1958-1974
Total 12.40 km (7.71 mi) 1848-1974
Westward migration was measured by calculating the westward move-
ment of the eastern tip of Petit Bois Island.
Between 1917 and 1933, very little apparent change in the bottom
configuration of the pass occurred. This lack of change may have been
due to slight stabilization of coastal erosion and accretion during
this period, or may merely reflect use of older sounding data on the
1933 edition of the charts.
The bathymetric map of 1961 (Figure 15) shows several significant
changes in the island's shorelines; the western tip of Dauphin Island
prograded westward and the easternmost spit of Petit Bois Island ap-
parently was eroded to such an extent that it was covered by the high-
est tides. The change in the configuration of the islands, however,
did not affect the bottom configuration greatly. The tidal scour chan-
nel just west of Dauphin Island (at about longtitude 88° 19'), as de-
lineated by a 6.1 m (20 ft) contour line, became narrower and more
elongate; but the basic configuration of the bottom changed little.
By 1973, however, the eastern spit of Petit Bois Island had been
eroded to below MLW, producing a wider outlet for the waters from Por-
tersville Bay. This has reduced current velocities through the scour
channel, and different patterns of sedimentation and erosion have been
produced. The eastern end of Petit Bois Island has become a series of
sand shoals in the pass, and an ebb-tidal bar (delineated by the closed
3.1 m (10 ft) contour line from longitude 88° 19' to 88° 20') is begin-
ning to form at the seaward end of the scour channel (Figures 14 and 15).
43
-------
Figure 15. Bathymetrie contours, Petit Bois Pass, 1961 and 1973
(data from USCGS charts 873, 1962, and 1267, 1973).
-------
If Petit Bois Pass is considered only as the area of open water
between the western end of Dauphin Island and the eastern tip of Petit
Bois Island, then the pass migrated westward along with the islands
during the period from 1917 to 1973. However, it is significant that
the scour channel, the deepest part of the pass, remained stationary
during this period; even after 1961, when the western tip of Dauphin
Island had prograded across the northern end of the channel, and should
have deflected ebb-tidal currents and somewhat reduced their velocity,
the channel remained in the same place and maintained its general depth.
Only recently, since erosion of the eastern end of Petit Bois Is-
land widened the pass significantly, has the scour channel become shal-
lower and less well defined. This suggests that Petit Bois Pass channel
has been "pinned" in place by some geologic factor or factors; possibly
by the pre-Pleistocene channel of the Escatawpa River (P. A. Boone,
personal communication, 1975) .
MOBILE
Although Mobile is not in the study area, it has a direct influ-
ence on the growth and development of south Mobile County. Mobile is
the second largest city in the state, and 68 in the nation. In 1970,
the population of the city was 190,026 people. This same year metro-
politan Mobile had a population of 376,690 people. Metropolitan Mobile
includes the towns of Saraland, Prichard, and Chickasaw, and encom-
passes a total of 142 square miles. (Source: Newspaper Enterprise
Association, Inc.)
Mobile is a port of entry and shipping outlet for a large portion
of the eastern and central United States. The port of Mobile is served
by more than 100 steamship lines, with connections to nearly every ma-
jor port in the world (Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, 1971). Mobile
Harbor has 108 piers, wharves, and docks. Of these, 60 are used for
cargo handling and 42 for related activities and 6 are not in use at
the present time. Waterborne commerce at Mobile Harbor totaled 24,758,-
289 MT (27,291,063 t) in 1972. Foreign trade accounted for 35.6 percent,
coastal for 11.8 percent, and internal and local for 52.6 percent. A
comparative statement of the waterborne commerce at Mobile Harbor during
the years 1963-1972 is given in Table 9.
On the basis of total tonnage handled in 1972, Mobile ranks as the
eleventh largest port in the United States and sixth largest on the
Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico ports that exceed Mobile's 24,758,289
MT (27,291,063 t) in 1972 are New Orleans, 114,027,475.8 MT (125,719,-
378 t); Houston, 64,787,725 MT (71,430,789 t); Baton Rouge, 47,983,340
MT (52,903,352 t), Tampa, 39,209,753 MT (43,230,158 t); and Beaumont,
45
-------
29,287,986 MT (32,291,055 t) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1972b).
The principal commodities handled in the port include metallic ores
and concentrates, crude oil and petroleum products, food grains, coal
and lignite, sand, gravel, and crushed rock, and marine shells.
46
-------
Table 9. TONNAGES OF PRINCIPAL COMMODITIES FOR MOBILE, ALABAMA, 1972
(Modified from U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1972a)
Volume
Commodity
Metric tons
(Short tons)
Percent of
Cumulative
Total Commerce
Percent
Iron ore and concentrates
6,033,123.6
(6,651,735)
24.3
24.3
Aluminum ores and concen-
trates
1,611,430.6
(1,776,660)
6.5
30.8
Crude petroleum
3,483,024.2
(3,840,159)
14.0
44.8
Petroleum products
2,645,828.7
(2,917,121)
10.6
55.4
Coal and lignite
3,791,703.5
(4,180,489)
15.3
70.7
Sand, gravel and crushed
rock
1,071,234.5
(1,181,074)
4.3
75.0
Marine shells, unmanufac-
tured
1,370,130.5
(1,510,618)
5.5
80.5
Food grains
1,223,196.5
(1,348,902)
4.9
85.4
-------
GEOLOGY OF SOUTHERN MOBILE COUNTY
By Peter A. Boone
Southern Mobile County spans the interface of land and sea. As
such this is an extremely dynamic region composed of numerous inter-
related environments and influenced by many different geologic processes.
The present environments and processes have influenced the geologic
development of this region and are reflected in the sediments and de-
posits that make up southern Mobile County.
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Southern Mobile County lies within the Southern Pine Hills and
the Coastal Lowlands subdivisions of the East Gulf Coast section of
the Coastal Plain Province (Figure 16). The area offshore from south-
ern Mobile County is part of the Mississippi-Alabama Shelf section of
the Continental Shelf Province. Mobile Bay, Mississippi Sound, and
Dauphin Island are additional physiographic features of southern Mobile
County.
Southern Pine Hills
The Southern Pine Hills (Fenneman, 1938) is a moderately dissec-
ted, southward sloping plain developed upon sediments of Miocene to
Pleistocene age. In southern Mobile County, the Southern Pine Hills
comprise the elevated interfluve between the Escatawpa River and Mobile
Bay and range in elevation from less than 30.4 m (100 ft) to about 60.8
m (200 ft). The topography is nearly flat with creeks incised less
than 30.4 m (100 ft) below the level of the plain. Numerous, shallow
saucerlike depressions, which hold water most of the year, are scattered
over the nearly level interfluve.
48
-------
-------
Coastal Lowlands
The Coastal Lowlands (Cooke, 1939) are an essentially flat to
gently undulating plain extending along the coast adjacent to Missis-
sippi Sound and along the western margin of Mobile Bay. They merge
inland with the alluvial-deltaic plains of the Mobile-Tensaw and
Pascagoula fluvial systems and smaller streams of the area. The Low-
lands range in width from almost zero to less than 16.1 km (10 mi) and
in elevations from .sea level to about 9.1 m (30 ft). The Lowlands
are indented by many tidewater creeks and rivers and fringed by tidal
marshes, all of which are "subject to inundation at high tide.
The Southern Pine Hills and Coastal Lowlands are separated by a
prominent erosional escarpment with relief locally exceeding 24.4 m
(80 ft). The escarpment parallels Mississippi Sound and turns north
to parallel Mobile Bay and the Pascagoula and Escatawpa fluvial-deltaic
system. The escarpment lies 8.0 to 9.6 km (5 to 6 mi) west of the
western shoreline of Mobile Bay, about 4.8 km (3 mi) north of the pre-
sent shoreline of Mississippi Sound and in the vicinity of the Alabama-
Mississippi state line on the eastern side of the Pascagoula and Esca-
tawpa fluvial-deltaic system. Carlston (1950) has interpreted this
escarpment as a marine wave-cut scarp of Pamlico (Pleistocene) age.
Mobile Bay
Mobile Bay is essentially flat bottomed, sloping gently toward
the Gulf. Depths range from 3.0 to 3.6 m (10 to 12 ft) with an aver-
age depth of 2.9 m (9.7 ft). The periphery of the bay consists of a
narrow shelf extending from the shoreline to depths of 1.2 to 1.8 m
(4 to 6 ft). In the northern part of the bay, the bathymetry is com-
plicated by the progradation of levees associated with the distribution
of the Mobile delta into the estuary. The tidal inlet between Mobile
Point and Dauphin Island is scoured to depths between 16.7 and 17.7 m
(54 and 58 ft). Seaward of the tidal inlet is a large tidal delta
with depths of less than 5.5 m (18 ft). One island and several shoal
areas exist on the seaward margins of the tidal delta.
A ship channel, extending from Mobile docks seaward across the
tidal delta at the mouth of the bay, is presently 121.9 m (400 ft) wide
by 12.2 m (40 ft) deep. Spoil banks extend along both sides of the
main ship channel to a point just north of Great Point Clear. From
the point southward to the vicinity of the tidal inlet most of the
spoil material is confined to the western side of the ship channel.
The relief of these spoil banks is greater than 1.8 m (6 ft) in the
northern part of the estuary but decrease to .6 m (2 ft) and .9 m
50
-------
(3 ft) from Great Point Clear southward. A series of "hummocks" of
spoil material in water depths greater than 4.3 m ,(14 ft) extend along
the western side of the ship channel in the tidal scoured lower reaches
of the bay.
Mississippi Sound
Mississippi Sound is an elongate estuary approximately 136.7 km
(85 mi) long and 8.0 to 24.1 km (5 to 15 mi) wide, extending from the
mouth of Pearl River to Mobile Bay. That part of Mississippi Sound
occurring in Alabama is 8.0 to 16.1 km (5 to 10 mi) wide and about
24.1 km (15 mi) long with a total shoreline of some 201.1 km (125 mi)
(Crance, 1971). Its southern limit is the Mississippi Sound barrier
island system, specifically Dauphin Island in Mobile County. It is
bounded on the north by tidal marsh and intersperced beach of the main-
land.
The Sound is shallow, generally less than 3.0 m (10 ft) in the
northern partdeepening to an average depth of 4.6 m to 6.1 m (15 to
20 ft) in the southern part. Greater depths occur locally behind bar-
rier islands and in the tidal passes. The tidal channel between Dau-
phin and Petit Bois Islands has a maximum depth of 7.6 m (25 ft).
Bathymetry of the Sound is largely related to sediment type and distri-
bution; shoal areas are commonly sand bars or oyster reefs.
Mississippi-Alabama .Shelf
The Mississippi-Alabama shelf is a triangular area extending from
the Mississippi River delta to DeSoto Canyon. The shelf is about
128.7 km (80 mi) wide in the west and narrows to about 56.3 km (35 mi)
in the east. Off southern Mobile County, the shelf is an extensive,
almost flat, plain bounded on the landward side by the relatively
steep but narrow shoreface of the Mississippi Sound barrier system.
The break in slope between shoreface and shelf occurs at a depth of
about 6.1 m (20 ft) along the Mississippi Sound barrier system.
The shoreface has a gradient of up to 9.5 to 11.4 m/km (50 to 60
ft/mi). The shelf has a gradient of 2 m/km (3.2 ft/mi) off Dauphin
Island. At a depth of approximately 54.9 m (180 ft) the slope in-
creases to about 5.9 m/im (31 ft/mi) (Upshaw and others, 1966).
The surface of the shelf is relatively smooth west of Mobile
Point. A linear low extending seaward from near the tidal pass to
Mobile Bay probably represents the partly filled valley the Mobile-
Tensaw fluvial system occupied during lower stand of the sea.
51
-------
Table 10. STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN OF COASTAL ALABAMA
Krathem
Sy •-1 (in
Series
Koek units
Cenozoie
Quaternary
Huli'Ocn.j
P 1 e 1 m I ui: CMU"
Urui i iTcrent ialcd alluvial, deltaic,
etiluanne *.* r :tJ eoastal sod uiients .
AMuvml terrace deposits
Tertiary
P1 loco no
C 11 rone i !e i*"onn.11 ion
Miuci.-no
M locLiie unci i (to rent laied
01 igoce no
Chickasawhay I .lmesiono
Vicksbur^ Group
Eocene
Jackson Group
Claiborne Croup
WjIlox Group
Paleoceno
Midway Group
Mosozotc
G ro t a e c o u a
Up pur
Selma Group
Kulaw Fonnation
'PuseaIoo^a Group
[ ,o\vi;r
Lower Crctaeeoun und iffurontiaU.-d
•Jurats \c.
Uppl.T
Cotton Valley Group
1 fav viliu Formation
Sni.iekover Formation
Middle
Norphiui Formation
Louann Salt
Tnass k:
__ 9 _ y _
!
Werner [formation
Katjlo Formation
I.1 ud 111 erent lalod aod imont s
i
3
HaseMioiU
-------
STRATIGRAPHY
Southern Mobile County and the adjacent offshore area are under-
lain by a sequence of rocks common to all of Coastal Alabama. These
strata range in age from Triassic(?) to Holocene. They are more than
7,620 m (25,000 ft) thick at the coast (Moore, 1971) and dip south-
ward at 1.6 to 8.6 m/km (10 to 45 ft/mi) except where affected locally
by structural elements (Table 10). This thick section of sedimentary
rock lies unconformably upon metamorphic and igneous basement rocks of
unknown age.
Data on pre-Cretaceous rocks in southern Mobile County is very
scarce. Only one well, the Saga Petroleum U.S., Inc., Otha 0. Dees
No. 11-6 (Permit No. 2069) has penetrated the pre-Cretaceous strata
in southern Mobile County and the information from this well is being
held confidential at the time of this writing.. Therefore, the pre-
Cretaceous section is based on a projection of data from further north.
As such, it should be considered only an approximation of actual con-
ditions in this area.
Details of the stratigraphy of the upper part of the section are
well illustrated by sample logs of the Peterson Drilling Company,
S. A. Smith Na 1 well (Figure 17) and the Stan Graves, Henderson No.
2 well drilled as a ground-water test well in conjunction with
this study. Upper Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary formations are
2,432 to 2,743 m (8,000 to 9,000 ft) thick near the coast. Rock types
are mainly sandstone and mudstone with some interbedded limestone
units.
Pre-Jurassic Strata
Pre-Jurassic strata of unknown thickness overlie basement rocks
in south Alabama. This section has never been penetrated by the drill
in Mobile County, but its presence is indicated by projection of data
from further north. North of Mobile County pre-Jurassic terrigenous
rocks have been assigned to the Eagle Mills Formation of Triassic age.
Jurassic System
Rocks of Jurassic age are about 2,134 m (7,000 ft) thick in sou-
thern Mobile County and thin northward where they are overlapped by
younger sediments. The Jurassic rocks are mainly terrigenous with
interbedded carbonate, anhydrite, and thick salt units. In south
53
-------
<
ZD
a
_ ?
? ? —
UJ
7L
UJ
U
O
2
. ¦> .
>-
O '
(X
Ij
<
o
k-
cr.
UJ
H
ui
y.
UJ
u
o
UJ
o ,.
UJ l,J
-J T\
< .
CL
K/"\
~s>
o
UJ
u
hj
o
\-
in
UJ
u
ft.
<
u
»-
re
in
UJ
ct
n.
u
n_
ZD
-C PCI -
7777777
interval not
COVERED BY
SAMPlES OK
ELECTRIC LOGS
S3
_ _ _L'
-i _ _ J _~
1—a
_L J ~
l_ "i ll
<
u) —I
u
MIOCENE
10
HOLOCENE
UNDIFF.
UPPER MEMBER
Depth befow
lea level
metres feet
0x0
200 -
J00 •
600
-IOOO
1-7000
ESCAMBIA SahDmE.mSER
LOWER MEMBER
1 J.'K'i F OK'JATlOrf AMD
CHICf.ASAV.HAY LIMESTONE
UNDIFF EOirn Ia 1 ED
t!UC A I L'¦'r; A C L A 1 ml«uE I
_ Of BiR»M f 0 c A 1 I Of i
OCALa LIV.ES fONfc
LisnoN ronvA tion
eouivalehi
ia; i AM a i r A
FOU'.'a 1 fori
WILCOX GROUP
MIDWAY GROUP
SELMA CROUP
LUT AW fORMAl ION
8'
UPPtR
MARINE
LOWER
i ov.'cu ci'L" i. umiif i
BOO
1000
•30 00
1200 -
-4000
MOO
1600 -
lfioo-
7000
7200
2-100
7600 -
5000
dOOO
7000
E000
9000
Oil and Gal Permit A545
Petenon Drilling Co.
S. A. Smith 1
Sec. 8, T. 8 S., R. 2 W.
Mobile Co., Alabama
TotaI Depth 9004
I" . I SAND AND SANOSTOUE
I---1 SHALE AND CLAY
P~ll LIMESTONE AND CHALK
>U GRAVEL.
I CALCAREOUS
Figure 17. Log of well from Mobile County,
54
-------
Alabama, rocks of Jurassic age are assigned, in ascending order, to
the Louann Salt, the Norphlet Formation, the Smackover Formation, the
Haynesville Formation, and the Cotton Valley Group. Petroleum is pro-
duced from all the formations of the Jurassic except the Louann Salt.
Recent discoveries of natural gas and condensate in northern Mobile
County has brightened the outlook for additional discoveries through-
out south Alabama.
Cretaceous System
Lower Cretaceous Series-"
Lower Cretaceous sediments of southern Mobile County and south
Alabama generally consist of interbedded sandstone and shale with
pink nodular limestone and red and green shale in the upper part. An
evaporitic anhydrite unit occurs near the middle of the section. These
sediments are about 1,524 to 1,828 m (5,000 to 6,000 ft) thick in sou-
thern Mobile County and thin northward where they are overlapped by
younger units. The Lower Cretaceous series is not generally subdivided
in south Alabama outside the Citronelle field. These sediments are
oil productive in the northern part of Mobile County.
Upper Cretaceous Series.--
The Upper Cretaceous formations are of marine and non-marine ori-
gin and include beds composed of sand, gravel, clay, and chalk. The
strata dip southward at 5.7 to 8.6 m/km (30 to 45 ft/mi) except where
affected locally by structural elements. In south Alabama deposits of
Late Cretaceous age are assigned in ascending order to the Tuscaloosa
Group, the Eutaw Formation, and the Selma Group. These sediments are
oil producers in south Alabama.
Tertiary Svstem
In south Alabama, the Tertiary formations consist predominantly
of marine terrigenous rocks with interbedded carbonates. They are
transitional in character between the terrigenous and largely non-
marine formations of Mississippi and the carbonate rocks of the Florida
peninsula. The section is composed of the Midway Group of the Paleo-
cene Series; the Wilcox, Claiborne, and Jackson Groups of the Eocene
Series; the Vicksburg Group and the Chickasawhay Limestone of the
55
-------
Oligocene Series; and the Miocene Series undifferentiated. The Plio-
cene Series is the most recent of the series of the Tertiary System.
In coastal Alabama, the Citronelle Formation spans the boundary be-
tween the Pliocene of the Tertiary System and the Pleistocene of the
Quaternary System.
Quaternary System
The Quaternary section of south Alabama consists of terrace de-
posits of the Pleistocene Series; and fluvial, fluvial-deltaic, es~
tuarine, and coastal deposits of the Pleistocene and Holocene Series.
SURFACE AND SHALLOW SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY OF SOUTHERN MOBILE COUNTY
Surface and shallow subsurface geologic units of southern Mobile
County and the adjacent offshore consist of unconsolidated sand, silt,
clay and gravel of the Citronelle Formation and undifferentiated Qua-
ternary sediments. These sediments were deposited in a multiplicity
of coastal and fluvial-deltaic environments. The detailed stratigra-
phy of these units is yet to be determined, but their general frame-
work and distribution can be outlined.
Citronelle Formation
The Citronelle Formation crops out in the north-central part of
the study area, underlying the elevated interfluve (Southern Pine Hills)
between the Escatawpa River and Mobile Bay. The Citronelle overlies
the Miocene Series and ranges in thickness from around 30 m (100 ft)
in northern Mobile County to 50.3 m (165 ft) in the Graves No. 2
Henderson well. It consists of fine- to medium-grained, locally pebbly,
friable sandstone. The formation is chiefly dark brown, red and orange
at the surface becoming lighter in color at depth. Lenticular beds
of orange and gray sandy clay and clay balls and partings occur local-
ly. The base of the formation is generally marked by a ferruginous
sandstone containing minor amounts of chert gravel.
The Citronelle is weathered to a depth of about 4.6 m (15 ft) in
the area north of Grand Bay and probably throughout the rest of sou-
thern Mobile County. Soils developed on this weathered material are
classified by the USDS in two major soil associations: the Tifton-
Irvington-Mallis association and the McLausin-Troup-Ruston association.
56
-------
The Tifton-Irvington-Mallis soil association is characterized
by sandy and silty clays; the McLausin-Troup-Ruston soil association
consists of silty sand and lacks the clay of Tifton-Irvington-Mallis
association. These soil associations may indicate major compositional
differences in the underlying Citronelle. However, the detailed in-
vestigations necessary to substantiate this have not been conducted.
The Citronelle dips to the southwest at .9 to 2.2 m/km (5 to 12
ft/mi) except where locally modified by structural features. Strata
are disrupted by faulting in the subsurface in northern Mobile County;
however, evidence of faulting at the surface obscured by deep weather-
ing or the lithologic similarity of displaced beds. Recently several
"prominent structural lineaments" interpreted as major faults have
been recognized on photographs taken during the Apollo 7 flight and
the Landsat-1 mission (Ishording and Riccio, 1974). These features
extend across the northern part of the study area in a northwest-
southeast trend.
Undifferentiated Quaternary Sediments of the Coastal Lowlands
The Coastal Lowlands are underlain by undifferentiated sediments
of Quaternary age deposited in estuarine, coastal, and fluvial-deltaic
environments. These sediments are underlain by the Citronelfe Forma-
tion and undifferentiated Miocene sediments at depths ranging from a
few feet up to several hundred feet. Generally, the total thickness
of these units is less than 21.3 m (70 ft). However, approximately
38.1 m (125 ft) of Quaternary sediments fills the channel of the an-
cient Mobile-Tensaw fluvial system at the mouth of Mobile Bay (Boone,
1973) .
The Coastal Lowlands in the vicinity of the Theodore industrial
site comprises an upper plain at 12.2 to 15.2 m (40 to 50 ft) elevation
and a lower plain ranging from sea level to about 9.1 m (30 ft). The
upper plain has been interpreted as a Pleistocene estuarine terrace on
the west and a marine bar on the east (Carlston, 1950). Several south-
flowing streams dissect this plain. Swamps are present on the flood
plains of these streams. Relief between the plain surface and stream
beds is on the order of 9.1 m (30 ft). The lower plain has extensive
swamps in this area.
The estuarine terrace part of the plain consists of a weathered
zone, about 4.5 m (15 ft) thick, of sandy silts and clays and silty or
clayey sands overlying fine-grained sands and clayey fine sand and fine
sandy clay. The marine bar consists of fine-grained white sand, with
some clay and silt matrix in the upper weathered part. The fine-grained
57
-------
sand of the bar is underlain by medium-grained sands. Some inter-
bedded thin clays occur in the southern part of the bar.
The lowland area to the east consists of organic swamp deposits
and clayey and silty sediments. These are up to 4.5 m (15 ft) thick
and are underlain by a bluish-gray sandy clay containing scattered
plant fragments and thin layers of peat. This clay underlies much of
the Coastal Lowlands at depths of about 4.5 m (15 ft) and is up to
12.2 to 15.2 m (40 to 50 ft) thick.
Soils of the Coastal Lowlands appear to reflect in a general
way the underlying major sedimentary units. Soils developed on the
estuarine terrace, marine bar, belong to the Poarch-Escambia-Mallis
soil association. Those of the eastern low lands in the vicinity of
the Theodore industrial site belong to the Atmore-Escambia-Osier soil
association.
Soils of this association extend southward along Mobile Bay and
westward along Mississippi Sound to the vicinity of Bayou La Batre.
Scattered borehole data indicates that the sediments underlying this
area are similar.
The Coastal Lowlands north of Mississippi Sound are a low rolling
plain ranging in elevation from sea level to'about 6.1 m (20 ft). East
of Bayou La Batre 3.0 to 4.6 m (10 to 15 ft) of muddy fine-grained sand
with local accumulations of organic material overlie hlue-gray mud and
sandy mud. Near the mouth of West Fowl River this unit is about 13.7
m (45 ft) thick and overlies sands of probably Miocene age. Otvos
(1975) has defined a similar mud and sandy mud unit in Mississippi as
the Biloxi Formation, but definitive correlation of the two units can-
not be made at this time.
West of Bayou La Batre the Coastal Lowlands consist of swamp and
linear sand bodies perpendicular to the coast and marsh deposits. The
underlying units of these surface deposits are not known. However, in
the vicinity of the Alabama-Mississippi state line marsh deposits over-
lie sediments of the ancient Pascagoula-Escatawpa fluvial-deltaic system.
Soils east of Bayou La Batre generally belong to the Atmore-Escam-
bia-Osier soil association and are a continuation of those of the eas-
tern low lands in the vicinity of the Theodore industrial site. West
of Bayou La Batre the soils are predominantly of: the Dorovan-Ponzer-
Portsmouth association.
58
-------
BOTTOM SEDIMENT DISTRIBUTION, MOBILE BAY AND MISSISSIPPI SOUND
Sediments in the northern part of Mobile Bay consist of prodelta
silt, clayey silt, and delta-front sand and silty sand (Figure 18).
Sediments in the southern part of the bay consist of estuarine silty
clay and clay. Bay margin sands and clayey sands occur around the
periphery of the bay. Locally, the^Cumulation of oyster shells is
significant. Holocene sediment thicknesses range from about 4.6 to
6.1 (15 to 20 ft) in the western part of the bay to about 12.2 (40
ft) in the eastern part of the bay. Sediments are up to 38 m (125
ft) thick in the ancient Alabama River valley near the mouth of the
bay (Boone, 1973).
Long term sediment accumulation in Mobile Bay has been estimated
as being .50 m (1.65 ft) per century (Hardin et al, 1975). Carbon-14
dates of oyster shells indicate that the rate of sedimentation has been
.03 to .15 m (0.1 to 0.5 ft) per century over the past 5 to 6 thousand
years. Present rates are considerably higher than in the past and
are probably still accelerating. This is due, at least in part, to
progradation of the delta toward the mouth of the bay, shifting the
focus of deposition "down-bay" and increasing sedimentation rates in
the process.
Sediments in Mississippi Sound (Figure 19) consist of estuarine
silt and clay in much of the central part and bay-margin sands around
the periphery (Upshaw and other, 1966). The estuarine facies is char-
acterized by variable lithology, general lack of stratification, abun-
dance of mottles (bioturbation), and irregular pods of differing litho-
logy (Curray and Moore, 1963; Rainwater, 1964). Bay-margin sands are
quartzose with one to two percent heavy minerals (Foxworth and others,
1962). Fine sand, silt, and clay generally occur along the mainland
beaches in Mobile County (Upshaw and others, 1966). Medium- to coarse-
sand occurs along barrier-island beaches facing the sound (Upshaw and
others, 1966; Weide, 1968). Holocene sediments range in thickness from
about five feet in the northern part of the sound to 12.2 to 18.3 m
(40 to 60 ft) at the barrier islands (Ludwick, 1964). Sedimentation
rates have been estimated at .24 m (0.8 ft) per 1,000 years (Ludwick,
1964) to 1.2 m (4 ft) per 1,000 years (Rainwater, 1964). Upshaw and
others (1966) indicate the higher rate is more probable, but "... the
question about the rate of deposition in Mississippi Sound is not re-
solved ."
59
-------
EXPLANATION
ssa
Estuanne clay and silt—intercalated silt, clayey
s * 11 and clay characterized by an abundance of
mottles (bioturbation) and general lock of strati-
fication.
Bay-margin sand-fme- to medium-grained quartz-
- osc sond with local concentrations of shell ma-
terial, cloy clasts or heavy minerals.
/Delta-front and prodelta sand, silt and clay-in-
terstrati ficd fine grained sand and silt and inter-
strati fi ed silt and clay.
10 MILES
E-n i~zz ::
0 5
10 KILOMETRES
Figure 18. Sediment distribution, Mobile Bay
(after Boone, 1973; data from Ryan, 1969).
60
-------
EXPLANATION
5S5
Estucrine clay and si It — intercalated silt, clayey
silt and clay characterized by an abundance of
moltles (bioturbcjt ion) and general lacl" of stioti-
fication.
Bny-morgin sund-fine- to medium-grained quartz-
ose sand wiih local concentrations of shell mo-
ferial, clay closfs or hravy minerals.
Delta-front and prodclta sand, silt ond clay —in-
ter stiati fi cd fine grained sand ond silt and inter-
strotified silt and cloy.
i'igure 19. Sediment; distributiio.,, Mississippi Sound (after Boone, 197 3) .
61
-------
BOTTOM SEDIMENT DISTRIBUTION MISSISSIPPI-ALAMMA SHELF
Sediments of the Mississippi-Alabama shelf occur as six well-
defined facies; two of which occur seaward of Dauphin Island (Figure
20) .
Immediately south of Dauphin Island is a near shore fine-grained
facies similar in lithology to that of Mobile Bay and Mississippi
Sound. Sand, muddy sand, sandy mud, and mud occur in water depths
less than 18.3 m (60 ft) in a zone about 11.3 km (7 mi) wide. Tidal
flushing of the estuaries moves turbid'waters seaward where the sus-
pended silt and clay are deposited to form this facies.
Further offshore, the Mississippi-Alabama sand facies consists
predominantly of well-sorted fine-grained, "clean" quartz sand. Shelly
sands occur locally. This facies occurs in an area of very slow de-
position of slow erosion where sands deposited during a lower stand of
the sea are being reworked by marine processes but not buried by normal
shelf deposits.
The thickness of Holocene sediments on the Mississippi-Alabama
shelf are mostly unknown but probably less than 15.2 m (50 ft) thick
over most of the area (Ludwick, 1964; Fisk and McClelland, 1959).
Holocene sediments thicken toward the Mississippi Rever delta where
they are greater than 15.2 m (50 ft) thick (Fisk and McClelland, 1959).
Underlying these sediments are Tertiary and Quaternary units similar
to those underlying Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound.
MINERAL RESOURCES by Otis M. Clarke, Jr.
"Heavy minerals" and sand are the only mineral resources that
have been reported in south Mobile County (Szabo, Clarke and Moore,
1969; Stow and others). The "heavy minerals" are divided into two
groups, the lighter fraction being kyanite, sillimanite, and stau-
rolite; and the heavier fraction being ilmenite, rutile, leucoxene,
zircon, and monazite. Sand is abundant; it can be used as fine aggre-
gate, molding sand, and it can be beneficiated to meet chemical speci-
fications for the manufacture of glass sand. Shells and clay are
mineral possibilities.
The project area is in the lower part of the Gulf Coastal Plain.
The land area is composed of a series of terraces that have been in
part removed by erosion and barrier islands.
62
-------
Figure 20. Mississippi-Alabama shelf-sediment facies (after Boone, 1973)
-------
The south Mobile County area is in the lower Coastal Plain, and
underlying sediments consist of unconsolidated sand and clay. Some
sands are fossiliferous• Sediments of Miocene age crop out in the low
areas along Miller Creek, Halls Mill Creek, and tributaries in the nor-
thern edge of the area of investigation (Reed, 1971). The Citronelle
Formation, Pliocene age, crops out in the northwest part of the pro-
ject area covering about half of the land surface area. Reed (1971)
describes the lowlands bordering the Citronelle Formation as alluvial,
low terrace, and coastal deposits.
Outcrops of the Miocene Series in Mobile County are composed pre-
dominantly of coarse- to fine-grained sand with clay seams; some beds
contain fine gravel. Reed (1971) reports the Miocene sediments thicken
to the south with 1,037 m (3,400 ft) thickness in the south edge of
the county. They consist of laminated to massive marine and estuarine
deposits of sedimentary origin.
The Citronelle Formation is composed of coarse- to fine-grained
sand and gravel. Cross-bedding is common. Locally, the Citronelle
contains clay balls, partings, and irregular, lenticular deposits of
clay.
The alluvial, low terrace, and coastal deposits are poorly ex-
posed. Reed (1971) describes the deposits as consisting of white,
gray, orange and brown, partly carbonaceous, locally fossiliferous,
very fine- to coarse-grained sand that is gravelly in many exposures.
Carbonaceous clay is present in some areas.
Heavy Minerals
Stow, Drummond, and Ilaynes (1975) investigated possible heavy
mineral resources south of Dauphin Island. The project was sponsored
by the Mineral Resources Institute of the University of Alabama with
work performed by the Department of Geology and the Department of Civil
and Mineral Engineering. During the investigation more than 150 bor-
ings were made collecting samples. The "heavies" were separated using
heavy liquid media (specific gravity, 2.96); minerals were identified,
and quantitative estimates were made using.a petrographic microscope.
The following is a summary of their work.
The Piedmont physiographic province is the original source of
the heavy minerals. They were transported out of Mobile Bay by the
Mobile River aided by the tide. The flow was deflected by westerly
moving shore currents. With decreasing velocity, minerals were de-
posited by settling.
64
-------
The location ;of the area containing heavy minerals is given in
Figure 21. Stow, Drummond, and Haynes estimate that this zone, ex-
plored to a depth of 7.6 m (25 ft) contained from 13.6 to 18.1 MT
(15 to 20 t) of heavy minerals.
The heavy minerals were divided into two groups according to
weight. The lighter group, consisting of kyanite, sillimanite, and .
staurolite, were deposited in relatively low-energy areas in the
Mississippi Sound and in the Gulf toward the western end of Dauphin
Island. The heavier group, consisting of ilmenite, leucoxine, rutile,
zircon, and monazite were found in the Culf south of Dauphin Island
in the high energy areas.
Stow (personal communication, February, 1975) pointed out that
there is a good possibility of finding "fossil" deposits in deeper
water south of the coast. The sea level was much lower during periods
of the Pleistocene and it is probable that other heavy mineral depos-
its occur at greater depths.
Clay Resources
No clay of potential commercial use was noted during the mineral
reconnaissance that was conducted in Mobile County in 1967 (Clarke,
1960). This reconnaissance was confined to surface investigation and
did not include any subsurface testing.
A clay seam, about 9.1 m (30 ft) thick crops out about 12.9 km
(8 mi) north of the area of investigation in the SE^; Sec. 11, T. 4 S. ,
R. 4 W., in an abandoned burrow pit below the Mobile Municipal reser-
voir dam across Big Creek (Clarke, 1970). This clay seam, in sedi-
ments mapped as Miocene undifferentiated, dips to the southwest con-
cordant with the geologic structure of the region.
Williams, Dinkins and McCutcheor (1966) report thick clay in
George County, Mississippi, in sediments of Miocene age. They describe
the clay as Pascagoula Clay.- Both the clay exposed at Big Creek and
in George County, Mississippi, are composed of predominantly the clay
mineral montmorillonite, and apparently the clay exposed at Big Creek
is stratigraphically equivalent to the Pascagoula Clay.
Marsh (1966) described a similar clay in Escambia and Santa Rose
Counties, Florida, as the Pensacola Clay. This clay is also Miocene
age. Marsh shows that the clay grades to coarse elastics up-dip.
The clay exposed at Big Creek, Mobile County, is very plastic;
shrinkage on firing is excessive, and it is not suitable for use as
65
-------
MISSISSIPPI SOUND
o
mobile Bay
GULF OF MEXICO
Conrour i.n'ervo; eouais . 2 5 ?o heavy mineral
Figure 21. Percent heavy metals in offshore sands in MoDile County, Alabama
(after Stow et. al., 1975).
-------
a major constituent in fired ceramic products. It can be used in
limited amounts where additional plasticity is needed. Although it
probably extends in the subsurface in the area of investigation, the
current market value of this clay is very low, and it cannot be con-
sidered a mineral resource.
Small lenticular clay deposits occur in the Citronelle Formation
in the northwestern part of the study area. There are very few good
exposures in the Citronelle Formation within the area of investigation,
but clay resources were studied; in north and west Mobile County and in
Baldwin County. No clay deposits were found in this formation that
contained more than a few hundred tons of clay.
Mud, consisting of predominantly carbonaceous silt with some clay,
is exposed in tidal marshes in the Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound.
Reed (1971) reported that gray and orange sandy carbonaceous clay is
present in some areas in alluvium, low terraces and coastal deposits.
Sand
Szabo, Clarke and Moore (1969) report sand occurring in Bishop
Manor Creek north of Bayou La Batre, and in Franklin and Jackson
Creeks and tributaries west of Grand Bay. Sands from an old river
terrace occur north of Theodore. Szabo did not report sieve analyses
for deppsits within the area of this report, but he reports that simi-
lar deposits in the central part of Mobile County consist of predomi-
nantly fine sand.
Dauphin Island is composed of predominantly sand. Thick deposits
of sand also occur in the Mississippi Sound, Mobile Bay, and in the
Gulf of Mexico south of Dauphin Island. The quality and extent of
these sands were not investigated.
Mining of mineral resources in Mobile Bay involves environmental
problems and extensive local opposition. The disposal of sand from
dredging to improve navigation is a 'difficult problem. The commercial
use of such sand is a possibility worth investigation. Potential
uses would be foundry and mortar sand, and the manufacture of glass.
SEISMIC HAZARDS
Seismic risk areas were originally designated for all parts of
the United States in 1947 by the Coast and Geodetic Survey and revised
67
-------
several times since then. Seismic risk is expressed in arbitrary num-
bers from 0 to 3. They are based on historical data considering only
the intensity of an earthquake, not the frequency of occurrence, and
express the anticipated damage that would occur in that area.
Zone 0--No damage
Zone l--Minor damage
Zone 2--Moderate damage
Zone 3--Major damage
Southern Mobile County lies in a zone where the occurrence of
damage due to seismic disturbances is extremely unlikely (Algermissen,
1969).
68
-------
SOILS
By Michael W. Szabo
SUBSURFACE SOILS
Engineering geology is concerned with construction problems
related to geology. Geologic data, techniques, and principles are
used in engineering geology studies to locate construction material
and to determine how surface and subsurface materials will react to
man-made changes. These studies evaluate factors affecting planning,
design, construction, operation, and maintenance of engineering struc-
tures and include foundation investigations for all types of struc-
tures; evaluation of conditions along canal and highway routes; and
evaluation of landslide, flood, and earthquake hazards.
In south Mobile County future emphasis will be on continued in-
dustrial development and related urban expansion. This will require
foundation studies, location of construction material, and delineation
of areas of potential hazard.
This section briefly describes the general engineering geology
characteristics of the subsurface soils of south Mobile County and
should serve as a guide for future investigations of specific areas.
Unconsolidated sediments ranging in age from Pliocene to Holocene
crop out in south Mobile County (Figure 22). Sediments of the Citro-
nelle Formation of Pliocene age crop out in the northwest part and
coastal deposits of Pleistocene and Holocene ages crop out in the eas-
tern and southern parts. Overlying the sediments in the stream val-
leys of the area are alluvial deposits of Holocene age.
The Citroncl'lc Formation consists of clayey sand and sandy clay
containing clay layers and has a maximum thickness of about 61 m (200
ft) (Table 11) (Reed, 1971). The alluvial and coastal deposits consist
of very fine- to coarse-grained sand and sandy clay, are locally"car-
boniferous and fossiliferous, and have been mapped as one unit because
of their similarity (Reed, 1971). The coastal deposits are generally
69
-------
-------
Table 11. CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL ASSOCIATIONS AND
INTERPRETATIONS FOR SELECTED USES IN SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
(from Soil Consevation Service, 1974)
1 s°
1 Suicabi
Llty
Soil Lialcaclont
Or- ''.11
r pio,~
ifl . 6
S •>:;
• ' i-mnq
r T
1 Tnr ipr'^iiir
F Of
- -f n '
j
1
1
Picnic
0
1
j S«- 0 LC
1
Owe 11Ingj
I
Ami
?ercer.;
i , /
1 l Mu r e
E ro a 1 on
i KojiIs i.
! Tan*.
| Li.J.C
'J i c n j «. t
1 Crop
Wgo«i-
C»Tlp
PI jy-
P*th» S
C 0 1 '
c < .
C ¦ r < M
'¦nr.-
f id. <:rv
B-2srrPic
I hr.j
1' t- c u r c
liifl
A : -M «
vrP'i-'^s
T.-J.ls
14 -J'<-r.rj-7 •-
r
0-3
coJ a re ce 1 /
iOi i^hc
mode rite
a Wbt-c
gOOj
ijood
good
ill gn c
TOda r a ce
i 11 ghc
13TJ-- ^
hjt;:
zo c e r a c e
toood
gOCd
^ood
(1igr:
sll^hc
jllghc
s c rong]y
acid
C-3
well
lOd =
ver/
s 1: ar.c
ca^eracJ
illahc
s 1 tg:.c
-operate
^ood
^coJ
good
iligr.t;
s Ugnc
iliint
1
,c ror ^1y
j
1
acid
£ »c4^:31. i
0-5
soreurjc
loa.n
Very
sli^nc
r.ooecacj
severe
.aac-race
-ooerace
:a i:
fair
gcod
iotier-j
^cde ra ce
icder-
f-co r
s c r o r. jj L y
*zt j
a ce
i
nc _
I
|
! 1 1 1
1 1
I
-------
Table 11 (continued) .
INTERPRETATIONS FOR
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL ASSOCIATIONS AND
SELECTED USES IN SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
Ho"-' rz
iru'.oT
for
! Soil Suitability
' sn r *.7r: j ! »¦ < 1 r«
Soil Limitations
Tor Picrescicn
y.ip S/'Txi
/,
> - --- : •-.lor
Per=enj
|Te p-
Wood -
'.or-;
Cinp
Picnic
Areas
Play-
'Ml
Pa cJi* U
' r 1' 1
50 :r- -
"J1.1 ' • : : » - T. -5
Ir^p
Si. i^le
5-12
0-5
C - 5
•-ill
"-ell
- 3 d J J C e I
¦-eli
sa-ijraC
pcor
SJrJ/ c 1 a/
lo
jjio/ cla>
I C JO
! 03 1
lo jn
•: z ro rt3 L /
jc id
strorgly
j. i J
s:ro-.gl/
JC id
vt r /
_> c rar.£ 1 y
modira Ce
r.uiierate
sli.;hc
sligit
mode race
^ ode ra co
ticra zc
inod^ rj ce
111ih z
si ic'-.c
rcdetace
severe
sevt' re
soderacc
-iocc rate
xoJcrJce
rrodc ra c e
rode race
moderate
rode race
fair
-fa L r
500a
fa 1 r
good
^ood
good
ca i r
good
good
eood
good
ooder-
* te
cocar-
ace
b1i gnc
r.od tr-
ace
oodtrace
~od« ra te
s LI jh z
soderace
«det*
ace
s 11 jh t
11 i jhc
¦ac d c r -
act
,,
0-1
very psjr
pcur
oi-ia«:c
-tr«:nuL/
Jliyi;
91:yh:
c c v e r 0
severe
jc.ere
»^v«_ re
poor
poo r
poor
poor
severe
se\« re
t e .• e r e
iiroigly
nc 1.!
e <-.re-e I /
::-ai "irs'i i
0 I
ver/ poor
or^ni:
¦J I l-j-1 c
icviire
..cere
sc.'jre
1
at^ere
poo r
1
poor
poor
severe
severs
»c /ere
55 ^ 1
i
1
-j' • i
1
1
J
!
!
:
i
1
;
1
1
5 L .jjhc
I
1
1
, 1
B«- !
1
1
»u 2- -J
f
j
i
1
l
!cji
1
3Z?zn^ly
J : . c
J'1"t j
1
.1.. - j
1
1
IJ rt:t.v
o c:-:.
„ j ; -j -
:k
e sell oc:-r
li devclc,)
i_ n c.
- ./ "ca.'i;*, r « :r s ;
o : -c
^rL. o: _u:
JLc/ or aU.jlmc/ jc j
iJ.l
-------
less than 21.3 m (70 ft) thick and the alluvial deposits are generally
less than 4.5 m (15 ft) thick. Drill logs of coastal deposits are
given in Figures 23 and 24.
Only the engineering related properties of these units are given
here. For a more detailed geologic description of the units refer to
the section on geology.
The factors relating to general construction problems in an area
underlain by unconsolidated sediments are the load-bearing capacity,
permeability, and shrink-swell potential of the subsurface soils oc-
curring in the area. These factors bear on design of roads and founda-
tions, and are based on physcial characteristics of the sediments. The
American Association of State Highway Officials (AAS110) rates the phys-
ical characteristics of soils on a scale of A-l (granular material low
in clay) to A~7 (material high in clay). The following are generalized
ratings for sediments, based on the AASHO scale as a guide.
Soil Load-bearing Shrink-swell
classification capacity Permeability potential
Al_3 AASHO Good Good Low
A3-5 AASHO Fair Moderate Moderate
A5-7 AASHO Poor Low High
This chart shows that soils with the least problems are those
high in gravel and low in clay content. Whereas, soils high in clay
content produce the greatest problems.
Those areas underlain by sediments having a low load-bearing
capacity and a high shrink-swell potential will require special de-
sign and construction to prevent foundation failures. Also soils
with low permeability have excessive surface runoff, difficulties with
excavation and construction, and improper septic field percolation.
Test data supplied by the State Highway Department of Alabama
(written communication, 1975) indicate that to a depth of 3 m (10 ft)
the Citronelle Formation and coastal deposits contain soils with AAStD
classification ranging primarily from A~2 to A~4 and A-4 to A~6 re-
spectively. The distribution of existing construction shown in Figure 22
indicates that the Citronelle and coastal sediments are generally sui-
table for most types of construction. In south Mobile County the only
areas apparently not used for construction are alluvial deposits, coas-
tal marshes, and temporary swamp areas of the coastal deposits. The
alluvial areas are potential flood areas and are generally only of use
for agricultural and recreational purposes, and seasonally high water
tables associated with the marsh and swamp areas severely hamper deve-
lopment activities, especially during excavation.
73
-------
L lb
13
'21
?;/
30
Depth below
surface
Feet
°T
10 -
20
30 H
40
50 -
60 _
70-
80-
90
100 J
Sand, slightly
clayey
Sand
Sand, clayey
Clay, sandy
Sand, slightly
clayey
Clay, sandy
Sand, fine- to
medium-grained
Clay
aam
Sand, fine- to
medium-grained
Location:
1 - NW± sec. 21, T. 6 S., R. 3 W.
2 - NEi sec. 33, T.6S., R. 2 V/.
3 - NW-I sec. 20, T. 7 S., R. 3 W
Figure 23. Logs of drill holes in Citronelle Formation.
-------
¦ Depth below
surface
Feel"
0 T
10
20 4-
30
40
50 i
60
70 J-
Clay, carbonaceous
Clay, sandy, carbonaceous
Clay, carbonaceous
Clay, sandy, carbonaceous
Sand, carbonaceous
Sand
Sand
Clay, sandy
Sand
Sand, clayey
Sand
Locafion:
1 - NEi- sec. 2, T. 8 S., R. 2 W.
2 - SEisec. 12, T. 6 S.f R. 2 W
3 - SWi sec. 30, IT. 7 S., R. 3 W.
Figure 24. Logs of drill holes in coastal deposits
-------
Sediments of the Citronelle Formation have a high load-bearing
capacity, a low shrink-swell potential, and high to moderate perme-
ability and are most attractive for development, line area underlain
by the Citronelle should have proper drainage and septic field perco-
lation and should not require any special treatment in order to
support most structures.
Sediments of the non-swamp areas of the coastal deposits have
fair load-bearing capacity, moderate to low permeability, and moderate
to high shrink-swell potential. The shrinking and swelling of this
material may weaken foundations and the permeability is important as
it relates to proper drainage and septic field percolation. This area
would probably require some remedial treatments to prevent foundation
damage and to remove surface water, and the processing of sewage other
than by septic tanks. The load-bearing capacity of the material has
a variable impact on the area. Test data indicate that the material
will support a uniform loading of approximately 10,240 kg/sq m (3,000
lbs per sq ft) and may require pilings to a depth of 8 to 21.3 m (30
to 70 ft) for support of greater loads (State Highway Department of
Alabama, written communication, 1975).
Construction minerals in the area consist of sand and sand-clay
deposits occurring in the Citronelle Formation. Sand-clay material
suitable for use as fill, sub-grade and base course material can ap-
parently be quarried from most of the exposed area of the Citronelle
Formation. Also, some parts of the Citronelle contain sand apparently
suitable for use as construction aggregate. The distribution of the
potential aggregate material is shown in Figure 25.
This material was mapped solely on the physical appearance of the
sand and does not consider chemical or physical properties of the de-
posits or any economic aspects. Specific quarry sites should be se-
lected only after exploration and testing, plus consideration of econo-
mic and environmental factors.
SURFACE SOILS
Overlying the geologic units in this area are six soil association
groups (Figure 26 and Table 11). The soil map and characteristics
were furnished by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soils Conservation
Service and are related primarily to the upper few feet of the under-
lying geologic units. The factors relating to the soil associations
may be helpful in planning and designing of construction projects af-
fecting only the surface material in an area and are therefore included
as a part of this report.
76
-------
ijT u-"it cviLps.f iiio^c)
) Porr &o.p
Figure 25. Distribution of potential construction sands.
7 7
-------
34 Mo I b i s Orangcburg-Ponsey 50 1 roup-Smi tlidal c-Maf bi i-Escambi a
35 Mc L nui i n-T f oup-R j si on 54 Dorovon-Plummcr-1 idol Mar sb
38 Poorcli Bennda'c-Escambia 55 Osier-Johnslon
Figure 26. Soils of SouLli Mobile County
(from Soil Conservation Service, 1974).
78
-------
METEOROLOGY
Detailed long-term data on meteorology are available for the city
of Mobile (Jordan, 1973) mainly from the U.S. Weather Bureau and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Some differences in weather can be ex-
pected in south Mobile County and Dauphin Island, but these would be
relatively minor.
In general, the climate of coastal Alabama, although not entirely
free of Temperate Zone influences, is largely subtropical and is mar-
kedly influenced by the Gulf of Mexico (U.S. Department of Agriculture,
1941). The long summers, while warm and humid, have daytime tempera-
tures which are not as a rule excessively high. The winters are rela-
tively mild. Severely cold weather seldom occurs, and freezing tem-
peratures do not continue for longer than 48 hours. Normally, sunshine
is abundant during the crop-growing season and harvesting seasons are
relatively dry and sunny. The winter and early spring are sometimes
characterized by prolonged periods of cloudiness and heavy rains.
However, the coldest periods are usually accompanied by clear skies.
Nearly all precipitation is in the form of rain, and snow rarely falls
in the southern part of the state. Adequate rainfall occurs through-
out the year to support agriculture; severe droughts are rare.
TEMPERATURE
The average annual temperature for Mobile is 20.1° c (68.2° F).
The lowest mean monthly temperature 6.5° C (43-7° F) occurs in January;
the highest 33.0° c (92° F) occurs in July. The annual variation in
mean monthly temperatures is 16*4° c (29.6° F) (Table 12 and Figure
27). The lowest temperature recorded from Mobile was"18.3° C (-1° F)
which occurred in February, 1899; the highest temperature of 40.0° C
(104° F) was recorded in 1952 (National Climatic Center, 1974).
Temperatures of 32.2°' C (90 F) or above occur on an average of 82
days a year, usually between June and September. Below freezing tem-
peratures occur on an average of 20 days a year, normally between
December and February. Temperatures below -12.2° c (10° F) are very
infrequent.
79
-------
Year
1963
1962
1962
1971
1971
1966
1967
1967
1967
1963
1970
1962
Table 12. AVERAGE AND EXTREME MONTHLY TEMPERATURES FOR MOBILE, ALABAMA
(Data from National Climatic Center, 1972)
Extremes
Norma 1
Daily
Maximum
Daily
Minimum
Monthly
Average
Record
Highest
Record
Lovest
30
30
30
10
10
16.8
18. 1
21.2
25 .2
29.9
32.9
33.3
32.8
30.7
26.S
20.3
17.7
25.5
62.3
64.7
70.3
77.5
85.9
91.4
92.0
91.2
87 .4
80.3
69. 6
63.9
78.0
6.5
7.6
10. 1
14.2
18.-';
21.9
22.8
22. 7
20. 1
15.3
9.0
6.8
14.6
43.7
45.7
50.3
57.6
65.3
71.5
73.1
73.0
68.3
59.5
48.2
44.3
58.4
11.5
12.9
15.7
19. 7
24.2
27 .5
1
28
27 .8
25.5
21
14.9
12.3
20.1
53.0
55.2
60.3
67.6
75.6
81.5
82.6
82.1
77.9
69.9
58.9
54.1
68.2
26. 1
26.6
31.6
32.7
37 . 2
38.3
37.7
33.8
36.6
33.8
30.5
27 .2
79
80
89
91
99
101
100
102
98
93
87
81
197 1
1969
1967
1971
1962
1969
1968
1968
1964
1963
1971
1971
-13.3
-11.6
-11 . b
3.3
1. 7
13.3
16.6
15.5
5.5
3.3
-4.4
-12. 1
11
11
38
46
56
62
60
42
33
24
10
-------
95 —
90 —
85 —I
80
75 —
70 —
65
60 —
55 —
50
45 —
40
— 35
30
25
¦20
— 15
¦| i—i—r
r~i—r~i—r
10
<
m
UJ
cr.
<
CY.
cl
<
>-
<
o
ZD
<
n_
LLJ
h-
u
o
u
1IJ
o
:z;
<
figure 27. Average monthly temperaLure fur Mobile, Alabama
(data from National. Climatic Center, 197^).
81
-------
Summer temperatures are influenced by the Bermuda High which is
a semipermanent high pressure cell centered in the mean, near 30°
latitude over the North Atlantic Ocean. In the summer, it is well-
developed and extends westward generating south to southeasterly
winds. These winds, after moving across the Gulf of Mexico, have a
high moisture content which tends to prevent temperatures from be-
coming as high as those more inland.
During the winter, cold polar continental air may move south,
occasionally dropping temperatures in Mobile County to below freezing.
These invasions of cool air occur intermittently and usually average
about three days in duration. On the average, the first killing
frost in the fall occurs on December 12; the last killing frost in
the spring on February 17.
PRECIPITATION
The Mobile area is among the highest in terms of annual normal
rainfall in the United States. In Mobile, rainfall averages 173 cm
(68.13 in.) a year. The mean monthly precipitation is fairly evenly
distributed throughout the year; it tends to be highest during July
and lowest in October and November (Table 13 and Figure 28). Between
1941 and 1971, the maximum monthly rainfall recorded was 44.9 cm
(17.79 in.) in 1955; the minimum was 0.7 cm (0.03 in.) in 1971 (Na-
tional Climatic Center, 1972). Rainfall of .25 cm (0.1 in.) or more
occurs on an avera'ge of 123 days a year. The average annual snowfall
in Mobile was .05 cm (0.2 in.) over a 57 year period (Crance, 1971). .
Hail occurs rarely. The correlation between temperature and rainfall
is illustrated in the accompanying climograph (Figure 29).
In Mobile, the mean annual number of days with thunderstorms is
87 (Figure 30). These are most frequent in the summer with 63 percent
occurring during the period from June through September. Only 14
percent of the thunderstorms occur from November through February. For
this period Mobile has the highest frequency along the northeastern
Gulf of Mexico and it is related to the greater frequency of extra-
tropical cyclones and fronts in the area (U.S.. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, 1973).
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
High relative humidities prevail throughout the year in Mobile
because of its proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. The average monthly
humidity is fairly constant throughout the year, being somewhat higher
82
-------
Tabic 13. MONTHLY VARIATION IN RAIiiFALL IN MOBILE, ALABAMA
BETWEEN 1941 AND 19/1 (Data from National Climatic Center, 1974)
Total i'roc i |)itauon
Mean
Maximum
Minimum
Month
Centimetres
Inches
Cent ime tres
Inches
Centimetres
Inches
January
11.78
4.64
23.75
9.35
(1965)
2.48
0.98
(1968)
February
11.66
4.59
22.88
9.01
(1966)
3.33
1.31
(1S48)
March
18.36
7.23
35.57
15.58
(1946;
1.50
0.59
(1967)
April
16.15
6. 36
44.93
17.69
(1955)
1.22
0.48
(1954)
May
12.39
4.88
28.37
11. 17
(1946)
1.14
0.45
(1962)
June
15.82
6.23
33.20
13.07
(1961)
3.02
1. 19
(1966)
July
26 .56
9.67
49 .00
19.29
(1949)
7. 19
2.83
(1947)
Augus t
16.36
6.44
30.61
12.05
(1969)
7 .06
2. 78
(1943)
September
15.85
6.25
34.57
13.61
(1957)
1.47
0.58
(1963)
Oc to ber
7 . 70
3.03
16.99
6.69
(1967)
0.08
0.03
(197 1)
November
8.51
3.35
34.67
13.65
(1948)
0.63
0.25
(1960)
December
13.87
5.46
28.90
11.38
(1953)
3.68
1.45
(1958)
-------
20 —
19 —
18 —
17 —
16 —
15 ¦
14 —
13 —
12
11
10 —
9 —
8 —
7 —
6 —
5 —
4
3 —
2 —
1
0 —
MAXIMUM
50
— 45
40
35
30
25
— 20
— 15
I I I I
FT
10
— 0
CO
LU
li-
re
<
a
<
>-
<
LU
-z.
\—
U
o
>
o
u
LU
Q
<
Figure 28- Monthly variation in rainfall in Mobile, Alabama,
between 1941 and 1971.
84
-------
MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (° C)
10 15 20 25 30
J I __1 1 l_
50 60 70 80 90
MEAN MON rilLY "I EMPERA I"URE (° F)
Figure 29. Climograph for Mobile, Alabama.
85
-------
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
' 7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0.
THUNDERSTORMS
PRECIPITATION
0.1 INCH OR MORE
CO
UJ
a:
<
or
CL
<
o
r>
<
ci.
UJ
u
o
> u
O UJ
z o
verage monthly frequency oL: precipitation aid thunderstorms
area--30 year record (data from National Climatic Center, 1974)
86
-------
in the summer. Least diurnal variation occurs in the winter (Table
14 and Figure 31).
VISIBILITY
The period of lowest visibility is November through April, cor-
responding directly with the frequency distribution of fog occurrence.
Fog, the primary restriction, reduces visibility to less than three-
eights of a mile on an average of 37 days a year; 75 percent of these
occur in November through April (Figure 32).
CLOUDINESS
Cloudiness over the Mobile area is fairly evenly distributed
throughout the year (Table 15 and Figure 33) with an annual mean
cloud cover of just over four-eights. October has the minimum mean
cloud cover with just over three-eights and July the maximum cover
with a little under five-eights. This relatively constant annual
cloud pattern helps account for the even distribution of rainfall
and rarity of long periods of continuous rain. The nature of the
cloudiness varies with the season. Much of the summer cloudiness
consists of convective cumulus or high thin clouds. The winter has
occasionally gray, overcast skies, but in the summer these are rare.
Much of the winter cloudiness is associated with the movement of the
extratropical cyclones and their associated frontal systems. These
variables are important in controlling primary production of both phy-
toplankton and vegetal growth (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1973).
WIND
The direction of prevailing winds tends to be variable in the
coastal area of Alabama. In general, from March through August, winds
come from the south or southwest; from September through February,
they come from the north or northwest. The average annual wind velo-
city is 13.3 km (8.3 mi) per hour, being slightly stronger from Febru-
ary through March, and weakest from June through¦September (Table 16).
The accompanying wind chart (Figure 34) for Mobile indicates that the
strongest winds in excess of 40.2 Ion (25 mi) per hour occur less than
five days during the year and originate from the northwest or south-
east.
87
-------
Table 14. AVERAGE MONTHLY RELATIVE HUMIDITY FOR MOBILE, ALABAMA
(From National Climatic Center, 1974, 9 year record)
Month Midnight 6:00 a.m. Noon 6:00 p.m.
(percent)
January
79
81
63
70
February
74
78
55
60
March
78
82
54
62
April
84
87
54
65
May
83
86
52
61
June
85
87
54
66
July
87
89
62
72
August
87
90
62
74
September
85
87
59
71
October
82
84
53
67
November
83
85
54
70
December
80
83
63
73
Annual Average
82
85
57
68
88
-------
90 ¦
85 -
80 •
75 •
70
65
60
55
50
e 3
y
6:00 AM
MIDNIGHT
6:00 PM
« NOON
"Z.
<
CD
U I
CK
fX
o.
<
>-
_j
n?
o
ZD
<
a.
UJ
H •
u
o
>
o
u
UJ
Ci
Average monthly relative humidity for Mobile, Alabama--9
record (data from National Climatic Center, 197^"i .
89
-------
Figure 32. Average monthly frequency of heavy fog in the Mobile area--30 year record
(data from National Climatic Center, 1974).
-------
Table 15. CLOUD COVER FOR MOBILE, ALABAMA
(From National Climatic Center, 197Based on 23 years records)
Mean
Number o
f Days
Partly
Month
Clear
Cloudy
Cloudy
January
7
7
17
February
8
6
14
March
9
8
14
April
9
9
12
May
9
12
10
June
7
14
9
July
3
13
13
August
6
15
10
September
8
11
11
October
15
8
8
November
12
8
10
December
9
6
16
Annual
102
119
144
91
-------
20 —
15
10 —
5 —
\J
\
klN
/>
A\
/IN
I
\'
\
\
\
/:
0 CLEAR
(2 PARTLY CLOUDY
[3 CLOUDY
7
kN
¦l
K
N
\
K
A
/J\j
N
/K
N
i/V
\
\
71^
/i
yi
k
y\
A
\
pi
:EB
,V.AR
APR
J Uf-
JULY
^UG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
Figure 33. Cloud cover for Mobile, Alabama
(based on 23 years of data from National Climatic Center, 197^-)
-------
Table 16. WIND DATA FOR MOBILE (1872-1930)
Prevailing
Average Velocity
Month
Wind Direction
(per
hour)
Kilometres
Miles
January
N
14.1
8.8
February
N
14.6
9.1
March
S
15.0
9.3
April
S
14.8
9.2
May
s
13.8
8.6
June
s
12.4
7.7
July
sw
11.6
7.2
August
sw
11.4
7.1
September
N
12.2
7.6
October
N
13.0
8.1
November
N
13.5
8.4
December
N
14.0
8.7
93
-------
DURATION
10 70 30
E3ZTLZE1ZjE3
SCALr. Ill PAi'S
Figure 34. Wind char I:, Mobile,
Alabama, (from U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 1953).
velocities
mph
kplt
0 4
0-6 4
5-9
8 0-14 .S
10M
16 1-77 5
15 IV
74.1 30 6
70-74
37 7 33 6
75 OK1 MORI" 40 7 OR MORE
94
-------
The Bermuda High is the most important factor affecting winds in
the Mobile area. During the spring, this subtropical anticyclone
builds in intensity and extends westward into the Gulf of Mexico,
which produces periods of prolonged light winds from the south or
southeast. The Bermuda High begins to weaken in the fall and move
southeastward. At the same time, the equatorial trough, a low pres-
sure belt, moves southward, permitting the more northern continental
pressure systems to extend southward into the Gulf area. This latter
movement is accompanied by the prevailing northerlies which occur
during the winter. On the average, these are the stronger winds, ex-
cluding those associated with hurricanes.
HURRICANES
A hurricane is a tropical cyclone with wind velocities of 119.0
km (74 mi) per hour (64 knots) or greater and moves counterclockwise
in the northern hemisphere around a low pressure center. Cyclones
with wind velocities of 62.7 km (39 mi) to 118 km (73 mi) per hour
(34-63 knots) are classified as tropical storms. Tropical depressions
or disturbances have lower wind velocities. Hurricanes normally de-
velop in a region of calms near the equator called doldrums. Those
affecting Alabama originate in the Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean Sea
or the Gulf of Mexico. They occur from June to October, being most
frequent in August and September (Figure 35). In general, hurricanes
spawned in June and July originate on the western side of the Atlantic
or in the western Caribbean and are usually weak. Those occurring in
August or September originate in the eastern North Atlantic Ocean near
the Cape Verde Islands and are more severe (U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, 1967a).
Two types of movements characterize hurricanes. The first of
these is the circulation of winds around the vortex, often at speeds
in excess of 160.9 km (100 mi) per hour near the center and decreasing
peripherally. The other is the forward movement of the entire cy-
clonic system. This progressive movement averages 19.3 km (12 mi) per
hour, but may increase to 64.4 km (40 mi) in the higher latitudes.
In general, the majority of hurricanes move in a westward direction
but they often recurve and follow irregular paths.
Even though the landfall of the center of a hurricane may not
occur along the Alabama coast, those which move inland from Louisiana
to the Florida panhandle can have significant effects in Alabama. Re-
cords of these hurricanes are fairly complete since 1702 and are lis-
ted in Table 17. The paths of those occurring since 1886 are illustra-
ted in Figure 36 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1967a). Table 18 shows
tropical storms that have affected Alabama between 1886 and 1864.
95
-------
MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV
Figure 35. Monthly frequency of hurricanes affecting Alabama since 1711.
-------
Table 17. HURRICANES AFFECTING ALABAMA, 1711-1972
(Modified from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1967a)
Principal (lull nrrn
Dnlc
I 'MMtiffl 11
f b i(! ill
nflocted
S-.-pt. 11-
13.
1711
•
•
New (>rIniiJH , 1 .
Sept. 12-
1:1.
1722
•
•
New Orlmns, 1.4J.
1732
•
•
Mobile. Aln.
1730
•
0
PcnHnfiiln , 11m
Sept. 12.
17.10
«
«
Pi'll H 11 Oo | f|, Kill.
Sept.
1730
•
•
Guir i'iiii?!
Ul. 22.
17(10
*
•
IV ii hm< " In , 1" In .
S<'pt. -1.
177 2
•
•
I .OUI '« IIH1H
July 10.
1770
*
•
Now (Jrlfiiti.M , 1 .a
Any. 18.
177')
•
«
Now Orl»'iinn. 1 .M.
Oct 1-
10.
1770
•
•
N«-w -
28.
1810
«
«
liny St. L<'Uip , Mirh.
1821
•
«
New Orlenns, Ln.
¦1 y 11
1622
•
•
Mobile. Aln
Any. 16
IH3 I
•
Atlnnl ic
Moulh of Mm * R i\ er
Oct. 7
1837
New OrfonnB. L.a.
Conbbenn
N'jw f 'rlr.,n«<. Ln.
Sopi. 18-
22.
1812
•
•
Culf 0O|\rtl
OcL, 12
18 1G
•
•
New Ork anfl . 1
Aim 23
1852
*
e
Mobile, Aln.
AuK. 12
1830
*
•
LnuiMinun
Aur. :vi
1830
Mobile, A In.
Mobile, i\ In.
Auk. 11
1800
«
«
Mobilo, Ala.
Sept. 10
I8b0
*
•
Mobi 1»-. Aln
July '30
18 ro
•
«
Mobile. Aln.
SepL 21
1877
•
•
t!u If i.'ihihI
Auk. 2ii
'ID.
1«80
MMul,;. AU
At!.nit u
Mot» lit;, Aln.
Sept. 10
1882
Mobile, Ahi.
•
MiJiilr. A bi
Oct. 19
1887
OrniM If* le , Ln.
A< Inn! n
Mim ism ippi ron^l
Aug. 19
1883
Lnke Charles . La.
At hinttc
Loiii^iann in Mobile .
A1. i.
Sept. 23
1889
Burr.vood, Ln.
Atlnntic
Louij* ui'ia tu
PenMieoln. Kin.
Oct. 2
1803
Pnm'immiH, M ihh .
Car,Mi.-
in
Louty iiinii
Am: \ry
1 Of) 1
(1 rn nrl 1*41*; , 1
At laiil h
L' "I 1 ^ 111 MM
S«'pt. 27
19U1)
1 'nneaC'iul n. Mi ah .
CiinM.r
HI
M. | le . /\ 111
iv'pl. 20
1000
1 irniul Mo , La.
I 'nr ibb»'
III
1 'rb mici, La.
S'-pt. M
1912
Mobile. A l,i.
c.iir
M<>bi lr , Aln.
Srpt. 211
10 13
(,irniifl !h lo . 1 ,n .
At I.ml H
UrIr.ms , La.
Jul;. .)
1 0 10
('U1 IpoM , Mi^ -
lit
Mnbilr. Ala.
Oct. 18
1010
1 'i'II'mk ' n«- ai'ola , !•* la
S-pt. 1
1032
Mobile . /\ln
Atlaril k
A l i
Srpt. 1()
ru7
Now OrIt'iiiw 1 ji
Al l.inl i<
Mi'.shs11>pi co,ml
'(
1! MM
f It and |m !«•. 1 ,M .
< .iiir
L'XO-.MIU
Am.. ¦Ill
l'IMt
Mobile, Aln.
A1 111 r 11 i
l.'.ll ,,|.nfu. ,\ln
S**pt - 21
1030
1 i-rl Walton 1 t-.-iM li,
i. i
I'miiMh'
i n
/\ I ib linn u"l uorlh\M Ml
t i
s-pt. ir.
lf)hf)
1 1 M
[*n,i<"JIn.
<: n 11
r 1 >
1 ' h i 'i s i;»pi c on •• 1
i >< i. ,i
I0h l
1 rii nU 1 m , 1 ,m
i n
L"'io.Mrn
Auk H
I'M.!)
»\ ll\ f lullll M I" H
fnnlil..-
w*
M
L"U i • iann i ons|
Juno IP
101 2
1 'ananin f'll \ , [ 'In.
( \iriMti'
in
Flori'ln J'nnlijiMi 1 b;
* Not n\nibihle
97
-------
Figure 36. Paths of hurricanes affecting Alabama.
-------
Table 18. TROPICAL STORMS AFFECTING ALABAMA, 1886-1964
(After U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1967a)
Date Landfall Origin
Sept.
12,
1892
Port Eads, LA
Gulf
Aug.
7,
1894
Pensacola, FL
Gulf
Aug.
16,
1895
Bayou La Batre, AL
Gulf
Sept.
12,
1900
Port Eads, LA
Caribbean
June
14,
1901
Mobile, AL
Caribbean
Oct.
10,
1902
Mobile, AL
Gulf
Nov.
2,
1904
Port Eads, LA
Caribbean
Sept.
21,
1907
Gulfport, MS
Caribbean
July
4,
1919
Pensacola, FL
Gulf
Oct.
17,
1922
Pensacola, FL
Caribbean
Oct.
17,
1923
Biloxi, MS
Gulf
Oct.
6,
1934
Mobile, AL
Caribbean
June
16,
1939
Mobile, AL
Caribbean
Sept.
10,
1944
Biloxi, MS
Gulf
Sept.
8,
1947
Pascagoula, MS
Gulf
Sept.
18,
1957
Grand Isle, LA
Gulf
Oct.
8,
1959
Pensacola, FL
99
-------
The destructive forces of- hurricanes are variable. Among these
are wind, storm surge, waves, and rainfall. The diameter of the
destructive winds may vary from a few to several hundred miles with
the greatest intensity near the center. The eye is characterized by
light variable winds or a dead calm. The strongest winds occur on the
right side of the hurricane where pulsating changes in velocity and
direction occur rapidly. Wind is one of the least destructive factors
of hurricanes. Flying debris and sand can cause damage. Trees and
tall structures, such as radio towers, may begin to oscillate until
they fall. Pressure exerted by continuing winds increases at a dis-
proportionate rate, and for some structures, the added force can re-
sult in their collapse. Barometric pressure is correlated with wind
intensity. The pressure on the normal pressure inside to flow out-
ward having an explosive effect. In Alabama, the highest recorded
velocity of hurricane winds is 205.9 km (128 mi) per hour; the lowest
barometric pressure is 71.62 m (28.20 in) (Table 19).
Much of the damage caused by hurricanes in coastal areas is the
result of a hurricane surge, which is a rise in water level above the
normal tide. As the storm crosses the Continental Shelf and moves
toward the coast the mean water level may increase 4.56 m (15 ft) or
more. This storm surge is superimposed on normal astronomical tides.
Currents and winds contribute to this buildup. In shallow water,
depths become restrictive and water begins to pile up on shore. In
Pass Christian, Mississippi, hurricane Camille caused a surge along
the coast of 8.7 m (25 ft) in 1969. Surges in Alabama have been re-
corded as high as 3.59 m (11.8 ft) (Table 20) above mean low water
(MLW) accompanied by a depression of 2.95 m (9.7 ft) below MLW.
When a surge moves up a converging estuary such as Mobile Bay,
in general, its height will increase. A surge tends to progress more
quickly on a rising tide and can result in the formation of a wall
of water moving inland (Harris, 1963). This effect can also extend
up narrow channels such as a river bed.
Because the majority of the Alabama coast is less than 3 m (10
ft) above mean sea level, the danger from a hurricane surge is great.
Water weighs about 3,026 gr per cu m (1,700 lbs per cu yd), and exten-
sive pounding by giant waves accompanying a surge can demolish inade-
quately designed coastal structures. Currents can also weaken or
undermine these structures compounding the damage. Beaches and high-
ways are subject to erosion, and harbors and shipping can be seriously
affected.
Hurricanes arc often accompanied by torrential rains along the
coast or on the inland watershed of an estuary. At Cedar Key, Florida,
88.9 cm (35 in.) occurred over a 3-day period in October, 1941, (Jor-
dan, 1973). In Alabama, as much as 48.3 cm (19 in.) of rainfall
100
-------
Table 19. EXIRE'IE PRESSURE AND WIND DATA OF HURRICANES RECORDED ALONG THE ALAI1AMA COAST SINCE L892
(Modified Crom U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 196/a)
Approx
. distance
Lcrwes c
and
direction
Max.
wind
Date
hurricane
barometric
center passed
velocity and
crossed coast
pressure
Loca tion
Mo b i1e
dire
ct ion
Location
cm
In.
km
mi
kmph
niph
Oct.
2,
189 J
74.06
29.16
Mo b i1e
80.4
50 W
123. 7
80
SE
Mobile
Aug.
15,
1901
74 .47
29.32
Mo b l1e
112.6
70 W
98.1
61
Mo bile
Sept.
27,
190G
73.25
28.84
Mo bile
32.2
20 SW
151.2
94
Ft. Morgan
Sept.
20,
1909
75.23
29.62
Mo D11e
241.3
150 SW
83.7
52
Ft. Morgan
Sept.
14,
1912
75.60
29.37
Mo bile
32.2
20 W
96.6
60
SE
Mo bile
Sept.
29,
1915
74.80
29.45
Mo b i 1 e
160.9
100 W
96.6
60
SE
Mo bile
July
5,
1916
72.08
28.38
Ft. Morgan
32.2
20 W
172.3
107
E
Mo bile
Oct.
18,
19 i 6
74 .22
29.22
Mobile
96.5
60 E
206. 1
128
E
Mo b l 1 e
Sept.
28,
1917
74 .10
29. 17
Mobile
160.9
100 SE
154.6
96
NNE
Mo o i1e
Sept.
20,
1926
73.73
28.20
Perdido Beach
48.3
30 S
151.3
94
N
Mobile
Sept.
1,
1932
7 3.74
29.03
Bayou La Bat re
40.2
25 SSW
91.3
57
E
Mo bile
Sept.
19,
194/
70.03
29.54
Mo bile
177.0
110 SW
85.3
53
E
Mool1e
Sept.
4,
1948
7 5.06
29.55
Ft. Morgan
144.8
90 W
67 .6
42
S
Mo bile
Aug.
30,
1950
73.46
28.92
Ft. Morgan
32.2
20 E
120.7
75,
Ft. Morgan
Sept.
24 ,
1956
74.90
29.49
Mobile
128.7
80 S
93.4
58
Mo bile
Sept.
15,
1960
74.88
29.48
Mo b 11 e
128.7
80 W
119.4
74
Dauphin Islar
Oct.
3,
1964
74.65
29.39
Alabama Port
370.1
230 W
128.8
80
fNW
Alabama Port
Aug.
17,
1969
136.8
85 W
101.4
63
Mobile
-------
Table 20. HURJUCA-NT SURGES IN ALABAMA, 1772-1969
(Modified from Ar^y Corps on Engineers, 1967a)
Scage (above mean sea level)
Dace stora
crossed
coas"
O
f-o
Sepc.
Aug.
Aug.
Sepc .
July
Aug.
Oct.
Aug.
Sepc.
Sept.
Sepc.
Sepc.
July
Occ.
Sep c.
Sepc.
Sep c.
Sepc.
Sepc.
Sepc.
Aug.
Sfcpc .
Sepc.
0c:.
Aug.
4, 1772
23, 1852
U, i860
15, 1360
30, 1370
19, 1383
2, 1893
15 1901
27,' 1906
20, 1909
14, 1912
1915
1916
1916
1917
1926
1932
1944
29
5
IS
23
20
1
10
19, 1947
4, 1948
1950
1956
ivou
1964
1969
30
Landfall
LaKe Charles, LA
Pascagoula, MS
Crane Iclc, LA
Mo b l1e , AL
Grand Isle, LA
Mo o l 1 e , AL
Crane Isle. LA
Gulfporc, MS
Pensacola, ?L
Pensacola, ?L
Pensacola, FL
Bayou La Eacre, A
Mooile, AL
Mew Orleans, LA
Grand Isle, LA
Mo o 11 e , A L
Ft. Walcon Beach,
Pascagoula , ,*iS
Franklin, LA
Wnvfi land , MS
Savou La Eacre
Coden
Daupnin Island
Ma b 1 e
2.50
1.83
1.92
1.68
3.2
6.0
6.3
5.5
3.29
3.05
3.29
1.86
1.33
1.92
10.?
10.0
10. s
6.1
6.0
6.3
>.35
1.00
1.52
1.07
1.77
7.7
3.3
5.0
3.5
5.S
2.50
2.44
1.95
2.13
2.13
2 . 19
2.56
2.2b
2.77
2. 13
1.34
1.95
3.29
.97
.37
1.37
1.37
1.16
1.43
i. 34
1.18
. 67
1.19
1.23
2 .26
3.2
8.0
6.4
7 .0
7 .0
7.2
8.4
7 /
9.1
7.0
4.4
6.4
10.8
3.2
1.2
4.5
4.5
3.8
4 .7
4.4
3.9
2. 2
3.9
4.2
Gulf Shores
L .49
3.60
3.45
2.41
1.77
.94
-------
associated with tropical cyclones have been recorded (Figure 37).
These can cause flooding along rivers and their tributaries. As an
example, heavy rainfall from the 187 7 hurricane was responsible for
the rise of the Black Warrior Rive of 4.27 m (14 ft) above the flood
stage at Tuscaloosa (Army Corps of Engineers, 1967a).
In the larger rivers, the time required for the runoff to reach
the coast may be several days and therefore the flooding does not
coincide with the surge. It can, however, prolong high waters and
significantly reduce the salinity of the estuaries. In the shorter
coastal streams, the concentration of runoff is quite rapid and can,
contribute to the -height of a surge.
The Alabama coast is very subject to destructive tropical hurri-
canes and storms in comparison to other coastal areas (Figure 38).
Between 1901 and 1955, 24 such storms directly affected Alabama.
Simpson and Lawrence (1971) predict that in a 80 Ion (50 mi) segment
of coastline from Biloxi, Mississippi, to the mouth of Mobile Bay, the
probability of a tropical storm is 13 percent, 6 percent for a hurri-
cane, and 1 percent for a great hurricane. The probability of occur-
ence for all disturbances is greater for the next 161 km (100 mi)
eastward.
TORMDOES
Tornadoes are local storms consisting of winds rotating at very
high speeds about a central vortex in which the centrifugal force
produces a partial vacuum. When passing over water, tornadoes are
called waterspouts. Air surrounding the vortex picks up dirt, debris,
or water as it moves forward; forming its characteristic funnel. These
funnels extend down from the heavy thunderstorm clouds; some never
reach the ground while others touch and rise again. The forward speed
of tornadoes ranges from almost no motion to 112.7 km (70 mi) per hour.
Their paths are about 40 km (25 mi) wide and seldom more than 25.7 km
(16 mi) long. However, some have been recorded that were more than
1.6 km (1 mi) wide and 482.7 km (300 mi) long. On April 18, 1953, a
severe tornado ranging from 0.8 km (0.5 mi) to 2.4 km (1.5 mi)iwide
extended for 305.7 km (190 mi) from Pickens to Lee County in Alabama
(Flora, 1954).
Winds associated with tornadoes rotate at very high speeds around
the vortex. As in hurricanes, they usually turn in a counter-clockwise
direction in the northern hemisphere, and the greatest velocity occurs
on the right side of the vortex. When the impact of tornadoes were
first experienced in the midwest, it was estimated that winds associa-
ted with violent tornadoes ranged from 72.4 km (450 mi) to 804 km
103
-------
Alabama
sLa Lion To Lai storm amount Dates of occurrence
CentimeLtes
Indies
Bay Minette
48.2
19
17-21
Sept.
1926
ClaaLon
48.2
19
5-10
July
1916
Seven Hills
4 0.6
16
15-17
July
1931
Mobile
35.6
14
5-10
July
1916
Lockhart
35.6
14
23-26
Sept.
1953
Daphne
30.5
L2
13-17
Aug.
1901
Robertsdale
30.5
12
16-23
Sept.
1920
Bermuda
27.9
11
26-30
Sept.
1906
BrewLon
27.9
11
24-27
SepL.
1939
Andalus ia
27 .9
11
8-11
Sept.
1944
Mobile
22.8
9
25 Aug.- 3
Sept.
1932
104
-------
""*'"i'*B<{ 10 j
lSf^;| |
^5-
\-M
'\
so-
^•\l
USWI1
Figure 38. Number of times destruction was caused by tropical storms,
1901-1955 (after Long, 1959).
105
-------
(500 mi) per hour, and may have neared or exceeded the speed of
sound.
Wind speeds within a tornado have never been measured directly
by instruments, since invariably, they are destroyed by the storm.
Recent studies (Fujita, 1965) based on scaling motion pictures and
characteristic ground marks indicate that winds rotate at about 322
km (200 mi) per hour.
If the tornado was not moving, this speed would be the same on
all sides of the vortex. However, if the tornado was moving at a
normal speed of 64 km (40 mi) per hour, this speed would be added to
the winds on the right side making their speed 386 km (240 mi) per
hour, and subtracted from the left side, equaling 257 km (160 mi) per
hour (Figure 39). If the tornado was moving forward at a maximum
speed of 112 Ion (70 mi) per hour, the winds on the right side would
be moving at 434 km (270 mi) per hour. In this case, if gust-speed is
added to the rotation speed, it is possible that wind speeds might
equal 483 km (300 mi) per hour (National Science Board, 1972). Al-
though the wind speeds are greatest in the funnel, they diminish ra-
pidly so that they are relatively light only a few metres (feet) from
the destructive area (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1973).
Wind speeds of tornadoes are more than double those of hurricanes,
although very limited in the area affected. These speeds are suffi-
cient to make killing missiles of flying objects or to drive stems of
straw into trunks of trees and cause other, freak occurrences often
associated with tornadoes.
Rare measurements of barometric pressure of the central axis of
tornadoes indicate a severe drop in barometric pressure of the central
axis of tornadoes indicate a severe drop in barometric pressure. In
one incident in Minnesota in 1904, a low of 58.4 cm (23 in) was recor-
ded. A drop in barometric pressure results in the formation of a
partial vacuum in the tornado's vortex. It has been calculated that
a drop of 10% to 68.43 cm (26.94 in) as had occurred in St. Louis in
1896, when applied to the outside of a building 6 m (20 ft) square
and 3 m (10 ft) high, would cause a lift of 36 MT (40 t) on the roof
and an outward pressure of 18 MT (20 t) on each of the four walls
(Flora, 1954). Today meteorologists tend to agree that the pressure
reduction at the center of a tornado is between 200 and 400 millibars.
The ability of a structure to withstand this reduction is dependent
on its size, shape and construction (National Science Board, 1974).
The destructive power of a tornado is a function of the strong rota-
ting winds and the decrease in barometric pressure with its accompany-
ing partial vacuum in its center.
106
-------
107
-------
Alabama is a tornado-prone state; based on 49 years of records
between 1916 and 1964, it ranks ninth among the states in tornado
frequency. The peak months for tornadoes in Alabama are February,
March and April, with the lowest incidence occurring from June through
October. In the spring, as warm moist air penetrates from the south,
it comes in contact with the cool, dry, continental air mass. Torna-
does are most frequently generated along this boundary. In the summer,
when the Gulf states are blanketed by warm air and there is no cold-
air intrusion, the incidence of tornadoes drops. However, during this
time of year, tornadoes associated with hurricanes can develop (U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1973).
AIR POLLUTION
The dominant mechanism for dispersing air pollution is the mixing
of the lower, polluted layers of the atmosphere with higher relatively
unpolluted layers. If this mechanism is blocked, the dilution of
contaminants will be markedly diminished and there will be a buildup
of pollutants in the lower atmosphere. The condition that blocks the
upward mixing is an inversion.
Typically, the air closest to the earth is warmer than the air in
the upper atmosphere. This warm air rises and is replaced by cooler
air from above. Pollutants emitted near ground level are carried up-
ward by these thermal convection currents and diluted in the upper and
cleaner air masses. An inversion represents the opposite condition
with temperature increasing rather than decreasing with elevation.
Pollutants, dispersed in the cool, dense air near the earth tend to
accumulate rather than being dispersed by thermal convection.
The major periods of short duration inversions in coastal Alabama
have been observed to occur between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. (Mobile
County Board of Health, 1970). This is due to the radiational cooling
of the earth at night and generally results in a low level inversion
layer confined to the first few hundred feet above ground. During
these times the pollutant buildup results in decreased visibility.
Temperature increase during the day will usually break the low level
inversions and pollutants are rapidly dispersed.
During periods of inversion conditions of four or more days dura-
tion, air pollution episodes are prevalent. From 1963 to 1965 there
were 42 stagnation cases lasting 4 days or more and a total of 240
stagnation days over Mobile, Baldwin, and Escambia Counties. Low level
inversions of less than 152 metres (500 ft) have been estimated to
exist in coastal Alabama between 30 and 35 percent of the time (Mobile
County Board of Health, 1970).
108
-------
Another factor that directly affects pollution dispersion is
wind, including direction and speed. The major source of air pollu-
tion for south Mobile County is the city of Mobile with its associated
industries. During the winter months the prevailing winds are the
northerlies which move air pollution southward from Mobile. It is
also during this time of year that the average wind speeds are highest,
reducing the travel time required for pollutants to reach the southern
part of the county. The relatively flat topography of the area has
no limiting affect on pollution dispersal.
Air pollution can affect man, plant life and materials. The ef-
fects on humans vary. In general, infants, the elderly, and those
with chronic diseases of the lungs, heart or blood are most seriously
affected. Acute effects include general discomfort, impairment of vi-
sion, and irritation of the lungs and nasal passages. Chronic diseases
associated with air pollution are more difficult to detect but can re-
sult in crop failure, the death of trees and ornamental shrubs and
the impairment of growth and flowering. Air pollution can damage vari-
ous types of materials including the corrosion of metals, cracking
of rubber, weakening of textiles, fading of dyes, and erosion of build-
ing materials.
There are two major types of pollutants, gaseous and particulate,
Gaseous pollutants are gases which are present in the atmosphere as
contaminants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide,
and others. Gaseous contaminants that are emitted into the atmosphere
behave in a similar manner as the air itself. Once diffused, they do
not tend to settle out unless they are absorbed by a particle.
Studies by the Mobile County Board of Health (1970) have shown
the presence of sulfur oxides, ammonia, aldehydes, nitrogen oxides,
and carbon monoxide in the atmosphere over coastal Alabama. These
studies were of a probing nature only and point out a need for further
monitoring.
Particulate pollution consists of wide range of substances in-
cluding sulfate salts and sulfuric acid droplets, lead salts, carbon
particles (soot), liquid hydrocarbons, iron oxide, silica, and other
substances. Solid or liquid particles dispersed in the air are com-
monly divided into two categories, settleable and suspended. Settle-
able particles are heavy enough to fall from the atmosphere relatively
close to their source causing dustfalls near their point or origin.
Suspended particles are light enough to remain in suspension in the
atmosphere, and can be transported over long distance.
Both types of particulate pollution have been measured in coastal
Alabama by the Mobile County Board of Health (1970) and their results
are presented in Figures 40 and 41. Sources of both settleable dust-
109
-------
\
s
9-f
-------
BALDWIN COUNTY
I
/
f
T ol »r
\
s
/
I
/
(
i.
S
Vi tW'
1) ~ r
1
S\
s
J\) Gif" '.hn'-l
EXPLANATION
Som o!e sta'»on
Ef3;\-=]
Ov^r AO m 111 < • ^ * o "i % |i"' f ulnc me(-r
50 to 80 mitrc^ioi"\ p <• I Cub'C mrlef
L.l'sS'J
L • * » rflun 50 rti . r i
oq'oms p»t cwtnc fn
-------
fall and suspended particulate pollutants are similar in the area,
being concentrated in the Mobile County industrial areas.
112
-------
WATER RESOURCES
By Robert E. Kidd
The source of all freshwater in Mobile County is precipitation
which occurs almost exclusively in the form of rain. Average annual
rainfall for this area is about 162 cm (64 in.) and is fairly evenly
distributed throughout the year. Part of the rain that falls on south
Mobile County enters streams and eventually flows into the Gulf.
Some saturates the ground and replenishes soil moisture. A portion
of this soil moisture reenters the atmosphere through evapotranspira-
tion while the remainder percolates downward to become part of the
ground water system.
The occurrence of ground water and amount of low flow in streams
in south Mobile County is governed largely by the physical characteris-
tics of the geologic units. Geologic units in south Mobile County
dip southward and contain beds of permeable sand that serve as natural
conduits and reservoirs for water. These beds are called aquifers
and yield water to wells and account for the low flow discharge of
s treams.
From April through August, 197 5, the Water Resources Division of
the Geological Survey of Alabama and the U.S. Geological Survey con-
ducted a cooperative study on the ground water and surface water of
south Mobile County. A detailed study was conducted approximately
six miles west of Bayou La Batre (Figure 42) and is herein referred to
as the "Henderson Site." Investigations by the Geological Survey of
Alabama included the drilling of twelve test wells (Numbers 32-43
in Appendices A and B) to determine the quantity and quality of ground
water in the area. The U.S. Geological Survey evaluated the occurrence
and quality of surface waters in the area. The latter project involved
a reconnaissance of the area to determine what surface waters were
available and sampling of water to determine its quality. Only one
stream, tributary five of Little River, flowed through the study area.
It was therefore selected as the sampling site for water quality deter-
minations .
113
-------
Figure 42. Ground water and surface water sampling
stations £or south Mobile County.
114
-------
GROUND WATER
Ground water is water that occurs below the land surface in the
zone where the rocks are saturated with water under hydrostatic pres-
sure. The top of this zone is called the water table, and its position
is shown by the level at which water stands in nonartesian wells. Only
the water in the zone of saturation can be pumped from wells or will
supply flow to springs. Ground water is derived from precipitation,
which in Mobile County is almost exclusively rain.
The water table is the upper surface of the zone of saturation
except when that surface is formed by the bottom of a bed of clay or
other relatively impermeable material which confines the water under
artesian pressure (Figure 43). Unconfined water in the zone of satura-
tion moves slowly through the rocks in a direction determined by the
slope of the water table. The water table is not a level or station-
ary surface. Its variations from place to place and from time to time
in slope and elevation are controlled by permeability and structures
of the rocks, variations in rainfall which affect the rate of .recharge,
and variations in the rate of discharge of water through wells and
springs.
Artesian water is ground water that is confined under pressure
by relatively impermeable overlying and underlying rocks which act as
confining beds (Figure 43). Such conditions occur where rainfall and
runoff have seeped into an aquifer and have passed beneath beds of
clay and other relatively impermeable material. The pressure exerted
on ground water by the weight of water at higher levels is known as
hydrostatic pressure. Under artesian conditions the hydrostatic pres-
sure is sufficient to cause the water in a well to rise above the bottom
of a confining bed. The imaginary surface to which the water will rise
in tightly cased artesian wells is called the "piezometric surface."
An artesian well will flow if the piezometric surface is higher than
the land surface.
Water-bearing Units
Large quantities of water are available from permeable sands
throughout southern Mobile County. Geologic units containing permea-
ble sands that yield water to wells range in age from Miocene to llolo-
cene (Figure 17—Geology Section). Wells tapping these sands generally
yield small water supplies adequate for domestic use at depths of less
than 30.5 m (100 ft). The principal water-bearing sands in southern
Mobile County are in the Miocene Series and in the Citronelle Formation
of the Pliocene Series. Coastal alluvial deposits may locally provide
for domestic purposes.
115
-------
UJ
£ ^er^ecD'2 s u r f i c f c • rr^rencl B 'JDOer confining cea Z «r;esicn gqui i e r U. Lo*er con'm-nq sea
gdc Cone of ceD^ession ccused oy pumping a aef Cone of depression ccjsec by nciuraf aischcrge
wcter - icoie or c nonflo*ing artesiGn *eil ' r o rn flowing c r t e s i c n well
Figure 43. Schematic diagram showing artesian and water-table conditions.
-------
Miocene Series Undifferentiated--
Sediments of Miocene age underlie the Citronelle Formation and
are a source of moderate to large supplies for fresh water above an
elevation of about 137 m (450 ft) below sea level. The Miocene aquifer
is composed of alternating lenticular beds of sand and clay. On the
basis of test drilling at the site, the principal water-bearing zone
is about 12.2 m (40 ft) thick beginning at an elevation of approxi-
mately 86.9 m (285 ft) below sea level.
Water in the Miocene aquifer is under pressure and will rise in
wells to elevations above the top of the aquifer. During the
summer of 1965, water in the test wells tapping the aquifer rose to
an elevation of about 7.6 (25 ft) above sea level. Wells located in
the lowlands bordering Mississippi Sound -had some flow since the poten-
tiometric surface was higher than ground elevations in this area.
The water-producing capacity of a well can be described in terms
of its specific capacity. The specific capacity of a well is defined
as the pumping rate divided by the drawdown in the water level at that
pumping rate. The specific capacity of the test well at the Henderson
site is approximately 54 liters per second per metre (2.8 gallons per
minute per foot) of drawdown at 10.1 liters per second (l/s) or 160
gallons per minute (gpm) . Yields of 25 l/s (400 gpm) or higher aire
possible from properly constructed and developed wells at the site.
The quality of water from the Miocene aquifer above an elevation
of about 137 m (450 ft) below sea level is good and suitable for most
purposes. The water is soft to moderately hard and has a pH of 7.8
to 8.0. The silica content of the water exceeds 50 mg/1 (milligrams
per liter) at the site and may require treatment to prevent encrusta-
tion of pipes. Locally, the iron content may exceed .3 mg/1 and the
water may have an objectionable sulfurous odor.
Citronelle formation--
The Citronelle Formation is a source of small to moderate supplies
of ground water. The formation is composed of lenticular to massive
beds of sand and lenticular sandy clay zones. It extends from the land
surface to a depth of about 30.5 m (100 ft) below sea level at the
Henderson site. Water in the Citronelle Formation occurs at elevations
ranging from about 15.24 m (50 ft) above sea level in the upland areas
to about 2.44 m (8 ft) above sea level in the lowlands bordering Missis-
sippi Sound.
117
-------
The quality of water in the Citronelle Formation is good and
suitable for most purposes. The water is soft to moderately hard and
has a pH ranging from 4.5 to 6.0. The temperature of the water ranges
from 24° to 26° C (75° to 78° F). Locally, the iron content may exceed
.3 mg/1 and the water may have an objectionable sulfurous odor.
Ground Water Quality
Water that falls on the earth's surface is usually low in dissol-
ved solids, but when it reaches and enters the ground, the chemical
quality changes as minerals are dissolved from the soil and rocks. The
amount and kinds of minerals dissolved vary greatly from place to place
and from time to time, depending on such factors as the amount and type
of organic material in the soil, the type of rocks through and over
which the water moves, the length of time the water is in contact with
the soil and rocks, and the temperature of the water. Common consti-
tuents in ground water are calcium, silica, iron, magnesium, manganese,
sodium, potassium, bicarbonate, carbonate, sulfate, chloride, fluoride,
and nitrate. The amount of these and other constituents may restrict
the use of water for certain purposes. Standards for drinking water
established by the U.S. Public Health Service (1962) to control the
quality of water for use on interstate carriers are generally used as
standards for drinking water. According to these standards, iron should
not exceed 0.3 mg/l; manganese should not exceed 0.05 mg/1; sulfate
should not exceed 250 mg/1; chloride should not exceed 250 mg/l; fluo-
ride should not exceed 1.5 mg/l; nitrate should not exceed 45 mg/l;
and total dissolved solids should not exceed 500 mg/l. The effects on
water use of excessive amount of some constituents are shown in Table
21.
Chemical analyses of ground water samples collected during the
investigation indicate that the water is generally of good chemical
quality. However, in some places the water contains an objectionable
amount of iron which causes it to have a metallic taste and be unsuit-
able for laundering because of its staining properties. About one-third
of the samples collected contained iron concentrations higher than the
limit recommended for drinking water standards. The iron concentration
averaged 0.36 mg/l per sample. Chemical analyses indicate that the
water is generally soft, averaging 17 mg/l and has a low chloride con-
tent, averaging 17 mg/l. Samples with the highest chloride concentra-
tions generally were from wells over 122 m (400 ft) deep. Concentra-
tions of sulfates, nitrates, fluoride, and total dissolved solids in
water samples were well below the maximum limits established by the
U.S. Public Health Service.
118
-------
Table 21. SO?l£ WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE
Cons ti Cuent
Source or cause
Sizni ficancc
Silica (Si02)
-Iron (Fe)
Manganese (Mn)
Calcium (Ca)
Magnesium (Mg)
Sodium (Na)
Potassium (K)
Bicarbonate (HCO-j)
(6) Carbonate (COy
Sulfate (SO4)
Chloride (CI)
Fluoride (F)
Nitrate (NO^)
Hardness as C&CO^
Most abundant constituent in igneous rocks,
resistant to solution.
One of the nost abundant elements, readily
precipitates as hydroxide.
Less abundant than Iron, present in lower
concentrations.
Dissolved from most rock, especially lime-
stone and dolomite.
Dissolved from rocks.
Dissolved from rocks, industrial wastes.
Abundant, but not very soluble in rocks and
s o l 1 s .
Abundant and soluble from limestone and
dolomite, ana soils.
Sedimentary rocks, mine water, and indus-
trial was tes.
Rocks, soils, Industrial wastes, sewage,
brines, sea water.
Not very abundant, sparingly Goluble, seldom
found in mdus t na i. was tea except aa spil-
lage, some sewage.
Rocks, soli, sewage, industrial waste, normal
decomposition, bacteria.
Causes scale in boLier ana deposits on tur-
bine biacies.
Stains laundry and porcelain, unpleasant
ta *» te.
Stains laundry and porcelain, unpleasant
taste.
Causes hardness, forms boiier scale, nelps
maintain good soil structure and permeabil1ty.
Injurious to soils and crops, and certain
pnysiological conditions in man.
Causes foaming in boilers.
Causes foaming in ooilers, and eraor i t : iejeent
of boiler steel.
Excess: cathartic, bitter taste in combina-
tion with other ions.
Salty taste 1 r. combination with sodium,
increases corrosivcncjs.
Over 1.5 :ng/l* causes mottling of children's
teeth, 0.33 to 1.5 r.g/1 aids in preventing
tootn decu) .
Hign indicates pollution, causes metnefuo"
gloumemia in infants.
Excessive soap consumptions, scaie in pipes
interferes in industrial processes.
60 mg/1 —soft
ely hard
very hard
0 to
61 to 120 ng/i--modcrat
121 to 160 mg/l--hard
181+ mg/1-
*iailligrama per liter
-------
An analysis of ground water quality from the Henderson Site well
and other wells in south Mobile County (Figure 42) is given in Appen-
dix B.
SURFACE WATER
The average flow and low flow of a stream are useful parameters
in evaluating the availability of surface water. The long-term average
flow of a stream, the arithmetic mean of all yearly discharges for a
long period of years, is a measure of the total surface water yield of
a basin. Generally, in about 20 years of streamflow record, a reason-
able balance of wet and dry years can be expected to occur, permitting
an adequate definition of average flow. Average flows in Mobile County
are adjusted to the base period 1944-65. The low flow of a stream is
important because it is a critical factor for the design of water sup-
plies where no storage is provided. The median annual 7-day low flow
(7-day Q2) is considered to be a good index of a stream's .low flow
character. It represents the minimum average flow for 7 consecutive
days that, on the average, occurs every other year. Minimum flows of
streams in Mobile County may be much less than the 7"day Q2*s during
extended periods of dry weather. Natural ground-water discharge to
streams during extended periods of little or no storm runoff is esti-
mated to exceed 2.54 cm (one inch) or approximately 75,645 cu m/s/sq km
(.6 million g/day/sq mi). This indicates that the annual ground water
discharge is more than 30.5 cm (12 in.), which in turn shows that an-
nual recharge to the ground water reservoirs exceeds 30.5 cm (12 in.)
(Reed, 1971). The median annual 7~day low flow and average flow for
selected streams in south Alabama are given in Table 22.
An aerial reconnaissance of the Henderson Site revealed that the
area contained two different kinds of terrain and that each appeared
to contain a characteristic type of stream system. The upland area
has an altitude varying from 20 to 23 m (60 to 75 ft). Aerial obser-
vation verified by subsequent, ground observation indicated that there
was an absence of flowing streams in this area. The soil of the up-
land plateau is sandy and, therefore, stream channels were poorly de-
fined. When the water table in this sandy soil falls below the level
of the stream bed, the stream becomes dry. The second terrain type
is a low marshy area whose altitude is 8 m (25 ft) or less and extends
inland approximately 4 km (2.5 mi). As mentioned earlier, tributary
five to Little River was the only stream actually in the Henderson Site
and June, 1975, measurements indicated that its discharge was small.
The water was stained dark brown from organic substances in the marsh.
120
-------
Table 22. STREAM FLCW OF SELECTED STREAMS IN SOUTH ALABAMA
(After Pierce, 1966)
Stream
Quadrant
Mean Annual 7"
Day Low Flow*
Average
Flow*1''
Jackson Creek
SW4;, , Sec.
17,
3.29 (75)
T 6 S, R 4 W
Franklin Creek
SEi:, NW%, Sec.
4,
.037 (8.4)
1.00 (23)
T 7 S, R 4 W
Manor Creek
SW^;, NE^, Sec.
26,
0.88 (20)
T 7 S, R 3 W
Fowl River
NE^;, NW^, Sec.
28,
.66 (15)
3.50 (80)
T 7 S, R 2 W
Rabbit Creek
NE^c, NE%, Sec.
24,
0.88 (20)
T 5 S, R 2 W
*in cu m/s (million gal./day)
**in cu m/s (million gal./day)
Pierce (1966) determined that larger streams originating in south
Mobile County do have a well-sustained low flow, however, the smaller
streams in the upland area have not cut their channel deeply enough
into the sandy soil to intercept the water table when it is low during
the summer and fall months. Thus, these streams flow only intermit-
tently when the rate of precipitation exceeds the infiltration capacity
of the soil, as during intense rain or when the water table is high
enough to provide water to the stream channels by seepage.
Reed (1971) reported that both the upland and marshy area are
underlain by lithologic units which are chiefly composed of sand with
localized lenses of clay. After drilling two wells on the Henderson
Site, R. M. Alverson (personal communication, 1975) reported that a
clay layer was encountered about 39.6 m (130 ft) be]ow mean sea level
under the upland area. The lithologic units above this layer are com-
posed of highly permeable material, mostly sand.
Based on this geologic data, the flow characteristics of the study
area streams may be explained as follows. During times when the water
table is low, either from low precipitation, high evapotranspiration,
121
-------
or both, rainfall will infiltrate into the sandy soil to the saturated
zone. Since the water table slopes toward the Gulf, the water from
precipitation will move in that direction until it intercepts land sur-
face, probably a stream channel in the marsh, or until it reaches the
Gulf. During winter and spring months when rainfall is high and evapo-
transpiration is low, there will probably be continuous flow in the
upland streams, and the marsh will be very wet.
Discharge measurements of Little River tributary five made in July
and August 1975 indicated that the flow, even from the marsh, is poorly
sustained. This is true even shortly after heavy rains as shown by the
following field data.
Discharge Measurements of Little River tributary five near Bayou La Batre
Date
Discharge
(1/s) (cfs)
Remarks
July 18, 1975
July 22, 1975
August 21, 1975
Surface Water Quality
35.4
0
1.25
0
Rained several inches
the day before
A water sample was collected from Little River tributary five on
August 23, 1975. The results of the chemical analysis of this water are
as follows:
Cons tituent
mg/1
Silica (Si02)
11
Iron (Fe)
.28
Calcium (Ca)
.8
Magnesium (Mg)
1.0
Sodium (Na)
4.2
Potassium (K)
.4
Bicarbonate (IICO3)
0
Carbonate (CO3)
0
Sulfate (SOa)
Chloride (CI)
1.0
8.8
Fluoride (F)
0
Hardness (As CaC03)
6
Noncarbonate hardness
6
Specific conductance (micromhos at 25 C)
53
pll
4.1
Color
140
Turbidity
1.0
122
-------
These data indicate that the water at this station was fairly
typical of that from marshlands. The color units are high because of
substances derived from the organic materials in the soil. These
materials form organic acids in the water as substantiated by the pH of
4.1. Other than these factors, the water is of good chemical quality,
being low in dissolved minerals as indicated by a specific conductance
of 53 (Figure 44).
The stream discharge from Little River tributary five on August 23
was reported to be negligible.
The Henderson site does not have a reliable surface-water resource
that could be used either as a source of supply or as a vehicle for
waste transport. Even the stream originating in the marsh will have long
periods of no flow during the summer and fall. If it were more deeply
incised, Little River would have a more reliable low flow, however, it
would still probably have days of zero flow every year. All streams in
the area are tidal in the reaches near the Gulf, having both upstream
and downstream flow. The upstream flow could be very large during
periods of storm surge, flooding the low areas of the marshes.
Except for acidity and staining which are typical of swamp water,
the chemical quality of the surface water at the Henderson site is very
good.
Streams in South Mobile County, except those in areas affected by
salt water intrusion, generally contain water of suitable chemical quality
for most uses (Appendix C). The water generally is soft and has a dis-
solved-solids content of less than 100 mg/1 (Appendix B). Locally, the
water is acidic and may be objectionable for some uses.
During period of high tide highly mineralized water moves into
streams in southern and eastern parts of the county. The extent of the
movement inland depends on such factors as stream discharge, tidal
variation, and shape and configuration of the stream channel (Reed, 1971).
The chloride concentration of water in Dog, and Fowl Rivers, and Halls
Mill Creeks and Bayou La Batre during the periods June 28 to June 30
and August 30 to September 2, 1966, is shown on Figure 44 (Reed, 1971).
SALT WATER-FRESH WATER RELATIONSHIPS
The occurrence of salt water in coastal fresh-water aquifers is
governed by the density contrast between the two waters, the elevation
of the water table or piezometric surface in the fresh-water aquifer and
the flow rate within the fresh water aquifer. Under natural conditions
when the aquifer is relatively unaffected by pumpage, a net flow of
fresh water to the sea will be present. In this case salt water will
occupy a wedge-shaped volume at the seaward end of the aquifer (Figure
123
-------
31*. 10' —
Washington County
(6. ) W 0.1*
31* 00'-
11.000 V"*
a.
EXPLANATION
K 13
Scmpl mg iiteond cn'onae conieni
Approximate e*tent of wa'cr containing specified
cMo'ide content ,
Less than 250 mg 'I More ihon 3,000 mg 'I.
Solid lino mcico'es salinity surv^v mod* djring
lur\f 28 30, 1966, *hen g«nc«ol flow
comi'11lom in llie county v»ere equaled oi ex-
ceeded 88 percent of time.
Dn^ed i hi #* mdico^e^ soUn»*r jotvrv made du»
ing t^r pffiod August 30 to September 2. I 366.
w^i^m q«»n"• I Ho* conditions m the County vere
equo'rd or exceeded 85 percen! of time.
10 K I L O M K t H E. S
Figure 44. Chloride content ol: waier in selected tidal streams.
124
-------
45). Exploitation of the aquifer often results in a decline in the
water table or piezometric surface with a resulting landward migration
of the salt-water zone.
The boundary between salt water and fresh water is referred to as
the interface. Many descriptions of salt-water encroachment treat the
interface as a sharp contact between salt water and fresh water. In
reality, mixing between the waters results in a gradual transition from
fresh water to salt water. This zone of mixing is referred to as the
"dispersion zone." The dispersion zone may range from a few feet to a
few hundred feet in thickness.
An approximation of the depth of the interface may be calculated
using the Ghyben-Herzberg Equation: Z = Z^ where Zs is the
depth below sea level of the interface, Z^ is the elevation above sea
level of the water table or piezometric surface, Df is the density of
fresh water, and Ds is the density of salt water. Under normal con-
ditions Df is approximately 1.000 and Ds is approximately 1.025 and
Z§ - 40 Zf- The Ghyben-Herzberg equation ignores the existence of the
dispersion zone, the possible presence of confining layers, and the flow
velocity of the fresh water.
Based on the electrical resistivity log of the deep monitor well
(Henderson No. 5) the top of the" dispersion zone occurs at a depth of
about 132 m (435 ft) below sea level. The resistivity of formation
water at this point, as revealed by the electrical resistivity log,
dropped substantially because of an increase in dissolved solids content.
A water sample was collected from the dispersion zone and it was deter-
mined that its dissolved solids content was on the order of 600 mg/1
which is higher than recommended by the U. S. Public Health Service
standards for drinking water. The major constituent in the water was
determined to be bicarbonate.
Using the water level in the well on the day that the electric log
was run in conjunction with the Ghyben-Herzberg equation, the depth to
the salt water-fresh water interface would be 171 m (560 ft) below sea
level. The electric log reveals that the contact occurs above this
elevation, probably at 140 m (460 ft) below mean sea level. The possibil
ity of local upconing of the dispersion zone under prolonged pumpage is
a possibility. Such upconing would require limiting the pumping rate
of individual wells.
125
-------
Ground Surface
*f7^l\'ater Table
Excessive Pumping
^ T 4s ^ ^
Ground Surface
Figure 45. Schematic of hydrologic conditions in an
unconfirmed coastal water system.
A. Not subject to salt water intrusion.
B. Subject to salf-water intrusion.
126
-------
OFFSHORE BATHYMETRY
Alabama's estuaries are relatively shallow. Crance (1971) calcu-
lated average depths as follows: Mississippi Sound, 3.1 m (10.09 ft);
Mobile Bay, 2.9 m (9.74 ft); Mobile Delta, 3.3 m (10.84 ft); Perdido
Bay, 2.4 m (7.86 ft); and Little Lagoon, 1.2 m (4 ft). The greatest
depth of 33.5 m (110 ft) exists in Tensaw River near Blakely in the
Delta. Based on surface areas, 24.8 percent of the Mobile Delta
has depths over 5.6 m (18.5 ft). Only 1.7 percent of Mobile Bay,
and 0.8 percent of Perdido Bay have depths over 5.6 m (18.5 ft). The
depths of Mississippi Sound and Little Lagoon are less than 5.6 m
(18.5 ft) (Table 23).
MISSISSIPPI SOUND
In Alabama, the eastern half of Mississippi Sound is relatively
shallow with a gradual slope from north to south to depths of 2.7 to
3.3 m (9 to 11 ft) at the edge of a shallow shelf along the north
shore of Dauphin Island. In general, the extreme eastern limits of
the sound are very shallow. The western half of the Sound in Alabama
has a fairly broad shelf along the northern shore to a depth of 1.8 m
(6 ft). This drops to a broad, relatively smooth floor with depths
of 3 to 3.3 m (10 to 11 ft) that gradually slopes to depths of 5.4 m
(18 ft) to the south. The tidal opening between Petit Bois and Dauphin
Island is quite shallow except for Petit Bois Pass (Figure 46).
Within the historical past, there have been some changes in the
bathymetry of Petit Bois Pass. These are described under "Past Coas-
tal Changes" in the section on geography.
127
-------
Table 23. AEEA AND DEPTH OF MOBILE BAY AND MISSISSIPPI SOUND IN ALABAMA
(Data Interpreted from Crance, 1971)
Mobile Bay
Mississippi
Sound
Depth
Area
Area
Percent of
Percent of
Metres
Feet (MHW)
Hectares
Acres
total area
Hectares
Acres
total area
0-1.1
0- 3.5
13,759.3
34,000
12.86
7,558.7
18,678
20.15
1.1-2.0
3.5- 6.5
10,926.5
27,000
10.21
6,108.7
15,095
16.28
2.0-3.2
6.5-10.5
59,084.1
146,000
55.20
9,121.6
22,540
24.31
3.2-4.4
10.5-14.5
19,222.5
47 ,500
17.96
8,930.2
22,067
23.80
4.4-5.6
14.5-18.5
2,266.2
5,600
2.12
5,795.9
14,322
15.45
5.6-9.1
18.5-30.0
849.8
"2,100
0.71
aer 9.1
over 30
918.6
2,270
0.86
Total area
107,027.0
264,470
37,515.2
92,702
Average depth
2.97m
9.74
ft
3.07m
10.09 ft
-------
N3
- $ i- -
zi " Wvi
: — . .¦
~\
f
'\./'--'v : V> - -
V'> :b~
uO^(vL ,—
/ -=^7'/
tl ..-'c
,V
(L
V -o
/
/
- / /-/*
- /{>'\
I >'
\ ; v- ( '
\ y\s
NP;;S"C-
r-**"' l~~ ^
o .„y
"i
? (
:'
(] \ _
A V, _/-^\
B A'
-------
MOBILE BAY
Ryan (1969) analyzed a series of U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey
charts published between 1847 and 1851 and constructed a bathymetric
map of Mobile Bay for that time (Figure 47) prior to modifications for
navigation. The floor of the bay was relatively flat with a depth
of 3 to 4.2 m (10 to 14 ft) and gently sloping towards its longitu-
dinal axis and the Gulf. Around the periphery, a narrow shelf exten-
ded on an average of .8 to 1.6 km (0.5 to 1 mi) from the shoreline to
depths of 1.2 to 1.8 m (4 to 6 ft). This shelf was bordered by a
steeper slope to the floor of the bay.
Submerged sand bars extended from the shore into the estuary.
The two largest of these projected for about 3.2 km (2 mi) from the
vicinity of Great Point Clear. On the western shore, a smaller bar
was located near Fowl River Point. Along Fort Morgan Peninsula, a
bar was located at Little Point Clear and another east of it.
At the mouth of the bay, the tidal inlet between Dauphin Island
and Mobile Point was scoured to depths of 16.4 to 17.6 m (54 to 58
ft). North of the pass the inlet bifurcated. One arm extended north-
west to Pass aux Herons and was developed by both ebb and flood tide
currents. The other arm which was narrower and steeper extended east
northeast off the north shore of Fort Morgan Peninsula and was probably
maintained by incoming flood tides. South of the inlet, a large tidal
delta existed with depths of less than 5.5 m (18 ft), at the margin
of which were three islands.
The bathymetry of Mobile Bay in 1960-1962 showed significant
changes in 110 years (Figure 48). General shoaling of the broad flat
bay bottom decreased the depth in most areas from .3 -to .9 m (1 to 3
ft). The peripheral shelf, to the depth of 1.8 m (6 ft) has remained
relatively unchanged (Figure 49).
The main ship channel from Mobile to the mouth of the bay is pre-
sently 121.9 m (400 ft) wide with a controlling depth of 11.2 m (37
ft). Spoil banks, with a relief of 1.8 m (6 ft) or more, extend along
both sides of the channel south to Great Point Clear. South of here,
the spoil material is on the west side of the channel with a relief
of .6 to .9 m (2 to 3 ft). A series of mounds of spoil are located in
water depths greater than 4.3 m (14 ft) along the western side of the
channel in the lower reaches of the bay.
Spoil banks along Hollingers Island channel have virtually iso-
lated the northwestern part of the bay. The construction of the Intra-
coastal Waterway across Bon Secour Bay has had little affect on the
130
-------
¦A ) \'><1 'Aw juiuPot
\\>s -?,;V A'/vfT/" y- ¦
\V. s ^ ','¦/¦« "V !
-X'N s^r l/^W #¦/
\\ =-;- '•-Hi.'
rxC^:^' ^ "'
\ ML- r""
O
¦-L -"-v
o i 3 4 j
NAUTICAL M J LIS
CONTOURS IN FEET
1 frc> rrjuols .6 n'»Te<
CS3Q-B3
0 5
KI LOME I RES
Figure 47. Mobile Bay bathymetry, 1847-1851
(after Ryan, 1969).
131
-------
V " J'h "
v^'4fK
K-.
0 17 3-15
NAUTICAL HlltS
CONTOURS IN Flfl
? frrt equoK .6 rprtrn?
m:\mzies
0 5
KILOMT \ RES
Figure 48. Mobile Bay bathymetry.
1960-1962 (after Ryan, 1969.
132
-------
IS 0 P A ( 11 S IN I ( E 1
1 foot canals 30'1S mcl'rj
Figure 49. Mobile Bay, depth changes between 1849-1851
and 1960-1961 (after Ryan, 1969).
133
-------
bathymetry. Offshore, the outer reaches of the tidal inlet have
shifted westward and the islands have been almost eliminated.
There have been some bathymetric changes associated with the
mouth of Mobile Bay in historical times. These are discussed under
"Past Coastal Changes" in the section on geography.
GULF OF MEXICO
The continental shelf south of Dauphin Island is relatively
smooth with a uniform slope of .6 metre per kilometer (m/km) (3.2 ft
per mi) to a depth of 54.8 m (180 ft) . At this depth, the slope in-
creases to about 5.9 m/km (31 ft per mi) to a depth of 182.8 m (600
ft). There is a linear low rending northeast-southwest probably re-
presenting a partially filled valley of the ancestral Alabama River
during the Pleistocene (Boone, 1972). East of this and south of
Baldwin County, the bottom is more irregular in water depths of 30.5
to 45.7 m (100 to 150 ft) (Figure 50).
134
-------
U' 3H-00
-------
OFFSHORE HYDROLOGY
The hydrology of Alabama's estuaries and offshore waters is com-
plicated by a number of factors such as the discharge of fresh water,
the hydrography, tidal movements, and currents and winds. The inter-
action of these variables can significantly influence salinity, sedi-
mentation, pollution and biological productivity.
FRESH WATER DISCHARGE
The discharge of fresh water into Mobile Bay comes primarily
through the Mobile delta from the Mobile River basin. This basin is
the fourth largest in the United States, exceeded only by those of the
Mississippi, Yukon, and Columbia Rivers. Its watershed of 113,053 km^
(43,650 mi^) includes 64 percent of Alabama and parts of Mississippi,
Georgia, and Tennessee and is in an area of relatively high annual
rainfall (Figure 51).
The mean annual discharge into the bay is approximately 2,048,980
1/s (72,351 cfs) per second, primarily representing the combined total
of the Alabama and Tombigbee Rivers, with smaller amounts from the
other tributaries (Tables 24 and 25). It may vary from as little as
283,200 1/s (10,000 cfs) per second during dry periods to more than
14,160,000 1/s (500,000 cfs) during extreme floods. Another annual
mean of 20,532 1/s (725 cfs) is discharged into Mobile Bay from its
associated tributaries.
Peak discharge normally occurs in the spring from February to
April; the lowest discharges from June to November (Tables 26 and 27
and Figures 52 and 53). During prolonged droughts with a minimal dis-
charge of fresh water, an intrusion of salt water may extend as far as
33.8 km (21 mi) up the Mobile River, Continued maximum discharge re-
sults in a significant drop in the salinity of the bay.
The discharge from Mobile Hay flows into the Gulf of Mexico
through the pass between Mobile Point and Dauphin Island or, because
of the nature of the currents, through Pass aux Heron and Grants Pass
into Mississippi Sound where it also influences the hydrology.
136
-------
Figure 51. Average rainfall for the M0biie River
basin.
137
-------
Table 24. WATERSHED AREA OF STREAMS AND THEIR MEAN ANNUAL DISCHARGE INTO ALABAMA ESTUARIES
(Modified trom Crance, 19/1)
Mean Discharge
Watershed Area
Estuary and
Cubic metres
Cubic feet
Square
Square
Years of
gauge station"'
per second
per second
kilometres
miles
records
Mississippi Sound
5.64
200***
259.0
100**
Mobile Bay
Montlimer Creek 2-4710.65
.52
18.6
21.4
8.26
5
Fish River 2-3785
3.03
107.0
142.7
55.1
15
Additional
16.99
600***
777 .0
300**
Total
20.55
725.6
1,200.1
463.36
Mobile Delta
Alabama River 2-4295
902.56
31,870
56,980.0
22,000
38
Tombigbee River 2-4700
1,026.03
36,230
49,469.0
19,100
32
East Basset Creek. 2-4701
7.82
276
486.9
188
12
Chickasaw Creek 2-4710
7 .36
260
318.6
123
17
Additional
105.21
3,715***
5,799.0
2,239**
To tal
2,048.98
72,351
130,053.0
43,650
Number after stream is U.S. Geological Survey station index number.
** Area estimated by Crance.
** -'Estimated
-------
Table 25. MONTHLY MEAN DISCIiARGES OF STREAMS INTO MOBILE BAY,
IN CUBIC METRES PER SECOND AND CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
East Basset Chickasaw Montlimer Fish
Alabama River Tombigbee River Creek Creek Creek River
Month m/s cfs m/s cfs m/s c£s ra/s cfs m/s cfs m/s cfs
j—
—
Jan.
1,041.4
36,772
1,100.3
38,854
9 . 7
34 4
J. 7
342
. 6
23
3. 0
105
Feb .
1,508.5
53.267
1,541.2
54,422
14.9
531
10.5
370
.6
23
3.4
120
Mar.
1,848.4
65,267
1,923.1
67,908
14 . 6
521
11.0
389
.5
18
2.9
102
Apr.
1,714.7
60,547
1,765.8
62,353
12.6
449
L2 8
452
.6
22
3. 8
133
May
913.1
32,241
737 .7
26,048
5 . 8
208
5.6
199
.4
16
2.6
92
June
527. 3
18,620
258. 0
9,111
5 .1
184
6.5
231
.4
15
3.1
110
Ju ly
481. 2
16,992
255 . 7
9,028
3.2
185
6 . 6
234
.5
18
3.1
111
Aug.
373.6
13,192
109. 1
3,852
2.6
94
7.2
254
.4
16
3.5
124
Sept.
369. 6
13,051
113 9
4,023
3.4
120
5.5
194
.3
12
3.4
119
Oct.
403. 6
14,251
145.6
5,142
3.3
113
5.1
179
.4
15
4.4
156
Nov.
471.4
16,646
275 8
9,741
5.9
208
6.1
217
.4
13
2.4
85
Dec.
384. 5
31,234
625. 1
22,074
9.2
326
6 7
238
.5
17
2.6
92
Years of
1955
-
1951
-
1956
-
1951
-
1962
-
1955-
Record
1969
1960
1969
1969
L9 67
1969
-------
Table 26. EXTREME MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM DISCHARGES OF STREAMS INTO MOBILE BAY
(Compiled from Crance, 1971)
Velocity
U . S . G. S .
Years of
Stream and location
index No.
record
m/ s
cf s
Date
Alabama River
Claiborne, AL
2-4295
1930-69
Maximum
7 ,561.4
267,000
March 7, 1961
Minimum
126.0
4,450
October 1, 1954
Tombigbee River
Leroy, AL
2-4700
1928-60
Maximum
7 ,136.6
252,000
torch 4, 1961
Minimum
14.1
500
September 2, 192c
East Bassett Creek
Walker Springs, AL
2-4701
1956-69
Maximum
546.6
19,300
July 8, 1956
Minimum
.5
17
October 23, 1963
Chickasaw Creek
Whistler, AL
2-4710
1951-69
Maximum
1,189.4
42,000
April 13, 1955
Mi nimum
.9
3.7
May 22, 1962 &
October, 1964
Fish River
Silverhill, AL
2-3785
1953-69
Maximum
242.7
8,570
December 6, 1953
Minimum
1.0
37
June 20-21, 1955
& September 12-
15, 1968
-------
Table 27. MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM MONTHLY MEAN DISCHARGES OF STREAMS INTO ALABAMA ESTUARIES
(Compiled from Crance, 1971)
Velocity
U.S.G.S.
Years of
Stream and location
index No.
record
m/s
cf s
Date
Alabama River
Claiborne, AL
2-4295
1930-69
Maximum
4,675.6
165,100
March, 1961
Minimum
173.7
6,133
October, 1954
Tombigbee River
Leroy, AL
2-4700
1928-60
Maximum
3,738.2
132,000
April, 1951
Minimum
20.4
721
September, 1954
East Basset Creek
Walker Springs, AL
2-4701
1956-69
Maximum
49.7
1,754
February, 1961
Minimum
.6
20
October, 1963
Chickasaw Creek
Whistler, AL
2-4710
1955-69
Maximum
50.8
1,792
April, 1955
Minimum
1.0
34
October, 1964
Monlimer Creek
Mobile, AL
2-4710.65
1962-67
Maximum
1.5
52
September, 1965
Minimum
.2
6
October, 1964
Fish River
Silverhill, AL
2-3785
1953-69
Maximum
8.1
288
February, 1961
Minimum
.2
8
December, 1968
-------
Figure 52. Monthly mean discharge
of the Alabama River.
70,000-
< L-l < 0- < V. .Jna-^OUJ
-> U. 3 Z3 -<
Figure 53. Monthly mean discharge
of the Tombigbee River.
-------
A part of the Escatawpa River system is located in western Mobile
County. This eventually drains into Mississippi Sound in southeastern
Mississippi through the Pascagoula River. The monthly mean discharge
of the Escatawpa River near Wilmer, Alabama is greatest from January
to March and lowest during the late summer (Table 28 and Figure 54).
The annual mean discharge, based on ten years of records, is 23.6 m/s
(835 cfs). This river could be one of the more important sources for
freshwater in the area.
TIDES
The tide is an important environmental factor in estuaries. It
affects exchange of water and its vertical range determines the extent
of tidal flats. In Alabama estuaries, the tidal cycle is of the diur-
nal types with only one high and one low water occurring in a day. The
interval between succeeding high (or low) tidal stages is about 24.8
hours, but this may vary by several hours (McPhearson, 1970). This
variation can be predicted accurately and the forecasts for Mobile are
published annually by the U. S. Department of Commerce in "Tide Tables-
East Coast of North and South America".
Variation in the tide level in Alabama estuaries is associated
with the change of the moon's declination. Tropic tides have the least
range and occur when the moon is nearest the equator and has least de-
clination. Equatorial tides have the greatest range concurrent with
maximum lunar declination when the moon has reached its northernmost
level. The complete cycle requires 27.2 days and is known as the tro-
pical month. The synodic cycle (new moon to new moon) of 29.53 days
resulting in spring or neap tides has little effect on tidal levels in
Alabama (Figure 55).
Tides are secondarily altered in response to the seasonal decli-
nation of the sun, the range being least in March and September corres-
ponding to the sun's solstices (McPhearson, 1970). Other factors in-
fluencing water level are wind and fresh water discharge.
In Mobile Bay, the mean tidal range is about 45 cm (1.5 ft) in the
upper end, 49 cm (1.6 ft) in Bon Sec.our Bay, and about 36 cm (1.2 ft)
at the mouth of the bay (Table 29). The extreme range, excluding storms
or other factors is 1.06 m (3.5 ft) (Bisbort, 1957). Using predictions
for Mobile as a constant, normal differences in occurrence and height
of tides in various parts of the bay can be calculated (Table 30).
Water level can be influenced by winds depending on their velo-
city, direction and duration. South winds of sufficient velocity tend
to pile water at the head of the bay, whereas, north winds tend to de-
crease the water level in much of the bay. This is also related to the
shape of the estuary, which narrows from south to north. Hurricane
winds have raised water levels in the bay to as much as 3.5 m (11.6 ft)
143
-------
Table 28. DISCHARGE OF ESCATAWPA RIVER NEAR WILMER, ALABAMA
(CUBIC METRES PER SECOND AND CUBIC FEET PER SECOND)
Wjtcr Ye.ir fionthly -Mean
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jl n
Feb
M/i r
Apr j
m/ 9
C f 3
n/s
c t's
rr./s
C 13
T./ 3
c f s
n/s
c 5 Lj
m/s
cf",
c i 5 '
19/4
14 9
5 76
17 3
611
35. 1
L ,241
63.4
2 , 740
50 1
1, 7 69
39.6
1 ,39y
o2
2
2,904 j
1973
2 9
101
8 1
235
31 i
1 ,106
3 5 8
1,265
51.0
1 ,802
49 1
1,7 13
o3
4
2 , 240
1972
5.0
1 78
5.4
190
75 5
2 ,667
72.9
2,574
50. 3
1 ,773
34.0
1 ,200
22
U
792
1971
19.0
671
11.5
407
41 4
1 ,463
41 9
1 ,431
65.2
9,996
61 4
2 , i 7 0
22
0
7 7 5
1970
5 0
176
4.5
161
9.6
340
22 7
801
31.5
1,111
62 5
2,203
A
666
1969
2 6
92
4.9
175
16.9
5 96
34. 3
1,211
23."9
844
57.9
2.046
4 1
1,473 1
1963
10 9
384
10 9
740
17 3
612
19 1
676
12 1
429
14.0
4^5
i 5
0
532
1967
9.3
329
14.9
525
n 0
4 59
44 8
I ,532
29 0
1 ,024
.13 4
4/4
i 1
4 i 3
1966
14 5
513
5.3
189
16 5
583
34 4
1 ,216
91.7
3,239
67.3
2,377
16
5
5 34
1965
7.5
267
8.2
290
31 .2
1.101
49.0
1 , 732
59 4
2,098
54.5
1 ,926
18
2
644 -
Mean
9 . 2
324
10. 1
357
28. 3
1 ,017
41.9
1 ,478
4 5.6
1 ,699
45.4
I .603
31
3
1,105 |
Wa tcr Year
Ilontlilv Huan
197A
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1963
1967
1966
1965
Mean
May
m/fl
.
27
52 .
17.
5.
10.
11.
14.
25
5.
18.
503
970
1,851
606
193
358
418
510
398
2 10
653
Jun
m/s
14.8
23. 3
5 0
6. 7
16.0
4 2
5.2
6.0
5.4
6.6
9.3
: fs
523
324
179
236
564
149
133
213
192
234
330
Ju I .
c fs
3.
14.
5
22
12.
14
4 .
7.
7 .
13.6
11.0
285
526
?06
799
447
514
146
248
247
431
390
Aug.
Wa
: fs
17 9 633
17 1 605
3 9 139
22.7 801
15.3 559
43.1 1,524
4.0 140
12.3 434
7.4 260
16.6 587
16.1 568
Sept .
n/ s
67 . 6
4 0.4
2.7
19.5
11.0
3.5
3.1
; 1.3
4.3
8.5
17.7
2,336
1 ,428
95
689
390
299
110
398
153
300
625
"/s
c f s
2 9 i 7 10,3C0
216.9 7 j 660
206.2 7,280
183.8 6.560
147 3 5,2 00
239.3 8,740
187.2 6,610
135.6 4,790
227.4 8,070
227.4 8,030
291.7 10,300
_C J. 3
1 69
7 6
71
110
74
52
5 6
62
99
97
52
cXs__
35 2 1,244
30 2 i,066
28.0 990
26.6 1,005
18.0 635
22.0 776
i 1 5 4 C 5
13 0 549
24.3 858
23.1 317
23.6 835
-------
CUBIC METRES PER SECOND
CD
O
to
O -
o
o
rsi
_L
— Nvr
— oaa
— AON
- 130
— ld3S
— onv
— Ainr
— 3Nnr
- AVH
— ddV
- yvw
f— 93d
- Nvr
o
o
o
CM
o
LO
o
o
o
o
o»
LO
a no D3S y3d 133d DignD
145
-------
-p-
c-
NOVEMBER
Figure 55. Variation of predicted tidal ranges associated with lunar
declination and phase for Mobile, Alabama (after McPhearson, 1970).
-------
Table 29. MEAN DIURNAL TIDE RANGE IN ALABAMA COASTAL WATERS
(Data from various sources)
Location
Centimetres
Feet
Perdido Bay
15.2
0.5
Mobile River at Mt. Vernon
33.5
1.1
Mobile River at Mobile
45.7
1.5
Tensaw River at Lower Hall Landing
39.6
1.3
Mobile Bay at Mouth of Fowl River
45.7
1.5
Mobile Bay at Great Point Clear
42.7
1.4
Mobile Bay at Cedar Point
36.6
1.2
Bon Secour River at Bon Secour
48.8
1.6
Mobile Point, Fort Morgan Peninsula
36.6
1.2
Dauphin Island Bay, Mississippi Sound
33.5
1.1
Heron Bay, Mississippi Sound
42.7
1.4
Bayou La Batre, Mississippi Sound
45.7
1.5
147
-------
Table 30. TIDAL DIFFERENCES IN MOBILE BAY BASED ON PREDICTION FOR MOBILE
(Compiled from U.S. National Ocean Survey, 1973a)
Height
Time
(hours
High
Low
and minutes)
water
water
High
Low
Location
water
water
Centimetres
Feet
Mobile Point (Fort Morgan)
-1:46
-1:32
-9.1
-0.3
0.0
Fort Gaines, Mobile Bay Entrance
-1:51
-1:49
-6.1
-0.2
0.0
Bon Secour, Bon Secour River
-1:13
-1:17
+3.0
+0.1
0.0
Mouth of Fowl River
-0:19
-0:09
0.0
0.0
0.0
Great Point Clear
-1:03
-0:57
-3.0
-0.1
0.0
-------
(Figure 56) and depressed it to 2.9 m (9.7 ft) below mean low water.
Real damage in Gulf coastal estuaries is sustained primarily from the
seiche effect of water shifting back and forth, from one end to the
other, after a hurricane has made the initial pass.
Water level in Mobile Bay has been increased by flooding of the
Mobile River basin. In 1961, the highest known discharge of the Mobile
River increased the height of the water by about two feet at the head
of the bay (McPhearson, 1970).
In Mississippi Sound, the mean diurnal tide range is 38.3 cm
(1.1 ft) in Dauphin Island Bay: 42.7 cm (1.4 ft) in Heron Bay; and
45.7 cm (1.5 ft) at Bayou La Batre. Tidal predictions use the tide
table for Pensacola as a constant with the time of high water occurring
1 hour and 40 minutes later, and low water 1 hour and 47 minutes later.
The height of high water is 6.1 cm (0.2 ft) greater, whereas low water
is the same as that of Pensacola. Changes in water level in Mobile
Bay may be reflected in the Sound.
CURRENTS AND CIRCULATION
Tidal currents in Alabama estuaries are of the reversing or recti-
linear type. The flood current flows into the estuaries for about 6
hours; the ebb current flows seaward for about 6 hours. The change
from flood to ebb and vice versa gives rise to a period of slack water
during which the current is zero. These currents vary semimonthly in
relation to the moon's angle of declination. When the moon is nearest
the equator, the daily strength of currents varies little. As the
declination increases, diurnal differences in flow become more pro-
nounced (Table 31).
The speed of flood and ebb tide currents are further influenced
by the rate of discharge of fresh water into the estuary, increasing
the: ebb current.and decreasing the flood current proportional to the
discharge. This is particularly evident at the entrance of the main
ship channel into Mobile Bay and at the mouths of the Mobile and Ten-
saw Rivers. In general, there is an outward movement of fresh water
at the surface, and an inward movement of salt water at the bottom.
Currents in wider estuaries may be affected by the Coriolis force
due to the earth's rotation. They tend to be deflected to the right
in a counterclockwise direction (McPhearson, 1970). Winds, in addition
to affecting the height of water, can also influence the velocity of
the currents (Ryan, 1969).
Tidal movement within Mobile Bay is a continuation of that of the
Gulf of Mexico. During early flood tide, water enters the bay through
the main pass and tends to be deflected to the right (Figure 57). It
then swings to the west before moving inland in a northerly direction.
The discharge of water from Fish and Bon Secour Rivers into Bon Secour
Bay complicate the current, producing eddies and deflecting the main
flow (Austin, 1954).
149
-------
m ! A r j
M i 0 f' ? I I ( I -
WA I [ 9
A N
i i ih i ?a r r-
l C v 11
Mf AN
I U V.' 0 ^ B I I -
V.'A! t V
-120-
90-
6.0-
-30'
00-
h 30 ¦
-60
90
12 OH
Mir.Mf S !
-n6 n
IIIIUCI
.».«i a n
r—0 B.I m st a
livu
I O'-v
- w amR
da i um
i O'.vi r
• - in / i i Kf' r-'yn[ 0
! II i|
{ Mt ',1 I' I I"? /V,)
one foot equals .3048 metres
Figure 56. Significant water levels relative to Jow-
water datum for Mobile Bay (after McPhearson, 1970).
150
-------
Table 31. AVERAGE DIURNAL TIDAL CURRENT
VELOCITIES IN KNOTS
(Compiled from U.S. National Ocean Survey, 1973b)
Location
Flood
tide
Ebb
tide
Main Ship Channel entrance
0.7
1.0
Mobile Bay (off Mobile Point)
1.4
1.5
Channel, 6 miles north of Mobile Point
0.6
0.5
Mobile River entrance
0.3
0.7
l'ensaw River entrance
0.4
1.0
Pass Aux Herons
1.3
1.3
151
-------
MM&P :
Figure 57. October, 1952, flood tide in Mobile Bay
(after Austin, 1954).
152
-------
At early flood tide, water is still ebbing into Mississippi Sound
from Mobile Bay and it is not until 15 minutes to an liour later that
flood currents reverse and move through Pass aux Herons into the bay
in a northeasterly direction. This secondary inflow complicates the
main flow resulting in turbulences and mixing of waters.
In the north end of the bay, movement of river water is slowed
and may be piled up, or pushed back near the bottom. At the surface,
however, it continues downstream toward the Gulf along the western
side of the bay.
At ebb tide, there is a uniform movement of water to the south
with slight eddies produced by irregularities in the shoreline (Figure
58). About 28 percent of the water passes into Mississippi Sound with
the remainder leaving the bay through the main pass.
There is evidence of vertical movement of water in various parts
of the bay, but it has not been analyzed. A salt wedge moves inland
in the ship channel near the bottom and then surfaces during the ebb
tides. These movements are of importance since vertical mixing of
waters by ships on bottom deposits could be the cause of disruption of
benthic animal and plant production.
The construction of the landfill causeways across the north end
of the bay and at Pass aux Herons, the deeper navigational channels,
along with their spoil banks, have altered the natural circulation.
Other variables such as fresh-water discharge and wind increase the
complexity of the circulation pattern (Tanner and others, 1969).
Austin (1954) calculated the tidal flushing rates for the bay using
Ketchum's modified tidal prism theory as 45 days as compared to 54 days
based on observed data and non-tidal drift estimates. Because of the
daily fluctuation of river discharge he concluded that the flushing
time probably varies from 45 to 54 days.
Currents in Mississippi Sound have not been studied in detail.
Foxworth and others (1962) indicate that during flood tides, longshore
currents of the Gulf move through the passes between the islands into
the Sound at rates of 1 to 3 miles per hour. On early ebb tide, the
surface currents are reversed, moving westward along the sound side of
the islands at rates of 3.2 to 6.4 kmph (2 to 4 mph), entering the Gulf
through the passes. However, deeper currents are still moving east.
On the late ebb tide, both the shallow and deep currents move through
the pfsses into the Gulf at rates of 6.4 to 12.9 kmph (4 to 8 mph).
The circulation is further complicated by the interchange of water
between the Sound and Mobile Hay.
The major water movement on the shelf consists of slow westward
drift across the central continental shelf turning southward opposite
Mobile Ray, and slow eastward drift seaward of the continental shelf
margin (Leipper, 1954). Longshore currents in the Gulf of Mexico move
153
-------
154
-------
east to west at rates of 1.6 to 4.8 kmph (1 to 3 mph), and on the in-
coming tides the flow increases to 4.8 to 9.6 kmph ( 3 to 6 mph).
WAVES
Wave action intensity on the Mississippi-Alabama shelf is low to
moderate, with wave periods ranging from 3 to 8 seconds and wave
height rarely over 0.9 m (3 ft). Such waves affect the bottom only in
the nearshore zones; however, the longshore transport of sediment by
currents produced by these waves is of major importance. The intense
wave action associated with hurricanes is an important factor in the
reworking of sediments on the shelf, but little horizontal displace-
ment takes place in offshore areas. Near the edge of the shelf, sedi-
ments are stirred about once every five years; the rest of the shelf,
is affected about once every two years (Upshaw and others, 1966).
Wave heights distribution roughly follow those of wind speeds,
with mean wave heights being at a minimum during the summer season
and a maximum during the winter season. Wave heights of 3.6 m (12 ft)
or greater have been observed throughout the year, but heights of 6.1
m (20 ft) or greater have been reported in February and October only,
probably owing to the scarcity of data. The following wave height
tabulations contain statistical estimates, since there were insufficient
marine observations for a climatological conclusion:
Mean recurrence interval
(years)
5
10
25
50
Maximum significant wave
height
(feet)
31
34
39
43
Maximum significant wave
height
(metres)
9.4
10.3
11.9
13.1
From the tabulation it can be expected that there will be, on the
average, one occurrence every 10 years of a significant wave height of
10.3 m (34 ft). The above tabulation is more representative of the
deeper waters in the study area (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1973 a).
WATER TEMPERATURE
Water temperatures in Alabama estuaries vary seasonally reflect-
ing changes in air temperature (Figure 59). Vertical variation from
the surface to the bottom is relatively slight because of the shallow
water and the constant mixing by the action of tides, currents, river
discharge and winds. in general, from January to April, bottom temp-
eratures are slightly higher; whereas, during the remainder of the
year, surface temperatures are higher (McPhearson, 1970; Bault, 1972).
This variation seems to be correlated with the higher salinities of
bottom waters moving in and out of the Gulf. McPhearson's (1970) data
show that water temperatures average slightly higher than air temper-
155
-------
0———0 Surface
Bottom
Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sec! Gcf. Nov. Dec.
Figure 59. Monthly average temperatures for Alabama estuaries
(after McPhearson, 1970)
-------
atures. However, Bault (1972) found that surface water temperature
was usually 3-4°C (37.4 to 39.2°F) less than that of air at most
stations he studied.
From November to April, there is a north-south gradient in Mobile
Bay characterized by an increase in surface temperature that continues
into Mississippi Sound (Figure 60). This is less pronounced during
the warmer months. Bottom temperatures also show this gradient from
September through April (Figure 61).
The average annual temperature tends to be fairly constant through-
out Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound with bottom temperatures normally
being slightly less than those at the surface (Table 32).
Most of the animals and plants found in the estuaries and offshore
waters of Alabama are poikilothermic, their body temperatures varying
with that of the environment. Since metabolic activity is influenced
by temperature, their rates of growth, activity and reproduction usually
reflect the water temperatures.
SALINITY
Salinity in an estuary usually can vary from zero to about 34-36
parts per thousand or to the salinity of the adjoining ocean water.
This variation can be the result of the interaction of various factors
such as river discharge, tidal movements, currents, rainfall, evapora-
tion, and velocity and direction of winds. With increased depths, a
vertical stratification may occur, which also may be variable, with
the denser and more saline waters at the bottom.
In Mobile Bay, the most important factor influencing salinity is
the discharge of fresh water from the Mobile River basin which exhibits
seasonal variation (Figure 62). From July through October, a period
of low discharge, salinities in the bay are high. Surface concentra-
tions show a normal gradient from north to south that continues into
Mississippi Sound. The response to this change is progressively later
to the north. With increased discharge in the spring, salinities de-
crease rapidly in the upper and middle bay and retain the low level
longer than the lower bay. Extremely high discharge apparently results
in a high degree of mixing that reduces stratification. In general,
however, average annual bottom salinities are higher than those at the
surface. This stratification is most pronounced on the eastern side
of the bay, and the salt-water wedge extending north from the mouth
(Figures 63-64 and Table 33).
Normally, Mobile Bay would be classified as a partially mixed
estuary because of its relatively shallow hydrography. However, the
ship channel with its parallel high spoil banks creates a salt-water
wedge (Figure 65). The penetration of this wedge is dependent upon
157
-------
Figure 60. Bimonthly surface isothermal maps of Mobile Bay
and Mississippi Sound (after Bault, 1972).
158
-------
Figure 61. Runout lily bottom isothermal maps of Mobile Bay
and Mississippi Sound (after Bault, 1972).
159
-------
Table 32. AVERAGE ANNUAL SURFACE AND
BOTTOM TEMPERATURES IN ALABAMA ESTUARIES
Location
Surface
Bottom
C
F
C
F
Upper Mobile Bay
22.4
72.3
21.9
71.4
Middle Mobile Bay
22.9
73- 2
22.4
72.3
Lower Mobile Bay
23.5
74. 3
23.3
73.9
Bon Secour Bay
23.4
74.1
21.5
70.7
Oyster Bay
20.7
69.3
20.3
68.5
Entrance to Mobile Bay
23.5
74.3
23.1
73.6
Pass aux Herons
20.2
68.4
19.6
67.3
Northern Mississippi Sound
23.7
74.7
23.3
73.9
Southern Mississippi Sound
23.0
73.4
22.5
72.5
160
-------
1 4,000 5
3,000
2,000
1,000
<
m
ZJ
C/*>
O
X
>
73
O
m
n
c
00
n
m
H
73
m
oo
~0
m
XJ
n
o
z
o
Figure 62. Annual salinity variation at selected stations in Mobile Bay as related to
the discharge of the Mobile River (after McPhearson, 1970).
-------
Figure 63. Bimonthly surface isohaiine maps of Mobile Bay
and Mississippi Sound (after Bault, 1972).
162
-------
Figure 64. Bimonthly bottom isohaline maps of Mobile Bay
and Mississippi Sound (aliter Bault, 1972).
163
-------
Table 33. AVERAGE ANNUAL SURFACE AND
BOTTOM SALINITIES (PPT)
(After McPhearson, 1970)
1963-
1964
1965-
1966
S
B
S
B
Mobile Bay:
All stations
9.9
12.1
10.4
12.5
Greater than 5 feet
9.6
13.3
10.3
14.1
West of channel
10.8
11.6
12.6
14.0
East of channel
9.1
11.6
9.3
14.0
Mississippi Sound:
All stations
21.0
22.5
22.0
23.5
Greater than 5 feet
22.2
23.8
22.6
24.8
Bon Secour Bay
16.3
16.4
16.1
17.6
Entrance to bay
18.7
29.4
22.3
30.3
S--surface
B--bottom
164
-------
Ebb Tide
Figure 65. Salinity-depth section, lower Mobile ship channel (after Austin, 1954).
-------
the rate of river flow. During low flow, the mixing of |resh and
salt water is decreased. For flows of less than 2,832 m (10,000 ft ),
the wedge has been observed 37 km (23 mi) upstream from Mobile in the
Mobile River. The spoil banks, acting as a barrier, tend to concen-
trate the flow of fresh water down the west side of the bay.
Although tidal oscillations probably influence salinities in
Mobile Bay, particularly in deeper waters, these have not been thorough-
ly studied. This is also true for the effects of winds. McPhearson
(1970) feels that the role of these factors is minor.
Prolonged heavy discharge from the Mobile basin such as that during
February-March 1961 with a maximum recorded discharge of 15,264v4 m 3/s
(539,000 cfs) on March 9, can result in a severe lowering of salinity
throughout the bay and Mississippi Sound. According to Peirce (1966),
floods of this magnitude have a recurrence interval of 200 years. Dis-
charge is excess of 8,496 m 3/s (300,000 cfs), however, can be expected
every 6 years with the flood conditions lasting from 4 to 31 days.
These conditions can affect the ecosystem, often with the harmful ef-
fects being offset by beneficial ones. In time, there is usually a
return to normality (May, 1971a).
The salinity of Mississippi Sound averages higher than that of
Mobile Bay, although it also shows comparable seasonal variation. The
mean discharge of streams into the Sound is only 200 cubic feet per
second. However, because of the circulation pattern, fresh water also
enters the Sound to the east from Mobile Bay. In recent years, the
salinity of Mississippi Sound has increased as evidenced by the in-
creased number of oyster drills and the shift of the Foraminifera
fauna to a more marine association. This can be attibuted to increased
obstruction of the passes between the Sound and the Mobile Bay result-
ing in a decreased inflow of fresh water. Another contributing factor
is the widening of Petit Bois Pass permitting more gulf water to enter
the Sound.
TRACE METALS
Metals with concentrations of less than 1 ppm (parts per million)
are generally termed.minor or trace elements. Trace metals that occur
in aquatic environments include cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead,
manganese, mercury, nickle, uranium, zinc, and others, These metals
may enter the estuarine system through natural processes such as
weathering of rocks and leaching of soils. Concentrations may be in-
creased by tlie pollution of land, air and water. Information on the
natural levels of metals in most waters, including estuaries, is sparse
and their significance are not well known.
May (1973a) conducted one study in which three single surface
water samples were collected in November, 1972 and analyzed. One
166
-------
sample was taken from upper Mobile Bay 21.9 km (12 nautical miles)
south of the Delta, another from lower Mobile Bay 40.7 km (22 Nautical
miles) south of the Delta, and a third 11.1 km (6 nautical miles) south
offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. Uis data is summarized in the follow-
ing table:
Location
Salini ty
(ppt.)
Mercury
(mg/kg)
Lead
(mg/kg)
Zinc
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
(mg/kg)
Chromium
(mg/kg)
Upper Bay
8.2
.002
.001
.007
.000
0.01
Lower Bay
18.4
.052
.001
.006
.000
0.01
Gulf
34.1
.001
.001
.001
.001
0.01
These data indicate that the concentrations of lead and chromium
are the same in the estuary and the open Gulf. Cadmium, which is pre-
sent in small amounts in the Gulf, is not present in Mobile Bay. Con-
centrations of zinc in Mobile Bay is six to seven times that of the
open Gulf, possibly due to pollution. Of special interest is the high
concentration of mercury in the sample taken from the middle bay.
On October 22, 1971, May (1973a) collected a series of water
samples in Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound. The sample sites located
in the south Mobile County study area are shown on the accompanying
map, and bottom water sample analysis in Table 34. Trace metal analyses
were run on unfiltered bottom water samples from stations 3 in the
middle bay, and 12, 13, and 15 in the lower bay. There is a consider-
able discrepancy in the data obtained between the two studies indicating
additional sampling is needed.
On October 22, 1971, May (1973a) collected sediment core samples
at stations 6, 7, and 9 along the middle western shore of Mobile
Bay, and at station 14 near the mouth of the bay (Figure 66). In
May, 1972, four additional sediment core samples were collected along
the middle western shore of Mobile Bay (Figure 67). These were
analyzed for several physiochemical parameters including metals. The
data is summarized in Tables 35 and 36. Relatively high concentrations
of zinc, lead and chromium were present, lesser amounts of copper, and
minimal amounts of mercury. Core samples were taken at various depths,
but there was no correlation between metallic concentrations and depth
of sample. Mercury, however, showed a slight decrease with depth.
NUTRIENTS
Bault (1972) in his study of the hydrology of Alabama's estuarine
167
-------
Table 34. BOTTOM WATER SAMPLES, OCTOBER, 1971
(After May, 1973a)
Station Number
3 7 12 13 14 15
Depth (metres)
2.4
3.6
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.
(feet)
8
12
10
12
10
14
Salinity (ppt)
13.8
14.3
15.1
19.0
20.4
22.
Temperature (°F)
74.5
74.3
74.3
72.5
73.5
74.
Temperature (°C)
23.6
23.5
23.5
22.5
23.1
23.
D.O. (ppm)
5.6
4.6
7.2
6.4
6.6
5.
pH
7.4
7.8
7.8
7.9 .
6.8
7.
Total Suspended
solids (mg/1)
91.8
10.5
15.9
15.6
60.3
65.
% volume solids
21.6
34.3
18.9
32.7
15.4
17.
Mercury (mg/kg)
1.0
2.0
2.0
4.
Lead (mg/kg)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.
Zinc (mg/kg)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.
Cadmium (mg/kg)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.
Chromium (mg/kg)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.
2
4
8
8
6
4
7
8
0
1
1
01
02
168
-------
©
EXPLANATION
Woter Sample
| | Bottom Cores
©
12
13
K i lometrcs
Figure 66. Location of sediment; cores and water
samples for background physical and chemical ana-
lyses taken in October, 1971 (after May, 1973a).
169
-------
©
1 0
0 2 J
1 h- 1
K r lomc tr e s
Figure 67. Station locations of bottom cores for physical
'and chemical analyses collected in May, 1972 (after May, 1973a)
170
-------
Table 35. PHYSIOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS OF SEDIMENT CORES
TAKEN FROM MOBILE BAY, OCTOBER, 1971
(After May, 1973a)
Station
Number
6
7
9
14
Sample depth (metres)
.83
.71
.76
.73
(inches)
33
28
30
¦ 29
Vol. solids (%)
.96
.97
5.97
6.97
COD (mg/kg)
4,680
7,920
48,200
40,100
Organic carbon (7»)
.2
.3
1.8
1.5
TKN (mg/kg)
320
420
1,250
1,450
Oxidizable nitrogen (%)
.03
.04
.12
.14
Phosphorus (mg/kg)
108
74
218
708
Chromium (mg/kg)
5
6
28
42
Mercury (mg/kg)
.04
0
.08
0
Zinc (mg/kg)
18
17
50
92
Lead (mg/kg)
12
14
16
34
Copper (mg/kg)
2.8
2.4
3.6
11.0
Grease
0
0
0
81
Pesticides
0
0
0
0
171
-------
Table 36. PHYSIOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS OF SEDIMENT CORES
TAKEN FROM MOBILE BAY, MAY, 1972
(After May, 1973a)
Station
Number
11
18
23
25
Sample depth (metres)
.66-.78
. 68-.7 6
.73-.78
.86-.89
(inches)
26- 31
27- 30
29- 31
34- 35
Volume solids (percent)
4.7
4.2
5.0
8.3
B.O.D. (mg/1)
270
265
230
260
C.O.D. (mg/kg)
45,690
45,060
58,310
36,510
T.K.N, (mg/kg)
440
600
770
850
Mercury (mg/kg)
0.051
0.136
0.56
0.08
Zinc (mg/kg)
47.0
50.4
93.4
47.5
Lead (mg/kg)
8.2
7.2
17.6
13.3
Oil and grease
0
0
0
0
Coliform bacteria
(#/g, dry wt)
289
1,173
496
469
DDE (mg/kg)
0
0.001
0.001
0
172
-------
areas, examined the coastal waters for micronutrients (Table 37). He
found that the highest fertility index (the sum of nitrate - nitrogen
nitrite - nitrogen and total phosphorous concentrations) was highest
in the Mobile Delta. This was probably due to the inflow of nutrients
from the Alabama - Tombigbee River systems and effluents from munici-
palities and industries located above the Battleship Parkway.
Mobile Bay has the second highest fertility index of the five
areas discussed by Bault (1972). The bay receives fresh water from
the Mobile Delta that is diluted by tidal exchange witli the less
fertile waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Domestic and industrial efflu-
ents from Mobile and other nearby areas contribute to its fertility.
The large difference between surface and bottom concentrations of
nitrate-nitrogen (27.3 ug/1) is probably due to the more fertile water
of the Gulf of Mexico.
The third highest fertility index reported by Bault (1972) is
found in Mississippi Sound. A difference of only 6 between bottom and
surface values indicates a fairly thorough mixing of the water. This
area is influenced by the waters of the Gulf of Mexico that are relative-
ly low in fertility. However, some nutrients enter the Sound from
Mobile Bay, Bayou La Batre, Bayou Coden, and Dauphin Island. Pascagoula
Bay in Mississippi may also be a significant source of nutrients.
Monthly micronutrient concentrations vary considerably in Alabama's
estuaries according to Bault (1972). The average monthly values for
nitrate-nitrogen, nitrite-nitrogen, and total phosphorous for Mississ-
ippi Sound and Mobile Bay are given in Figures 68 and 69.
POLLUTION
Pollution is one of the most serious threats to estuaries. It can
alter, or even destroy their uses for water sports, as sources of do-
mestic and industrial water, habitats for fish and wildlife, and their
aesthetic appeal. Several studies have shown the lower Mobile River
and its tributaries, and the northern part of Mobile Bay adjacent to
the metropolitan and industrial areas of Mobile to be severely polluted.
In Mississippi Sound, pollution exists to a lesser degree in Bayou
La Batre, Bayou Coden, and Dauphin Island Bay. In an cstuarine sys-
tem such as that of coastal Alabama, seven forms of pollution may be
considered as important. These are bacterial and viral: organic;
eutrophication, toxic chemical; oil; thermal; and physical modifica-
tion and sedimentation.
Bacterial and Viral Pollution
Pathogenic bacteria and viruses often enter estuaries through the
discharge of industrila and municipal wastes. The organisms, especial-
173
-------
Table 37. AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF MICRONUTRIENTS (ug/1) IN ALABAMA
ESTUARINE AREAS FROM APRIL, 1968-Harch, 1969
(After Bault, 197 2)
Area
Ni tra te_
Ni troKen
Nitrite-
Nitrogen
To ta 1
Phosphorus
Fertili ty
Index
(Averages of
all
samples)
I.
Mississippi Sound
46.8
0.8
63.2
110.3
II.
Mobile Bay
67.3
0.7
77.5
145.5
III.
Mobile Delta
83. 1
2.2
98.8
184. 1
IV.
Perdido Bay
39.0
0.3
57.9
97.3
V.
Little Lagoon^
35.0
0.9
57.3
93.2
(Avera^
*es of surface
and
bottom sa
mples)
I.
Surface
46.6
0.7
60.1
107 .4
Bo ttora
45.9
0.9
66.6
113.4
II.
Surface
79.8
0.5
63.2
143.5
Bottom
52.5
0.8
91.4
144.7
III.
Surface
103.3
3.3
89.9
196.5
Bottom
61.3
1.1
107 .5
169.9
IV.
Surface
38.7
0.2
61.6
100.5
Bo t torn
39.3
0.4
53.9
93.6
^"Only surface water was sampled in this area.
-------
Figure 68. Monthly average concentrations of nucronutrients in
Mississippi Sound, Alabama, January 1968~March 1969 (after Bault, 1972).
175
-------
Total phnnphnru?
- Mt t.rftty - r\l lr»'r*«n
U \ t rl to - nl ti o^-vn
t "T r r
S o N o J F M
Figure 69. Monthly average concentraLions oC micronutrients
in Mobile Bay, Alabama, January 1968-March .1969 (after Jiault, 1972)
176
-------
ly those from the intestines of warm-blooded animals, can persist for
a sufficient length of time to pose a threat to health. The two main
methods of human infection in the estuaries are through body contact
during recreation and through ingestion of water or contaminated food
harvested from the estuary (U. S. Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, 1969).
The pollution of Alabama's estuaries by pathogenic organisms can
be attributed primarily to municipal and industrial wastes. Crance
(1971) identified 23 sources of domestic pollution emptying into Ala-
bama estuaries and tributary streams in the coastal area. The efflu-
ent from 19 of these sources averaged 1.12 m /s (25.6 mgd) with un-
known amounts being contributed by watercraft, septic tanks, seafood
processing plants and other minor sources. The quality of these
effluents ranges from secondary treated to untreated. In south Mobile
County, Dauphin Island discharges secondary treated municipal wastes
into Aloe Bay located on the south shore of Mississippi Sound. In
1970, the average daily discharge was 567,750 1 (150,000 gal) per day,
with an average biological oxygen demand (BOD) of 20 parts per million
(Crance, 1971).
Crance (1971) also identifies 31 sources of industrial effluent
discharge into coastal waters. The average discharge from these sources
was reported to be 801.7 million gallons per day. In south Mobile
County, the main source of industrial pollution are fisheries processing
plants located on Dauphin Island, and at Bayou La Batre and Bayou
Coden. There is also pollution associated with dredges and other
commercial watercraft.
Gallagher and others (1969) reported that the most significant
contributor of pathogenic pollution in Mobile Bay is the Mobile metro-
politan area. Median total coliform bacteria densities measured in
the Mobile River at the mouth during flood runoff periods ranged from
11,000 to 150,000 most probable number per 100 milliliters (MPN/100 ml).
Between 77 and 97 percent of this total was attributed to effluent
discharge from metropolitan Mobile. Whereas, these figures show con-
siderable pathogenic pollution from Mobile, Gallagher and others
(1969) concluded that the concentrations of total and fecal coliform
in the Mobile River above Mobile during floods are such that even if
the bacteriological contribution from all sources at Mobile were re-
moved and all other conditions remained constant, it would be doubtful
whether the 70 MPN/100 ml total coliform criterion for shellfish harvest-
ing could be met anywhere in Mobile Bay except in the Bon Secour Bay
area.
One significant adverse effect of bacterial pollution involves
oyster harvesting. 298.1 km (73,795 a) of Alabama's estuaries are
permanently closed to shell fishing. These include 292.3 km ^72 ,370
aO of Mobile Bay north of the mouth of East Fowl River, 1.9 km (487
a.) in Bon Secour River, 3.2 km^ (794 in Dauphin Island Bay, .3 km ^
177
-------
(72 aj in Bayou La Batre and .3 km (72 a.) in Bayou Coden (Figure 70).
There exists a direct, though imprecise, relationship between
the flow of the Mobile River and coliform densities in Mobile Bay.
As the river discharge increases, the salinity in the bay is lowered.
This is accompanied by an increase in coliform density which extends
farther south in the bay. Therefore, during periods of high river
discharge, it is often necessary to close shellfish harvesting on the
major productive oyster reefs in the southern part of the bay. Be-
tween the years 1952 and 1970, oyster beds in the southern bay were
closed in 12 of the 18 years when coliform densities exceeded 70/100
ml. Gallagher and others (1969) reported that up to 1969, the annual
economic loss to the region resulting from the closure of oyster beds
ranged from $56,700 to $227,000. Crance (1970) indicated that the
closure of the oyster beds in 1969 resulted in an economic loss of
over $500,000.
Organic Pollution
Decomposable organic material is a major constituent of municipal
and many industrial wastes. Such material consists primarily of car-
bohydrates from plants and paper, proteins from animal matter, and
miscellaneous fats and oils. The organic material alone is not neces-
sarily detrimental, but it exerts a secondary effect by reducing dis-
solved oxygen in the water. The oxygen depletion results from bio-
chemical reactions involved in microbial utilization of organics for
food.
Crance (1971) reported the average biological oxygen demand (BOD)
of wastes discharged from various sources in coastal Alabama. The
lower Mobile River and its tributaries were shown to be heavily polluted
by organic material primarily from domestic sewage and paper mill waste.
Large fish kills in Eslava Creek were attributed to low dissolved ox-
ygen (DO) concentrations as a result of domestic waste discharge.
Bault (1972) recorded DO concentrations as low as 0.3 ppm. in the
Mobile River as a result of waste discharge. Other areas in coastal
Alabama, besides those adjacent to the metropolitan Mobile area, that
may suffer oxygen depletion due to domestic or industrial pollution
are Bayou La Batre, Bayou Coden, Rattlesnake Bayou, Deer River, Bon
Secour River, Dauphin Island Bay, the Intracoastal Canal, and the
northern part of Perdido Bay.
From 1969 to 1972, there were 75 instances of fish kills in the
Mobile River and its tributaries (Table 38). Forty-four of these
were associated with industrial and municipal waste discharges, and
only five were the result of natural causes.
178
-------
10 2 1.
1 H
Miles
0 10
1 _—( , , 1
K i lometre s
2-471 acres equal 1 hectare
Figure 70. Areas permanently closed to harvest of shellfish
in South Mobile County (from May, 1971).
179
-------
Table 38. FISH KILLS IN MOBILE RIVER AND MOBILE BAY
(Data from Alabama Water Improvement Commission, 1971, 1973)
Causes 1969 1970 1971 1972
Industrial wastes
5
4
5
8
Industrial and
municipal wastes
3
2
5
Municipal wastes
5
1
6
Natural
2
1
2
Unknown
1
7
4
9
Other
1
1
3
Totals
9
21
15
30
180
-------
Eutrophication
Aquatic life forms require trace amounts of certain nutrients,
primarily phosphates and nitrates, for growth and reproduction. An
oversupply of nutrients reaching the estuarine environment through
municipal or industrial wastes and agricultural or urban runoff will
result in eutrophication of the water. Eutrophication is generally
associated with drastic shifts in the composition of an aquatic
community in which the growth of one form of life is stimulated more
than that of others. Examples of eutrophic situations are excessive
floating plant growths such as water hyacinths and dense populations
of rooted aquatic plants, interfering with normal water use.
Bault (1972) found usually high nutrient values in the Mobile
delta area (see table under nutrients). Nutrients from the Alabama-
Tombigbee River system and waste discharge from domestic and industrial
sources in metropolitan Mobile contribute significantly to the high
fertility of the area. The northern part of Mobile Bay also exhibits
eutrophic conditions due to the inflow of nutrients from the delta.
The nutrient values in Mississippi Sound are lower than those of
the delta and Mobile Bay. The fertility index averages 110.3 micro-
grams per liter (ug/1). Bottom samples had a fertility index of 113.4
ug/1, while surface samples averaged 107.4 ug/1 indicating a fairly
thorough mixing of water in the sound. The fertility of Mississippi
Sound is probably influenced by the interchange of waters with the
Gulf of Mexico which has relatively low fertility. The eutrophic
materials which enter the Sound from Mobile Bay, Bayou La Batre, Bayou
Coden, Dauphin Island, and possibly Pascagoula Bay are diluted by this
tidal exchange (Bault, 1972).
Toxic Chemical Pollution
A wide variety of heavy metals, pesticides, radionuclides, and
other toxic substances may enter the estuarine system from many sources.
These materials may exhibit a short catastrophic impact due to an
accidental spill or they may show a more subtle long-term interference
with the growth and reproductive processes of plants and animals due
to the gradual release of very small or even undetectable amounts into
the water. Although concentrations of the materials in water may be
well below levels directly hazardous to humans, they may become con-
centrated Ln the tLssucs of aquatic organisms and in sediments at
dangerous levels.
The more common heavy metals of environmental concern include
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickle, silver,
and zinc. Little monitoring of heavy metal concentrations in Alabama's
coastal waters has been done. Crance (1971) reported that fish in the
181
-------
Mobile delta area contained levels of mercury as high as 2.5 ppm,
making them unsafe for human consumption. May (1973) recorded
concentrations of selected heavy metals in water and sediment samples
from Mobile Bay (see tables under trace metals). Relatively high
levels of toxic metals in some sediment samples indicate the need for
further investigation.
Pesticides are of particular concern in the estuarine environments.
Their use is normally associated with agriculture. They are washed
into the watersheds in runoff and eventually enter the estuaries.
These hydrocarbons can be assimilated by living things and accumulate
in the bodies of estuarine animals affecting their health and repro-
ductive capacities. These can be passed on to man and other animals
which feed on estuarine animals and accumulated in their bodies.
The presence of selected pesticides in Mobile Bay was studied by
Casper and others (1969). DDT, DDD, DDE, dieldrin, endrin, aldrin,
chlordane, BHC-lindane, and heptachlor-epoxide were detected in oyster,
water, and sediment samples. With the exception of DDT and its meta-
bolites, all pesticides were present at very low levels. The median
measure of total DDT, (DDT, DDD, and DDE) was 0.33 ppm in oyster samples
and 0.001 ppm in water samples. May (1971a, 1973a) also reported
concentrations of DDT, DDE, DDD, and dieldrain in oyster samples and
sediment cores from Mobile Bay.
Oil Pollution
In evaluating the sources of oil pollution, a distinction should ¦
be made between accidental and chronic pollution. Accidental pollution
is generally in the form of oil spills resulting from tanker and barge
accidents or leaks from offshore drilling operations. Chronic pollu-
tion is the result of a wide range of activities including handling
errors during shipment of petroleum products, leaks in pipelines,
illegal tanker bilge washings, offshore drilling and watercraft opera-
tion. While accidental oil spills may be catastrophic, unsightly,
costly, and result in a considerable public outcry, it must be recog-
nized that continuing low-level chronic oil pollution in a complex
estuarine system such as that of coastal Alabama may be of more criti-
cal concern. There have been no major oil spills reported in coastal
Alabama. There is, however, an unknown amount of chronic oil pollution
continuously being discharged from petroleum handling and watercraft
operation.
Thermal Pollution
Temperature is one of the most important factors governing an
estuarine system since the body temperature of most aquatic organisms
is regulated by the environment in which they live. An increase in
182
-------
temperature due to heated waste discharge can place serious stress on
an entire ecosystem. No data is available concerning heated waste
discharge in coastal Alabama. It is, however, a form of pollution that
must be considered.
Physical Modification and Sediment Pollution
The sedimentary aspects of pollution in Mobile Bay have been
examined by Tanner and others (1969). Four processes were identified
by which man modifies the natural sedimentation in Mobile Bay. These
are: (1) change in sediment influx into the estuary by water conser-
vation and agricultural processes; (2) Modification of the circulation
in the estuary by construction of landfill causeways, landfill resi-
dential sites, and creation of spoil banks adjacent to navigation chan-
nels; (3) resuspension of sediment by dredging.navigation channels and
oyster shell; and (4) introduction of solid wastes from municipal
and industrial plants.
Within historical times, the average depth of Mobile Bay has been
decreasing. This is probably due to the settling of the natural sedi-
ment load discharged into the bay from the Mobile River basin. The
rate of deposition was probably accelerated by the clearing of the
land and the development of agriculture. Channelization of inland
streams accelerates runoff and can increase the sediment-carrying ca-
pacity of the rivers. The discharge of industrial and municipal wastes
also contributes to the sediment load in Alabama's estuaries in the
form of solid wastes.
Ryan (1969) reported that the construction of the Mobile ship
channel resulted in modification of the natural circulation within
the bay causing above average rates of sediment accumulation in the
southwestern part of the bay. The effects of dredging in Mobile
Bay has been studied by May (1973a). He concluded that the resuspen-
sion of sediments by dredging activity does not have serious detrimen-
tal effects on the estuarine environment.
183
-------
LAND USE
A study of land use provides a socio-economic analysis for an
area, and also an understanding of the physical arrangement of the
land development pattern. This pattern reflects the relationships of
urban, suburban and rural growth, and the relative influence each
exerts on the other in the patterns of current and future land use.
In 1969, the Soil Conservation Service conducted a land use
study in Mobile County. This study indicated that there were 500.17
km (122,898 a.) non-agricultural and 2,709.43 sq km (670,652 aj agricul-
tural acres (Table 39). Forest acreage (10 percent or more forest
cover) accounted for 67 percent of the total area of Mobile County.
Of this amount, 307.73 sq km (76,170 a) (9.3 percent) were classified
as non-commercial forest which is not profitable for timber harvest.
(Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, 1971).
Table 39. LAND USE IN MOBILE COUNTY
Square
% of Total
Type of land use
Kilometres
Acres
Acreage
Urban and developed
405.29
100,320
12.1
Federal non-cropland
14.54
3,600
.4
Other non-agricultural
76.65
18,973
2.9
Total non-agricultural use
496.48
122,893
15.4
Cropland
276.73
68,499
8.6
Pastureland
151.70
37,549
4.7
Forest
2,262.08
559,923
70.6
Other, farmland
18.91
4,681
. 7
Total agricultural use
2,709.42
670,652
84.6
Total land use
3,205.92
793,545
100.0
184
-------
Land uses in the south Mobile County area are grouped into the
following broad categories for this report (Table 40 and Figure 71).
1. Land areas are those on dry land, above marshes and standing
bodies of water.
2. Wetlands are those that are occupied by marsh. These may be
fresh, salt or brackish water marsh, and are generally water-
logged.
3. Water indicates standing bodies of water in the form of inland
tributaries, some large creeks, bays, lagoons and large lakes
and reservoirs.
4. Residential includes all types of dwelling units: single-family,
two-family, group quarters, apartments and mobile homes.
5. Manufacturing indicates the manufacturers of both durable and
nondurable goods. Durable relates to the manufacturing of goods
which have considerable longevity while nondurable goods generally
relate to the production of consumer goods which are expended over
a relatively short period.
6. Roads include all public roads, both paved and unpaved.
7. Railroads include all railroad right-of-ways.
8. Resources production includes agriculture, forestry, petroleum
extraction, mining operations and similar activities.
9. Trade includes retail and wholesale.
10. Services include business, professional, personal, education,
religious and governmental services.
11. Recreation includes auditoriums, theaters, museums, libraries,
parks and playgrounds, areas or buildings of historic signifi-
cance, and the like.
12. Undeveloped land refers to land which is neither occupied by
structures nor used for resource production or any other purpose.
Development in south Mobile County started along the coast and
the eastern part of the area bordering Mississippi Sound developed
first. Subsequent growth along arteries of transportation from Mobile
to the Mississippi Coast cities of Pascagoula, Biloxi, and Gulfport
led to the establishment of other towns in between. Dauphin Island
started to develop in 1955 when the causeway and bridge were built
connecting the island to the mainland. South Mobile County has con-
tinued to grow to the present time, and includes the towns of Theodore,
Irvington, St. Elmo, Grand Bay, Fowl River, Bayou La Batre, Coden,
and Dauphin Island.
UNDISTURBED LAND
Currently much oC the land in the south Mobile County study area
is undisturbed and undeveloped, and is used, predominantly for wild-
life habitat and human recreation. Tidal marshes comprise 4,599.6 ha.
185
-------
Table 40. LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS BY STATISTICAL AREA IN SOUTH M3BILE COUNTY
(From: South Alabama Regional Planning Commission, 1968)
Statistical Area
A
B
C
D
Square kilometres
69. 1
73.3
217.7
191.4
T3 <5
C U
Square miles
37.1
28.3
136.9
7 3.9
«3 >-
~J <
Hectares
9 ,624.0
7,326.4
35 ,480.5
19,134.2
Acres
23.781.8
18,104.1
87.674.5
47.282.4
TJ
Square kilometres
13.2
5.7
32.6
53. 1
C JZ
flj ffl
Square miles
5.1
2.2
12.6
20. 5
—4 U
JJ «
Hectares
1,320.9
576.3
3,267.1
5,305.6
oi e
Acres
3.264.2
1,424.0
8.073.4
13.110.6
u
Square kilometres
.34
82.9
01
4J
Square miles
. 13
32.0
CO
3
Hectares
33.2
8,297. 1
Acres
8? 0
?n sm 0
Square kilometres
39.4
34.4
237.5
49. 5
Square miles
15.2
.13.3
91.7
19.1
Hectares
3,939.2
3,445.9
23.738.8
4,970.8
Acres
9.7 34.2
8,515.1
58,660 7
12,283.4
"L developed
36.0
43.4
61.3
15.2
Residential (ha.)
490.3
1,094.8
2,484.8
2,872 3
t)
Reslden tla 1 (a.)
2 ,993. 8
2,705.4
6,140.3
7,09 7.8
c
Q
Manufacturing (ha.)
12.3
. 7
. 5
6.8
Manufacturing (a.)
30.5
1.8
1.3
16.8
<1)
Roads (ha.)
258.7
327 . l.
560 4
340. 7
a
o
Roads (a.)
639.2
800.9
1,384.9
842.0
QJ
Railroads (ha.)
47.7
7.6
40.4
4.9
>
a
Railroads (a. )
118.0
18.9
99.8
12.2
a
Resources production
(ha.)
2,316.1
1,836.2
20,553.2
1,392.2
Resources production
(a.)
5,723.4
4,537 . 5
50,783.8
3,440.3
Trade (ha.)
29.4
33.5
7.6
13.1
Trade (a- )
72.7
82.8
18.7
32.5
Serv ice (ha . )
17.8
107.5
39.2
53.8
Service (a. )
43.9
265.6
96.9
132.9
Recreation (ha.)
37.1
25.9
28. 5
258.2
Recreation (a. )
91 .7
64 1
7 0 4
MS. 1
M
"V OJ
Square kilometres
69.9
44.8
155. 1
276.9
aj i_
a. aj
Square miles
17.0
17.3
59.9
106.9
o
Hectares
7 , 004 . 3
4,491. 1
15,008.3
27,766 1
a) 1.3
>
Acres
17,311.8
11,098.6
37,087.2
68,612 6
aj -o
-a =
c: n
"L developed
64.0
56.6
28.7
84 .8
186
-------
$
i
Y
A
c
Miles
10
i 1 1 h-
K i lometr es
Figure 71. Statistical areas as designated by the
South Alabama Regional Planning Commission.
187
-------
(11,366 a.) of the southern part of the area, and abundant wildlife
can be found on the islands, inlets and marshes. Much of the un-
developed land along the coast is prone to normal tidal inundation.
These tidal marshes are obviously difficult to develop because of
swampy conditions, unstable foundation, poor surface drainage, etc.
In addition, they are important nursery grounds for numerous animals
which support the seafood industry. Development in these areas would
eliminate or disturb this rich natural habitat, and could seriously
affect the seafood industry.
AGRICULTRUAL LAND
Mobile County extends some 90 km (50 mi) from north to south
excluding Dauphin Island and has considerable variation in the dom-
inant types of vegetation. The central and northern part of the
county is generally heavily forested with pine. Mobile County had
330,987 ha. (817,900 a,) in commercial forest in 1972 , and ranked
second in the state in total acreage of forest land exceeded only by
Baldwin County.
The southern part of Mobile County however is influenced by salt
air from the Gulf, and the forest growth is not as luxuriant as in
the north. It is characterized by pine savannas, with some isolated
hardwood hammocks. Only a limited amount of timber harvesting takes
place. The dominant agricultural uses of the area are pecan groves,
truck farms and pastureland. Some tung groves still exist along the
coast (Figure 72).
URBAN AND SUBURBAN USE
Most of the south Mobile County area is rural. According to the
1970 census, Bayou La Batre is the largest town in the area (popula-
tion of 2,664) and the only one that is incorporated. Other towns and
their estimated populations in 1974 include:
UNINCORPORATED
TOWN
ESTIMATED
1974
POPULATION
Alabama Port
Dixon Corner
Theodore
Grand Bay
Coden
Irving ton
St. Elmo
Heron Bay
Dauphin Island
950
600
500
400
350
350
250
200
125
188
-------
)0
—I 1
Mile
K i lomcUcs
L
Agncuhurol (including fonmmj and hruhec)
Figure 72. Land use in the South Mobile County area.
189
-------
In Mobile County most development has occurred in the city of
Mobile and has expanded outward in concentric circles (Figure 73).
South Mobile County is influenced by Mobile's growth and secondary
population centers are Theodore, Bayou La Batre and others. This
development consists of industries, freeways,and business, and resi-
dential development (Figure 74).
Aside from the large and small urban core centers, the displacement
of farm employment has led to a widespread pattern of "non-farm rural"
population clusters. These small clusters are loosely connected by
highways, small shopping centers and a school bus system.
Tourism is a prime example of a specialized type of development,
and is true of Dauphin Island. The island has a resident population
of 500 people. This number may triple in the summer and on weekends
when the seasonal residents move into summer cottages and homes.
INDUSTRY
Theodore Industrial Park is located on a 1,619 ha. (4,000 a,)
tract of land just east of Theodore and lies within the study area
(Figure 75). In 1974 the following industries were located within
the park:
Mobile Paint
Marion Corporation
Airco Alloys
Dequssa
Kerr-McGee
(From: Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, 1974)
The north-western corner of the Theodore Industrial Park is with-
in about two miles of Interstate 10. A mainline of the Louisville
and Nashville railroad borders the industrial park, and a spur line
runs the entire length of the park to the docks on Mobile Bay.
Brookley Air Field is located approximately 11,2 km (7 mi) northeast
of the industrial park. The Hollingers Island ship channel is 3.3 m
(11 ft) deep, and connects the 12.2 m (40 ft) deep Mobile Bay ship
channel to the Theodore Industrial Park (Crance, 1971). The U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers (1974) has proposed enlarging the Theodore
ship channel to accommodate ocean-going ships and would involve about
20.2 sq km (4.5 sq mi) of water bottom in Mobile Bay (Figure 75).
Five alternative actions are proposed (Figure 76), and the final
decision may involve one or a combination of these:
Alternative 1: No action (no construction carried out for
either of the bay channel alignments or the land cut channel).
Alternative 2: A diagonal bay channel alignment 12.2 m (40 ft)
deep and 121.9 m (400 ft) wide, branching from the main ship
190
-------
Mop defined f'om SYMAP
g o i«rd by
University Alabama s
UnivQC I HO Computer.
10 M» les
15 Ki lomotres
People Per 2-590 square kilometres
(one square mile)
1200-2000
800-1200
600 -800
400-600
200-400
§
~
150-200
100-150
50-100
\\
__ — 1 Li-'""
iJJJ
~
0-50
Figure /3. Population density in Mobile County, Alabama
(data from 1970 Census).
191
-------
10
-J
Mi i s
Kilometres
~
Residential and Conimerc 101
Y/'///\ Industrial pork
Figure 74. Land use in the South Mobile County area.
192
-------
Figure 75. Map of Theodore Project area
(from Gulf South Research Institute, 1974).
-------
a ALTERNATIVE 2:
Diagonal Bay Channel
,vith Land Cut
b. AL'I F.RNATIVE 3:
Diagonal Bay Channel
c. ALT ERNATIVE 4-
Pc»pendtculor Bay Channel
v, ith Land Cut
d. ALT Ef-INAl IVE 5.
Perpendicular Bay
Channc: 1
Figure 76. Project alternatives'*
(from Gulf South Research Institute, 1974).
'Altcrnotlvc 1 involves no action
194
-------
channel in Mobile Bay at a point about A.5 kin (2.8 mi) north of
Mobile Bay Light, and extending northwesterly about 8.5 km
(5.3 mi) to the shore of Mobile Ray, terminating in an anchorage
basin 12.2 m (40 ft) deep, 91.4 in (300 ft) wide, and 365.7 m
(1,200 ft) long located at the bay shoreline, thence via land
cut 12.2 m (40 ft) deep, 91.4 m (300 ft) wide, and about 3.0 km
(1.9 mi) long to, and including, a trapezoidal turning basin
12.2 m (40 ft) deep and approximately 17 ha. (42 aO in area
within the Theodore Industrial Park.
Alternative 3: The diagonal bay channel alignment as in
Alternative 2, but not including the land cut channel to the
Industrial Park.
Alternative 4: A perpendicular bay channel alignment, parallel
to and immediately south of the Hollingers Island Channel, 12.2
m (40 ft) deep and 121.9 m (400 ft) wide from the main Mobile
Bay ship channel to an anchorage basin 12.2 m (40 ft) deep, 91.4
m (300 ft) wide, and 365.8 m (1,200 ft) long at the bay shoreline,
thence via land cut as in Alternative 2 to the Theodore Indus-
trial Park turning basin.
Alternative 5: The perpendicular bay channel alignment as in
Alternative 4, but not including the land cut channel to the
industrial park.
The upgrading of the Theodore ship channel to accommodate ocean-
going vessels along with the construction of a turning basin would
provide the Theodore Industrial Park and the area surrounding it with
easy access to ocean transportation facilities.
In 1974 Quality Foods and Vanity Fair were listed as industries
in Bayou La Batre. The dominant industry in the area is shrimping
and fishing. Industries that support these two industries are boat-
building and repair, equipment sales and repair, and seafood processing
and sale.
RECREATION
Recreational facilities in Mobile County are good. Approximate-
ly 37 percent of the recreational land in the county is privately
owned, and the remaining 63 percent is owned by the school board,
state, city or county. There are no federally owned recreational
facilities in the county (Table 41).
195
-------
Table 41. SUMMARY OF EXISTING REGIONAL
RECREATION OPEN SPACE
IN MOBILE COUNTY
(From: South Alabama Regional Planning Commission, 1969)
Ownership Hectares Acres
% of Total
S tate
County
Schoolboard
City
Semi-Public
Private
Total
416.8 1,030.0
227.8 536.0
873.7 2,159.0
6.1
3.3
12.7
37.7
3.4
2,581.7 6,378.8
233.5 577.0
2,524.4 6,238.8
36.8
6,857.7 16,946.0
100.0
In their present relatively undeveloped state, some sites offer little
opportunity for recreation. However, if developed, they have the
potential for serving both urban and rural segments of the population.
Recreational facilities in the south Mobile County study area are
good (Figure 77 and Table 42). Proximity to the Gulf, access to
large expanses of wjter and a temperate climate combine to make this
part of Alabama widely used for outdoor recreation throughout most of
the year. The wide sandy beaches of Alabama's Gulf Coast are exten-
sively used for swimming and sunbathing. Resort-type tourist accom-
modations are also located along the beach, particularly on Dauphin
Island. Their season usually runs from May through Labor Day, and
during this time vast numbers of people visit the coast.
Probably the most famous of the recreation sites in the area is
Fort Gaines located on the eastern tip of Dauphin Island. Although
the site was used for fortification outposts during the War of 1812,
Fort Gaines was actually built in 1821. It is a five-sided structure,
with gun turrets located to protect the entrance to Mobile Bay. It
has been restored and visitors can inspect the open courtyard, living
quarters and fortifications. It is a popular historical landmark,
and is visited by many people each year. The fort is owned and oper-
ated by the Dauphin Island Park and Beach Board.
The Audubon Bird Sanctuary consists of about 46.5 ha. (115 aj,
and is located near the eastern end of Dauphin Island. It is owned
by the county and leased to the Mobile Bay Audubon Society. No hunt-
ing is allowed within the sanctuary, and a great variety of birds and
animals are found within the preserve. A fresh water lake in the
sanctuary provides a unique habitat on the island. Gaillard Lake
(formally known as Alligator Lake) is about 10 acres in extent and
10 feet deep. The lake has been deepened, but otherwise remains in
196
-------
0 2 4 Miles 0 2 4 K i lame Ires
1 1 i i i i
Figure 77. Recreational facilities in the South Mobile County area
(from Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, 1971;
Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, 1975; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
personal communication.)
197
-------
IVjIc
:or: s
cc. vir
Ci;i.f**« lri
. .i.Yvr ... .
..'.sc-'jruL-
bico
D <.1G il L«.l i.". «. I C
v£>
CO
r.^sz ?o\.l V.vcr
Ccc\-~r u.
ooL.' cns ¦: corner
uo-
las — - ec/ic rc.I
•jo.": of icur.L"7
0] ; Tisnr': c.
3 o 2 z - ± Z1 -¦ i;
2.";"i£y ' s Mr. ri ~a
Bccchccrbur
rr.a
Dcg River Mj.n.v
L:o: r^'.'I Ri'-cr
Ocj Ri /or
a.-.o:
Dr.up'iin island
y.z r lp.u
Dauonir. Il lane
1X7 iT.-0'I: 01" r 10!*. L r^.C i Li.TI~o
50"J1.. MO! ! CG'J.\T"/
r. 1S2 1
. r.!cc !o
3^/ ,1-r^j C:-'- L *-.:cr
.'.r.or:::n:.i ~o«. «..j
VJ 'iC> "
c c i r.._
hiiicori cal si:t
¦p r i v CL L"0
r is :ov,
l _l "_r. Jlo ^ : v
¦:hcc;
y; .louc!'./^
:™_: poll.,.:: on
\ iiic :
ly
:::!..;c
r;::v:.;c 3r.or-; .. r „ ,
lir.e boa z ir..-
p r 1 "a z c shore y. c •- r c !•:: : r. ~
-------
VD
-------
-------
an undisturbed state. This lake was an important source of fresh
water on the island and was used by its early inhabitants. In later
years sailing vessels used fresh water from this lake for filling
their water kegs.
Vacation-type homes have been built along much of Alabama's
shoreline including the eastern part of Dauphin Island, and to a
lesser extent the eastern shore of south Mobile County on Mobile Bay,
and the southern shore of Mobile County on Mississippi Sound. These
are used on weekends and during summers for recreational purposes.
EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS
Four colleges and universities are located in Mobile County.
These are:
1. Mobile College which was established in 1961, and is spon-
sored by the Alabama Baptist State Convention. It is a co-
educational four year college of liberal arts and sciences.
2. Spring Hill College is a coeducational, private four-year
liberal arts college which was founded by the Catholic church
in 1830. It is the oldest institution of higher learning in the
state.
3. The University of South Alabama was created by an act of the
Alabama State Legislature in 1963. It is a coeducational insti-
tution designed to meet the needs of the Gulf Coast Region high
school graduates at a local setting. It also has recently de-
veloped medical college.
4. The S. D. Bishop State Junior College is located in Mobile.
In addition to the senior and junior colleges, Mobile County has
a variety of lower level educational institutions as follows:
INSTITUTION NUMBER
Technical and Trade Schools 3
High Schools - public 15
High School - private - Church 1
Junior High Schools - public 22
Elementary Schools - public 52
Elementary Schools - private - Church 15
Within the study area in South Mobile County are the following
schools:
201
-------
(From: Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, 1974)
School
High
Theodore
Alba
Mobile County
Junior High
S t. Elmo
Elementary
Public
Dixon School
Burroughs School
Grand Bay
Nan Gray Davis
llollinger's Island
Dauphin Island
Private - Church
St. Margarets
Location
Theodore
Bayou La Batre
Grand Bay
St. Elmo
Irvington
Theodore Union
Grand Bay
Theodore
llammack Rd.
Dauphin Island
Bayou La Batre
Rd.
1970 Enrollment
1,985
1,645
855
485
395
807
809
409
23
The Environmental Marine Sciences consortium - or Dauphin Island
Sea Lab-is located on the eastern end of Dauphin Island. This facility
offers a wide variety of opportunities for research and class work in
all phases of marine science. It is sponsored by 18 participating
institutions of higher learning and can draw on a wealth of multi-
disciplinary expertise in the field of marine study. The purposes of
the consortium are:
(From: Dauphin Island Sea Lab Bulletin 1975-76)
1. To provide educational programs in marine and related sciences
on both graduate and undergraduate college level, and for high
school students.
2. To promote and encourage pure and applied research in marine
sciences and related areas.
3. To promote and encourage communication and dialogue among
those interested in marine sciences and related areas through
meetings and seminars.
The University of Alabama maintains a research lab on Point aux
Pines that includes accommodations and facilities for carrying out
on-site research. Boat docks and support facilities are also maintained
by the same institution at Bayou La Bntre. A cooperative agreement
with the University permits the consortium to utilize these for their
research.
The Alabama Marine Resources Laboratory of the Alabama Department
of Conservation Seafoods Division is located on Dauphin Island. This
202
-------
laboratory is devoted to conducting research and management activities
dealing with fisheries, marine biology, oceanography and related sub-
jects in Alabama, the Gulf of Mexico and contiguous waters.
The Gulf Coast Hygiene Laboratory (formerly known as the Gulf
Coast Shellfish Sanitation Research Center) is located near the east-
ern end of Dauphin Island. It is a branch of the U. S, Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Consumer
Protection and Environmental Health Service that is concerned with
monitoring pollution levels in the waters and organisms (particularly
oysters) that inhabit Mobile Bay.
203
-------
PLANT LIFE
The existence of all life on this earth is dependent upon the
basic process of photosynthesis which is carried on by chlorophyll-
bearing plants. With the energy absorbed from sunlight, these plants
are able to combine water and carbon-dioxide to form glucose. The
breakdown of glucose releases the stored solar energy, which in turn
is utilized in the construction of more complex organic compounds char-
acteristic of life. This primary productivity, directly or indirectly,
is the base for all ecosystems. The energy flow from this source sup-
ports the life of a region, both plants and animals.
A great variety of ecosystems exist in south Mobile County, all
supported by the energy storage and conversion of green plants. In all
aquatic environments, fresh, brackish or salt, phytoplankton is found
in the upper strata of water. Their importance as primary producers
increases with distance from land and depth of water. On the high seas,
they are the only source of primary productivity.
Submerged plants, those which are aquatic and attached to the bot-
tom, are also found in all aquatic environments. These are found only
to the depth of the penetration of sunlight through the water so that
its energy can be utilized in photosynthesis. The species involved and
the depths at which they occur are influenced by the Ability of sunlight
and its wavelength components to penetrate the water. Obviously, in-
creased turbidity would decrease this depth. In marine and estuarine
environments, algae are the most important group of submerged plants if
a hard substrate is available for attachment. Only a limited number of
the higher spermatophytous plants can tolerate saline waters. However,
they can root in loose substrates, and replace the algae in capturing
energy in this ecosystem. In freshwater environments, the higher plants
are more important than the benthic algae.
Emergent plants are those having roots in the water with foliage
projecting above its surface. These occur in marshes and the margins of
lakes, streams and rivers. In coastal environments, these are the tidal
marshes composed of emergent plants able to tolerate changes in salinity
and tides. Only a few rugged species of plants can survive under these
204
-------
variable conditions. However, these marshes provide the habitat for
the young of most seafood animals. Humm (1973c) estimated that as much
as 95 percent of the commercial fisheries in Virginia is nurtured by
these marshes. A great variety of emergent plants are found in fresh-
water habitats and are very important contributors to the primary pro-
ductivity.
In south Mobile County, the terrestrial flora is divisable into two
areas. Dauphin Island, because of its origin, isolation from the main-
land, and dynamic processes including accretion, erosion and dune forma-
tion is unique. Floristically, it is considered separately. The main-
land flora is interesting because it contains a variety of habitats
including savannahs, hammocks, and freshwater swamps which extend inland
from its perimeter of the estuarine tidal marshes.
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PHYTOPLANKTON
Unicellular algae comprise the most important component of phyto-
plankton. Their role in primary productivity is significant in estuaries
and become increasingly important further from land. There is a defi-
ciency of planktonic data, both plant and animal, for offshore Alabama.
Research is needed in this area in order to understand the complex
ecosystems. Although some studies have been initiated, additional quan-
titative data are needed.
Steidinger (1972) has listed the following species of dinoflagel-
lates from the Gulf of Mexico off Alabama's coast:
Belpharocvsta splendor~maris
Ceratium furca
Ceratium trichoceros
Ceratium massiliense
Ceratoconvs horrida
Dinophysis caudata
Diplopelta asvmmetrica
Heteraulacus polvedricus
Peridinium brochii
Phrocvstis pseudonoctiluca
Pvrophacus horoloeium
Saunders and Fryxell (1962) list the following diatoms as occurring
in the Gulf off the coast of Alabama:
Asteronella iaponica
Biddulphia chinensis
Cerataulina pelaeica
205
-------
Chaetoceros coarcticum
Chaetoceros compressum
Hemidiscus cuneiformis
Rhizolenia alata
Rhizolenia stalterfothii
Sargassum weed (Sargassum) is a component of the phytoplankton
which often washes into Alabama waters in large quantities. It provides
a haven for a great variety of animals, along with food for various
herbivores.
MARINE AND ESTUARINE ALGAE
Benthic algae serve several functions in marine and estuarine en-
vironments. Through photosynthesis, they carry on basic productivity
thereby providing a source of food for a variety of herbivorous animals.
They provide a refuge for smaller animals, including juveniles of many
seafood species. They also provide a substrate for the attachment of
other algae and small sessile invertebrate animals.
Benthic marine algae are rare in the northern Gulf of Mexico because
of the scarcity of suitable substrates. The only natural substrates are
oyster reefs and submerged plants on which the algae are epiphytic. They
also are found on objects such as pilings, buoys, artificial reefs, etc.
Their contribution to the ecosystem as primary producers, consequently,
is limited (Humm, 1973b).
Morrill (1959) conducted a survey of the multicellular marine algae
found in the southern portion of Perdido Bay including Bay St. John,
Terry's Cove, Cotton Bayou, Bay La Launch, and Old River. She also
collected along the open Gulf from Florida and Alabama Points west to
the vicinity of Little Lagoon in Baldwin County. Additional collections
were made from the rock jetties at Fort Morgan and Fort Gaines. In her
text, she records 51 species representing 40 genera, including 19 spe-
cies of blue-green algae, 5 of brown and 19 species of red algae. Some
species were free-floating, others were epiphytic, and many species were
found attached to buoys, piling, rock jetties, oyster shells and other
suitable substrates (Table 43).
Morrill's studies (1959) in Alabama waters indicated that marine
algae were most abundant in variety and numbers in late winter and early
spring. The following genera were particularly numerous at this time:
Dasva. Ectocarous. Polvsiphonia. Gracilaria, and Enteromornha. Although
members of the genera Ectocaruos. Enteromorpha. Cladophora. and Ilhizo-
clonium are found throughout the year, they showed most growth in March
and April. In late spring, free-floating red algae of the genera Chamuia
206
-------
Table 43. LIST OF ALGAE FROM COASTAL ALABAMA
(Compiled from Morrill, 1959)
CYANOPItYTA
A iiUMitfiftrun
Citlnthrtt f.•!•>/» ivIc-Ik
Enlu^h) itnft« rnnfi»ita
E 1.1 tn
Cleocupfr In »'¦o-hit**
Conipfi o ; n r*i'Oniiin
Hydroc<'l"iir> t\ofiby
l.yngtjvn nratunttl
L enn/cMon/ffl
L furer
f. ¦» f»r?ur/Br»«
flfrrrjco/eL « jrficmmu*
r/orfu/min fi";vo|»it/»
On cilfainf.,c m f r<>-vlridr i
O «i»6'r/i ftirni •*
P/i"rm i t/njr.r ¦*i. fmi rm htnnnc er.tyott> til c'iOh""n
(!c '«<.a fiibuloidrs
KHOOOI'IIVrA
A ( '»1 >¦ I ruin ri A firm
fji"> trrrSin I •• n <« 11 i»
t'< -Hi'nlum
C!I »">r 1" J'<'f VI; l«
Cfl'IIMfr "I ' T / • I rr u r' ""'n
/),< si /• re'l"" < ""f»
Cclr,/..,-. ffir.
C^'MII'/rrrhi HI
Crnet fur r <» /<«f
C> r'' /i r'l iisi «;•
¦<•,!• i.
It} I' r»HMC
.f
/ '.j U •• i ri
207
-------
and Spvridia may be found washed along the beaches.
The planktonic Sargassum natans and Sargassum fluitans are fre-
quently washed into Alabama waters in May and June following prolonged
south winds and storms, but their occurrence may persist throughout the
summer. These species form the base for an interesting ecosystem. Abng
its components are the epiphytic red algae of the genera Junia and Cera-
mium, the Sargassum fish and several invertebrates.
In late summer and early autumn, Goniotrichium, Erythrotrichia.
and Achrochaeium occur most abundantly. The genera Hypnea. Gelidium,
Chondria, Dictyota, and Sohacelaria appear most in August. The blue-
green algae were present throughout the year.
Moskovits (1955) records the following species of red algae from
Alabama and nearby waters which were not listed by Morrill: Agard-
hiella tenera, Gracilaria armigera, and Gracilaria blodgettii.
Detailed studies of these algae are needed for Mobile Bay and Missi-
ssippi Sound, along with the artificial fishing reefs established in the
Gulf. Then their contribution to the primary productivity along with
their role in the total ecosystem of coastal Alabama must be determined.
SUBMERGED MARINE AND ESTUARINE PLANTS
Although benthic algae which are discussed above are submerged
plants, there are a few spermatophytes which also grow in saline waters.
Unlike algae, which normally require a solid or hard substrate for at-
tachment such as oyster shells or other plants, these are able to grow
in areas where the substrate consists of partially consolidated sands or
sandy clays.
Off the coast, in the Gulf of Mexico to depths of 75 feet are beds
of seagrasses. These are monocots belonging to the family Hydrocharita-
ceae, capable of living in normal seawater. They seem to be most abun-
dant at depths of 20 to 30 feet. The two most abundant species are
Turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) and Manatee grass (Cvmodocea mana-
torum). The extent of these beds in offshore Alabama waters is not
known. Offshore samples in Mississippi (Eleuterius, 1973a) were negative
and it is possible that they are not found off Alabama's coast. A limi-
ting factor may be turbidity.
In the estuaries, Shoal grass (Diplantliera wrightii) i& the most
abundant submerged plant. Crance (1971) found it present in scattered
patches in the northern portion of Portersville Bay in Mississippi
Sound. Eleuterius (1973a) found Shoal grass in a continuous belt on the
208
-------
north side of Petit Bois Island. The substrate was a firm sandy bottom
covered sparsely with shell fragments. Associated with it were epiphy-
tic red and brown algae.
Two other species of submerged plants are found in waters of low
salinity. Widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima). a freshwater species, is
usually located near the mainland shore in low salinity waters. Tape
grass (Vallisneria americana) is found in the brackish and fresh waters
of the mouths of the creeks and rivers. Their extent in Alabama waters
needs to be determined.
Beds of these submerged plants provide a refuge for immature ani-
mals, and a place for attachment of epiphytic plants and animals which
may be important in the food chain. In addition, they are primary pro-
ducers in the marine and estuarine environment.
TIDAL MARSHES
The tidal marshes of coastal Alabama are associated with the estu-
aries. They are most extensive in the Mobile delta and the northern
shore of Mississippi Sound. Using images taken by the Earth Resources
Technology Satellite (ERTS) on December 28, 197 2, the locations of the
marshes were delineated (Figure 78) and measured as follows (Chermock,
1974):
Of the total acreage in Alabama, about 37 percent is found in Missi-
ssippi Sound, primarily along the northern shore. Small areas are also
found at the mouths of the rivers and streams along the southwestern
shore of Mobile Bay. Therefore, over 40 percent of Alabama's tidal
marshes are found in south Mobile County.
The primary productivity of the tidal marshes is very high and they
constitute important nursery grounds for the young of most commercial
species of seafood. Chermock (1974) based on 1971 data, conservatively
estimated the value of these marshes in the production of seafood to be
about $680 per acre annually.
Areas of Tidal Marsh
Mississippi Sound
Mobile Bay
Mobile Delta
Perdido Bay
Little Lagoon
Total
11,366 a. 4,600 ha.
2,867 a. 1,160 ha.
15,155 a. 6,133 ha.
700 a. 283 ha.
119 a. 81 ha.
30,207 a. 12,257 ha.
209
-------
N5
!—1
O
^ !
Figure 78. Distribution of Alabama salt marshes,
(after Chermock3 1974)
-------
Eleuterius (1973b), based on his studies of coastal marshes in
Mississippi, divides the tidal marshes into three groups: saline
marshes, brackish marshes, and intermediate marshes. These are also
identifiable in south Mobile County.
Saline Marshes
Saline marshes constitute the majority of the tidal marshes.. Exten-
sive areas are located along the northern shores of Mississippi Sound
from Heron Bay, west to Grand Bay. Smaller areas are found along the
north shore of Dauphin Island and the mouths of East Fowl River, Deer
River and Dog River.
Two species of plants dominate the saline marshes. Stands of Jun-
cus roemerianus (Black rush) normally comprise the majority of the marsh,
growing in what seems to be almost pure stands. However, intermixed
with these may be Spartina cvnosuroides. Spartina patens (Salt marsh
grass), and Scirpus olneyi (Bulrush). A few plants of Limonium caroli-
nianum (Sea lavendar) and Aster tenuifolius are also found in this zone.
As the salinity of the marsh decreases, the plants of Juncus roemerianus
are usually taller. Seaward, in the most saline waters, Spartina alter-
niflora (Smooth cordgrass) grows in pure stands and forms a distinct
peripheral zone. With increased salinity, the plants are taller, more
robust and dense. The line of demarcation between the zone of Spartina
alterniflora and Juncus roemerianus is usually distinct because of the
difference in the heights of the plants.
Further zonation may occur inland from that of Juncus roemerianus
(Figure 7 9). A zone of Scirpus olneyi may be present usually occurring
in areas where there is drainage of fresh water from upland areas (Eleu-
terius, 1973b). Beyond this, on slightly higher ground is often a pure
zone of Spartina patens. This species forms dense turfs which may pre-
vent the growth of other species.
These saline marshes are bordered by a sharp rise in terrain in-
habited by shrubs and other plants. Among these are the following:
Baccharis halimifolia (Groundsel tree)
Borrichia frutescens (Sea ox-eye)
Eryngium integrifolium
Iva frutescens (Marsh elder)
Mvrica ceriEera (Wax myrtle)
Solidago sempervirens (Goldenrod)
Beyond the shrubs are trees, mostly oaks and pines.
211
-------
Figure
79. Plant zonation in saline marsh.
-------
Brackish Marshes
Brackish marshes are usually found inland along the margins of ri-
vers, streams and bayous where there is a decreased salinity of the
water as compared to that of the estuaries (Figure 80). The primary
difference between the flora of the brackish and saline marshes is the
reduction in the abundance of Spartina alterniflora and a reduction in
the density of Juncus roemerianus. Dispersed and intermixed throughout
the Juncus roemerianus zone are a variety of species of brackish and
freshwater species (Eleuterius, 1973b). Among these are the following:
Asclepias lanceolata (Milkweed)
Boltonia asteroides (Doll's daisy)
Borrichia frutescens (Sea ox-eye)
Dichromena colorata (Star rush)
Fimbrystvlus sp. (Sedge)
Ipomoea purpurea (Common morning-glory)
Ipomoea sagittata (Arrowleaf morning-glory)
Limonium caroliniana (Sea lavender)
Ludwigia sphaerocarpa
Lvthrium lineare (Purple loosestrife)
Phragmites communis (Cane)
Polygonium setaceum (Knotweed)
Sagittaria falcata (Arrowhead)
Scirpus olnevi (Bulrush)
Spartina cynosuroides (Cordgrass)
Spartina patens (Cordgrass)
Bordering the Juncus roemerianus zone is a zone composed of Spar-
tina patens¦ However, small isolated patches of Scirpus olnevi may be
present on higher ground where freshwater runoff occurs. The marsh is
bordered peripherally by shrubs and then trees as are the saline marshes
(Figure 79).
Intermediate Marshes
Intermediate marshes occur inland to the brackish marshes along
water courses and represent the limit of tidal influence (Figure 80).
Depending on varying factors, at times the water may be fresh, at other
times brackish. The following species associated with more saline mar-
shes are absent: Spartina patens, Snartina alterniflora. Scirpus olnevi
and Scirpus robustus. Intermediate marshes mark the upper limit of Jun-
cus roemerianus. Numerous freshwater species are intermixed with Juncus
roemerianus such as Cladium iamaicense (Sawgrass), Sagittaria lancifolia
(Arrowhead), Eleocharis cellulosa (Spike-rush), Scirpus americana (Sword
213
-------
214
-------
grass) , Pontederia cordata (Pickerel weed), Crinum americanum (Swamp
lily), and Iris virginica (Flag). In higher areas of the marsh, pure
stands of Phragmites communis may be present; in deeper waters Scirpus
validus (Great bulrush) may occur. The extent of these intermittant
marshes is small and their limits are usually poorly defined.
Freshwater Marshes
Freshwater marshes are found beyond the influence of normal tidal
movements, although they may be temporarily brackish as a result of ab-
normal tides resulting from wind-produced surges. Their extent is
usually small, and they occur in discontinuous patches along water cour-
ses. They differ from freshwater swamps in that they consist primarily
of herbaceous plants and lack an overhead canopy of trees or shrubs.
The flora is diversified. Among the various species are the following:
Boltonia asteroides (Doll's daisy)
Cladium iamaicensis (Sawgrass)
Crinum americanum (Swamp lily)
Eleocharis cellulosa (Spike-rush)
Eleocharis obtusa (Spike-rush)
Eleocharis quadrangulata (Spike-rush)
Hibiscus aculeatus (Swamp mallow)
Hibiscus palustris (Wild cotton)
Hymenocallis coronaria (Spider lily)
Iris virginica (Flag)
Juncus megacephalus (Rush)
Ludwigia sphaerocarpa (False Loosestrife)
Orontium aquaticum (Golden Club)
Osmunda regalis (Royal fern)
Pluchea purpurascens (Marsh fleabane)
Polygonum setaceum (Knotweed)
Pontederia cordata (Pickerel weed)
Prosperpinaca pectinata (Mermaid weed)
Ptilimnium capillaceum (Mock bishop's weed)
Hhynchospora macrostachya (Horned rush)
Sagittaria falcata (Bull tongue)
Sagittaria lancifolia (Arrowhead)
Saururus cernuus (Lizard's tail)
Scirpus americana (Bulrush)
Scirpus validus (Bulrush)
Sium suave (Water parsley)
Typha angustifolia (Cattail)
Zizania aquatica (Indian rice)
215
-------
Freshwater Swamps
Freshwater swamps are found along the alluvial flood plains of the
larger water courses. These areas are subject to inundation during high
waters. A network of sloughs may extend through the swamp, and there
may be low areas forming ponds which are more or less permanently filled
with water. The water table is usually near the surface which tends to
influence the type of plant which can thrive in this wet environment.
These swamps are essentially bottomland forests with a dense canopy,
often with little or no understory. The variety of herbaceous plants
are limited. Bottomland swamps are rich in wildlife, including many
game and fur-bearing animals, because of the availability of water,
abundant food, and protective cover.
The following plants are usually found in these freshwater swamps:
Acer rubrum (Swamp maple)
Arundinaria gigantea (Giant cane)
Cliftonia monophylla (Titi)
Coreopsis nudata (Pink coreopsis)
Dendropogon usneoides (Spanish moss)
Fraxinus tomentosa (Water ash)
Iris virginica (Flag)
Liquidamber stvraciflua (Sweet gum)
Ludwigia peploides (Water primrose)
Magnolia glauca (White bay)
Magnolia virginiana (Sweet bay)
Nvssa aquatica (Tupelo)
Nvssa biflora (Black gum)
Orontium aquaticum (Golden club)
Peltandra sagit taefolia (White arum)
Persea pubescens (Red bay)
Quercus nigra (Water oak)
Saururus cernuus (Lizard's tail)
Smilax sp. (Greenbrier)
Taxodium distichum (Bald cypress)
Tvpha angustifolia (Cattail)
FLORA OF DAUPHIN ISLAND
A floristic overview of the eastern portion of Dauphin Island shows
a variety of plant associations (Figure 81). These vary from the beach-
dune complex to the south, through pine forests interspersed with small
freshwater swamps, to tidal marshes along the north shore with an oc-
cassional shell mound.
216
-------
Fresh water swamp
4'/^\ Seacn and cone complex k\N Mixed pmc-hardwood forest
Pine forest ~ Salt water marsh
j- . j Disturb*
Figure 81. Plant associations of eastern
Dauphin Island (after Deramus, 1970).
-------
The beach-dune association (Figure 82) extends along the south
shore of Dauphin Island and has been described by Deramus (1970). The
beaches are, of white sand and have a gentle slope. The plants are sub-
jected to winds, salt spray, strong light and heat, and occassional
wave action. These are most intense near the waters edge so that very
few species of plants grow in the lower beach sands. Among these are
Ipomoea stolonifera (Beach morning-glory), Hydrocotvle bonariensis
(Pennywort) and Heterotheca subaxillaris (Camphor plant). Species which
are less tolerant of salt spray grow on the upper beach such as Sesu-
vium portulacastrum (Sea purslane), Heliotropum curvassavicum (Seaside
heliotrope) and Oenothera humifusa (Seaside evening primrose). Other
dicotyledonous plants found along the beaches are Cakile edentula (Sea
rocket), Croton punctatus (Beach tea), and Paronychia erecta (Nailwort).
Also present are grasses of the genus Panicum. and Uniola paniculata
(Sea oats).
The beach is bordered by an area of dunes. Normally, there is a
low narrow dune, paralleled by an inland high dune. Between these is a
low, flat interdune area of varying width. The low dunes are usually
covered with Uniola paniculata (Sea oats) , Iva frutescens (Marsh elder)
and Iva imbricata. the roots of which help bind the soil. The inter-
dunal area is characterized by a sparse cover of grasses. Among these
are Andropogon maritimus (Beach broomgrass), Cynodon dactvlon (Bermuda
grass) , Spartina patens (Cordgrass) and the following species of Panicum:
angustifolium. lancearium. portoricense. and aciculare.
On the older, high dunes grow shrubs such as Solidago pauciflos-
culosa (Goldenrod) and Ceratiola ericoides (Rosemary). Between these
are found herbaceous plants such as Cnidoscolus stimulosus (Spurge net-
tle), Opuntia compressa (Prickly pear), Helianthemum arenicola (Sun rose)
and Polygonella gracilis. On the northern slopes of the dunes which are
more protected from the winds are found Quercus myrtifolia (Scrub oak),
Ouercus virginiana var. maritima (Scrub live oak), Sassafras albidum
(Sassafras), Magnolia grandiflora (Magnolia) and Asimina parviflora
(Dwarf pawpaw).
Deramus (1970) noted that the greater the distance of the dune from
the shoreline increases species variety on the large dunes. This is
probably an indication of a decrease in the severity of habitats. The
high dunes at the eastern end of the island are relatively stable and
the vegetation is fairly dense. The high dunes near the western end of
the forested area are nearer the shore, have a sparse plant cover, and
are shifting inland encroaching on the forest.
North of the dunes, the eastern end of the island is characterized
by a forest of Slash pine (Pinus elliottii) with small areas of fresh
water swamps (Figure 83). Prior to, and for a few years following the
construction of the Dauphin Island bridge, there was very little under-
218
-------
7-/V
Figure 82. South beach-dune complex of Dauphin Island.
-------
— /V
Figure 83. Cross section of eastern end of
Dauphin Island showing floral associations.
-------
story beneath the canopy of pines and it was possible to see for con-
siderable distances through the forest. This was because of occasional
fires sweeping over this part of the island which inhibited the growth
of many plants, along with the grazing of cattle. Plants such as Pal-
metto (Serenoa repens). young pines, and grasses were fire-resistant.
These two factors have been eliminated resulting in the growth of hard-
wood trees such as Sweet gum (Liquidamber stvraciflua) and vines such
as Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonicum). A dense understory is developing
throughout much of the pine forest which could eventually lead to the
development of a hardwood forest.
Throughout much of the pine forest, the understory of woody plants
include the following: Quercus virginiana (Live oak), Serenoa repens
(Palmetto), Conradina canescens and various species of Vaccinium (Huckle-
berries) . Common herbs include Eupatorium rotundifolium (False hoar-
hound) , Solidago microcephala (Goldenrod), Vernala angustifolia (Queen-
of-the-meadow), Helianthus radula (Sunflower), and several species of
Polygala (Candyweed) and Rhexia (Meadow beauty).
Interspersed through the pine forest, mainly on the southern side
of the island, are small fresh water swamps. These consist of shallow
pools of water which may dry up during periods of drought. Many of
these have been drained in recent years. The dominant species of tree
is Nyssa svlvatica var. biflora (Water gum). Around the edges of the
water are Cephalanthus occidentalis (Buttonbush), Sapium sebiferum (Milk
tree), Carex glaucescens (Sedge), Saururus cernuus (Lizard's tail),
Utricularia inflata (Bladderwort) , Osmunda cinnamornea (Cinnamon fern),
Osmunda regalis var. spectabilis (Royal fern), Woodwardia areolata (Small
chain fern), Woodwardia virginica (Large chain fern), and several species
of Panicum.
Also found in the pine forests are small live oak (Quercus virgini-
ana) hammocks usually of an acre or less. The trees are usually covered
with the epiphytic Resurrection fern (Polvpodium polvpodoides). Occa-
sional specimens of Magnolia grandiflora (Southern magnolia), Magnolia
virginiana (Sweet bay), Persea borbonia (Red bay), and various species
of Ilex, (Holly) may occur in these habitats. This same association may
also be found around the periphera of the fresh water swamps.
On the north side of the island near the water are several Indian-
built mounds of oyster shells. Associated with these are plants which
are calciphiles. -Among these are Juniperus silicicola (Southern red
cedar), Celtis laevigata (Hackberry), Zanthoxvlem clava-herculis (Her-
cules ' club), Cissus incisa (Possum grape) and t'oerhaavia erecta (Spider-
ling) . On or near the more mesic mounds are Diospyros virginiana (Per-
simmon) , Aesculis pavia (Red buckeye), Sabal minor (Dwarf palmetto),
Quercus virginiana (Live oak), Alternanthera philoxeroides (Chaff flower),
Nemophilia microcalvx. Ipomoea trichocarpa (Morning glory), Melothria
221
-------
pendula (Creeping cucumber), Vitis aestivalis (Summer grape), Passi-
flora incarnata (Passion flower) and Passiflora lutea (Yellow passion
flower), (Deramus, 1970).
At one time, there were fairly extensive tidal marshes along the
north shore of the eastern end of Dauphin Island. Their extent has
been significantly decreased by man's activities such as dredging and
filling. Extending into the water is a zone dominated by Spartina
alterniflora (Smooth cordgass). Inland from this a narrow zone of Di~
stichlis spicata (Salt grass) may be present. The majority of the area
of these marshes consist of taller stands of Juncus roemerianus (Black
rush) which are often extensive. Inland from the Black rush zone may be
associations of Spartina patens and cvnosuroides (Cordgrasses), Scirpus
olnevi (Bulrush) and occasional plants of fcimonium carolinianum (Sea
lavender) and Aster tenuifolius.
The western end of Dauphin Island is long, narrow, and unforested
(Figure 84). Along the south shore is a beach and low dune plant asso-
ciation which is an extension of that of the eastern part of the island.
Associated with the north-facing beach on the western marshy end of
the island is a very narrow, low dune or back-beach zone. It is narrow
and located quite close to the shoreline. This is populated by grasses
including Spartina patens (Cordgrass), Distichlis spicata (Salt grass),
Panicum repens (Panic grass) and Andropogon maritimus (Broomgrass).
Between the north and south beach-dune complexes are marshes in-
habited by Juncus roemerianus (Black rush), Spartina alterniflora (Smooth
cordgrass), and several species of Fimbristvlis (Sedge) and Scirpus (Bul-
rush) . On more elevated sandflats occur Salicornia bigelovii (Glasswort),
Suaeda linearis (Seablite), Scirpus americanus (Bulrush), Cyperus lecon-
tei. Sabatia stellaris (Marsh pink), Cvnanchum palustre and Borrichia
frutescens (Sea ox-eye). On slightly higher ground may be shrubby thic-
kets of Iva frutescens (Marsh elder), Baccharis halimifolia (Groundsel
tree) and Baccharis aneustifolia (False willow).
The flora of the beaches and dunes is highly sensitive to man's
disturbances. The plants struggle to survive under adverse environmental
conditions, so that even a slight alteration of the fragile habitat may
lead to their extirpation. Their presence is important because their
roots bind the sand, and reduce wind erosion. In addition, wind blown
sand drifts against the plants adding to the height of the dunes and the
island. Excessive use of these areas by the public, and particularly
with dune-buggies, can permanently reverse this process and jeopardize
the existence of the western end of the island.
222
-------
Figure 84.
Dauphin Island
Cross section of western
showing floral associations.
-------
FLORA OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY MAINLAND
The majority of south Mobile County has a low topography. It is
bordered to the south by the tidal marshes, and to the east by a slowly
eroding coastline. The land is relatively flat, intersected by streams
which eventually flow into the estuaries. Extending inland along these
waterways are the tidal and freshwater marshes. Floristically, the ma-
jority of the land consists of open pine savannah, with small areas of
hammock, shell mounds, bogs and ponds. Much of the land has been altered
by man's activities such as urban growth and agriculture.
This pine savannah is a continuation of that of northern Florida
and extends westward into Mississippi. The dominant tree is Pinus
palustris (Longleaf pine) which often grows in pure stands over exten-
sive areas. However, they rarely form a dense upper canopy so that sun-
light reaches the ground. The understory consists of patches of low
growing trees and shrubs along with extensive open areas of herbaceous
plants. It is a subclimax forest. Relatively few trees which would
normally comprise the climax forest for the region reach maturity and
their distribution is very restricted.
Harper (1913, 1928) believes these open pine savannahs were present
in prehistoric times and attributes their existence to the frequent oc-
currence of fire. These fires occurred naturally by spontaneous com-
bustion or by lightning during dry periods of the year, or could have
been ignited by the Indians. The Long-leaf pine is very resistant to
fire in comparison to most thin barked trees. In addition, these pines
germinate best on bare soil where pine straw and leaf mold is burnt off.
With the absence of fires, humus can accumulate eliminating pine repro-
duction, and hardwood trees of various kinds eventually replace the pine
forests.
The soils of the savannahs tend to be moist during the winter and
spring and many of the herbaceous plants Hoom in the early part of the
year. As the summer progresses into fall, the soil becomes much drier
and the spring flora is replaced by flowering plants more characteris-
tic of xeric conditions. A list of the more common plants of the pine
savannah are listed in Table 44.
There are areas in south Mobile County where the land is somewhat
elevated. Several erf these are found near the coast, and others are
scattered through the pine savannahs. These arc generally referred to
as hammocks. The flora of these areas consist primarily of hardwood
trees which form a dense canopy. For various reasors, they seem to
have avoided the effects of fire and the flora probably is more charac-
teristic of the climax forest of the region. The dominant plants are
the following:
224
-------
Table 44. PLANTS OF THE PINE SAVANNAH
Andropogon sp. (Broomstraw)
Asclepias laaceolata (Milkweed)
Chaptalia tomentosa (Sunbonnet)
Drosera intermedia (Sundew)
Eriocaulon decangulare (Hatpin)
Eriogonum tomentosum (Wild buckwheat)
Eupatorium rotundifolium (False hoarhound)
Ilex glabra (Inkberry)
Kuhnistera pinnata (Summer farewell)
Liatris tenuifolia (Blazing star)
Lilium catesbaei (Pine lily)
Lippia nodiflora (Cape-weed)
Modiola caroliniana (Cheeses)
Myrica cerifera (Southern bayberry)
Pinguicula lutea (Yellow butterwort)
Pinguicula pumila (Small butterwort)
Pinus elliottii (Slash pine)
Pinus palustris (Long-leaf pine)
Polygala lutea (Yellow milkwort)
Pteridium aquilinum (Bracken fern)
Quercus chapmanni (Chapman oak)
Quercus myrtifolia (Myrtle oak)
Quercus virginiana (Live oak)
Rhexia alifanus (Meadow beauty)
Rhexia lutea (Yellow meadow beauty)
Sabatia campanulata (Bog marsh pink)
Sarracenia flava (Yellow pitcher plant)
Sarracenia leucophylla (Crimson pitcher plant)
Serenoa repens (Saw palmetto)
Trilisa odoratissima (Vanilla plant)
225
-------
Bumelia lanuginosa (False buckthorn)
Bumelia lvciodes (Southern buckthorn)
Callicarpa americana (French mulberry)
Carva glabra (Pignut hickory)
Cornus florida (Flowering dogwood)
Ilex opaca (Holly)
Ilex vomitoria (Yaupon)
Liquidamber stvraciflua (Sweet gum)
Magnolia grandiflora (Magnolia)
Myrica cerifera (Wax myrtle)
Osmanthus americanus (Devilwood)
Quercus laurifolia (Laurel-leaved oak)
Quercus virginiana (Live oak)
Serenoa repens (Saw palmetto)
Vaccinium sp. (Blueberries)
Viburnum rufidulum (Southern black-haw)
Along the northern shores of Mississippi Sound, Bayou La Batre,
Bayou Coden and West Fowl River are numerous Indian shell middens. Some
of these are quite large such as the Andrew's Place Shell Midden in Co-
den which measured 1,000 by 400 feet and was 10 to 12 feet high (Wimber-
ly, 1960). Others are much smaller. These consist of piles of oyster
shells which were built up by Precolumbian Indians ranging in age from
the Early Woodland to Lake Mississippian cultures. Many of those near
urban areas have been destroyed. The shells having been used for road
construction and other purposes. However, in more inaccessable areas,
many remain relatively undisturbed. In addition to their archaeological
importance, they are interesting because they have their own distinctive
flora characterized by numerous species which are calciphiles. For a
list of these, refer to the flora of the shell mounds on Dauphin Island.
Scattered throughout the pine savannah are shallow depressions in
the terrain. During the rainy season, these are usually filled with
water. In dry periods, the water may evaporate away, although the soil
may still be damp. These are generally referred to as bogs and are us-
ually characterized by the presence of the following plants:
Amianthum muscaetoxicum (Fly-poison)
Cleistes divaricata (Roseorchid)
Coreopsis gladiata (Tickweed)
Dichromena colorata (Star rush)
Drosera filiformis (Dew threads)
Drosera intermedia (Sundew)
Eriocaulon decangulare (Hatpin)
Habenaria ciliaris (Yellow-fringed orchid)
Lilium catesbaei (Pine lily)
Lycopodium alopecuroides (Foxtail clubmoss)
Lvcopodium prostraturn (Prostrate clubmoss)
226
-------
Osmunda cinnamomea (Cinnamon fern)
Polygala lutea (Yellow milkwort)
Sabatia campanulata (Bog marsh pink)
Sarracenia flava (Yellow pitcher plant)
Sarracenia leucophvlla (Crimson pitcher plant)
Sarracenia psittacina (Parrot pitcher plant)
Sarracenia purpurea (Pitcher plant)
Spiranthes cernua (Ladies tresses)
Some of the depressions in the savannah are deeper, usually con-
taining water throughout the year to form shallow ponds. In the center
of these, there is usually a small stand of Taxodium ascendens (Pond
cypress) often festooned with Dendropogon usneoides (Spanish moss).
Other trees frequently present are Crataegus aestivalis (Mayhaw), Ilex
mvrtifolia (Yaupon), Nvssa biflora (Black gum), Pinus elliottii (Slash-
pine) , and Cliftonia monophvlla (Titi). Around the periphera, where
the soil is still- damp and resistant to ground fire, other hardwood
trees such as oaks, magnolias and hickories may be found. These trees
usually form a dense overhead canopy so that herbaceous plants are usual-
ly sparse.
The hammocks, shell mounds, bogs and ponds are restricted habitats
with distinctive floras and faunas. They are very sensitive, subject
to destrubtion by man's activities. Because of previous development)
their numbers in the area have already decreased.
227
-------
ANIMAL LIFE
Alabama has a great diversity of animal specie? within its bound-
aries. This includes the majority of terrestrial and freshwater species
characteristic of the temperate regions of eastern United States, along
with the subtropical species occurring in the lower coastal plain. In
addition, there is a great variety of salt and brackish water animals
found in the states' coastal waters which add to this diversity. A
large number of these animals are found in southern Mobile County and
its associated waters. Included among these are 263 species of fishes,
40 amphibians, 68 reptiles, 311 birds and 47 mammals.
Of special interest to the biologist is the fauna of Dauphin Island.
There are more species of birds found there than in any other place in
Alabama. However, the development of the island with the accompanying
destruction of many of the tidal marshes and mud flats, and the continual
disturbance of many nesting birds by mans1 activities is steadily re-
ducing the habitats of many shore birds so that their numbers are de-
clining.
The remaining terrestrial vertebrate fauna is limited, the salt
water separating the island from the island from the mainland apparently
constituting an effective barrier to immigration. Only eight species of
mammals have been recorded from Dauphin Island (Linzey, 1970). These
include:
Opossum
Howell mole
Seminole bat
Eastern cottontail rabbit
Marsh rice rat
Black rat
House mouse
Raccoon
Since the Seminole bat can fly, its presence on the island would not be
unexpected and further collecting will probably result in other species
228
-------
of bats being found there. The Black rat and House mouse probably were
introduced from boats as they have in so many parts of the world. There-
fore, only five native species of mammals have been able to reach the
island and survive.
Only 13 species of amphibians have been recorded from Dauphin Is-
land (Jackson and Jackson, 1970). These include the following:
Mole salamander
Eastern tiger salamander
Two-toed amphiuma
Central newt
Eastern narrow-mouthed toad
Eastern spadefoot
Oak toad
Southern toad
Green treefrog
Northern spring peeper
Squirrel treefrog
Pig frog
Southern leopard frog
If the sea turtles are not included along with the Diamondback
terrapin and Salt marsh water snake which inhabit tidal marshes, and
the Alligator, and the Red-bellied turtle which often enter brackish
water, the terrestrial reptilian fauna of Dauphin Island is small (Jack-
son and Jackson, 1970). These include:
Mud turtle
Eastern chicken turtle
Gulf coast box turtle
Carolina anole
Southern fence lizard
Eastern glass lizard
Six-lined racerunner
Southeastern five-lined skink
Ground skink.
Scarlet snake
Southern black racer
Mud snake
Kings nake
Southern hognose snake
Yellow-lipped snake
Southeastern crowned snake
Ribbon snake
Western cottonmouth
Pigmy rattlesnake
229
-------
The terrestrial vertebrate fauna of Dauphin Island is interesting
because it differs from that of the mainland from which it is derived.
Even though many habitats exist on the island which are suitable for
mainland species, they do not exist there. Their absence probably is
related to the effectiveness of salt water as a barrier to immigration
for these species.
The populations of four species of vertebrates found on the island
differ from the mainland populations of Mobile County. Brown (1956) ob-
served that the island population of the oak toad had proportionately
longer heads and a greater interparatoid distance than the mainland popu-
lation. Jackson and Jackson (1970) assigned the Mud snake from Dauphin
Island to the subspecies abacura while the mainland population belongs
to the subspecies reinwardti. Although the mainland population of the
Kingsnake has the distinct banding of Lainpropeltis g. getulus. the island
population is more similar to the Black kingsnake (ssp. niger). There
are also differences between the mainland and island populations of the
Glass lizard. These differences may be the result of isolation and di-
vergence, or possibly the result of genetic drift because of the small
populations on the island.
It should also be mentioned that there is an endemic subspecies of
land snail found on Dauphin Island, Mesodon inflectus mobilensis¦ The
typical subspecies, Mesodon i. inflectus is found on the mainland (Rawls,
1953).
A number of faunal changes have taken place with increased develop-
ment of the island since the construction of the bridge. In many cases,
habitats have been altered or reduced in size, directly affecting those
species adopted to these areas. Human disturbance, accompanied by in-
creased numbers of dogs and cats have significantly reduced the numbers
of such animals as the rabbit and pigmy rattlesnake which at one time
were abundant on the island.
More intensive studies of the island should be conducted as soon as
possible before the environment becomes so altered that the original
faunistic components no longer exist.
INVERTEBRATES
For many years, the marine and estuarine invertebrate fauna of
Alabama was poorly known except for those species which were of economic
importance. The Gulf Coast Research Laboratory at Ocean Springs, Missis-
sippi, conducted some studies in Alabama waters beginning in the 1950's.
With the development of the Alabama Marine Resources Laboratory of the
Alabama Marine Resources Laboratory of the Alabama Department of Conser-
230
-------
vation, the Marine Sciences Institute of the University of Alabama, and
the Dauphin Island Sea Lab of the Marine Environmental Sciences Consor-
tium, active programs of study of the state's marine and estuarine biota
were developed. These have added considerably to our knowledge of the
area.
The accompanying list of estuarine and marine invertebrates (Table
45) has been compiled from the following publications: Anderson (1968);
Brunson (1951); Chermock (1974); Collard and D'Asaco (1973); Jones (1974a);
Lamb (1972); Mcllwain (1968); May (1973); Parker (1954); Parker (1960);
Philips and Burke (1970); Phleger (1954) ; Swingle (1971) ; Swingle and
Bland (1974a, 1974b); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1973); and Vittor
(1974).
There is a dearth of knowledge on the invertebrate fauna of off-
shore Alabama, although active programs of study are under way to correct
this deficiency. Vittor (1974) prepared a preliminary report on the
macrobenthic fauna from 15 stations in the southern end of Mobile Bay.
Included was quantitative data on 56 species of benthic animals repre-*
senting 8 phyla and a comprehensive list of polychaete annelids. His
ongoing research should add to our knowledge of the macrobenthos.
Further studies are also needed on the zoo-plankton of the area because
of its importance in the complex food web.
Protozoa
The first detailed studies of the Protozoa of Alabama's coastal
waters involved members of the order Foraminiferida.
Phleger (1954) surveyed the foraminiferans of Mississippi Sound in
Alabama and the open Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Dauphin Island. In
Mississippi Sound, the variety of species was very limited, with the
genus Ammobaculites comprising from 80 to over 90 percent of the samples.
However, at the exit of Petit Bois Pass, the fauna was diversified with
the assemblage of species resembling that of thfe open Gulf. Samples
taken off the coast out to the 60 foot contour contained a great variety
of species. Among the more abundant were: Ammobaculites sp., Cibicidina
s trattoni, Discorbis cf. columbiensis. Nonionella atlantaca. and Ammonia
becoari.
Anderson (1968) conducted a survey of Foraminiferida of coastal
Alabama based on samples collected at 40 different stations at depths
of 10 feet or less. A total of 15 stations were located in Missis-
sippi Sound, 7 of which were in a line extending south from Barry Point,
and 8 along the northern shore of Dauphin Island. Eight stations ex-
tended along the length of the south shore of Dauphin Island. Three
231
-------
Table 45. INVERTEBRATES OF THE ESTUARIES AND
OPEN GULF OF ALABAMA
A--Open Gulf
B--Estuaries and Bays
C--Grass Flats
D--Salt Marshes
E--Freshwater Marshes
Species
Phylum Protozoa
Class Phytomastigophorea
Order Chrysomonadida
AnthQphysis vegetans!
Monas guttula
Monas socialis
Ochromonas mutabilis
Oikomonas termo
Order Silicoflagellida
Dichtvocha fibula
Dichtvocha stapedia
Dichtvocha tripartita
Distephanus delicatum
Order Cryptomonadida
Chilomonas Paramecium
Order Dinoflagellida
Ceratium furca
Dinophvsis caudata
Glenodinium edax
Gvmnodinium nelsoni
Gvmnodinium spendens
Gvmrod^ njuni, aureolum
Gyrodinium dominans
Peridinium bervipes
Peridinium crassipes
Polykrikbs hartmanni
Polykrikos kofoidi
Prorocentrum micans
X
X
X
X
X
Prorocentrum triestinum
Order Ebriida
Hermesinum adriaticum
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X '
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
232
-------
Table 45 (continued). INVERTEBRATES OF THE
ESTUARIES AND OPEN GULF OF ALABAMA
Order Euglenida
Anisonema acinus X
Euglena vermiformis X
Marsupiogaster picta X
Feranema trichophorum X
Trophidoscyphus octocostatus X
Order Volvocida
Chlamvdomonas monadina X X
Gonium pectorale X X
Raciborskiella salina ' X X
Class Zoomastigophora
Order Choanoflagellida
Codosiga botrvtis X
Pterodendron petiolatum X
Salpingoeca polygonatum X
Order Rhizomastigida
Mascigamoeba longifilum X
Multicilia marina X
Order Kinetoplastida
Rhvnchomonas marina X X
Order Diplomonadida
Tetramitus sulcatus X
Class Rhizopoda
Order Amoebida
Flabellula citata X
Mavorella bicornifrons X X
Mavorella microeruca X X
Mavorella oclawaha X
Mavorella spumosa X
Naegleria gruberi X
Rugipes vivax X X
Valkampfia avara X X
Order Arcellinida
Arcella atava X
Arcella dentata X
Arcella discoides X
Arcella polypora X
Arcella vulgaris X
Centropyxus aculeata X X
Centropyxus ecornis X
233
-------
Table 45 (continued). INVERTEBRATES OF THE
ESTUARIES AND OPEN GULF OF ALABAMA
Species
Centropvxus platvstoma
Order Gromiida
Amphitrema lemanense
Cochilopodium bilimbosum
Cochilopodium granulatum
Cyphoderia ampulla
Lecvthium hvalinum
Nadinella mammillata
Parmulina cvathus
Parmulina obtecta
Pseudodifflugia fascicularis
Pseudodifflugia gracilis
Order Foraminiferida
Ammobaculites salsus
Cibicidina strattoni
Discorbis concinnus
Elphidium delicatulum
Elptudjym discoidalis
Elphidium gunteri
Elphidium mexicanum
Elphidium poevanum
Elphidium rugulosum
Gromia fluvialis
Gromia nigricans
Gromia ovoidea
Guttulina australis
Hanzawaia concentrica
Microgromia biportalis
Microgromia elegantula
Miliammina fusca
Miliolinella subrotunda
Nonionella atlantica
Nonionella opima
QuinqueJ-oculi-na jugosa
Quinqueloculina pocyana
Quinqueloculina rhodiensis
Quinqueloculina seminulum
Streblus beccari
Streblus tepidus
Triloculina sidebottomi
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
234
-------
Table 45 (continued). INVERTEBRATES OF THE
ESTUARIES AND OPEN GULF OF ALABAMA
Triloculina trigonula X
Trochaminoides proteus X
Class Actinopodea
Subclass Radiolaria
Acathometron pellucidum X
Subclass Heliozoa
Acanthocvstis aculeata X X
Acanthocvs bis myriospina X X
Actinophrvs pontica X X
Actinophrvs sol X
Actinophrvs vesiculata X
Cienkowskva arborescens X X
Ceinkowskva mereschkowskvi X
Oxnerella maritima X
Pompholvxophrvs punicea X
Raphidiophrvs coerulea X
Raphidiophrvs infestans- X
Class Ciliatea
Order Gymnostomatida
Chilodonella capvcina X
Chilodonella caudata X
Chilodonella helgolandica X
Chilodonella uncinata X X
Chlamvdodon mnemosvne X
Coleps hirtus X
Didinium nasutum X X
Dileptus marinus minimus X
Dvsteria marina X
Dvs teria navicula X
Enchelvs pterotracheae X
Hartmannula acrobates X
Hemiophrvs rotunda X
Ilolophrys vesiculosa X
Lachrymaria cohni X
Lachrvmaria coronata X X
Lagynophrva mucicola X
Litonotus carinatus X
Litonotus duplostriatus X X
Litonotus pictus X X
Loxophvllum meleagris X
235
-------
Table 45 (continued). INVERTEBRATES OF THE
ESTUARIES AND OPEN GULF OF AIABAMA
Species A B C D E
Loxophvllum setigerum X
Loxophvllum uninucleatum X X
Mesodinium acarus X
Mesodinium pulex X
Hvcterothrix taumotuensis X
Paranassula microstoma X
Placus salinus X X
Prorodon marinus X
Prorodon opalescens X
Stephanaopogon mobilensis X
Trachelius tracheloides X X
Trachelocerca subviridis X
Order Hymenostomatida
Cinetochilium marinum X
Cohnilembus verminus X X
Cvclidium curvatum X
Cvclidium glaucoma X
Frontonia marina X X
Frontonia microstoma X X
Glaucoma scintillans X
Lembadium lucens X
Paramecium woodruffi X
Pleuronema¦coronatum X
Pleuronema crassum X
Pleuronema setigerum X
Tetrahvmena vorax X
Urocentrum turbo X
Order Peritrichida
Cothurnia fecuuda X
Cothurnia innata X X
Cothurnia limnoriae X
Cothurnia maritima X X
Cothurnia oblonga X
Cothurnia poculum X
Epistvlis bimarginata urnula X
Epistvlis hentscheli X
Epistvlis niagarae X
Epistvlis rotans X
Lagenophrvs ascelli X
Qpercularia longigula X
236
-------
Table 45 (continued). ' INVERTEBRATES OF THE
ESTUARIES AND OPEN GULF OF ALABAMA
Qphistostvla thienemannl X
Platvcola gracilis X
Pyxicola socialis X
Thuricola valvata X X
Vaginicola ampulla X
Vaginicola crvstallina X
Vaginicola ingenita X
Vaginicola wangi X
Vorticella aequilata X X
Vorticella monilata X
Vorticella nebulifera X
Vorticella platvsoma X
Vorticella procumbens X
Vorticella punctata X X
Zoothamnium affine X
Zoothamnium alternans X
Zoothamnium commune X
Zoothamnium duplicatum X
Zoothamnium mucedo X X
Order Suctorida
Acineta corophi X
Acineta craterellus X X
Acineta foetida X X
Acineta tuberosa X X
Corvnophrva francottei X
Dendrosoma radians X
Discophrva buckei X
Ephelota crustaceorum X X
Ephelota gemmipara X X
Lernaeophrya capitata X
Paracineta estuarina X
Paracineta limbata X X
Paracineta lineata X
Paracineta meridionalis X
Paracineta patula X X
Platophrya rotunda X
Podophrya maupasi X
Order Heterotrichida
Condylostoma magnum X
Condvlostoma patens X
237
-------
Table 45 (continued). INVERTEBRATES OF THE
ESTUARIES AND OPEN GULF OF ALABAMA
Species A B C D E
Condvlostoma vorticella X
Donsia mirabilis X X
Metafolliculina andrewsi X X
Parafolliculina americana X X
Peritromus faurei X
Peritromus montanus X
Phacodinium metschnicoffi X
Protocrucia adhaerens X
Spirostomum intermedium X
Spirostomum teres X
Stentor auriculatus X X
Stentor introversus X X
Stentor mulleri X
Order Oligotrichida
Halteria grandinella X X
Lohmaniellia oviformis X
Strobilidium conicum X
Strobilidium gyrans X
Strobilidium minimum X
Strombidium capitatum X
Strombidium elongatum X
Strombidium filificum X
Strombidium strobilis X
Tontonia appendiculariformis X
Order Tintinnida
Codonaria fimbriata X
Codonellopsis obesa X
Helicostomella fusiformis X
Tintinnopsis beroidea X X
Tintinnopsis beroidea rotunda X X
Tiutinnopsis butschli minuta X X
Tintinnopsis butschli mortensi X X
Tintinnopsis gracilis X
Tintinnopsis kofoidi X X
Tintinnopsis nana X
Tintinnopsis subacuta X X
Tintinnopsis tocantinensis X X
Tintinnopsis tubulosoides X
Tintinnus rectus X
Order Hypertrichida
238
-------
Table 45 (continued). INVERTEBRATES OF THE
ESTUARIES AND OPEN GULF OF ALABAMA
Species A B C D E
Aspidisca aculeata X
Aspidisca baltica X
Chaetospira monilata X X
Chaetospira mulleri X X
Diophrvs appendiculata X
Diophrvs scutum X X
Euplotes harpa X
Euplotes nana X
Euplotes vannus X
Euplotes woodruffi X
Gastrostvla pulchra X
Holosticha arenicola X
Holosticha diademata X
Hypotrichidium conicum X
Keronopsis monilata X
Keronopsis rubra X
Keronopsis similis X
Onychodromus grandis X
Oxvtricha ferruginea X
Oxvtricha marina X
Stichotricha gracilis X
Stichotricha marina X
Stylonychia mvtilus X X
Trachelostyla pediculiformis X
Uronvchia heinrothi X
Uronvchia transfuga X
Urostvla grandis X
Phylum Porifera
Axinella polycapella X
Cliona celata (Boring sponge) X
Cliona vastifica (Boring sponge) X X
Geodia eibberosa X
Ircinia campana (Vase sponge) X
Irclnia fascicu]ata (Garlic sponge) XXX
Microciona prolifera XXX
Speciospongyia vesparia (Loggerhead sponge)X
Phylum Coelenterata
Aiptasia pallida (Anemone) X X
Astrangia solitaria (Stony coral) X X
Bunodosoma cavernata (Anemone) X
239
-------
Table 45 (continued). INVERTEBRATES OF THE
ESTUARIES AND OPEN GULF OF ALABAMA
Species
Cerianthiopsis americana X
Eudendrium carneum (Hydroid) X X
Hydractinia echinata (Hydroid) XXX
Leptogorgia setacea (Soft coral) X X
Leptogorgia virgulata (Soft coral) X X
Muricea laxa (Soft Coral) X
Pennaria tiarella (Hydroid) X X X X
Physalia pelagica (Portuguese Man-O-War) X X
Renilla mulleri (Sea Pansy) X
Scirpearia grandis (Soft coral) X
Siderastrea siderea (Stony coral) X X
Tamoya haplonema (Sea Wasp) X
Tubularia crocea (Hydroid) XXX
Phylum Ctenophora
Pleurobrachia sp. (Comb jelly) X X
Phylum Platyhelminthes
Stvlochus frontalis (Oyster worm) X
Phylum Rhynchocoela
Cerebratulus lacteus (Ribbon worm) X X
Micrura leidyi
Phylum Annelida
Class Polychaeta
Amphicteis gunneri
X
X
X
Amohitrite ornata
X
X
X
Ancistrosvllis ionesi
X
Arenicola caroledna
X
X
X
Arenicola cristata (Lug worm)
X
X
Axiothella mucosa (Bamboo worm)
X
X
Chaetopteris variopedatus
X
X
Cistenides goul,tfi
X
Cvmenella sp.
X
Diopatra cupraea
X
X
X
Eupanotus protulicola
X
Glycera americana
z
Glvcera dibranchiata
X
Ilaploscoloplos foliosus
X
Haploscoloplos fragilis
X
Hydroides hexagonus
X
X
X
Lepidonotus sublevis
X
Lumbrineris bassi
X
X
240
-------
Table 45 (continued). INVERTEBRATES OF THE
ESTUARIES AND OPEN GULF OF ALABAMA
Species
Lumbrineris impatiens
Lumbrineris parvapedata
Lumbrineris n. tenuis
Macroclvmene elongata
Magelona pettibonae
Maloade sarsi
Megalloma bioculatum
Melinna maculata
Neanthes succinea
Nephtvs bucera
Nereis pelagica
Notomastus latericeus
Onuphis eremita
Onuphis magna
Owenia fusiformis
Paramphinome pulchella
Podarke obscura
Polvdora socialis
Polvdora websteri
Prionospio pinnata
Pseudoeurvthoe paucibranchiata
Sigambra tentaculata
Sigambra wassi
Spiophanes bombvx
Sternaspis scutata
Sthenelais limicola
Phylum Mollusca
Class Cephalopoda
Loligo pealei (Squid)
Lolliguncula brevis (Squid)
Class Gastropoda
Acteon punctistriatus (Dove shell)
Anachis avara (Greedy dove shell)
Anachis obesa (Fat dove shell)
Bittium varium (Horn shell)
Bursatella leachi (Ragged sea hare)
Buscyon perversum (Pear whelk)
Buscvon spiratum (Pear whelk)
Caecum cooperi
Cae.cum nitidum (Little horn caecum)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
241
-------
Table 45 (continued) . INVERTSBRATES OF TllE
ESTUARIES AND OPEN GULF OF ALABAMA
Species
Caecum pulchellum
Cantharus cancellarius
Cantharus tinctus (Tinted cantharus
Cerithiopsis greeni
Cerithium variable (Horn shell) X X X X X
Crepidula convexa (Limpet)
Crepidula fornicata (Limpet)
Crepidula plana (Limpet)
Fasciolaria hunteria (Banded tulip)
Fasciolaria tulipa (Tulip shell)
Ficus communis (Fig shell)
Haminoea antillarum (Paper bubble)
Haminoea succinea (Bubble shell)
Littorina irrorata (Marsh periwinkle) X X
Littorina ziczac (Zebra periwinkle)
Martesia cuneiformis (Piddock)
Melampus bidentatus
Meloceras nitidum
Mitrella lunata (Lunate dove shell)
Murex fulvescens (Rock shell)
Nassarius acutus (Scavenger snail)
Nassarius vibex (Scavenger snail)
Natica pusilla (Moonshell)
Neritina reclivata (Olive nerite) XXX
Odostomia impressa (Pyramid shell)
Odostomia seminuda (Pyramid shell)
Oliva sayana (Olive shell)
Olivella mutica (Olive shell)
Olivella pusilla (Olive shell)
Phalium granulatum (Scotch bonnet)
Pleuroploca gigantea (Horse conch)
Polinices duplicatus (Moon shell)
Retusa canaliculata (Lathe shell)
Rissoina chesneli
Scapella keineri (Volute)
Seila adamsi
Sinum perspectivum (Baby's ear)
Strombus pugilis (Fighting conch)
Tegula fasciata
Terebra cinerea (Gray auger)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
242
-------
Table 45 (continued). INVERTEBRATES OF THE
ESTUARIES AND OPEN GULF OF ALABAMA
Species
Terebra concava (Auger) X
Terebra dislocata (Auger ) XX
Thais haemastoma (Oyster drill) XX X X
Tonna galea (Giant tun) X
Triphora nigrocinctum X X
Class Pelecypoda
Abra aequalis X X
Aequipecten irradians (Scallop) X
Amygdalum papyria (Paper mussec) X X
Anadara brasiliana X
Anadara ovalis X
Anadara simplex X X
Anadara transversa X
Anomia simplex (Jingle shell) X X
Argopecten gibbus (Sea scallop) X X
Atrina serrata (Pen shell) X
Brachvdontes exustus (Scorched mussel) XXX
Brachvdontes recurvus (Hooked mussel) X
Callocardia texasiana (Clam) X
Cardiomva gemma (Cuspidaria) X
Cardita floridana X
Chione cancellata (Cross-barred venus) X
Corbicula contracta X X
Corbicula manilensis (Asiatic clam) X X
Crassinella lunulata X
Crassostrea virginica (Eastern oyster) X X
Cvclinella tenuis XXX
Cvrtopleura costata X
Dinocardium robustum (Giant cockle) X
Diplodonta punctata XXX
Diplothvra. smvthi X
Donax variabilis (Coquina) X
Dosinia discus X
Ensis minor (Jack-knife clam) X
Laevicardium mortoni (Egg cockle) XXX
Lithophaga aristata (Data mussel) X X
Lithophaga bisulcata (Data mussel) X X
Lucina amiantus X
Lyonsia floridana X
Macoma constricta X X
243
-------
Table 45 (continued). INVERTEBRATES OF THE
ESTUARIES AND OPEN GULF OF ALABAMA
Species
Macoma mitchelli
X
X
Macoma tageliformig
X
X
Macoma tenta
X
Mactra fragilis (Surf clam)
X
X
X
Mercenaria campechiensis (Oua hoe")
X
X
Modiolus demissus (Ribbed mussel')
X .
X
Mulinia lateralis (Surf clam1)
X
X
Mulinia pontchartrainensis
X
Mva arenaria (Soft-shell clam)
X
MvtiloDsis ceucophaeta (False mussel")
Noetia ponderosa
X
Nuculana acuta (Nut clam)
X
X
Nuculana concentrica (Nut clam)
X
X
Ostrea equestris (Ovster)
X
X
X
X
Pandora trilineata
X
X
X
Periploma fragile (Fragile spoon clam)
X
X
Polymesoda caroliniana (Marsh clam)
X
X
Rangia cuneata (Marsh clam)
X
X
Semele nuculoides
X
X
Semele proficua
X
X
X
Spondvlus americanus (Thornv ovster)
X
Spissula solidissima (Surf clam)
X
Tagelus divigus
X
X
X
X
Tagelus plebeius (Stout tagelus)
X
Tellidora cristata
X
Tellina alternata
X
X
Tellina mera
X
Tellina texana
X
Tellina versicolor
X
Teredo navalis (Ship worm)
X
X
Trachvcardium muricatum
X
X
X
Phylum Arthropoda
Class Merostomata
Limulus polvphemus (Horse-shoe crab)
X
X
Class Crustacea
Order Copepoda
Acartia tonsa
X
Centropages furcatus
X
Centropages hamatus
X
Coryeacus sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
244
-------
Table 45 (continued). INVERTEBRATES OF THE
ESTUARIES AND OPEN GULF OF ALABAMA
Species
A
B
c
D
Eucalanus pileatus
X
Euterpina acutifrons
X
X
Labidocera aestiva
X
X
Oithona brevicornis
X
Paracalanus parvus
X
Sappharina nieromaculata
X
X
Temora loneicornis
X
Temora stylifera
X
Order Cladocera (Water fleas)
Moinodaphnia alabamensis
X
Order Mysidacea (Opossum shrimp)
Mvsidopsis sp.
X
X
X
X
Mvsis stenolepsis
X
X
X
Tauromvsis sp.
X
X
Order Amphipoda
Carnogammarus mucronatus
X
X
X
X
Gammarus dubius
X
Haustorius sp.
X
X
Orchestia arillus (Beach hopper)
X
X
X
X
Talorchestia loneicornis (Beach hopper")
X
X
X
X
Order Isopoda
Cleantis sp.
X
X
Cvathura polita
X
Lveida exotica
X
Lveida olfersi
X
Order Stomatopoda
Squilla empusa (Mantis shrimp)
X
X
X
X
Order Thoracica (Barnacles)
Balanus amphitrite
X
X
X
X
Balanus eburneus
X
X
X
X
Balanus improvisus
X
X
X
X
Chthamulus fragilis
X
X
X
X
Order Decapoda
Acetes americanus fSergistid shrimp")
X
Albunea sp. (Mole crab)
X
X
Alphaeus heterochaelis (Snapping shrimp")
X
Alphaeus normanni
X
Anasimus latus (Spider crab)
X
Arenaeus cribrarius (Beach crab)
X
X
245
-------
Table 45 (continued). INVERTEBRATES OF THE
ESTUARIES AND OPEN GULF OF ALABAMA
Species A B C D E
Calappa flammea (Flame crab)
X
Calappa sorineeri
X
Calappa sulcata
X
Callianassa major (Ghost shrimp")
X
X
Callinectes ornatus (Ornate crab")
X
X
X
X
X
Callinectes sapidu? (Blue crab)
X
X
X
X
X
Callinectes similis
X
X
X
X
X
Carpoporus populoqus (Mud crab)
X
Clibanarius vittatus (Striped hermit crab")
X
X
Collodes leptocheles (Spider crab)
X
Dromidia antillensis (Sponge crab)
X
Emerita talpoides (Mole crab)
X
X
Ethusa tenuipes
X
Eurvpanopeus depressus (Mud crab)
X
X
X
Eurvplax nitida
X
Eurvtium limosum (Mud crab)
X
Hepatus epheliticus (Calico crab)
X
Heterocrvpta granulata
X
Hexapanopeus angustifrons (Mud crab)
X
X
Latreutes parvulus (Caridian shrimp)
X
Lepidopa benedicti (Mole crab)
X
Libinia emarainata (Spider crab)
X
X
Libinia dubia (Spider crab)
X
X
Lobopilumnus aeassizi (Mud crab)
X
Lucifer faxoni (Serpistio shrimp)
X
Macrobrachium ohione (River shrimp)
X
X
Menippe mercenaria (Stone crab)
X
X
Metorhaphis calcarata (Spider crab)
X
X
Micropanope pusilia (Mud crab)
X
Mvropsis quinquespinosa
X
Neopanope packardi (Mud crab)
X
Neopanope texana (Mud crab)
X
X
X
X
Ocvpode albicans (Ghost crab)
X
X
Ovalipes Ruadulpensis (Beach crab)
X
X
X
Pachverapsus transversus (Grapsid crab)
X
X
Paaurus loneicarpus (Hermit crab)
X
X
Pagurus pollicaris (Hermit crab)
X
X
X
X
X
Palaemonetes kadiakensis (Grass shrimp)
X
Palaemonetes paludosus (Grass shrimp)
X
X
Palaemonetes pugio (Grass shrimp)
X
X
X
X
246
-------
Table 45 (continued). INVERTEBRATES OF THE
ESTUARIES AND OPEN GULF OF ALABAMA
Species
Palaemonetes vulgaris (Grass shrimp)
X
X
X
X
X
Panopeus herbsti (Mud crab")
X
X
X
Panopeus occidentalis (Mud crab1)
X
X
X
Panopeus tureidus (Mud crab)
X
X
X
Parthenope serrata
X
Penaeus aztecus (Brown shrimp)
X
X
X
X
X
Penaeus duorarum (Pink shrimp)
X
X
Penaeus setiferus (White shrimp")
X
X
X
X
X
Persephone crinita
X
Persephone punctata
X
Petrolisthes armatus (Porcelain crab)
X
X
Petrolisthes galathinus (Porcelain crab)
Pilumnus savi (Mud crab)
Pinnotheres maculatus (Mussel crab)
Podochela sidnevi (Spider crab)
Portunus gibbesi (Swimming crab)
Portunus ordnavi (Swimming crab)
Portunus savi (Swimming crab)
Portunus spinicarpus (Swimming crab)
Portunus spinimanus (Swimming crab)
Pvromia arachna (Spider crab)
Rithropanopeus harrisi (Mud crab
Sesarma cinereum (Fiddler crab)
Sesarma reticulatum (Fiddler crab)
Sesarma ricord-i (Fiddler crab)
Sicvonia'brevirostris (Rock shrimp)
Sicvonia dorsalis (Rock shrimp)
Stenocionops furcata
Stenocionops spinimana
Stenorvnchus seticornis (Arrow crab)
Trachvcarcinus spinulifera
Trachypenaeus constrictus (Hardback shrimp)
Trachypenaeus simills (Hardback shrimp)
Uca minax (Fiddler crab)
Uca mordax (Fiddler crab)
Uca pugnax (Fiddler crab)
Uca pugila tor (Fiddler crab)
Uca spinicarpa (Fiddler crab)
Xiphopenaeus kroveri (Seabob)
Class Insecta
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
247
-------
Table 45 (continued). INVERTEBRATES OF THE
ESTUARIES AND OPEN GULF OF ALABAMA
Species A B C D E
Pentaneura sp.
X
Phylum Phoronida
Phoronis architecta
X
X
Phylum Ectoprocta
Bupula- sp.
X
X
X
Membranipora sp.
X
X
X
Phylum Echinodermata
Amphiodia planispina (Brittle star1)
X
AmohiDolis uracilliina (Brittle star")
X
Arbacia punctulata (Sea urchin")
X
X
X
Astrooecten articulatus (Starfish")
X
X
X
Clvpeaster subdepressus (Cake urchin")
X
Encope michelini (Large sand dollar")
X
X
Lvtechinus varieeatus (Sea urchin")
X
X
X
Mellita quinquiesterforata (Small sand
dollar)
X
X
Moira atropos (Heart urchin")
X
X
X
ODhiothrix aneulata (Brittle star")
X
X
X
Plaeiobrissus srandis (Large heart urchin")
X
Phylum Chordata
Subphylum Urochordata
Molsula manhattensis (Sea squirt)
X
Stvella partita (Sea squirt")
X
Stvella plicata (Sea squirt)
X
Subphylum Cephalochordata
Branchiostoma caribaeum (Lancelet")
X
X
248
-------
stations were located in Heron Bay, and 10 stations were scattered along
the western shore of Mobile Bay off Cedar Point and the eastern shores
of Dauphin Island and Little Dauphin Island.
The greatest diversity of protozoan species was found in Mississippi
Sound and the open Gulf (Table 46). Elphidium gunteri and Ammonia bec-
cari can tolerate conditions of fluctuating salinity with Ammonia bec~
cari apparently able to withstand somewhat lower salinities. Ammo-
baculites salsus and Miliammina fusca characterize low salinity waters.
Hanzawaia concentrica is characteristic of more stable higher salinity
waters.
Anderson's study, when compared with that of Phleger, shows that
there was a significant change in the population of Foraminiferida in
the eastern end of Mississippi Sound. Lamb (1972) attributed this to
changes in salinity possibly associated with man-made modifications of
the environment. Where Phleger (1954) reported that Ammobaculites
comprised more than 90 percent of the population, Anderson (1968) found
that Elphidium gunteri comprised 46 percent of the population and Ammonia
beccari. 41 percent. The latter two species are associated with higher
salinity waters. Lamb (1972) felt that the construction of the bridge
system from Cedar Point to Dauphin Island reduced the flow of fresh water
from Mobile Bay into the Sound resulting in increased salinity. The
increase in the abundance of the oyster drill (Thais), which prefers
higher salinity water, in Portersville Bay and the accompanying decline
of oysters further substantiates this conclusion. Another contributing
factor to the increased salinity, which Lamb failed to consider is the
widening of Petit Bois Pass due to the erosion of the eastern end of
Petit Bois Island. As a result, more high-saline Gulf waters can enter
the Sound with incoming tides.
In a survey of the Foraminiferida of Mobile Bay using 33 sampling
stations (Figure 85), Lamb (1972) found a correlation between salinity
and species distribution (Figures 86 and 87 and Table 47). Elphidium
gunteri and Ammonia beccari were closely associated, occurred with other
calcareous species, and were most abundant in the lower bay where salini-
ties are highest. Two arenaceous species were restricted to the upper
end of the bay with Maliammina fusca being most abundant in salinities of
less than 10 parts per thousand, and Ammobaculites salsus being able to
tolerate slightly higher concentrations.
In 1974, Jones published the results of his comprehensive survey on
the Protozoa of Mobile Bay. Protozoa traps were suspended from 18 fixed
channel markers along the shore and down the center of the bay (Figure
88). Stations were checked once a month for 24 consecutive months.
Bottom samples were also made at each trap site. Sand samples were"col-
lected from 20 stations along the shore at regular intervals during the
two year period. In addition, numerous plankton tows were made from
249
-------
Table 46. RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF FORAMINIFERIDA
IN ALABAMA WATERS
(Compiled from Anderson, 1968 by Chermock, 1974)
1--Mississippi Sound (percent) 3--lleron Bay (percent)
2--Gulf Beach Dauphin Island (percent) 4--West Shore Mobile Bay (percent)
Species 12 3 4
Elphidium eunteri 46 37 16 31
Elphidium poevanum 1
Elphidium incerturn mexicanum 3 11 5 3
Elphidium discoidale 1
Elphidium (other species) 1
Ammonia becari 41 25 33 41
Ammobaculites salsus 3 33 10
Miliammina fusca 1 13 15
Nonionella atlantica 1 2
Nonionella opima 1
Quingueloculina poevana 1
Quingueloculina semimulum 2
Triloculina trieonula 1
Triloculina sidebottomi 1
Hanzawaia concentrica 13
Cibicidina strattoni '5
Discorbis concinnus 2
Guttulina australis 2
250
-------
Figure 85. Water depth and location of
sample stations in Mobile Bay (after
Lamb, 197 2).
Figure 86. Average salinity from sampling
over the period March-Hay, 1969 (after
Lamb, 1972)".
-------
Mi/iomnnno fusco
biofaoes
Animobocu/if ps so/jus
btofacie^
Aminomo bccarii
ond
Elph »c/'OTi gunfer/
biofoc
„ - ht) - -
% Miliommino /ujco
in to inp In
% Am/iiol.'orufifr^ ao/sus
in % a in p I o
^ no .
To Arnmomo bccof i and
Elphtdtum gunlcn
_ 5 Mi Ics
0 5 K 11 orne trcs
BBES3HZZD
Figure 87. Distribution of representative
species of Foraminiferida in Mobile Bay
(after Lamb, 1972).
252
-------
Table 47. PERCENTAGE OF SIGNIFICANT SPECIES
OF FORAMINIFERIDA AT STATIONS IN MOBILE BAY
(After Lamb, 1972)
Mili^nmnno
A nin?"/)/! ci; 11 tc s
Elphiditim
A itvu <_>n 10
O th r r c nl-
St n 11 on
Stl I SI 1 $
li'itttcn
h c c c<-» n 1
i- .i r > mi ^ form ^
I
8 1
18
-
-
-
I
8 ^
I S
-
_
-
3
6 2
1<>
-
1 1
_
4
56
18
H
17
-
5.
54
1 H
<>
19
-
ft
48
iy
1 1
21
7
22
?K
19
30
-
8
19
2('i
22
33
--
<1
2 3
20
34
-
10
8
2 4
2?
3b
-
1 1
16
t \
2 4
3f">
-
1 2
r,
11"»
U
4 3
-
1 <
1
1 \
*7
4h
3
I 1
-
1 ?
,'7
4 7
1 ?
¦1
17
3*
4
-
1'.
-
Q
\tt
4 8
0
1 7
-
1 1
3;
4 8
4
I H
-
>1
40
49
-
1''
-
-
4 [
5
7
20
-
-
4 1
51
7
- 21
-
-
VI
4
-
_
JH
M*
1'»
253
-------
I ) — B a y Navigation Markers
O— Shore Gamp liny Sites
254
-------
docks along with the sand samples.
Jones (1974a) recorded 258 species of protozoa, 32 of which were
phytomastigophorans (often included in the phytoplankton). Each species
is illustrated and described with notes on its distribution, monthly
occurrence, and method of collecting, llis work will be very useful in
future studies. Protozoa comprise an important component of the zoo-
plankton. Further quantitative and qualitative surveys are important
in the understanding of Alabama's estuarine ecosystems.
Crustacea
One of the early studies of Crustacea in Alabama was that of Herrick
(1887) , which listed the following six species of copepods from coastal
waters.
Acartia gracilis-~Gulf of Mexico
Amvnome intermedia--Gulf of Mexico
Calanus americanus-~Gulf of Mexico
Canthocamptus mobilens is--Brackish water of Mobile Bay
Harpacticus chejLifer - - Gu 1 f of Mexico and Mississippi Sound
Temorella affinis--Estuaries and Gulf of Mexico
Because of the date of his study, the taxonomy of these species as
given by Herrick needs to be reevaluated.
Mcllwain (1968) conducted a monthly survey of copepods at a station
located in Mississippi Sound north of the western end of Horn Island
in Mississippi. Because of the short distance involved, the fauna would
be expected to be similar to Alabama's part of the Sound. Mcllwain found
that the copepod population was highest from June through August and less
.abundant during the colder months of the year (Figure 89). He identified
15 species (Table 48). Acarta tonsa were found throughout the year. Cen-
tropages hamatus were only collected during the winter. However, the
greatest diversity of species occurred during the warmer months of the
year.
As Mcllwain indicated, several environmental variables influence
the presence and abundance of copepods. Studies in Alabama waters can
be designed to contribute more data on copepods and their role (along
with that of other micro-crustaceans) in the biological network.
The most complete survey of decapod crustaceans conducted in off-
shore Alabama is that of Brunson (1951) in which he recorded 78 species
from the state's estuarine and offshore waters. This study consisted
primarily of a key to the species with little information on abundance
255
-------
100 n
J F M A M J J A S O tJ D J r M
—1965 —1966-
Figure 89. Average number of adult copepods per
cubic metre by months (after Mcllwain, 1968).
256
-------
Table 48. MONTHLY OCCURRENCE OF COPEPODS
COLLECTED IN MISSISSIPPI SOUND
(Compiled from Mcllwairt, 1968)
)ilit nlimun
/ii I cn tun
Potil «-/i I/I/IUS
Crn (/ > >1 ifific s
h/muitt/.t
C c.n tropti ft C3
litre a fu «
Tcrnorn
ntyh l>;ro
Tctuor/t
Ion ft i C or/1 f »v
I,a h i do cerfl
flp.slivn
/,'i/in/occr«
r/'cr i c> v
//i
fori sn
bro t ; corn / «;
Ul l/ll'IKI
Otic/n'/i
.in K"h Mnr. Apr M.i\ June Jul} Ami- Oc(. Nov Dtc
X X X X X x
X X X X X XXX
X X X X X X
X X X X
X X X X X
X X x
XXX
X X X
X X X X
Corv c/!<•(/{»
s/icr/c r
S/»rW n i inn
m fi tint i/< culntn
l-.t i (i' 11 > in n
m it 11 it< >n s
X X \ X
257
-------
or habitat. A great deal more work on this and other groups of crusta-
ceans is needed.
Very little information on the freshwater crustaceans of south
Mobile County is available. Hobbs (1974) listed 11 species of cray-
fishes as occurring in the area. These, along with their habitat pre-
ferences, are listed in Table 49. This list will undoubtedly be enlarged
by future investigations in south Alabama.
Mollusca
R. H. Parker (in Ecosystems Management, 1974) compiled a list of
benthic mollusks from Alabama's coastal waters indicating their habitats.
His data was summarized by Chermock (1974). It is unusual that so little
is known about such an important group of benthic animals.
Information on freshwater mollusks is also very limited. Burch
(1972, 1973) lists 14 species of freshwater clams as probably occurring
in Mobile County. These are:
Amblema piicata
Cprbicula man i lens is.
Eupera cubensis
Lampsilis anodontoides
Lampsilis excavata
Leptodea fragilis
Pisidium dubium
Pisidium casertanum
Pisidium compressum
Pisidium variabile
Plectomerus dombeyanus
Tritogonia verrucosa
Truncilla donaciformis
Villosa vibex
A number of species and subspecies of land snails have been recorded
from Mobile County. The accompanying list (Table 50) is based on Rawls
(1953) . However, only 12 have been reported from the study area in south
Mobile County. Further collecting may increase this number.
FISHES
South Mobile County contains a wide variety of habitats for fishes
which may be classified into three major types: the open Gulf, the
258
-------
Table 49. FRESHWATER CRAYFISHES OF MOBILE COUNTY
(Data from Hobbs, 1974)
1--Streams 4--Ditches
2--Burrows 5~-Ponds
3-~Springs
Species
1
2
3
4
5
Cambarellus diminutus
X
X
X
X
Cambarellus shufeldti
X
X
X
Cambarellus schmitti
X
X
Fallicambarus bversi
X
Orconectes immunis
X
X
X
Procambarus habenianus
X
Procambarus acutissimus
X
X
X
Procambarus a. acutus
X
Procambarus bivittatus
X
Procambarus evermanni
X
X
Procambarus lecontei
X
Procambarus versutus X
259
-------
Table 50. LAND SNAILS OF MOBILE COUNTY
(After Rawls, 1953)
Angvispira alternate macneiili
Anguispira crassa
Bulimulus d. dealbatus
Carvchium exile
Coccinea ovalis
Discus patulus
Euconulus c. chersinus
Euglandina rosea
Gas trocopta armifera*
Gastrocopta contracta
Gastrocopta corticaria
Gastrocopta pellucida
Gas trocopta pentodon
Gastrocopta p. procera
Gastrocopta rupicola
Gas trodonta interna
Guppva sterki
Haplotrema concavum
Hawaiia miniscula*
Hfellcina orbiculata
Helicodiscus parallelus
Lamellaxis gracilis
Mesodon i. inflectus*
Mesodon i. mobilensis*
Mesodon perigraptus
Mesodon rugeli
Mesodon thvroidus
Mesomplix vulgatus *
Paravitrea capsella
Polvgyra auriformis*
Polygyra leporina
Polvgyra plicata
Polygyra pustuloides
Polygyra septemvolva febieeri*
Polvgyra septemvolva yolvoxis*
Praticolella m. mobiliana
Punctium minutissimum
Pupisoma macneiili
Pupoides albilabris
Retinella circumstriata
Retinella carolinensis
Retinella crvptomphala
Retinella indentata paucilirata
Retinella lewisiana
Rumina decollata
Stenotrema leai aliciae
Stenotrema spinosum
Stenotrema stenotrema
Striatura meridionalis*
Strobilops aenea
Strobilops hubbardi
Strobilops labvrinthica
Strobilops t. texasiana
Strobilops t. floridana
Succinea avara
Succinea campestris
Succinea concordialis
Succinea unicolor
Iriadcppsis sl*. obstricta
Ventridens demissus*
Ventridens g. gularis
Ventridens intertextus
Ventridens ligera*
Vertigo oralis
Vertigo ovata
Zonitoides arborius*
* recorded from the study area
260
-------
estuary, and freshwater streams. Previous studies on the fish species
of the area include Beckham (1973), Boschung (1957), Chermock (1974),
Hemphill (1960), Swingle (1971), Swingle and Bland (1973 and 1974), and
Swingle, Keeler, and Allen (1975).
A total of 263 fish species belonging to 80 families (Table 51)
were recorded from south Mobile County during this study. This figure
is slightly lower than the 293 species reported by Chermock (1974) ;
however, only inshore and pelagic (offshore) forms which are periodic
invaders of inshore waters were considered in this report.
A table indicating the number of species collected from each habi-
tat, how many were restricted to one habitat and the number of species
that were dispersed among several habitats is given in Table 52. Of
the 263 species reported, 98 were distributed in only one habitat with
the greatest number of these (42) occuring in the open Gulf and the least
number (20) in the estuary. Gunter, Ballard and Venkataramiah (1975)
indicated that the fewest permanent residents were found in the estuaries
Table 52.
Species restricted
to one habitat
or
dispersed within various habitats
in
south Mobile County
•
Habitat
Restricted
Dispersed
Total
Species
Species
Open Gulf
42
145
187
Estuary
20
162
182
Freshwater
36
38
74
because of the wide variations in salinity found there depending on tides,
prevailing winds, and the amount of discharge entering the estuary from
freshwater streams. All of the 165 species that were distributed in more
than one habitat, however, did occur in the estuarine area at some time
on an annual cycle while only 19 of the open Gulf and 38 of the estuarine
species occurred in freshwater.
The economic importance of Alabama's estuarine fishes has been em-
phasized by numerous authors. The estuary is the base of this valuable
commodity since it serves as a valuable food source as well as an excel-
lent breeding ground and nursery for many Culf species in addition to
its permanent residents. Both Chermock (1974) and Swingle (1971) indi-
cated that over 80 percent of Alabama's estuarine fish species were
261
-------
Table 51. THE FISHES OF
SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
1--Open Gulf
2--Estuaries
3__Freshwater
Petromyzontidae
Ichthyomyzon gagei (Southern brook lamprey) X
Carcharhinidae
Aprionodon isodon (Finetooth shark)
Carcharhinus acronotus (Blacknose shark)
Carcharhinus leucas (Bull shark)
Carcharhinus limbatus (Blacktip shark)
.Mustelus canis (Smooth dogfish)
Negaprion breviros tris (Lemon shark)
Rhizoprionodon terraenovae (Atlantic sharpnose
shark)
Sphyrnidae
Sphvrna lewini (Scalloped hammerhead)
Sphvrna tiburo (Bonnethead)
Sphvrna zveaena (Smooth hammerhead)
Pristidae
Pristis pectinata (Smalltooth sawfish)
Rhinobatidae
Rhinobates lentiginosus (Atlantic guitarfish)
Torpedinidae
Mxninz brasiliensis (Lesser electric ray)
Ra jidae
Ra ia eelanteria (Clearnose skate)
Ra ia lentiginosa (Freckled skate)
Ra ia texana (Roundel skate)
Dasyatidae
Dasvatis americana (Southern stingray)
Dasyatis sabina (Atlantic stingray)
Dasyatis sayi (Bluntnose stringray)
Gymnura micrura (Smooth butterflu ray)
Myliobatidae
Aetobatus narinari (Spotted eagleray)
Rhinoptera bonasus (Cownose ray)
Mobulidae
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
262
-------
Table 51 (continued). THE FISHES
OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
12 3
Manta birostris (Manta)
X
X
Acipenseridae
Acipenser oxvrhvnchus (Atlantic sturgeon)
X
X .
Lepisos teidae
LeDisosteus oculatus ("Spotted ear)
X
X
Lenisosteus osseus (Longnose gar)
X
X
LeDisosteus spathula (Alligator ear)
X
X
X
Amiidae
Amia calva (Bowfin)
X
Elopidae
EIods saurus (Ladv fish)
X
X
MesaloDS atlantica (Tarpon)
X
X
Anguillidae
Aneuilla rostrata (American eel)
X
X
X
Muraenidae
Gvmnothorax nigromareinatus (Blackedge morav)
X
Muraenesocidae
Hoplunnis macrurus (Silver conger)
X
Congridae
Ariosoma impressa (Bandtooth conger)
X
Conerina flava (Yellow conger)
X
Paraconger caudilimbatus (Margintail conger")
X
Ophichthidae
Bascanichthvs scuticaris (Whipeel)
X
X
Mvrophis punctatus (Speckled worm eel)
X
X
X
ODhichthus gomesi (Shrimp eel)
X
Clupeidae
Alosa alabamae (Alabama shad1)
X
X
Alosa chrvsochloris (Skipjack herring)
X
X
Brevoortia patronus (Gulf menhaden)
X
X
X
Brevoortia smithi (Yellowfin menhaden)
X
X
X
Dorosoma cepedianum (Gizzard shad)
X
X
X
Dorosoma petenense (Threadfin shad)
X
X
Etrumeus teres (Round herring)
X
X
Harengula pensacolae (Scaled sardine)
X
X
Opisthonema oglinum (Atlantic thread herring)
X
X
Sardinella anchovia (Spanish sardine)
X
X
Engraulidae
Anchoa hepsetus (Striped anchovy)
X
X
Anchoa lyolepis (Duskv anchovv)
X
263
-------
Table 51 continued). THE FISHES
OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
12 3
Anchoa mitchilli (Bay anchovy) X X
Anchoviella perfasciata (Flat anchovy) X
Salmonidae
Salmo gairdneri (Rainbow trout) X
Esocidae
Esox americanus (Redfin pickerel) X
Esox niger (Chain pickerel) X
Synodontidae
Saurida brasiliensis (Largescale lizardfish) X
Svnodus foetens (Inshore lizardfish) X X
Cyprinidae
Hvbopsis aestivalis (Speckled chub) X
Notemieonus crvsoleucas (Golden shiner) X
Notropis chalvbaeus (Ironcolor shiner) X
Notropis hvselopterus (Sailfin shiner) X
Nnfrnpi s pptprsnni (Coastal shiner) X
Nnfrnpis rnspj pi nni s (Cherryfin shiner) X
Notropis signipinnis (Flagfin shiner) X
Notropis texanus (Weed shiner) X
Catostomidae
Cvcleptus elonaatus (Blue sucker) X X
Eriravzon sucetta (Lake chubsucker) X
Erimvzon tenuis (Sharpfin chubsucker) X
Minytrema melanops (Spotted sucker) X
Moxostoma poecilurum (Blacktail redhorse) X
Ictaluridae
Ictalurus furcatus (Blue catfish) X X
Ictalurus natalis (Yellow bullhead) X
Ictalurus nebulosus (Brown bullhead) X
Noturus funebris (Black madtom)
Noturus leptacanthus (Speckled madtom) X
Ariidae
Arius felis (Sea catfish) X X
Bagre marinus (Gafftopsail catfish) X X
Aphredoderidae
Aphredoderus sayanus (Pirate perch) X
Batrachoididae
Opsanus beta (Gulf toadfish) X X
Porichthvs porosissimus (Atlantic midshipman) X X
Gobiesocidae
264
-------
Table 51 (continued). THE FISHES
OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
12 3
Gobiesox strumosus (Skilletfish) X X
Antennaridae
Antennarius radiosus (Singlespot frogfish) X X
Histrio histrio (Sargassum fish) X
Ogcocephalidae
Dibranchus atlanticus X
Halieutichthvs aculeatus (Pancake batfish) X X
Ogcocephalus nasutus (Shortnose batfish) X X
Ogcocephalus radiatus (Polka-dot batfish) X
Gadidae
Urophycis floridanus (Southern hake) X X
Urophvcis regius (Spotted hake) X X
Ophidiidae
Lepophidium. graellsi (Blackedge cusk-eel) X X
Lepophidium jeannae (Mottled cusk-eel) X X
Ophidion welshi (Crested cusk-eel) X X
Exocoetidae
Hemiramphus brasiliensis (Ballyhoo) X
Hyporhamphus unifasciatus (Halfbeak) X X
Belonidae
Ablennes hians (Flat needle fish) X
Strongylura marina (Atlantic needlefish) XXX
Tvlosurus crocodilus (Houndfish) X
Cyprinodontidae
Adinia xenica (Diamond killifish) X
Cvprinodon variegatus <|3heepshead minnow) XXX
Fundulus chrvsotus (Golden topminnow) X X
Fundulus confluentus (Marsh killifish) X X
Fundulus grandis (Gulf killifish) X
Fundulus jenkinsi (Saltmarsh topminnow) X X
Fundulus notti (Starhead topminnow) X
Fundulus olivaceus (Blackspotted topminnow) X
Fundulus pulvereus (Bayou killifish) X
Fundulus similis (Longnose killifish) X
Leptolucania ommata (Least killifish) X
Lucania parva (Rainwater killifish) X X
Poeciliidae
Gambusia affinis (Mosquitofish) XXX
Poecilia latipinna (Sailfin molly) X X
Atherinidae
265
-------
Table 51 (continued). THE FISHES
OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
12 3
Labidesthes siccuius (Brook silverside) X
Membras martinica (Rough silverside) X X
Menidia bervllina (Tidewater silverside) XXX
Fistulariidae
Fistularia tabacaria (Bluespotted cornetfish) X
Syngnathidae
Hippocampus erectus (Lined seahorse) X X
Svngnathus floridae (Dusky pipefish) X X
Svngnathus louisianae (Chain pipefish) X X
Svngnathus scovelli (Gulf pipefish) X X
Serranidae
Centropristis ocvurus (Bank sea bass) X X
Centropristis philadelphica (Rock sea bass) X X
Diplectrum arcuarium (Sand perch) X X
Epinephelus drummond-havi (Speckled hind) X X
Epinephelus nigritus (Warsaw grouper) X
Mvcteroperca bonaci (Black grouper) X
Mvcteroperca phenax (Scamp) X
Serraniculus pumilio (Pygmy sea bass) X
Serranus atrobranchus (Blackear bass) X
Serranus subligarius (Belted sandfish) X
Elassomatidae
Elassoma zonatum (Banded pygmy sunfish) X
Centrarchidae
Ambloplites rupestris (Rock bass) X
Lepomis gulosus (Warmouth) X
Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill) X X
Lepomis megalotis (Longear sunfish) X X
Lepomis microlophus (Redear sunfish) X
Lepomis punctatus (Spotted sunfish) X
Micropterus punctulatus (Spotted bass) X
Micropterus salmoides (Largemouth bass) X X
Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Black crappie) X
Percidae
Etheostoma fusiforme (Swamp darter) X
Etheostoma swaini (Gulf darter) X
Percina-nigrofasciata (Blackbanded darter) X
Pomatomidae
Pomatomus saltatrix (Bluefish) X X
Rachycentridae
266
-------
Table 51 (continued). THE FISHES
OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
Rachvcentron canadum (Cobia)
Echeneidae
Echeneis naucrates (Sharpsucker)
Carangidae
Alectis crinitis (African pompano)
Caranx crvsos (Blue runner)
Caranx hippos (Crevalle jack)
Caranx latus ({lorse-eye jack)
Chloroscombrus chrvsurus (Bumper)
Hemicaranx amblvrhvchus (Bluntnose jack)
Oligoplites saurus (Leatherjacket)
Selar crumenophthalmus (Bigeye scad)
Selene vomer (Lookdown)
Seriola dumerili (Greater amberjack)
Seriola rivoliana (Almaco jack)
Trachinotus carolinus (Pompano)
Trachinotus falcatus (Permit)
Trachinotus goodei (Palometa)
Trachurus lathami (Rough scad)
Vomer setapinnis (Atlantic moonfish)
Coryphaenidae
Corvphaena hippurus (Dolphin)
Lutjanidae
Lutjanus campechanus (Red snapper)
Lutianus griseus (Gray snapper
Lut ianus svnagris (Lane snapper)
Pristipomoides aquilonaris (Wenchman)
Lobotidae
Lobotes surinamensis (Tripletail)
Gerreidae
Eucinostomus argenteus (Spotfin mojarra)
Eucinostomus gula (Silver jenny)
Pomadasyidae
Haemulon aurolineatum (Tomtate)
Orthopristis chrysoptera (Pigfish)
Sparidae
Archosargus probatocephalus (Sheepshead)
Lagodon rhomboides (Pinfish)
Stenotomus caprinus (Longspine porgy)
Sciaenidae
267
-------
Table 51 (continued). THE FISHES
OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
12 3
Bairdiella chrvsura (Silver perch) X X
Cvnoscion arenarius (Sand seatrout) X X
Cvnoscion nebulosus (Spotted seatrout) XXX
Cvnoscion nothus (Silver seatrout) X X
Larimus faciatus (Banded drum) X X
Leiostomus xanthurus (Spot) X X
Menticirrhus americanus (Southern kingfish) X X
Menticirrhus focaliger (Minkfish) X
Menticirrhus littoralis (Gulf kingfish) X X
Micropogon undulatus (Atlantic croaker) X X
Pogonias cromis (Black drum) X X
Sciaenops ocellata (Red drum) X X
Stellifer lanceolatus (Star.drum) X X
Ephippidae
Chaetodinterus faber (Atlantic spadefish) X X
Mugilidae
Mugil cephalus (Striped mullet) XXX
Mugil curema (White mullet) X X
Sphyraenidae
Sphvraena barracuda (Great barracuda) X X
Sphyraeha borealis (Northern sennet) X
Sphvraena guachancho (Guaguanche) X X
Polynemidae
Polvdactvlus octonemus (Atlantic threadfin) X X
Uranoscopidae
Astroscopus y-graecum (Southern stargazer) X X
Kathetostoma albigutta (Lancer stargazer) X X
Blennidae
Chasmodes bosquianus (Striped blenny) X
Chasmodes saburrae (Florida blenny) X
HypLeurochilus germinatus (Crested blenny) X
Hypsoblennius hentsi (Feather blenny) X
Hypsoblennius ionthus (Freckled blenny) X
Eleotridae
Dormitator maculatus (Fat sleeper) X X
Eleotris pisonis (Spinycheek sleeper) X
Erotelus smaragdus (Emerald sleeper) X
Gobiidae
Bathygobius soporator (Frillfin goby) X
Bollmannia communis (Ragged goby) X
268
-------
Table 51 (continued). THE FISHES
OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
12 3
Evorthodus lyricus (T,yre gnhy)
X
Gobioides broussonneti CViolet gobv")
X
Gobionellus boleosoma ("Darter gobv')
X
Gobionellus hastatus (Sharptail goby)
X
Gobionellus shufeldti (Freshwater goby")
X
Gobiosoma bosci (Naked gobv)
X
Gobiosoma longipala (Twoscale goby1)
X
Gobiosoma robustum (Code gobv)
X
Microeobius pulosus (Clown gobv)
X
Microgobius thalassinus (Green gobv")
X
Microdesmidae
Microdesmus loneipinnis (Pink wormfishl
X
X
Gempylidae
LeDidocvbium flavobrunneum (Escolar)
X
Trichiuridae
Trichiurus lepturus (Atlantic cutlassfish)
X
X
Scombridae
Acanthocvbium solanderi (WahooV
X
Euthvnnus alletteratus (Little tunny)
X
Sarda sarda (Atlantic bonito)
X
Scomber japonicus (Chub mackerel")
X
X
Scomberomorus cavalla (King mackerel')
X
X
Scomberomorus maculatus (Spanish mackerel")
X
X
Istiophoridae
Istiophorus platypterus (Sailfish)
X
Stromateidae
Nomeus gronoyii (Man-*of-War fish)
X
X
Peorilus alepidotus (Harvestfish")
X
X
Peprilus burti (Gulf butterfish)
X
X
Scorpaenidae
Scorpaena brasiliensis (Barbfish)
X
X
Scorpaena calcarata (Smoothhead scorpionfish)
X
X
Scorpaena grandicornis (Plumed scorpionfish)
X
Scorpaena pluinieri (Spotted scorpionf ish)
X
X
Triglidae
Peristedion gracile (Slender searobin)
X
X
Prionotus martis (Barred searobin)
X
X
Prionotus roseus (Bluespotted searobin)
X
X
Prionotus rubio (Blackfin searobin)
X
X
269
-------
Table 51 (continued). THE FISHES
OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
Prionotus scitulus (Leopard searobin)
Prionotus tribulus (Bighead searobin)
Bothidae
Ancylopsetta quadrocellata (Ocellated flounder)
Citharichthvs macrops (Spotted whiff)
Citharichthvs spilopterus (Bay whiff)
Cvclopsetta chittendeni (Mexican flounder)
Etropus crossotus (Fringed flounder)
Paralichthvs albigutta (Gulf flounder)
Paralichthys lethostiema (Southern flounder) XXX
Paralichthvs squamilentus (Broad flounder)
Svacium gunteri (Shoal flounder)
Soleidae
Achirus lineatus (Lined sole) XXX
Trinectes maculatus (Hogchoker) XXX
Cynoglossidae
Svmphurus civitatus (Offshore tonguefish)
Svmphurus plaeiusa (Blackcheek tonguefish)
Balistidae
Aluterus schoepfi (Orange filefish)
Aluterus scriptus (Scrawled filefish)
Balistes capriscus (Gray triggerfish)
Monacanthus hispidus (Planehead filefish)
Ostraciidae
Lactophrvs quadricornis (Scrawled cowfish)
Tetraodontidae
Lagocephalus laevigatus (Smooth puffer)
Sphoeroides nephelus (Southern puffer)
Sphoeroides parvus (Least puffer)
Diodontidae
Chilomvcterus schoepfi (Striped burrfish)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
270
-------
important to coastal fisheries. Gunter (1961) stated that the most
important fishery industry in North America was located on the northern
Gulf of Mexico coast and that 98 percent of the animals utilized in this
fishery industry spent some stage of their life in the estuary.
Amphibia
The majority of Alabama amphibians spend their larval stages in
fresh water breathing by means of gills. They then undergo metamorphosis,
developing lungs permitting them to directly breathe air. Their bodies
undergo structural changes, such as developing legs, which adapts them
for movement on land. For example, the tadpole is the larval aquatic
stage of frogs and toads. Like frogs, most salamanders have an aquatic
larval stage in their life cycle. The only exception of those found in
south Mobile County is the Slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus). This
species lays its eggs on land in a protected damp situation. Metamor-
phosis takes place within the egg and the young, on hatching, are adapted
for terrestrial survival. Amphibians, therefore, are dependent upon
the availability of unpolluted fresh water for their survival.
There are 17 species of salamanders found in Mobile County (Table
53). Some, such as the waterdogs (Necturus). do not undergo metamor-
phosis and are permanently aquatic. The Central newt has three stages
in its life cycle. Their larvae are aquatic with gills. These trans-
form into an eft stage which is terrestrial and breathes with lungs. The
adults again become aquatic but still breathe with lungs. Some sala-
manders, although terrestrial as adults, lack lungs and respire through
their moist skin. Because of potential loss of body water by evapora-
tion, these salamanders are normally restricted to moist habitats with
high humidity (Pseudotriton, Manculus) or are semiaquatic (Desmognathus.
Eurvcea).
Twenty-three species of frogs and toads occur in Mobile County
(Table 54). All have an aquatic tadpole stage. The adults of some
genera (Rana, Acris) are semiaquatic and are usually found in or near
water. Others, such as members of the genera Bufo and Hyla. have a dry
cornified skin which prevents excess loss of body water by evaporation.
Therefore, they can live in relatively dry environments although they
return to water to breed.
In general, amphibians are beneficial because they feed to a great
extent on insects and other small animals. The legs of the larger spe-
cies such as the Pig frog, River frog, and Bullfrog are prized by many
as food.
271
-------
Table 53. SALAMANDERS OF MOBILE COUNTY
1--Bottomland Forests L--Larval Stage
2--Freshwater Habitats E--Eft Stage
3--Open Land A--Adult Stage
4--Upland Forests
12 3 4
Alabama waterdog (Necturus beveri alabaraensis)
LA
Mobile waterdog (Necturus punctatus lodingi')
LA
Two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means')
LA
Three-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma tridactvlurn)
LA
Reticulated flatwoods salamander (Ainbygtomg
cingulatum bishopi)
A
L
A
Mole salamander (Ambvstoma talpoideum")
A
L
Marbled salamander (Ambvstoma opacum")
A
L
A
Eastern tieer salamander (Ambystoma t. tiarinum)
L A
A
Spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum)
A
L
A
Central newt (Notophthalmus viridescens
louisianensis)
E
LA E
E
Southern duskv salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus")
A
LA
Slimv salamander (Plethodon g. glutinosus)
LA
LA
Southern red salamander (Fseudotriton ruber vioscai')
A
L
A
Gulf Coast mud salamander (Pseudotriton montanus
f lavissimus")
A
L
A
Two-lined salamander (Eurvcea bislineata cirriEera)
A
LA
A
Three-lined salamander (Eurvcea longicauda
guttolineata)
A
LA
A
Dwarf salamander (Manculus quadridieitatus")
A
L
A
272
-------
Table 54. FROGS AND TOADS OF MOBILE COUNTY
1--Freshwater Marshes T--Tadpole Stage
2--Temporary Ponds and Puddles A-~Adult Stage
3--Streams, Rivers and Ponds
4--Bottomland Forest
5--0pen Land
6--Upland Forests
Eastern spadefoot (Scaphiopus holbrooki)
Southern toad (Bufo terrestris)
Gulf Coast toad (Bufo valliceps)
Oak toad (Bufo quercicus)
Fowler's toad ("Bufo wodehousei fowleri) T
Southern cricket frog (Acris g. ervllus') T
Northern cricket frog (Acris c. crepitans')
Northern spring peeper (llyla c. crucifer)
Green treefrog (Hvla c. cinerea) TA
Pinewoods treefrog (Hvla femoralisl
Squirrel treefrog (Hvla squirella)
Gray treefrog (Hvla v. versicolor')
Bird-voiced treefrog (Hvla a. avivoca')
Barking-treefrog (Hvla eratiosa)
Southern chorus frog (Pseudacris n.
nigrita)
Ornate chorus frog (Pseudacris ornata)
Eastern narrow-mouthed toad (Gastrophrvne
carolinensis')
Pig frog (Rana grvlio")
Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana-)
River frog (Rana heckscheri)
Bronze (Rana c. clamitans')
Southern leopard frog (Rana pipiens
sphenocephala)
Dusky gopher frog (Rana areolata sevosa)
T
A
A
T
T
A
A
A
T
A
A
A
T
T
A
T
T
A
A
A
TA
A
TA
A
T
T
A
A
TA
A
A
T
T
A
A
T
T
A
A
A
T
A
A
T
A
T
A
A
T
A
A
A
T
T
A
A
A
T
A
A
A
TA
TA
TA
TA
TA
TA
TA
TA
TA
TA
A
A
T
T
A
A
273
-------
REPTILES
Mobile County has a great variety of reptiles occurring within
its boundaries including 21 species of turtles, 10 lizards, 36 snakes,
and the alligator (Table 55). Five species of sea turtles are found
offshore. Two of these, the Green turtle and the Atlantic ridley may
enter the estuaries. The Loggerhead turtle nests on the Gulf beaches,
of Dauphin Island (Jackson and Jackson, 1970), but the incursion of
civilization has reduced their numbers. Two reptiles normally occur in
brackish water of the estuarine tidal marshes. These are the Diamond-
back terrapin and the Salt marsh water snake. Occasionally the Alliga-
tor, Mobile cooter and Red-bellied turtle will enter brackish water. Of
the other species of turtles found in Mobile County, the Box turtle and
the Gopher tortoise are terrestrial, and the remaining are normally
associated with freshwater habitats.
Many turtles are used for food. Among these are the Snapping tur-
tle, Softshell turtles, Chicken turtle and Gopher tortoise. Among the
sea turtles, the Green turtle is widely hunted for food. The Diamond-
back terrapin of the Gulf coast is related to the famous terrapin of
Maryland which is highly prized for food. As the supply was depleted
in Chesapeake Bay, they were caught in large numbers along the Gulf
coast and shipped to eartern markets thereby reducing the population
size in Alabama. However, they seem to be increasing in numbers again.
Of the 36 species of snakes found within the county, only 6 are
poisonous. Everyone should learn to recognize them for their own safety.
All others are nonpoisonous, although they often can inflict a painful
bite.
The Coral snake, which belongs to the family Elapidae, is highly
poisonous, having a neurotoxic venom which affects the central nervous
system. These snakes are fairly small, usually 20 to 30 inches in length,
and are brightly colored with rings of yellow, black and red. Because
the coral snake has a small mouth and short fangs, it is difficult for
it to bite man. These snakes are secretive, usually found under leaves,
debris, or in rotten logs in wooded areas.
The other poisonous snakes found in Mobile County are pit vipers
belonging to the family Crotalidae. They have a deep pit on each side
of the head in front of the eye. These are heat-sensitive organs which
help the snake to ,aim when striking warm-blooded prey. The pit vipers
are usually heavy-bodied snakes with a distinct arrow-shaped head. Their
venom is primarily a hemolysin which affects red blood cells. This fami-
ly includes the copperhead, Cottonmouth and rattlesnakes.
The Copperhead usually measures 2 to 3 feet in length. It is pink-
ish-tan in color with a series of chestnut-colored hourglass markings
274
-------
Table 55. REPTILES OF MOBILE COUNTY
1--Open Gulf
2--Estuaries
3--Tidal Marshes
4--Freshwater Swamps
5--Ponds and Streams
6--Open Fields
7--Forests
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Alligator
American alligator ("Alligator mississipiensis") X X X X
Turtles
Snapping turtle (Chelvdra s. serpentina") X X
Alligator snapping turtle (Macroclemvs temmincki") X
Stinkpot (Sternotherus odoratus") X X
Eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon s. subrubrurn) X X
Gulf Coast box turtle (Terrapene Carolina major') X X
Mississippi diamondback terrapin CMalaclemvs terrapin
pileata") X X
Alabama map turtle (Graptemvs pulchra) X
Pond slider (Chrvsemvs scripta) X X
Mobile cooter ("Pseudemvs concinna mobilensis-) X X X X
Missouri slider (Pseudemvs floridana hovi') X X
Alabama red-bellied turtle (Pseudemvs alabamensis") XXX
Eastern chicken turtle (Deirochelvs r. reticularia) X X
Gopher tortoise (Gopherus Polyphemus') X X
Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas") X X
Atlantic hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelvs i. imbricata) X
Atlantic loggerhead turtle (Caretta c^_ caretta) X
Atlantic ridley (Lepidochelys kempi) X X
Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys c. coriacea) X
Gulf Coast smooth softshell (Trionyx muticus calvatus) X
-------
Table 55 (continued). REPTILES OF MOBILE COUNTY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Gulf Coast softshell (Trionvx spiniferus asper)
Lizards
Carolina anole (Anolis c. carolinensis-)
Southern fence lizard (Sceloporus u ¦ undulatus-)
Six-lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus s. sexlineatus)
Ground skink (Scincella laterale")
Five-lined skink (Eumeces faciatus)
Broad-'neaded skink (Eumeces laticeps-)
Southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces inexpectatus)
Southern coal skink (Eumeces anthracinus pluvialis)
Eastern glass lizard Qphisaurus ventral is)
Eastern slender glass lizard (Qphisaurus attenuatus
longicaudus)
Snakes
Green water snake (Natrix c. cvclopion')
Diamond-backed water snake (Natrix rhombifera")
Brown water snake (Natrix taxispilota)
Yellow-bellied water snake (Natrix ervthroeaster
flavigaster)
Banded water snake (Natrix f. fasciata)
Gulf salt marsh water snake (Natrix fasciata clarki")
Gulf Coast water snake (Regina rigida sinicola)
Midland brown snake (Storeria dekavi wrightorum)
Northern red-bellied snake (Storeria o.
occioitomaculata
Eastern garter snake (Thamnophis s. sirtalis)
Eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis s. sauritius)
Rough earth snake (Virginia striatula)
Western earth snake (Virginia valeriae elegans")
Eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Table 55 (continued). REPTILES OF MOBILE COUNTY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Southern hognose snake (H,eterodon simus)
X
X
Yellow-lipped snake (Rhadinea flavilata")
X
X
Mississippi ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus
strictogenvs")
X
X
X
Rainbow snake (Farancia ervthrogrammus)
X
X
X
X
Western mud snake CFarancia abacura reinwardi1)
X
X
Southern black racer (Coluber constrictor priapus")
X
X
Eastern coachwhip (Masticophis f. flaeellum")
X
X
X
Rough green snake (Opheodrvs aestivus)
X
X
X
X
Corn snake (Elaphe 2. guttata")
X
X
Grav rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta spiloides)
X
X
Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi)
X
X
Eastern kinssnake (Lampropeltis g. getulus)
X
X
X
X
Scarlet kinesnake (Lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides")
X
Mole snake (Lampropeltis callisaster rhombomaculata")
X
X
Southeastern scarlet snake (Cemophora coccinea copei)
X
X
Southeastern crowned snake (Tantilla c. coronata)
X
X
X
Eastern coral snake (Micrurus f. fulvius')
X
X
Southern copperhead (Agkistrodon c. contortrix")
X
X
Western cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus
leucostoma)
X
X
X
Duskv pigmv rattlesnake (Sistrurus mijLiarius
barbouri")
X
X
Canebrake rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus atricaudatus")
X
X
Eastern diamondback (Crotalus adamanteus")
X
-------
across the back. These snakes are often found in lowland wooded areas,
but they also occur in upland forests.
The Cottonmouth usually measures 2\ to 4 feet in length. The
young are brightly colored and resemble the Copperhead. As they mature,
they become dark brown to black with obscure markings. Individuals are
found in or near freshwater throughout south Mobile County and are par-
ticularly abundant in lowland swampy areas.
The Pigmy rattlesnake is a small snake rarely exceeding 2 feet in
length. Body color is grayish-tan with dark rounded spots. Individuals
are most frequently found in flatwoods, near lakes or marshes.
The Canebrake rattlesnake usually varies in length from 3k to 5
feet. The ground color is pale grayish-brown with black crossbands.
A reddish stripe extends lengthwise along the back on the front end of
the body. This snake is most commonly found in lowland cave thickets
and swamps.
The Diamondback rattlesnake usually ranges from 3 to 6 feet in
length. The dark brown or black diamonds, outlined with cream-colored
scales on the back, make this dangerous snake easy to identify. They
are usually most common in pine and palmetto flatwoods.
All of the ten species of lizards found in Mobile County are ter-
restrial. The skinks are active during the daytime but often take shel-
ter under rocks, logs or trash where the ground is humid. The Race-
runner is usually found in open dry areas of sand or loose soil. The
Anole is usually seen crawling over vines or shrubs. Fence lizards are
most abundant in the open pine savannahs. The Glass lizards, which are
legless burrowing reptiles, are most abundant in pine savannahs and
grasslands. None of the lizards found in the county are poisonous.
BIRDS
No region of Alabama has as rich and varied birdlife as the coastal
area of the state. Imhof (1962) refers to 311 species as occurring in
south Mobile County (Table 56). These may be grouped as follows:
Permanent residents--Those species which nest in and are found
throughout the year in the area. The numbers of many species may
increase in the winter due to an influx of winter visitors from
farther north (69 species)
Summer residents--Those species which nest in the area in the summer
and then migrate farther south for the winter (36 species)
278
-------
Table 56. BIRDS OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
1--Open Gulf
2--Estuaries
3--Beaches and Mudflats
4--Salt Marshes
5--Fresh Water Swamps
6--Open Fields
7--Forests
C--Casual
M--Migrant
P--Permanent Resident
S--Summer Resident
W--Winter Visitor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Common loon (Gavia immer)
Red-throated loon (Gavia stellata
Horned grebe (Podiceps auritus")
Eared grebe (Podiceps caspicus)
Pied-billed grebe (Podilvmbus podiceps')
White-tailed tropic bird (Phaethon lepturus")
White pelican (Pelecanus ervthrorhynchos")
Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalism
Brown booby (Sula leucoeaster)
Gannet (Morus bassanus-)
Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus-)
Frigate-bird (Fregata magnif icens-)
Great white heron (Ardea occidentalis-)
Great blue heron (Ardea herodias-)
Green heron (Butorides virescens)
Little blue heron (Florida caerulea-)
Cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis-)
Reddish egret (Dichromanassa rufescens-)
Common egret (Casmerodius albus-)
Snowy egret (Leucophovx thuja-)
P
C
w
w
CW
w
CW
W
w
p
w
p
S
S
M
p
p
CS
p
S
S
S
p
p
p
s
S
s
p
p
-------
Table 56,(continued). BIRDS
Louisiana heron ("Hvdranassa tricolor")
Black-crowned night heron (Nvcticorax nvcticorax')
Yellow-crowned night heron (Nvctanassa violacea)
Least bittern (Ixobrvchus exilis)
American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus)
White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi-)
White ibis (Eudocimus albus)
Roseate spoonbill (Aiaia a jaia)
Whistling swan (Olor columbianus)
Canada goose (Branta canadensis)
White-fronted goose (Anser albifrons')
Snow goose (Chen hvperborea')
Blue goose (Chen caerulescens-)
Fulvous tree duck (Dendrocvgna bicolor-)
Mallard (Anas platvrhvnchos")
Black duck (Anas rubripes)
Mottled duck ("Anas fulvigula)
Gadwall (Anas strepera)
Pintail (Anas acuta)
Green-winged teal (Anas carolinensis)
Blue-winged teal (Anas discors")
American widgeon (Mareca americana-)
Shoveler (Spatula clvpeata)
Wood duck (Aix sponsa)
Redhead (Avthya americana)
Ring-necked duck (Avthva collaris)
Canvasback (Aythya valisneria)
Greater scaup (Avthya marila)
Lesser scaup (Aythya affinis)
Common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula)
SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
1 2 3 4 5
W
W
CW
M
CM
M
M
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
S
P
S
C
S
C
S
P
s
s
M
C
CW
w
w
p
w
w
w
M
W
W
s
p
s
s
M
C
s
w
w
w
w
w
M
W
W
P
w
-------
Table 56 (continu
Bufflehead CBucephala albeola)
Old squaw (Clangula hvemalis)
White-winged scoter (Melanitta deglandi)
Surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata)
Common scoter (Oidemia nigra')
Ruddy duck (Oxvura iamaicensis)
Hooded merganser (Lophodvtes cucullatus)
Common merganser (Mergus merganser)
Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator)
Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)
Black vulture (Coraevps atratus)
Swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus)
Mississippi kite (Ictinia mississippiensis)
Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus)
Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperi)
Red-tailed hawk (Buteo iamaicensis)
Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)
Broad-winged hawk (Buteo platvpterus)
Rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus)
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephaluc)
Marsh hawk (Circus cvaneus)
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
Peregrine falcon (Falco pereerinus)
Pigeon hawk (Falco cblumbarius)
Sparrow hawk (Falco sparverius)
Bobwhite (Colinus virainianus)
Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)
Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis)
King rail (Rallus elegans)
Clapper rail (Rallus longirostris)
BIRDS OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
W
W
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
p
S
M
w
p
w
s
p
p
w
w
p
p
s
s
w
p
w
w
p
p
p
w
p
p
p
cw
w
M
p
p
p
p
w
p
p
p
p
M
M
P
W
-------
Table 56 (continued)
Virginia rail (Rallus limicola)
Sora (Porzana Carolina')
Yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis)
Purple gallinule (Porphvrula martinica')
Common gallinule (Gallinula chloropus")
American coot (Fulic'a americana)
American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus")
Semipalmated plover (Charadrius semipalmatus')
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus)
Snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus)
Wilson's plover (Charadrius wilsonia)
Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus")
American golden pjover (Pluvialis dominica)
Black-bellied plover (Sauatarola sauatarola)
Ruddy turns tone (Arenaria interpres)
American woodcock fPhilohela minor")
Common snipe (Capella gallinago)
Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus)
Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus)
Upland plover (Bartramia longicauda)
Spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia)
Solitary sandpiper (Tringa solitaria)
Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus)
Greater yellowlegs (Totanus melanoleucus)
Lesser yellowlegs (Totanus flayjpes)
Knot (Calidris canutus)
Pectoral sandpiper (Erolia melanotos)
Least sandpiper (Erolia minutilla)
Dunlin (Erolia- alpina)
Short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus)
BIRDS OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
W
P
w
w
p
s
M
W
W
W
M
M
M
M
P
m
M
M
M
W
WM
WM
mw
MW
mw
MW
s
s
w
p
w
M
M
W
P
M
M
-------
Table 56 (continued)
Long-billed dowitcher (Limnodrumus scolopaceus-)
Stilt sandpiper (Micropalama himantopus')
Semipalmated sandpiper (Ereunetes pusillus)
Western sandpiper (Ereunetes mauri")
Buff-breasted sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis')
Marbled godwit (Limosa f edoa')
Sanderling (Crocethia alba)
American avocet (Recurvirostra americana)
Black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus-)
Red phalarope (Phalaropus fulicarius')
Wilson's Phalarope (Steganopus tricolor')
Pomarine jaeger (Stercorarius pomarinus)
Parasitic jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus")
Great black-backed gull (Larus marinus)
Herring gull (Larus araentatus)
Ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis-)
Laughing gull (Larus atricillus")
Bonaparte's gull (Larus Philadelphia')
Gull-billed tern (Gelochelidon nilotica-)
Forster's tern (Sterna fursteri')
Common tern (Sterna hirundo")
Roseate tern (Sterna dougalli')
Sooty tern (Sterna fuscata")
Least tern (Sterna albifrons')
Royal tern (Thalasseus maximus-)
Sandwich tern (Thalasseus sandvicensis)
Caspian tern (Hvdroporgne caspia)
Black tern (Chlidonias niger)
Black skimmer (Rynchops nigra-)
White-winged dove (Zenaida asiatica)
W
M
WM
WM
M
M
W
M
C
w
M
W
W
WC WC
WWW
W W
p p
www
M S M
P P P
P P P
M M
C
S s
s s s
s s
www
M M
P P
-------
Table 56 (continued). BIRDS
Mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura)
Ground dove (Columbigallina passerina)
Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccvzus americanus)
Black-billed cuckoo (Coccvzus ervthropthalulus')
Barn owl (Tvto alba)
Screech owl (Otus asio)
Great horned owl (Bubo virginianus)
Burrowing owl (Speotvta cunicularia)
Barred owl (Strix varia)
Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus)
Chuck-will1s-widow (Caprimulgus carolinensis)
Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus)
Common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor)
Chimney swift (Chaetura pelaeica)
Ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris)
Belted kingfisher (Megacer-vle alcvon)
Yellow-shafted flicker (Colaptes auratus)
Pileated woodpecker (Drvacopus pileatus")
Red-bellied woodpecker (Centurus carolinus1)
Red-headed woodpecker (Melanerp&s ervthrocephalusl
Yellow-bellied sapsucker CSnhvrapicus varius*)
Hairy woodpecker CDendrocopos villosus)
Downy woodpecker CDendrocopos pubescens)
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Dendrocopos borealis)
Eastern kingbird (Tvranrvus. tvrannus)
Gray kingbird (Tvrannus dominicensis)
Western kingbird (Tvrannus verticalis)
Scissor-tailed flycatcher (Muscivora forficata)
Great crested flycatcher (Mviarchus crinitus)
Ash-throated flycatcher (Mviarchus cinerascens)
SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
P
P
S
M
P
P
P
W
S
S
w
w
M
M
P
W
W
P
w
s
S
S
p
p
p
p
w
p
p
p
S
S
C
-------
Table 56 (continued). BIRDS OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Eastern phoebe CSavornis phoebe) W W
Yellow-bellied flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris") M
Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) S S
Traill's flycatcher (Empidonax trailli) M
Least flycatcher (Empidonax minimus') M
Eastern wood pewee (Cantopus virens) S
Olive-sided flycatcher (Nuttallornis borealis) M
Vermilion flycatcher (Pvrocephalus rubinus") CW CW CW
Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) CW CW
Tree swallow (Iridoprocne bicolor) WWW
Bank swallow (Riparia riparia) MM M
Rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx ruficollis') M M MW MW
Barn swallow (Hirundo rustica1) S S
Cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pvrrhonota") M M
Purple martin (Progne subis) S
Blue jay (Cvanocitta cristata) P
Common crow (Corvus brachvrhvnchos) P
Fish crow (Corvus ossifragus) P P P
Carolina chickadee ("Parus carolinensis) P
Tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor) P
White-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis") PC
Red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis") W
Brown-headed nuthatch ("Sitta pus ilia) P
Brown creeper (Certhia familiaris) W
House wren (Troglodytes aedon) W W
Winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) W
Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bewicki) W
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) P P P
Long-billed marsh wren (Telmatodytes palustris) P P
Short-billed marsh wren (Cistothorus platensis) W W
-------
Table 56 (continued)
Mockingbird (Mimus polvglottus)
Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis)
Brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum)
Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes moatanus)
Robin (Turdus migratorius)
Wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina)
Hermit thrush (Hylocichla guttata)
Swainson's thrush (Hylocichla ustulata)
Gray-cheeked thrush (Hylocichla minima)
Veery (Hylocichla fuscescens-)
Eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis)
Blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulia)
Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa)
Ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula)
Water pipit (Anthus spinoletta)
Cedar waxwing (Bombvcilla cedrorum)
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
Starling (Sturnus vulgaris)
White-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus)
Bell's vireo (Vireo belli')
Solitary vireo (Vireo solitarius)
Yellow-throated vireo (Vireo flavifrons)
Black-whiskered vireo (Vireo altiloquus)
Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus)
Philadelphia vireo (Vireo philadelphicus)
Wrabling vireo (Vireo gilvus)
Black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia)
Prothonotory warbler (Protonotaria citrea)
Swainson's warbler (Limnothlvpis swainsoni)
Worm-eating warbler (Helmitheros vermivorus)
BIRDS OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
W
S
s
p
MW
P
CW
w
w
p
p
p
MW
P
W
S
MW
M
M
M
P
P
W
W
w
P
p
p
CM
W
MW
C
S
M
M
M
S
M
-------
Table 56 (continued). BIRDS OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrvsoptera'l M
Blue-winged warbler (Vermivora pinus) M
Tennessee warbler (Vermivora peregrina) M
Orange-crowned warbler (Vermivora celata) W
Nashville warbler (Vermivora ruficapilla) M
Parula warbler (Parul-a amer-icana) S S
Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) M M M
Magnolia warbler (Dendroica magnolia) M
Cape may warbler (Dendroica tigrina') M
N3 Black-throated blue warbler (Dendroica caerulescens") M
---j Myrtle warbler (Dendroica coronata) W W
Audobon's warbler (Dendroica audoboni) M
Black-throated gray warbler (Dendroica niarescens') CM
Black-throated green warbler (Dendroica virens) M
Cerulean warbler (Dendroica ceruleal M
Blackburnian warbler (Dendroica fusca") M
Yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica dominica-) MW
Chestnut-sided warbler (Dendroica pensvlvanica-) M
Bay-breasted warbler (Dendroica castanea) M
Blackpoll warbler (Dendroica striata1) M
Pine warbler (Dendroica pinus) P
Prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor') M M
Palm warbler ¦ (Dendroica palmarum) W W
Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) M
Northern waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis) M M
Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla') M M
Kentucky warbler (Oporornis formosus) M
Connecticut warbler (Oporornis agilis') CM
Mourning warbler (Oporornis Philadelphia) CM
Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) P P
-------
Table 56 (continued).
Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens")
Hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina)
Wilson's warbler (W-i-lsonia pus ilia)
Canada warbler (Wils-onia canadensis)
American redstart .(Setophaga ruticilla)
House sparrow (Passer domesticus)
Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus)
Eastern meadow lark (Sturnella magna)
Western meadow lark (Sturnella neglecta")
Redwinged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus)
Orchard oriole (Icterus spurius)
Baltimore oriole (Icterus galbula)
Bullock's oriole (Icterus bullocki)
Rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus-)
Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cvanocephalus")
Boat-tailed grackle (Cassidix mexicanus)
Common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula)
Brown-headed cowbird ("Molothrus ater")
Western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana)
Scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea)
Summer tanager (Piranga rubra)
Cardinal (Richmcndena cardinalis)
Rose-breasted grosbeak (Pheucticus ludovicianus)
Black-headed grosbeak (Pheucticus melanoce-ohalus)
Blue grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea)
Indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea)
Painted bunting .(Passerina ciris)
Dickcissel (Spiza americana)
Purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus)
Pine siskin (Spinus pinus)
OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M
P
W
W
P
M
P
W
P
W
W
M
S
M
M
M
P
P
W
S
M
CM
P
W
M
M
M
P
W
CM
M
S
P
M
CW
M
M
M
W
CW
-------
Table 56 (continued). BIRDS OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
American goldfinch (Spinus tristis) W W
Rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo ervthrophthalmus-) P
Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) W
Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannaruml W
LeConte's sparrow (Passerherbulus caudacutus) W
Henslow's sparrow (Passerherbulus henslowi") W W
Sharp-tailed sparrow --(Ammospiza caudacuta) W
Seaside sparrow (Ammospiza maritima) P
Vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) W
Lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus) M
Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) P
Slate-colored junco (Junco hvemalis') CW CW
Chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina) W
Clay-colored sparrow (Spizella pallida) CW
Field sparrow (Spizella pusilla) W
White-crowned sparrow ("Zonotrichia leucophrvs) CW CW
White-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) W
Fox sparrow (Passerella iliaca) CW
Lincoln's sparrow (Melospiza lincolni) CW
Swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) W W
Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) W W
-------
Migrants-- Those species which pass through the area, usually in
the fall and spring, as they migrate from their -summer nesting
grounds in the north to their wintering grounds farther south (72
species)
Winter visitors--Those species which nest farther north in the sum-
mer and then migrate into the area where they overwinter (99 spe-
cies)
Casuals-~Those species which normally do not occur in the area,
but occasionally may be seen (35 species)
The variety of species is correlated with the great diversity of
habitats . These include marine birds such as gulls, terns, frigate-
birds, skimmers and pelicans. In addition, numerous species are found
on the beaches and mudflats including many kinds of sandpipers and plo-
vers. In the tidal marshes are rails, herons and egr-ets. Ducks, coots
and cormorants abound in open waters each winter. In the spring, thou-
sands of thrushes, warblers and other birds stop on Dauphin Island after
crossing the Gulf of Mexico during their northward migration. People
from throughout the state and other parts of the country visit south
Mobile County throughout the year to observe and study its birdlife.
MAMMALS
There have been 47 species of mammals (Table 57) recorded from
south Mobile County and its associated waters (Caldwell and Caldwell,
1973; Holliman, 1963; Howell, 1921; Linzey, 1970; White, 1959). Seven
are marine whales and dolphins which are found offshore in the Gulf of
Mexico, although the Bottlenosed dolphin will enter the estuaries. Of
these, the Finback and the Sperm whales have been placed on the Endan-
gered Species list of the Environmental Protection Agency as of December
31, 1970 (Science, 1971). The Bottlenose dolphin is considered endan-
gered in Florida and Mississippi (Caldwell and Caldwell, 1973).
The Florida manatee (Trichecus manatus latirostris) is found in the
warmer waters of southern Florida and the West Indies. However, they may
wander further north in the summer and formerly were seen on the northern
Gulf Coast from Pensacola to New Orleans (Gunter, 1954). Caldwell and
Caldwell (1973) show it as having been recorded along the Alabama Coast.
This mammal is included in the official list of endangered species of the
United States and is also protected in Florida. However, their numbers
seem to be increasing in that state, and it is possible that they may
'again wander into Alabama waters.
Feral specimens of the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus)
290
-------
Table 57. MAMMALS OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
1--Open Gulf
2--Estuaries
3--Tidal Marshes
1 2 3 4 5 6
4--Freshwater Swamps
5--Open Fields
6--Forests
Florida opossum (Didelphis marsupialis piera")
X
X
X
X
Carolina short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda carolinensis)
X
X
Least shrew (Crvptotis p. parva)
X
X
Howell mole (Scalopus aauaticus howelli)
X
X
X
Bie brown bat (Eptesicus f. fuscus)
X
X
X
Red bat CLasiurus b. borealis")
X
X
X
Seminole bat (Lasiurus seminolis)
X
X
X
Hoarv bat CLasiurus c. cinereus)
X
X
X
Florida vellow bat (Lasiurus intermedius floridanus)
X
X
X
Evening bat (Nvcticeius h. humeralis")
X
X
X
Free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis cvanocephala)
X
X
X
Nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus mexicanus)
X
X
Eastern cottontail (Svlvilaaus floridanus")
X
X
Swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aauaticus littoralis")
X
X
X
X
Bavou arav squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis fulieinosus")
X
X
Bachman fox squirrel (Sciurus niger bachmani)
X
Southern flvinp; squirrel (Glaucomvs volans saturatus)
X
Beaver (Castor canadensis carolinensis")
X
Marsh rice rat (Orvzomvs p. palustris")
X
X
Eastern Kar\7est mouse (Reithrodontomvs humulis)
X
X
X
Cotton mouse (Peromvscus z. eossvpinus")
X
X
Golden mouse (Ochrotomvs nutalli aureolus")
X
X
Cotton rat (Sismodon h. hispidus")
X
X
X
Kasfprn unnrf rat (Neofoma floridana rubicja)
X
X
Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus rivalicius)
X
X
-------
Table 57 (continued). MAMMALS OF SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY
1 2 3 4 5 6
Black rat (Rattus rattus)
X
X
X
X
Norway- rat (Rattus n. norvegicus)
X
X
X
X
House mouse (Mus musculus brevirostris)
X
X
X
X
Nutria (Mvocastor covdus bonariensis)
X
X
Funback whale (Balaenoptera phvsalia)
X
Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis)
X
Bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)
X
X
Spotted dolphin (Stenella plagiodon)
X
Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis)
X
Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhvncha)
X
Sperm whale (Physeter catodon)
X
Red fox (Vulpes fulva fulva)
X
X
X
Grav fox (Urocvon cinereoareenteus floridanus")
X
X
X
Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus)
X
X
Raccoon (Procvon lotor varius)
X
X
X
X
Mink (Mustela vison mink)
X
X
Spotted skunk fSpiloaale p. putorius")
X
Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis eloneata')
X
River otter (Lutra canadensis)
X
Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi)
X
X
Bobcat (Lvnx rufus floridanus)
X
X
White-tailed deer (Dama vireiniana)
X
X
-------
have been recorded from the Gulf of Mexico (Gunter, 1968). One of these
was seen on July 1, 1966, resting on a channel buoy just south of Sand
Point Light near the mouth of Mobile Bay.
The Red wolf (Canis n. niger) probably was found throughout Mobile
County but was exterminated as the area was settled (Howell, 1921). The
last record of a wolf being killed within the state is from.Carlton,
Clarke County, in 1894. Linzey (1970, 1971) records a specimen of what
he thought was probably a Coyote-Red wolf hybrid killed in 1970 near Mt.
Vernon, Mobile County. It is not known if the animal moved into the area
naturally, or if it escaped from captivity or was released: Allen (1975),
however, indicates that this specimen was probably a coyote (Canis la- .
trans) rather than a hybrid. The Red wolf is included in the Federal
list of endangered species.
Five species of mammals found in the area are not native, but have
been introduced and expanded their ranges of distribution into the area.
These include the Nine-banded armadillo, the Black rat, the Norway rat,
the House mouse, and the Nutria. Nutria, which are native of South
America, were accidentally introduced into the United States in Louisi-
ana in 1940 (Adams, 1957). They were released in the-Mobile delta in
1949 and 1950 (Leuth, no date). Since then, nutria have spread to other
parts of Alabama and become abundant in the salt and freshwater marshes
of the coast where they feed on various plants in competition with the
Muskrat. They are trapped for fur, but because of low value and quality
of the pelts, this activity is limited (Chermock, 1974).
Native species commonly associated with the tidal marshes are:
Opossum, Rice rat, Harvest mouse,'Cotton rat, Muskrat, Swamp rabbit,
Mink, and Raccoon. Several of these are hunted and trapped for food or
for their pelts. Other game animals found in south Mobile County are
the Cottontail rabbit, Gray squirrel, Fox squirrel, and White-tailed
deer. The Beaver, Otter, Foxes, Skunks, and Bobcat are trapped for their
furs.
293
-------
SEAFOOD INDUSTRY
According to Guriter (1967), Mobile Bay is probably the best example
of a large bay on the northern Gulf Coast. This oblong bay is 43.4 km
(24 mi) long, covers 769 sq km (297 sq mi), and has a relatively narrow
mouth. Austin (1954) charted the flood tide currents of Mobile Bay and
McPhearson (1970) demonstrated that the salinity of Mobile Bay water in-
creased from north to south (see section on offshore hydrology). These
physical patterns in combination with the rich nutrient runoff that en-
ters the estuaries by way of freshwater rivers and streams provide an
excellent nursery ground for many marine species whose larvae, after
hatching in the Gulf, must enter areas of low salinity where they grow
to adult size. This pattern was outlined by Swingle (1969) for the
shrimps of the Mobile Bay area. Brown and white shrimps spawn in the
Gulf during the winter. After they hatch, the larvae pass through three
distinct stages to become postlarvae which are approximately one half
inch long. By some incompletely understood stimulus, the postlarvae
then migrate to the rivers and streams that empty into Mississippi Sound
and bays along the Gulf Coast (Figure 90). In the marshes, the post-
larvae develop into young shrimp which, because of the rich nutrient
levels available there, grow at a rapid rate (25 to 70 mm per month).
In late spring and early summer, the young shrimp begin to migrate out
of the estuaries toward the Gulf. The largest numbers of Brown shrimp
are landed in south Mobile County from June through August while
White shrimp are most abundant in September and October. Pink shrimp
move out of the bays at a smaller size consequently very few large in-
dividuals are caught close to shore. Other commercially important spe-
cies that rely on Alabama estuaries include Oysters, Blue crab, Atlantic
croaker, Spot, Mullet, Menhaden and Kingfish.
There are two major types of commercial seafood landed in Alabama,
fish and shellfish (Table 58). Fishes are classified by species. The
shellfish group consists of blue crabs, saltwater shrimp, squid, and
oyster meats. Although they were not caught in Alabama waters, lobsters
are included since they contribute to the economy of coastal Alabama.
According to the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (1975), a
total of 1,969 fishermen were employed by the Alabama Gulf fisheries in-
dustry in 1972. One thousand eighty-nine boats and vessels weighing
26,721 MT (29,455 t) were used to catch 7,152,820.5 kg (15,769,108 lbs)
of fish valued at $2,133,508 and 9,195,936.7 kg (20,273,362 lbs) of shell-
fish valued at $15,594,961.
294
-------
Figure 90. Generalized diagram of the life cycle
shrimp in Mobile Bay.
295
-------
Tabla 58. Cn>CH;RC:/J. LAN2INGS OF SEAFOOD IN ALARAMA TORTS rP»0?I 1570 TnROUCii 1972
(Mortified from U.S. National Marine pisnerieu Service, 1971-1974)
Specles
1970
197 1
1972
r iah
Kilograms
Pounds
Dollars
Ki.lor,rar.9
Pounds
Do 1 lars
Kilot,ra-s
Pour.as
Do I larB
Blue fien
9,922
2 1 , 5 7 j
1,688
5,913
13,035
962
10,137
22 , V.9
1,3.3
Blue runner
43
106
5
44 4
97 8
49
Buffa lotLeh
1,701
3,7 50
J75
41
90
10
Ca bio
5,958
13,134
74 7
3,593
7,925
444
6,700
14,770
7 54
Ca 11 iah
4,785
10,550
3,6 i5
32
^81
43
Croaker
2,581.289
5,690,711
739,063
3,802,365
8,333,796
1,035,704
4,233,544
9,444,333
1.175.0C3
Drim, Block
10,908
24,048
1,316
14 ,156
31,209
1,7 64
19,932
43,941
3 , -46
Drum, Red (Patdfisn)
15,970
35,208
3,602
14 ,4:4
31.953
3,753
34,522
76, 9S3
8,94 7
Flounders, Unclaaa-Eieii
35.'., 17 3
760 ,6'.0
135,391
431 ,332
950,915
154,643
530,565
1,169,727
183,472
Croupers
120,420
26 3 ,480
32 ,908
^ 1,049
130.0J4
2 3 , 3 Z 2
103,819
2 25,875
31, "<.3
Jo-fish
33,336
73,492
7,646
.8,362
41,548
4,205
36,335
30 , i05
6,755
Kinr, '-hieing or "Kingfiah"
256,152
564,7 12
32,454
234 ,448
516,864
30,738
253,157
555,111
33,274
Mu 1 lee
1,4 11, J65
3,111.495
191,806
1,070,938
2,360,939
14/. ,72 o
686,4 7 2
1,513,397
88,691
PadcUoflsh or Spoonbill
934
2,053
3ia
25
56
'
Po~pa to
909
2,005
832
2,363
5,210
2,575
2.C43
4,505
2 , 3^-9
Sea catfish
54, 484
120,115
6 ,106
41,297
91 ,C44
4 ,820
31, 124
6o,5 16
3,571
Sen crovic, Spotted
33,360
84 ,613
26,135
0,2 ,264
13 7,267
40 ,274
99,354
220,205
65 ,4 90
Sen trout, «hite
340,585
750,853
43 ,230
444,549
SbO,052
59,4~C
4 24,64 2
936,165
56,7 69
Snuepun«ad, Fresn-jator
1,111
2.4SC
374
8
17
3
Snccpahe.id, Salt-water
82,483
181,854
8,857
145,446
320,650
16,922
65 ,52a
144,449
7,319
Sn.'»ppor, P..id
44 o,ou
983,276
326,269
426,007
939,174
341,051
476,545
k,050,591
443,075
Spanish aiclterel
57 ,055
125 ,7 84
26,371
25 ,356
55,300
4,497
41,262
90,967
8,359
19,749
43,539
2,785
40.199
88,622
5,275
45 .6.?° -
' 00 .! -
5 .: < 9
Total Flan
5,34/, 733
12,391,118
1,5
-------
SHRIMP
Shrimp contribute the greatest volume and value to Alabama's seafood
¦landings (Table 58). A graph of Alabama's annual shrimp landings (Figure
91 and Table 59) indicates that there has been a steady increase in the
number of pounds landed from 1960 through 1974. In 1972, shrimp com-
prised 49 percent of the volume of seafood landed and 83 percent of the
dollar value (Figures 92 and 93) of seafood in the state.
The three species of shrimp caught in Alabama waters in order of
abundance are Brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus') , White shrimp (Penaeus
setiferus). and Pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum) (Figure 94). Occasionlly,
royal red shrimp (Hvmenoperaeus robustus) are brought to Alabama ports;
however, in 1972, none were reported.
In addition to the seafood industry, a significant number of shrimp
are annually caught and sold by live bait-shrimp dealers. Swingle (1972)
reported that in 1968, 29 licenses were sold to bonafide dealers and 373
were issued to sports fishermen. During that year, 1,544,000 live shrimp
valued at $64,500 and 9,979 kg (22,200 lbs) of dead shrimp valued at
$12,040 were sold. Total receipts from the sale of bait shrimp were
$76,540.
FISHES
Fish species which account for the greatest number of pounds and
the highest dollar value landed at Alabama ports annually are Atlantic
croaker (Micropoaon undulatus), Red snapper (Lutianus ava) and Southern
flounder (Paralichthvs lethostigma) (Figure 95). Croaker and flounder
are caught along with shrimp and are processed at the same time while
snapper are taken on hook and line from offshore reefs.
Although large numbers of menhaden (Brevoortia patronus) are caught
in Alabama waters, none were landed in Alabama since there is no petfood
industry to process them. The closest state with such an industry is
Mississippi and in 1972, 80,864,102 kg (178,273,000 lbs) of menhaden va-
lued at $2,915,038 were landed there. According to the U.S. National
Marine Fisheries Service (1974), the volume of menhaden landed in Missis-
sippi in 1972 was down 42 percent and the value down 40 percent.
Fish landings in Alabama (Table 59) have generally increased in re-
cent ydars. Contributing factors to this trend include bigger and better
equipped boats, improved fishing gear, and in some cases, the use of air-
craft to locate large schools of fish.
297
-------
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
10,000,000
7,500,000
5,000,000
2,500,000
1 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I '
I960 196 i 1962 1963 196J 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
YEARS
Figure 91. Landings of shrimp and commercial fish in Alabama.
-------
Table 59. TOTAL LANDINGS OF COMMERCIAL FISH AND
SHRIMP IN ALABAMA, 1960-1974
(Compiled from U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service)
Fish
Shrimp
Year
Kilograms
Pounds
Kilograms
Pounds
1960
1,482,355
3,268,000
3,251,837
7,169,000
1961
1,624,785
3,582,000
1,598,930
3,525,000
1962
1,929,148
4,253,000
1,700,082
3,748,000
1963
2,191,781
4,832,000
3,519,913
7,760,000
1964
2,304,700
5,080,942
3,272,584
7,214,738
1965
2,655,666
5,854,682
4,363,396
9,619,542
1966
2,930,102
6,459,702
4,811,841
10,608,185
1967
3,407,047
7,511,176
6,557,004
14,455,572
1968
3,633,493
8,010,398
7,008,060
15,449,969
1969
5,049,551
11,132,241
6,79^495
14,976,938
1970
5,850,906
12,898,908
6,818,055
15,031,083
1971
6,866,159
15,137,135
7,580,760
16,712,544
1972
7,152,821
15,769,108
7,960,107
17,548,851
1973
9,990,496
22,025,048
5,451,643
12,018,693
1974
7,919,288
17,458,863
6,315.026
13,922,107
299
-------
Total 35,999,880
Figure 92. Pounds of commercial seafood
landed in Alabama ports in 1972.
SLUE CRAB 1
SHRIMP
Total: $17,639,859
Figure 93. Commercial value of seafood
landed in Alabama ports in 1972.
-------
Total • $1 4,660,50x1
Figure 94. Commercial value of shrimp
landed in Alabama ports in 1972.
Total: $2,133,508
Figure 95. Value of commercial fishes
landed in Alabama ports in 197 2.
-------
OYSTERS
The oyster (Crassostrea virginica") is an estuarine species that
can live under wide ranges of temperature and salinity. Optimum salini-
ties and temperatures necessary to produce maximum growth rates in oy-
sters vary from 10.0 to 28.0 parts per thousand and 22° to 27°C respec-
tively .
Figure 96 shows the location of living oyster reefs in Mobile Bay.
The total area of oyster reefs is 1,239 ha. <3,064 a.) and in 1972, 485,129 kg
(1,069,515 lbs) of oyster meats valued at $700,636 were landed at Alabama
ports. In addition, approximately 374 ha. (924 a.) of state-owned bottoms
are leased to oystermen and 425 ha. (1,050 a.) of riparian bottoms are
being used by private individuals to grow Oysters (Crance, 1971).
Larval oysters, or spat, are planktonic and are carried by the tides
and currents. They eventually attach themselves to a variety of hard or
semihard, clean surfaces including shells on existing reefs; they then
metamorphose and begin to grow. Normally, the rate of growth of oysters
in Alabama is rapid and they reach marketable size in a year.
Oysters from Alabama have long been used as a source of food by man.
Large mounds or middens of oyster shell built up by the Indians presuma-
bly where they shucked the oysters are found along the shores of the bay
and Mississippi Sound., and the offshore islands. Artifacts and skeletal
material indicate that they go back to the Woodland Culture that began
in Alabama about 2000 B.C. (Winberley, 1960). Today, oysters are still
used as seafood and their shells are used in establishing new reefs or
supplementing old ones, for road building, and other commercial uses.
Landings of oysters at Alabama ports have fluctuated considerably
from 1950 through 1974 (Figure 97)• Several environmental and biological
stresses account for this irregular pattern. The major cause of oyster
kills in the Mobile Bay-Mississippi Sound area is prolonged periods of
lowered salinities called "Freshies" caused by heavy inland rainfall
which ultimately enters the estuary by way of the Mobile Basin. Large
volumes of freshwater usually carry large silt loads which can partially
cover oyster beds and reduce setting of spat (May, 1972) . Increased sil-
tation due to dredging operations similarly retards oyster population
growth (May, 1968).
Although no mortality in oysters has been directly attributed to the
organic and inorganic wastes produced by the 16 municipal and 27 indus-
trial sources in northern Mobile Bay (May, 1971) , it has resulted in the
permanent closing of 29,288 ha. (72,370 a.) to shellfish harvesting (see
figure in Offshore Hydrology Section). Additional acreage closed to
302
-------
Figure 96. Living oyster reeL's
(after May, 1971b).
* I 0 MIL f S
J i I I ' i
5 10 KILOMfc 1 RTS
_L I I LL
303
-------
1,250,000
OJ
o
2,500,000 -
2 020,000
o 1 500 000 ~
o_
' ,000,000
500 000
BLUE CRAB
OYSTERS
N
1,000,000
m
750,000 o
z
o
O
500,000 >
J L
J L.
J L
250,000
YEARS
Figure 97. Landings of oysters and crabs in Alabama.
-------
oystering around Bayou La Batre, Coden Bayou, Dauphin Island Bay, and
Bon Secour River brings the total acreage closed to oyster harvesting to
29,779 ha. (73,584 a.)
Biological factors which have adversely affected oyster harvest in
Mobile Bay are the fungus disease Labyrinthomvxa marinum and the oyster
drill, Thais haemastoma (Crance, 1971 and May, 1968). Average salinities
in excess of 15 ppt. are optimum for oyster drill survival and their de-
struction of oyster beds (May and Bland, 1969). Although the bottoms in
Heron Bay, Dauphin Island Bay, Portersville Bay, and Grand Bay are very
suitable for oyster production, no marketable oysters (over 3 inches)
¦were harvested there due to the extensive destruction of the oyster popu-
lation by the oyster drill.
Oyster shell deposits (Figure 98) .have been dredged in Alabama for
commercial use since 1946. From 1947 through 1968, 30,863,312 cu m
(40,338,220 cu yds) were dredged and $4,151,966 was paid to the State of
Alabama in royalty. The average annual production for 1947 through 1969
was 1,402,872 cu m (1,833,555 cu yds) and the average royalty was $188,725
per year. Average production was 1,413,096 cu m (1,846,917 cu yds) from
1964 through 1968. In this 5-year period, the annual royalty averaged
$233,092. The royalty from these shells has been a major source of
revenue to support the program of the Seafoods Division of the Alabama
Department of Conservation (May, 1971a).
BLUE CRAB
The blue crab (Callinectes sapidus). another important source of
seafood in Alabama, is found in a variety of benthic environments in
estuaries and shallow oceanic water. They can tolerate a wide salinity
range, and even occur in fresh water (Williams, 1965). Mating occurs in
low-salinity waters in the upper estuaries, and the gravid females mi-
grate to the Gulf where the eggs hatch. The males remain in the mating
grounds. Apparently, the spawning season is relatively long (Swingle,
1971). The zoeid larvae are planktonic; after transforming into the
megalops stage, they begin their migration back into the shallow estu-
aries where they may remain a year or more, and the cycle is repeated.
Although crabs of commercial size are found throughout the year, they
tend to be most abundant during the summer months. They also show con-
siderable variations in abundance from year to year (Figure 97) .
305
-------
10 '• 10 *.« 11 | <,
i j i i i i i i i i : _ I
0 S JO MlOMET RES
U.LU.LLUJJ
Figure 98. Active and dead oyster reefs
(after May, 1971b).
306
-------
HUNTING
Hunting in south Mobile County is limited primarily to waterfowl.
Because of their abundant food supplies, Alabama estuaries provide mi-
gratory water fowl an excellent wintering and stopover area. The rela-
tive abundance of the various species of ducks tends to vary, although
gadwall, canvasback, scaup, green-winged teal and baldpate seem to be the
dominant species. In recent years there has been a decline in duck popu-
lations in Mobile Bay, particularly mallards (Tables 60-62). It is
generally believed that these birds, which formerly wintered in the area,
are now short-stopped in refuges and impoundments to the north along
their migratory routes. However, coot, an important game bird in the
area, are still abundant as evidenced by the record number (21,800) re-
corded during the 1974 January aerial duck count. Geese are usually
transients, and in many years may fly over the Mobile Bay area without
stopping (Leuth, 1963).
The hunting of waterfowl is a popular sport in coastal Alabama (Ta-
bles 63 and 64). In 1973-74, 11,372 hunting licenses and 2,700 duck
stamps were sold in the Mobile Bay area. The continuous decrease in duck
stamp sales between 1970 and 1974 (Table 63) indicates that duck hunting
has declined slightly in the last few years due to fewer ducks.
The Alabama Department of Conservation estimates the duck population
of the Mobile Delta ranges from 25,000 to 40,000 birds with about an
equal number of coots. Total annual kills have ranged from 15,000 to
30,000 ducks with an equal number of coots. These have declined some-
what since 1968. In the lower parts of the bay and Mississippi Sound,
the duck population ranges from 3,000 to 5,000 birds with annual kills
of 1,000 to 2,000 (Beshears, 1973, personal communication).
It is difficult to determine the economic value of waterfowl hunting
to the area since statistics are not available on the amount of money
spent on the purchase of guns, shells, decoys, in addition to travel,
boats, and sleeping accommodations. The Department of Conservation
"estimates waterfowl hunter expenditures to be from $90,000-$150,000
annually in this area (6 trips at $5/trip)" (Beshears, 1973, personal
communication). This figure is probably conservative.
Upland species which are present in the study area, but probably not
in large numbers, include Whitetail deer, two species of rabbit, Bobwhite
quail and Mourning dove. Very few squirrel and probably no turkey exist
in the area, due to the lack of proper habitat. Although ducks are most
often hunted by residents and visitors, undoubtedly some small amount of
hunting for upland species must also occur during the respective seasons
in south Mobile County.
307
-------
Table 60. RESULTS OF WATERFCWL-HUNTER BAG CIECKS, MOBILE DELTA 1952-1973
(Data frora Alabama Department of Conservation)
Ducks
Hours
Ducks
Geese
Coots
Crippled
Hungers
Total
Hrs. per
Total
Kill per
Total
Kill per
To tal
Kill per
Total
Per-
Year
Interviewed
Hours
Trip
Killed
Trtp
Killed
Trip
Killed
Trip
Reported
cent
1952
750
(n>
00
3.04
1,643
2.19
• 2
Tr
1,643
2.19
382
18.8
1953
-',26
1,522
3.57
633
1.48
1
Tr
1,834
4.30
128
20.2
195^
75!
2,959
3.94
1,136
1.51
0
0
3,009
4.0
290
20.3
1955
5/7
2,713
4.70
986
1.71
1
Tr
1,278
2.21
247
27 .4
19 56
497
2,050
4. 10
654
1.32
0
0
1,201
2.42
131
16.6
1957
32 3
1 ,365
4.20
297
.92
1
Tr
943
2.92
65
17.9
1958
33/
1,477
3.80
530
1.37
8
.02
1,137
2.94
99
15.7
1959
111
329
2.96
204
1.84
0
0
112
1.0
33
15.7
i960
*
19 d L
153
490
3.20
274
1.78
0
0
158
1.03
83
23.2
1962
7 9
225
2.80
63
.80
1
Tr
143
1.80
7
10.0
1963
116
364
3. 10
203
1.75
0
0
186
1.60
34
14.4
19o4
57
22S
4.0
121
2.12
0
0
220
3.36
14
10.4
1965
106
415
3.90
204
1.90
0
0
85
.80
40
16.4
1966
87
284
3.26
68
.78
0
0
169
1.94
15
18.0
1967
97
392
4.0
199
2.05
0
0
130
1.34
39
16.0
1968
163
570
3.49
221
1.36
0
0
14 7
.90
41
15.6
1969
84
410
4.8
214
2.5
2
.02
77
.92
20
8.5
1970
14/
523
3.4
246
1.67
0
0
306
2.08
45
15.4
1971
50
124
2.48
48
.96
0
0
73
1.46
17
26.0
1972
220
592
2.7
186
.85
0
0
674
3.06
36
16.2
1973
293
834
2.8
665
2.46
0
0
865
3.2
81
10.9
*Iio daca for 1960.
-------
Taale 61. SFECIZS COMPOSITION OF DUCKS KILLED IN MOBILE DELTA
(Data trom Alabama Ueparcnenc of Conservation)*
Specie*
1952
1933
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1566
19b7
1968
1969
1970
197 i
1972
1973
Ha 11a rd
27 .0
17.4
20.4
16 8
7.5
8.0
13.6
9.8
7.6
15.3
9.3
6.1
e-. 3
11 7
7.0
6 9
o 9
11 6
6. 2
1.5
Black Duck
.2
.5
.7
.2
1
1.0
.4
4.7
1. 5
1.5
.5
.6
. 3
Gadwa 11
22.3
20.1
30.4
31.0
39 7
32 0
12.6
13.2
9.4
19.0
6.8
16.5
32.8
19.:
17.0
6.0
15.6
13 1
37.5
2.;
1 . 2
10.2
14.2
9.5
13.3
18.2
15.5
12.8
L.O
6.2
7.9
7.8
10.7
22.1
8.8
12.5
e. 7
10.3
13 1
::.5
2.1
. j
C-W. teal
9.0
2.2
4.4
2.0
4.6
5.7
5.1
12.2
16.4
3.1
15.7
6.6
5.9
11.8
21.1
43. 5
20. 1
26 0
14 5
39.2
5.0
0.'4. teal
Tr
Tr
.7
.2
1. 1
3.0
6.8
1.4
.5
3.0
Tr
.9
8
5.9
3.2
Shovelec
.5
1.1
.4
. 1
.8
.8
1.0
2.5
4.;
4.4
.8
7.6
16.0
7.2
17.3
6.6
6.2
5.9
7.0
5.3
4.0
3.2
8 B
2.7
3.7
1.0
6.2
4.7
9.3
2.4
8.3
7.4
lo 0
7 2
17 .3
6.4
6 . 2
1.1
1. 5
Wood duck
Tr
1.3
.3
.2
. 1
1.3
.6
1.0
3.1
.5
1.0
0
.5
2.5
3
Redhead
] .2
1.1
3 4
4.0
1.8
2.7
4.7
1 D
.7
1.4
3.3
2.4
4.6
.5
i r
2 . 3
1 b
Canvaiback
4.2
3.1
4.4
7.3
3.8
1.7
4.0
2.4
2.5
3.1
2.8
7.4
5.4
2.9
4 5
4.0
5.1
2.8
2.1
S4.;
Scaup
13.2
16.1
9.5
9.0
6.6
19.2
18.7
53.6
37.2
3.1
30.0
38.0
10.8
13.2
6.0
6 . 0
10.3
11.6
16.5
30.;
Rlngncck
6.6
11.5
6.0
11.5
4.6
2.3
13.6
1.0
3-2
25.3
8.8
2.4
2.4
5.9
.5
:.8
Tr
1.6
2.6
6 2
.5
Co 1d one ye
. 1
. L
.1
.2
.2
.3
1.5
.8
....
Bu f fIchued
.2
.7
.2
.4
.3
1.5
.8
5.5
6 0
. 9
:. 2
l.i
l.Z
Ruddy duck
.2
4.5
5.0
.4
1.2
3.0
1.7
.5
.?
1.5
.5
3.3
.5
4
3.6
.9
2.4
3.5
Old * q ua J
.1
.1
.2
.8
.5
Mergarner
.2
. 1
.3
.4
.8
.3
.8
.5
2.1
3.1
1.0
1.6
2.0
2.5
3.1
3.7
.6
2.7
.7
Other ducka
1.3
....
.3
1.5
.8
.5
.8
1.5
¦44
Total
100. 5
percent
100.3
100.7
100.3
100.1
99.7
100.0
100.3
99 4
100.0
100.4
99.8
100.3
100.0
100.0
99.6
99.2
59. 7
99.8
99.9
99.7
Total duck*
665
checked
1,644
642
1,136
986
654
297
530
204
2/4
63
203
122
204
63
199
221
214
266
43
186
~So da to (or I960.
-------
Table 62. JANUARY AERIAL COUNTS ON MOBILE BAY
(Data from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Merganser
0
0
0
0
0
Mailard
300
100
300
200
300
Black Duck
0
100
100
100
100
Gadwal1
2,100
900
1,200
1,000
1,200
W idgeon
100
1,100
800
400
600
Green-winged teal
2,000
1,300
900
600
2,200
Blue-winged teal
0
0
0
0
400
Shoveler
0
100
0
0
0
Pintail
1,900
1,400
1,800
400
200
Wood duck
0
0
0
0
0
Redhead
5,000
0
0
200
0
Canvas back
0
1,400
1,300
1,500
700
Scaup
800
300
600
300
300
Ring-necked duck
700
0
0
300
300
Goldeneye
0
0
100
0
0
Bufflehead
0
0
0
0
0
Oldsquaw
0
0
0
0
0
Scoter & Eider
0
0
0
0
0
Ruddy duck
200
0
0
0
0
Coo t
10,000
14,000
12,000
11,600
21,800
Totals
23,100
20,700
19,100
16,600
28,100
-------
Table 63. HUNTING AND FUR CATCHERS LICENSES ISSUED
BY THE MOBIEE COUNfY LICENSE COMMISSIONER AND DUCK STAMPS
SOLD BY THE UNITED STATES POST OFFICE," 1970-1974
Hunting Fur Catchers Duck Stamps
Year Licenses Licenses Sold
1970-71 12,373 10 4,000
1971-72 11,324 7 4,000
1972-73 11,330 10 3,000
1973-74 11,372 11 2,700
Table 64. WATERFOWL-HUNTERS AND KILL, MOBILE DELTA
(Modified from Lueth, 1963)
1946-1947 1947-1948 1948-1949
Season Dates Nov. 23-Jati..6 Dec. 8-Jan. 6 Nov. 26-Dec. 25
Number of days 45 29.5 29.5
Number of hunting trips 6,250 7,000 7,700
Number of ducks killed 3,625 8,200 10,900
Number of coots killed 35,200 21,500 23,200
Ducks per huntcr-day .58 1.17 1.42
Coots per hunter-day 5.63 3.63 3.01
311
-------
FISHING
Sport fishing is an important recreational activity which contri-
butes significantly to the economy of south Mobile County. Although
exact figures are not available, Crance (1971) and Taylor et.. al. (1973)
estimated that the value of sport fishing in Alabama was as much as or
possibly greater than that of commercial fishing. If true, the value of
sport fishing along coastal Alabama in 1972 could have equaled or ex-
ceeded the $18,000,000 in commercial landings reported for that year by
the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (1974).
Depending on the time of the year and the species sought, sports-
men can fish offshore in the Gulf of Mexico or in the estuarine zones of
Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound. Fishing gear includes gigs, castnets,
trawls, and rod and reel. Species caught by fishing in the Gulf are
Cobia (locally called ling or lemon fish), King mackerel, Spanish mackerel,
Dolphin, Bluefish, Red snapper and Grouper. Lately, more efforts have
been devoted to catching ether offshore species such as Wahoo, Atlantic
sailfish, and Blue and White marlin. Each year, several individuals of
each species are landed during the Alabama Dee Sea Fishing Rodeo held
in July at Dauphin Island. Species taken from the estuarine areas in-
clude Spotted (speckled) seatrout, Southern kingfish, Red drum (redfish),
Sheepshead, Flounder, Atlantic croaker and Mullet. Freshwater fishes
caught in the area are Largemouth bass and several species of sunfish.
Numerous fishing camps are scattered through the area (Figure 99).
The majority of these are concentrated in southern Baldwin County for
saltwater fishing, and in the delta for fresh-water fishing.
Individuals fish in the Gulf by chartering sportfishing vessels or
party boats and using private craft. Swingle (1970) estimated that
39,480 persons paid $730,350 to rent sportfishing vessels in 1969 (Table
65). According to data obtained from the Mobile County License Commis-
sioner1 s Office (Table 66), there has been a gradual increase in the
number of licenses issued to private fishing vessels most of which are
probably used in the Gulf around Dauphin Island and Perdido Bay.
Chermock (1974) summarized the history of artificial reef construc-
tion along the Alabama coast. As stated by Crance (1967) and Swingle
(1972 and 1974), these reefs (Table '67 and Figure 100) attract bottom
fishes such as Red snapper, Grouper, Triggerfish, Amberjack and White
trout and pelagic species including Dolphin, King mackerel and Cobia.
The first man-made reefs were established in 1953 off Baldwin
County in the Gulf of Mexico at depths of 18.3 to 27.4 m (60 to 90 ft).
These consisted of 250 automobile bodies placed in small groups. In 1957,.,
312
-------
o FISHING CAMPS
Figure 99. Fishing camps and marinas in coastal Alabama.
313
-------
Table 65. NUMBER OF DAY'S OF OPERATION AND
GROSS INCOME OF ALABAMA'S CHARTER FISHING FLEET DURING 1969
(After Swingle, 1970)
Avg. No. Total No. Minimum Minimum
No. No. days of days of daily daily Total
charter party operation operation charter head gross
Port boats boats per year per year fee fee Income
Orange Beach 30 135
Fairhope 1 30
Pt. Clear 3 100
Dauphin Island 14 1 110
Bayou La Batre 3 183
4,050 $90 $364,500
30 75 2,250
300 90 27,000
1,650 90 $300 171,600
550 300 165,000
Total
48
6,580
$730,350
-------
Table 66. FISHING AND BOAT LICENSES ISSUED
1969-1974
(From Mobile County License Commissioner)
Date Fishing Licenses Boat Licenses
1969-70
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
15,581
12,463
14,321
14,106
14,255
13,260
14,126
14,688
15,598
16,645
315
-------
Table 67. NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FISHING REEFS ALONG COASTAL ALABAMA
(Modified from Alabama Department of Conservation, 197 5)
Map Number" Reef Name Date Installed
1
Sparkman (Liberty Ship)
1974
2
Wallace (Liberty Ship)
1974
3
Kelly (Tile Reef)
1962 and 1970
4
Allen (Liberty Ship)
1975
5
Buffalo Barge ir 1
1974
6
Lipscomb (Tug)
1972
7
Fort Morgan Tile Reef
1970 and 1972
8
Buffalo Barge #2
1974
9
Southeast Banks
Natural reef
10
Wreck Tulsa
Sunk during World War II
11
Liberty Ship Site -)1
To be sunk in 1975
12
Liberty Ship Site jf2
To be sunk in 1975
13
Dry Dock Reef
1959
14
Southwest Banks
Natural reef
15
Little Dauphin Island Reef
1972
16
Experimental Tile Reef
1964
17
Fish River Reef
1972
18
Automobile Reefs
1953 and 1957
"'Numbers in table correspond to those on Figure 100.
-------
Figure 100. Location of natural and artificial fishing reefs along
Coastal Alabama (modified from Alabama Department of Conservation, 1975).
317
-------
another 1,500 used-car bodies were dumped in small groups along much of
Alabama's coastline at depths of about 18.3 m (60 ft). Although these
have now deteriorated, they provided good fishing for three to seven
years (Swingle, 1972).
In 1959, a 91 m (300 ft) drydock was sunk south of Sand Island Light-
house and it is still being fished for snapper and other reef fishes.
In 1962, about 272 MT (300 t) of imperfect concrete culverts, .6 to 1.8 m
(2 to 6 ft) in diameter, were sunk in 23 m (75 ft) of water offshore from
Perdido Pass in five individual reefs. Many of these were covered as a
result of hurricane Camille. In 1964, six reefs were constructed 4.8 to
8 km (3 to 5 mi) offshore from Fort Morgan in 9 to 15 m (30 to 50 ft) of
water. Because of turbidity, they failed to attract typical reef fishes,
but did provide good fishing for white trout. In 1970, additional cul-
verts were added to the reefs off Perdido Pass, and another reef was
constructed 23.3 km (14.5 mi) east-southeast of Sand Island Lighthouse.
Both produced good fishing.
The Alabama Department of Conservation began its inshore reef pro-
gram in 1971, constructing two reefs in Mobile Bay. One is located off-
shore from Cypress Point in Bon Secour Bay and the other near Little
Dauphin Island. These were built of broken paving and imperfect concrete
block. Others are planned in Mobile Bay, Mississippi Sound, Wolf Bay
and Perdido Bay.
On May 2, 1974, the first of five Liberty ships which were designa-
ted for artificial reef construction along Alabama's coast was sunk 19.3
km (12 mi) south of Perdido Pass in 26 m (85 ft) of water. According
to Swingle (1974), snapper, grouper, and triggerfish began moving on the
wreck within weeks after it was sunk and trolling boats had already begun
to catch king mackerel, cobia, and dolphin over the wreck. Two additional
Liberty ships were sunk later in 1974 and 1975 and the remaining two ships
will be placed in 1975 (Wayne Swingle, Personal Communication). In 1975,
the Alabama Marine Resources Laboratory published a map which gives the
exact locations of existing artificial fishing reefs in Alabama waters.
Sport shrimping is also an important sport during the summer months
in south Mobile County. Using their own boats and 16 foot otter trawls,
individuals are able to catch large numbers of shrimp (Table 68) for food
and bait.
JUBILEES
For over a century, peculiar phenomena known as "jubilees" have
occurred in Mobile Bay, mainly along the eastern shore between Daphne
318
-------
Table 68. SPORT SHRIMPING DATA COLLECTED BY THE ALABAMA MARINE RESOURCES LAB
UNDER FEDERAL PROJECT 2-208-R (PL-88-20)
(Wayne Swingle, Personal Communication)
Data 1972 1973 1974
Number of trawls owned
3,696
3,696*
3,694*
Number of trawls used
3,083
2,983
3,049
(83.4%)
(80.7%)
(82.5%)
Average trips per year
9.6
9.1
9.9
Average pounds ( .eads on caught per
trip
5.8
3.9*
6. 8*
Disposition of catch
Bai t
+
50.3%
66.3%
Food
49.7%
33.7%
Total trip expenditures
+
$318.139
$377,312
*Es timated
+No data
-------
and Mullet Point. During these jubilees, demersal animals such as
flounders, stingrays, and blue crabs are driven shoreward where they
remain in a depressed state for several minutes or hours. Jubilees
occur in the summer, usually in the early morning, when bottom water is
forced against the beach. Conditions are favorable when an incoming
tide deflects bottom waters in a northeasterly direction, and easterly
winds move surface water away from the shore. The water is always calm
near shore and there is a minimum mixing of water.
May (1973b) attributes jubilees to a severe oxygen depletion of
bottom waters to values of 1.0 ppm or less. This depletion is due to a
combination of factors: biological respiration, oxidation of organic
matter, and chemical oxidation. The nocturnal absence of photosynthesis
provides the extra stress resulting in excessive oxygen depletion in the
morning hours. There may also be an increased production of hydrogen
sulfide that acts as a respiratory depressant in fish. Demersal animals
present in the shallow waters are trapped between.the shore and the ad-
vancing water mass with its low oxygen content. They concentrate along
the shore where the water has enough oxygen to support them for short
periods. Here, the people net and gig them in large numbers.
The earliest account of a jubilee was in "The Daily Register":
Mobile on July 17, 1867. Records kept by the "Mobile Press Register"
for 26 years from 1946 through 1971 report 135 jubilees. Of these, 129
occurred along the eastern shore and five along the northwestern shore
of Mobile Bay, and one in southern Bon Secour Bay. The average is five
per year, with a maximum of fifteen reported in 1959. The records indi-
cate that jubilees occurred in Mobile Bay before any major modifications
were made by man.
320
-------
SECTION XVII
ENDANGERED ANIMALS AND PLANTS
A nationwide concern for the preservation of our wildlife has
been increasing in this country. In response to this, the U.S. Bu-
reau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (1968) published a list of rare
and endangered vertebrates of the United State. Species were classi-
fied as follows:
"Endangered - An endangered species or subspecies is one whose
prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeo-
pardy. Its peril may result from one or many causes - loss of
habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease.
An endangered species must have help, or extinction, will pro-
bably follow."
"Rare - A rare species or subspecies is one that, although not
presently threatened with extinction, is in such small numbers
throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment
worsens. Close watch of its status is necessary."
"Peripheral - A peripheral species or subspecies is one whose oc-
currence in the United States is at the edge of its natural range
and which is rare or endangered within the United States although
not in its range as a whole. Special attention is necessary to
assure its retention in our Nations fauna."
"Status - Undetermined - A status - undetermined species or sub-
species is one that has been suggested as possibly rare or en-
dangered, but about which there is not enough information to
determine its status. More information is needed."
This list was prepared with the cooperation of hundreds of knowledge-
able scientists and naturalists from throughout the country.
In 1973, the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife revised
its 1968 publication (1973b) in which they combined "Endangered" and
"Rare" species into a single category termed "Threatened."
The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 provides author-
ity for the Federal Government's endangered species conservation pro-
gram. This act requires the Secretary of the Interior to periodically
publish in the Federal Register lists of vertebrates, mollusks and
321
-------
crustaceans which are threatened with extinction as a "List of Endan-
gered Native Fish and Wildlife." This list includes those threatened
species which officially have been declared "Endangered." The list of
endangered species has been prepared and is regularly updated. (U.S.
Bureau Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1973 b, appendix C.; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1974).
In 1975, the Smithsonian Institution (Ripley, 1975) prepared a re-
port on the endangered, threatened, and recently extinct plant species
of the United States for the 94th Congress. The following criteria
were used:
"Endangered species: those species of plants in danger of extinc-
tion throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges. Ex-
istence may be endangered because of the destruction, drastic
modification, or severe curtailment of habitat, or because of
overexploitation, disease, predation, or even unknown reasons.
Plant taxa from very limited areas, e.g., the type localities only,
or from restricted fragile habitats usually are considered endan-
gered."
"Threatened species: those species of plants that are likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of their ranges. This includes species cate-
gorized as rare, very rare, or depleted."
"Recently extinct or possibly extinct species: those species of
plants no longer known to exist after repeated search of the type
localities and other known or likely places. Some species may be
extinct in the wild, but preserved by cultivation in gardens-
such as the 'Lost Franklinia.
In 1972, the Alabama Department of Conservation (Keeler, 1972) pub-
lished the "Rare and Endangered Vertebrates of Alabama" which was based
on the results of a symposium on the subject in which professional bio-
logists and competent laymen participated. This list carefully evalua-
ted the status of vertebrate species within the state. Three categories
were used, endangered and rare species, and those with an undetermined
status.
The criteria fcr endangered species were essentially the same as
that of the 1968 U.S. list, but was restricted to Alabama. Rare species
were divided into groups. "Rare - 1" used the same criteria employed
in the U.S. list. The "Rare - 2" group included "A species or sub-
species that may be quite abundant where it does occur, but is known
in only a few localities or in a restricted habitat within Alabama."
The definition for status - undetermined was essentially the same as
the U.S. list. The category of peripheral animals used in the U.S. list
322
-------
was not included in the Alabama list.
On March 6-7, 1975, the Alabama Department of Conservation, in
cooperation with the Alabama Museum of Natural History, held a sym-
posium in Tuscaloosa to establish a list of endangered and threatened
species of plants and animals in Alabama. Hopefully, this list will
be adopted as the official List of Endangered and Threatened Plants and
Animals of Alabama by the State Legislature in cooperation with the
Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. Over 200 conservationists, pro-
fessional biologists and interested laymen from Alabama and several ot-
her states participated in the various workshops. The results of their
deliberations are to be published by the Alabama Museum of Natural His-
tory, University of Alabama.
The following criteria were used in classifying the various species,
subspecies or varieties:
"Endangered Species: Those species in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of their range in Alabama.
Endangered species are those whose prospects for survival are in
immediate jeopardy. An endangered species must have help, or ex-
tinction and/or extirpation from Alabama will probably follow."
"Threatened Species: Those species which are likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a sig-
nificant portion of their range in Alabama."
"Special Concern: Those species which must be continually moni-
tored because of eminent degrading factors, their limited distri-
bution in Alabama or other physical or biological characteristic,
may cause them to become threatened or endangered in the fore-
seeable future."
In addition to considering vertebrate animals, two groups of fresh-
water mollusks, the gastropods and pelecypods were studied along with
decapod crustaceans. Also for the first time, a list of plants was pre-
pared. Among the states of the Union, Alabama is one of the first to
consider these groups.
Within historical times, one fish species and two species of birds
which formerly were found in Alabama have become totally extinct. These
are the Hairlip Sucker (Lagochila lacera), Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes
migratorius-), and the Carolina Parakeet (Conuropsis carolinensis') . Two
species of Alabama plants have also become extinct. These are Linum
macrocarpum, a flax which was only known from Mobile, and Helianthus
smithii, a sunflower which was found in Randolph County. A number of
other species of animals have also become extirpated in Alabama, al-
though they still are found elsewhere. Among these are:
323
-------
Streamline Chub - (Hybopsis dissimilis)
Spotfin Chub - (llybopsis monacha-)
Popeye Shiner - (Notropis ariommus)
Sand Shiner - (Notropis stramineus)
Whiteline Topminnow - (Fundulus albolineatus)
Ashy Darter - (Etheostoma cinereum)
Trispot Darter - (Etheostoma trisella)
American Crocodile - (Crocodylus acutus-)
Indigo Snake - (Drymarchon corais couperi)
Scarlet Ibis - (Eudocimus ruber)
Roseate Spoonbill - (Aiaia aiaia)
American Flamingo - (Phoenicopterus ruber)
Whooping Crane - (Grus americana)
Ivory-billed Woodpecker - (Campephilus principalis)
Common Raven - (Corvus corax)
Red Wolf - (Canis n. niger)
Florida Manatee - (Trichecus manatus .latirostris)
By acquainting the public with those species which are in danger of ex-
tirpation, it is hoped that no additional species will be added to the
above list and that perhaps some of these will again return to Alabama.
In the past, Federal legislation has played an important role in
protecting many species of animals. (U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife, 1973a). A few of the more significant are the following:
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918). Implements treaties with Great
Britain (for Canada) ratified in 1916, and Mexico ratified in
1936, for the protection of migratory birds. It provides for re-
gulations to control taking, selling, transporting, and importing
migratory birds and provides penalties for violations. This act
stopped the killing of birds for their feathers and played an im-
portant role in protecting many species such as the Snowy Egret.
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929). Provided for the acquisi-
tion and development of land for migratory bird refuges. It also
authorizes investigations and publications on North American birds.
Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act (Duck Stamp Act) (1934). Provides
for the sale of duck stamps, the revenue of which is used to ac-
quire waterfowl production areas and migratory bird refuges, and
their management. This, and the above act, have played an impor-
tant role in protecting such birds as the Trumpeter Swan and the
Whooping Crane.
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman - Robertson Act)
(1937). Provides Federal aid to states for wildlife restoration
work, including land acquisition, research, development and manage-
324
-------
ment projects. It is supported by an excise tax on firearms and
ammunition. This has played an important role in increasing our
knowledge of wildlife and their protection.
Bald Eagle Act (1940). Provides for the protection of the Bald
Eagle and Golden Eagle.
Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the
Western Hemisphere (1940) . Under this treaty, the governments of
the United States and 11 other American Republics express their
wish to "protect and preserve in their natural habitat represen-
tatives of all species and genera of their native flora and fauna,
including migratory birds." This would include the wintering
grounds of many birds which nest in the United States.
Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act) (1950).
Provides aid to the states in sport fish restoration work, inclu-
ding land acquisition, development, and management. Funds are
provided from an excise tax on sport fishing tackle. This act has
been important in protecting, and increasing, our knowledge of
fishes.
Wilderness Act (1964). Provides for the formal preservation of
wilderness areas. In Alabama, the West Fork of the Sipsey River
in the Bankhead National Forest is one such area where habitats
of several rare Alabama plants and animals are found.
Andromous Fish Conservation Act (1965). Provides aid to the states
for the conservation, development, and enhancement of the Nation's
anadromous fishes (such as salmon, shad and striped bass), inclu-
ding species in the Great Lakes that ascend streams to spawn.
Estuary Protection Act (1968). Provides for Federal cost-sharing
agreements with states and their subdivisions for the management
of estuarine areas.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968). Establishes a national wild
and scenic river system. It is hoped that eventually at least
one of these wild river areas will be located in Alabama. This
program could play an important role in protecting aquatic animals.
Endangered Snccics Conservation Act (1969). Provides broad author-
ity to the Federal Government to establish a comprehensive program
for the conservation, restoration and propogation of selected fish
and wildlife in the United States which are threatened with extinc-
tion. The act also provides assistance on an international level
for the preservation of foreign wild animals.
325
-------
Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972). Establishes a moratorium on
the taking and importation of marine mammals and products made
from them. Included are any marine mammal on the official endan-
gered list and the Polar Bear, Sea Otter, Walrus, Dugong and three
species of Manatees.
The above Federal Acts apply to all of the states. In addition,
the State of Alabama prohibits the hunting of bear, mountain lion, and
alligator.
The most recent legislation to protect endangered species were
passed by Congress in December, 1973, and is called the Endangered Spe-
cies Act of 1973. In addition to protecting endangered and threatened
species of plants and animals, this law emphasizes the need to preserve
critical habitats on which endangered species depend for their con-
tinued existence. Individual states are also encouraged to establish
guidelines which will complement the goals outlined in the 1973 act.
Included in this report are lists of plants and animals native
to the area which have been considered as endangered or included in
some other category of concern by federal or state interests (Tables
69 and 70). Details on the status of those species which are of most
critical concern are discussed in the following pages.
INVERTEBRATES
According to Dr. Raymond W. Bouchard of the Smithsonian Institute,
Alabama presently contains fifty-six nominal species of crayfishes and
six species of shrimps. Alabama ranks second in total number of cray-
fish species only to Tennessee. Future investigations on the crayfish
fauna of the state will probably raise the number of species to around
eighty.
Five species of Mobile County crayfishes belonging to two genera
(Cambarellus and Procambarus) were listed by Bouchard (unpublished manu-
script) in the category "SPECIAL CONCERN" at the 1975 symposium on en-
dangered and threatened plants and animals of Alabama. Cambarellus dimi-
nutus. the smallest crayfish in the world (approximately J2 to 13 milli-
meters) , is known from two localities in south Mobile County. Alabama
is at the eastern edge of the range of Cambarellus shufoldti. Both
species of Cambarellus prefer the backwater areas of streams, roadside
ditches and ponds. Specimens of Procambarus bivittatus and Procambarus
lecontei have been collected from the quieter areas of several low-
gradient streams in Alabama while the only Alabama record of Procambarus
evermanni is from a slow-flowing stream in Mobile County.
326
-------
Table 69. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED
INVERTEBRATES OF MOBILE COUNTY
1--OfficiaI U.S. Endangered List
2--Alabama List, 1972
3--Alabama List, 1975
4--U.S. List, 1968
5--U.S. List, 1973
A--Rare or Rare 1
B--Rare 2
C" Endangered
D--Threatened
E--Status Undetermined
F--Special Concern
G—Peripheral
Cambarellus diminutus F
Cambarellus shufeldtii F
Procambarus (Ortmannicus) bivittatus F
Procambarus (Or limannicus) evermanni F
Procambarus (Ortmannicus') lecontei F
327
-------
Table 70. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED VERTEBRATES
OF. MOBILE COUNTY
1--Official U.S. Endangered List A--Rare or Rare 1 F--Special Goncern
2--Alabaraa List, 1972 B--Rare 2 G--Peripheral
3--Alabama List, 1975 C--Endangered
4--U.S. List, 1968 D--Threatened
5--U S. List, 1973 E-~Status Undetermined
1 2 3 4 5
Fishes
Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser ovxrhYnchus")
B
D
Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae")
E
Blue sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)
E
D
Pismv killifish (Leptolucania ommata)
B
F
Amphibians
Flatwoods salamander CAmbvstoma cingulatom")
A
C
Three-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma tridactvlum')
E
Duskv gopher frog (Rana areolata sevosa)
A
D
River frog (Rana heckscheri)
B
F
Reptiles
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)
C
C
F
Atlantic loggerhead (Caretta c. caretta")
C
Green turtle (Chelonia mydas')
C
Atlantic hawksbill (Eretmochelys i. imbricata)
C
Atlantic ridlev (Lepidochelvs kempi)
C
Atlantic leatherback (Dermochelvs c. coriacea)
C
Alabama red-bellied turtle (Pseudemvs alabamensis)
C
D
Mississippi diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin pileata)
E
Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polvphemus)
E
D
-------
Table 70 (continued). ENDANGERED AND THREATENED
VERTEBRATES OF MOBILE COUNTY
1 2 3 4 5
Black pine snake ("Pituophis melanoleuca lodingj-)
Gulf salt marsh water snake (Natrix fasciata clarki")
Pine woods snake ("Rhadinea f lavilata")
Eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus)
Rainbow snake (Farancia ervtrogamma-)
Birds
A
E
B
F
F
Brown pelican ("Pelecanus occidentalism
C
c
C
D
Great white heron (Ardea occidentalis")
A
A
D
Little blue heron ("Florida caerulea")
F
Black-crowned night heron (Nvcticorax nvcticorax')
F
Reddish egret (Dichromanassa rufescens)
E
D
G
G
Roseate spoonbill (A^aia aiaia")
G
G
Mottled duck ("Anas fulvigula")
C
D
Swallow-tailed kite ("EJ.anoides forficatus")
B
F
Sharp-shinned hawk ("Accipiter striatus")
B
F
Cooper's hawk ("Accipiter cooperi")
B
F
Rp.d-shonl dered hawk (Bytep 1 ineatus")
F
Bald eaele ("Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
C
C
C
-C
D
Osprev ("Pandion haliaetus")
C
C
E
E
Peregrine falcon CFalco peregrinus")
c
C
c
C
D
Pigeon hawk CFalco columbiarus1)
F
E
Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis")
B
F
A
D
American ovstercatcher (Haematopus palliatus")
B
F
Snowv plover (Charadrius alexandrinus")
C
C
Grav kingbird (Tvrannus dominicensus)
E
Bewick's wren ("Thrvomanes bewicki)
B
¦F
Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis")
F
-------
Table 70 (continued). ENDANGERED AND THREATENED
VERTEBRATES OF MOBILE COUNTY
1 2 3 4 5
Mammals
Florida yellow bat (Lasiurus intermedius floridanus')
Hoary bat (Lasiurus c. cinereus)
Bayou gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis fuliginosus")
Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus)
Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi")
Finback whale (Balaenoptera physalia)
Sperm whale'(Phvseter catodon)
B
E
B
C
F
C
C
D
D
D
-------
Two factors could alter the aquatic environments in south Mobile
County and therefore drasticallv affect crayfish populations there.
Heavy siltation, channelization, dredging, and other similar oper-
ations destroy the habitat where crayfishes live and also their food
source. The second potential threat involves the unregulated use of the
insecticide Mirex to control fire ants in Alabama. Based on research
conducted by Ludke e£.. al. (1971) , Mirex is a slow degrading chlorinated
hydrocarbon that is very toxic to many aquatic organisms. The committee
which submitted data on crayfishes for the 1975 symposium on endangered
and threatened plants and animals of Alabama concurred that if the use
of Mirex against fire ants is not controlled in Alabama, then the status
of all crayfishes in the affected areas should be changed from SPECIAL
CONCERN to ENDANGERED or THREATENED.
Lists of the endangered and threatened gastropod and pelecypod
mollusks of Alabama are being prepared by Drs. Carol Stein and David
Stansbury of Ohio State University respectively. These lists together
with habitat data will published as results of the 1975 symposium on
endangered and threatened plants and animals of Alabama.
FISHES
Four species of fishes from south Mobile County are considered as
endangered, threatened or of special concern. Three of these (Acinenser
oxvrhvnchus. Alosa alabamae and Cvcleptus elongatus) are primarily river
forms while Leptolucania ommata is usually found in small streams and
isolated overflow pools.
Acipenser oxvrhvnchus (the Atlantic sturgeon) and Alosa alabamae
(the Alabama shad) were included as euryhalin species by Gunter (1956)
which means that individuals ascend rivers to spawn in freshwater. Nu-
merous recent reports have indicated that these species as well as others
have been hampered during their spawning trips by continued construction
of dams on the major rivers in the Mobile Basin. Because of their small
size and due to infrequent periods of brackish water influx, it is doubt-
ful if any of the streams and small rivers in south Mobile County ful-
fill the habitat requirements necessary for spawning by these two species;
The record of Cvcleptus elongatus (the Blue sucker) from south
Mobile County is based on the collection of a single specimen from the
boat slip at the Alabama Marine Resources Lab (Swingle, 1971). Accor-
ding to the account given by Swingle, the specimen was in distress at
the time it was collected and probably would have been washed out to
sea. Since Cvcleptus is a primary division (strictly freshwater) form,
it is doubtful that it naturally occurs in the estuary and were it not
for this single record, it would not have been included in the list of
fishes.
331
-------
Although it is usually collected from freshwater, individuals of
Leptolucania omniata (the Least killifish) are known to occur in streams
which empty into estuaries. Smith-Vaniz (1968) indicated that the only
record of this species in Alabama was based on a collection from a tri-
butary to the Perdido River, Baldwin County; however, future collection
efforts in south Mobile and Baldwin Counties will probably reveal that
its distribution there is wider than is known at this time.
AMPHIBIANS
The flatwoods salamander (Ambvstoma cingulatum bishopi) is included
in Alabama's list of endangered species. They are inhabitants of low,
damp, pine flatwoods and are usually found near small, shallow cypress
ponds. Loding (1922) records it from Dog River, Mobile County. However,
it has not been collected since that time in the study area. This spe-
cies is considered to be Alabama's rarest salamander.
The dusky gopher frog (Rana areolata sevosa) is a rare species
which has only been reported from a few localities in Alabama. The only
record from the study area was a speciemn from Dog River collected in
1919 (Loding, 1922). This frog lives in the burrows of the gopher tor-
toise, and they breed in shallow ponds in pine flatwoods. The destruc-
tion of gopher tortoises and the drainage of the breeding sites threatens
the continued survival of this frog.
The river frog (Rana heckscheri') inhabits river swamps and the
swampy shores of ponds and bayous. Mobile and Baldwin Counties are at
the western periphera of its range. It is considered to be of special
concern because of its scarceness in Alabama, although it is locally
common in parts of Georgia and Florida.
REPTILES
The Mississippi alligator (Alligator mississippiensis-) is included
in the Federal list of endangered species. In Alabama, it is protected
by law. Alligators were steadily declining throughout their range be-
cause of excessive hunting and poaching. Now, however, as a result of
protective measures, their numbers have increased to the level that
they have been removed from Alabama's endangered list but still are con-
sidered as being of special concern.
Sea turtles live in the open ocean and also move into the coastal
bays. They normally nest in the sand on open beaches. Throughout the
world, there has been a steady decline in the abundance of these turtles
332
-------
because of excessive capture for food, the invasion of their nesting
sites by civilization, and the destruction of their nests for their
eggs.
Five species of sea turtles probably occur in Alabama waters (Cher-
mock, 1952). These are:
Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia m. mvdas)
Atlantic hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelvs i. imbricata)
Atlantic loggerhead turtle (Caretta c. caretta)
Atlantic ridley (Lepidochelvs kempi)
Atlantic leatherback turtle (Dermochelvs c. coriacea)
Of these, the green turtle and the ridley have been recorded from Mobile
Bay and Mississippi Sound (Loding, 1922), and the loggerhead has been
known to nest on Dauphin Island and Fort Morgan Peninsula. Because of
their continued hunting and the increased disturbance of their nesting
sites, all five species are included in the state's endangered list.
The Alabama red-bellied turtle is endemic to the state, known only
from the lower Mobile drainage from Mobile, Baldwin and Monroe Counties.
This aquatic turtle is considered threatened because of its small range
and population size.
The Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polvphemus) at one time was abundant
throughout most of southern Alabama. They burrow long tunnels from
which they emerge to feed in the morning during good weather. Three
factors have contributed to its being placed on the state's list of
threatened animals: destruction of habitat, catching for food, and
rattlesnake hunts or rodeos. Many other animals often seek shelter in
gopher burrows. Among these are the dusky gopher frog, indigo snake,
and diamondback rattlesnake. Rattlesnake hunters pour gasoline down
gopher holes to drive out the snakes. Other inhabitants often may be
killed by the fumes. .Because of this practice, the indigo snake is on
the state's endangered list; the gopher frog and gopher tortoise are on
the threatened list; and the diamondback rattler is on the special con-
cern list.
The Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi) is known only
from Washington, Mobile, and Clarke Counties of Alabama and adjacent
southeastern Mississippi. It is most abundant in sandy areas of long-
leaf pine forests. Its numbers are declining because of habitat altera-
tion and intensive collecting for sale to dealers of live animals. For
this reason it is classified as endangered.
The Pine woods snake (Rhadinea flavilata) is a small secretive snale
found in the coastal flatwoods of Mobile and Baldwin Counties. Because
of their rarity, and lack of knowledge about them, they are on the spe-
cial concern list.
333
-------
BIRDS
A number of birds have been recorded from south Mobile County
which are considered to be endangered, threatened or of special concern
in Alabama. Some species, such as the Peregrine falcon and the Pigeon
hawk (merlin), usually migrate through the area and are not an important
component of the bird population. The Sharp-shinned hawk, Sandhill
crane and Bewick's wren are winter visitors. The remainder are summer
or permanent residents which nest within the area. Only those birds
for which there is significant concern are discussed.
The reddish egret normally occurs in Alabama from March 17 to April
21 and July 16 to December 29 as visitors (Imhof, 1962). They are most
abundant on Dauphin Island where they frequent shallow bays and mud flats
along Mississippi Sound. They feed on small salt-water animals. Habitat
destruction due to the development of the island is probably causing
their decrease in numbers.
The Black-crowned Nigh heron and the Little blue heron nest within
the area, usually in mixed rookeries with other species. In recent
years, their numbers are decreasing so that they now are considered to
be of special concern. Since their introduction, Cattle egrets have
increased tremendously in numbers. Their competition for habitat and
rookery space may be contributing to the decrease in numbers of our na-
tive herons.
The Brown pelican was a common resident of Alabama, but since 1956,
the population has been decimated. Currently, the pelican nests in colo-
nies on the offshore islands of Louisiana. In the early part of this
century they still nested on Dauphin Island and the eastern end of Petit
Bois Island (Howell, 1928). Their food consists of fish, primarily
menhaden, which they catch in open waters. They rest on pilings, sand
spits or float in open water.
The reason for the sudden decrease in the population of the Brown
pelican has been explained by Imhof (1962) as due to "possibly disease,
possibly nesting depradation." Keeler (1972) says "the local population
has been decimated by the widespread use of chlorinated hydrocarbon pes-
ticides, especially DDT." Both fail to consider that in September of
1956, hurricane "Flossy" passed over southeast Louisiana and its off-
shore islands where it seriously affected the nesting pelican population.
It is probably that pesticides have also contributed to their failure
to rebuild their populations in the northern Gulf. However, there are
indications that the brown pelican is making a comeback. Kennedy (1973)
counted 400 birds on Dauphin Island on June 17, 1973.
334
-------
The Mottled duck is a permanent resident and threatened species
in the area. Individuals are found primarily in salt- and brackish-
water areas, especially marshes where they build a well-concealed nest
on the ground, a high place in or near a marsh, or on an island. The
diet of this duck consists of snails, other mollusks, and aquatic in-
sects. Two factors have contributed to their decrease in numbers in
Alabama, habitat destruction and hunting pressure. To the hunter, it
is difficult to distinguish the Mottled duck from female Mallard ducks.
The Bald eagle, our national bird, is a local breeding resident
along the Gulf Coast. After nesting is completed, these birds usually
migrate northward so that by mid-summer, they, are only rarely obser-
ved in Alabama (Imhof, 1962). Bald eagles construct huge nests in the
top of large living trees that are used repeatedly. Individuals feed
on fish that they catch or steal from ospreys and often are scavengers,
feeding on dead animals found along the shore. The numbers of bald ea-
gles have been steadily declining throughout its range, including Ala-
bama. Numerous factors contributed to this, including illegal shooting,
the use of poisoned bait, reduction of prime nesting areas and reduced
reproduction as a result of pesticides.
The Osprey formerly was a fairly common breeding summer resident
along the Gulf Coast of Alabama, their numbers being increased during
the spring and fall by birds in migration. Specimens were frequently
observed flying over open water and diving for fish which are the prin-
ciple component of their diet. Ospreys build large nests in the tops
of large dead trees that are used year after year. The Osprey is con-
sidered to be endangered in Alabama. Factors contributing to their
decreasing numbers are similar to those of the Bald eagle.-
The Swallow-tailed kite breeds in the southern United States and
migrates to Central and South America in the winter. At one time, it
was abundant in Alabama (Howell, 1928), but is now rare. Individuals
normally inhabit river swamps where they feed on snakes, lizards, and
insects. In the coastal area, kites are known from Bayou Coden and
from along the Tensaw River in upper Mobile Bay.
The Sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk and Red-shouldered hawk are
considered to be of special concern in Alabama. Primary factors contri-
buting to their status are illegal shooting and reduced reproduction as
a result of the use of insecticides such as DDT in agriculture.
The Sandhill crane was formerly abundant in eastern North America.
Breeding populations nested in northern United States and Canada and
wintered along the Gulf Coast and Florida. Some birds were also per-
manent residents in the wintering grounds. In the early part of this
century Sandhill cranes were known to breed in Baldwin County (Howell,
1928), and it is possible that one or two pairs still nest there (Imhof,
335
-------
1962) . Breeding populations still are known from coastal Mississippi,
southern Georgia and Florida. Local residents of south Mobile County
claim that a few northern birds still winter in Baldwin County. These
cranes are found in open pine woods with small bogs or fresh-water
marshes. They are extremely wary and usually avoid man.
American oystercatchers are permanent breeding residents, usually
seen on sand flats or beaches near oyster reefs. They feed primarily
on mollusks and crustaceans. Their nest is a shallow depression lined
with bits of shell located on deserted upper beaches of sandbars in shal-
low bays (Pough, 1951). They have been rare in the state since the turn
of the century (Howell, 1928). Reduction of their nesting habitats and
disturbance by man are contributing to their decrease in numbers.
The Snowy plover is a permanent breeding resident along the Alabama
coast and is considered to be an endangered species. They are found on
the outer beaches of Baldwin and Mobile Counties where they feed on a
variety of small invertebrates and seeds. The nest is a hollow in the
sand that is lined with shells or stones. These are located on deserted
beaches close to the Gulf. Its decline is attributed to human distur-
bance.
MAMMALS
Florida yellow bat (Lasiurus intermedius floridanus)--This bat is
found in peninsular Florida, extends north along the Atlantic coast to
Charleston, South Carolina, and is found along the gulf coast west to
the delta region of Louisiana where it is not uncommon (Hamilton, 1943).
There is only one record from Alabama which was collected in 1969 in
Chickasaw, Mobile County (Linzey, 1970) which is fairly near to this
study area. It is a solitary bat, and little is known of its habits.
Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus)--In early times,
the black bear ranged throughout Alabama. By the beginning of this cen-
tury, they were exterminated everywhere except for remote areas in the
northern part of the state (ssp. americanus) and the swamps of southwes-
tern Alabama (ssp. floridanus) where they were still common (Howell,
1921). Since that time, their numbers have further decreased until now
the Florida black bear is restricted to the large isolated swamps in the
Mobile Delta, along the Mobile and lower TombJgbec and Alabama Rivers,
and rarely in the southern part of Mobile County and eastern Baldwin
County. They possibly occur in other isolated areas in southern Alabama.
Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi)--Like the blapk bear, the
panther (cougar or mountain lion) occupied the greater part of the state
336
-------
in early times. With the advent of settlers, it quickly disappeared
from civilized areas and retreated to more secluded regions. By the
turn of the century, they were limited to the wildest parts of the for-
ests, the cliffs in mountainous areas, and the deep canebrakes of the
river-bottom swamps where they were very rare (Howell, 1921). Today,
the cougar is nearly extirpated in the state. In recent years, there
are scattered records of cougars having been killed in Dekalb, St. Clair,
and Tuscaloosa Counties (Holliman, 1963). The last two records were
1961 and 1966, both from Clarke County (Dusi, in Keeler, 1972). There
are also several sight records from Mobile and Baldwin Counties (Linzey,
1970). They probably still occur in Alabama, but, because of very small
numbers and secretive habits, are rarely seen.
Bayou gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis fuliginosus)--Alabama
represents the easternmost range of this subspecies of gray squirrel.
It is found in Mobile, Baldwin and Washington Counties, primarily in
the river-bottom swamps. In south Mobile County, it is found in wooded
areas along the bayous and in cypress swamps.
Two species of whales-Finback whale (Balaenoptera physalia) and
Sperm whale (Phvseter catodon)—have been recorded from Alabama's gulf
waters and are considered as threatened in the 1973 Federal list.
PLANTS
The list of endangered and threatened plants of Mobile County given
below was extracted from Ripley (1975) . Dr. Joab L. Thomas of the Uni-
versity of Alabama is currently preparing a manuscript on the endangered
and threatened plants of Alabama which will be published as part of a
symposium on endangered and threatened plants and animals of the state
in late 1975 or early 1976. This state list will undoubtedly be enlar-
ged by future contributions of scientists and amateur botanists.
Family
Compositae
Arecaceae
Lauraceae
Poaceae
Sarraceniaceae
Species
Liatris provincialis
Rhapidophvllum hystrix
Lindera melissiflora
Aristida simpliciflora
Sarracenia psittacina
Status
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
337
-------
DEMOGRAPHY
In 1970, the population of Mobile County was 317,308. Of this
total number 260,480 (83.4%,) were reported as living in an urban area
in the five incorporated cities of 2,500 or larger. Three other in-
corporated cities had populations ranging from 1,000 to 2,100 and to-
taling 5,049.
The accompanying graph (Figure 101) shows that the population of
the county has been constantly increasing with the exception of a
period during the mid 1960's when Brookley Air Force Base was phased
out. Population projections indicate continued growth.
Population characteristics of Mobile County in 1970 are as fol-
lows (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 1970):
1. The civilian labor force was 112,410 people. Of this amount,
81,668 (72.7%) were white; 30,471 (27.17o) were black; 806
(0.7%) were Spanish-American; and 271 (0.2%) belonged to other
races.
2. The greatest number of jobs occurred in the categories of
services, manufacturing, retail trade and construction.
3. For the age group of 25 years or older, 57.4 percent had less
than a high school education; 42.6 percent were at least high
school graduates; 7.5 percent of which were college graduates.
4. For males in the age group of 16 or older, 40,903 (42.1%) were
veterans.
Within the study area in south Mobile County, detailed population
statistics are reported by the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
(S.M.S.A.) The accompanying map shows the population of the three
SMSA's of Theodore, Grand Bay and Bayou La Batre for 1960 and 1970.
Historical and long range population projections for these three SMSA1 s
probably parallel those for the county presented above (Figure 102).
338
-------
o
n
o
o
xr
O*
O
in
CN
3
O
o
CO
On
o
o
o
o
o
o
CN
o
CN
o
CN
o
CN
YEAR
Figure 101. Population of Mobile County-projected to the year 2020,
(Source: Newspaper Enterprise Association Inc., 1975;
Alabama Department of Archives and Histoiy, 1959;
and Alabama Development Office, 1973.)
339
-------
J^rry. ]970 Popu lot 1QI1 | | 1
f960 Population
0 10 Ki lometro ^
Figure 102. 1960 &. 1970 census in the Standard Metro-
politan Statistical Areas (SMSA) in South Mobile County (source:
Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce)
340
-------
According to the 1970 census, the largest town in the south
Mobile County study area, and the only one that is incorporated is
Bayou La Batre. Several other small towns are present within the
area which range in population from about 600 to 125 (Table 71).
The largest population in Mobile County is centered in the City
of Mobile, and this is also the location of the heaviest population
concentration. The number of people living in a given unit area de-
crease from a maximum of about 1,800 people per square mile in the
downtown Mobile area to a minimum of 0 to 50 people per square mile
(Figure 73). Population expansion indicates development of growth
corridors along major arteries of transportation.
Some small towns such as Citronelle, Satsuma-Saraland, Theodore
and to a far lesser extent, Bayou La Batre have population concentra-
tions outside of the direct area of influence of the city of Mobile.
In these cases the size of the town is not as significant as the con-
centration of people.
The accompanying series of four maps (Figure 103 and Table 72)
indicates the progression of urban area growth of Mobile County from
1940 to 1974.
341
-------
Table 71. 1970' POPULATION AND TOWNS OF THE SMSA-
IN THE SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY AREA
SMSA
Town
Name
Population
Urban
Rural
Name
Population
Theodore
17,473
950
16,523
Theodore
950
Grand Bay-
9,685
1,425
8,260
Grand Bay
600
Irvington
350
St. Elmo
350
Dixon Corner
125
Bayou La Batre
7,766
4,014
3,752
Bayou La Batre
2,664
Coden
500
Dauphin Island
400
Heron Bay
250
Alabama Port
200
-'¦"Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
(Source: Mobile Chamber of Commerce; American Hotel Register Company; Newspaper
Enterprise Association, Inc.)
-------
Figure 103. Increase in populated areas in
^ Populated Areas South Mobile County, 1940-1974 (data from
aerial photography).
343
-------
Table 72. POPULATION GROWTH OF MOBILE COUNTY
Percent growth
Year Population for decade
1940 141,974
1950 231,105
1960 314,105
1970 317,308
62.88
36.0
1.0
(Source: Newspaper Enterprise Association,
Inc.)
344
-------
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
AIR SERVICE
Five commercial airlines—Eastern, National, Southern, United
and Sun--serve Mobile County. Twenty-eight scheduled daily flights
with freight, mail and passenger service provide air transportation
for the south-western part of the state and adjacent southern Missis-
sippi and north-western Florida (Figure 104 and Table 73). Charter
flights, air ambulance service, aircraft repair and hanger storage
are available at several independent flying services.
Bates International Airport is a municipally owned facility lo-
cated about 23 km (14 mi) west of Mobile which serves the south-western
part of the state. This airport includes 973 ha. (2,405 a.) with two
45 x 1,524 m (150 x 5,000 ft) runways and one 45 x 2,073 m (150 x
6,800 ft) runway with a 305 m (1,000 ft) overrun to accommodate jet
aircraft. Commercial air transportation is available at Bates Inter-
national Airport, and in 1973 there were 54,298 flights into the faci-
lity (Figures 105 and 106).
Brookley Air Force Base is located in south Mobile and is owned
by the city. Airport facilities at Brookley are equipped to accommo-
date the larger passenger and freight carriers. Both Bates Interna-
tional and Brookley Fields have FSS advisory systems.
In July, 1970, a report entitled "The Upper Gulf Coast Regional
Air Transportation Study" was prepared by Spears Associates which out-
lined a program to upgrade airport facilities in southern Alabama and
Mississippi and northwest Florida (South Alabama Regional Planning
Commission, 1972). Based on a projected 237.4 percent increase in
aircraft operations and a 332.7 percent increase in total based air-
craft by 1985 in south Alabama (Figure 107) , the study recommended
that $37,480,000 be spent in two phases to be completed in 1985 and
1995 respectively. A breakdown of funds for the various airports in
south Alabama is given in Table 74.
345
-------
Wi»K FSS advisory
Figure 104. Air fields within 250 miles of the South Mooile County area
(from U.S. Department of Commerce, 1970, 1972, &. 1974).
-------
Table 73. AIRPORTS WITHIN THE SOUTH MOBILE COUNTY STUDY AREA
(From: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1972)
Elevation
Above
Longest
Runway
Sea Level
Name
Location
Class
Metres
Feet
Metres
Feet
Idle Hour
Theodore
Civil--with facilities paved
2,804
9,200
51
168
Sky Ranch
South of Theodore
Public use--no facilities
792
2,600
49
160
St. Elmo
St. Elmo
With facilities
1,250
4,100
40
130
Ray
Near Dixon Corner
Civil-~with facilities paved
884
2,900
30
97
Dauphin Island
Dauphin Island
With facilities paved
915
3,000
2
5
-------
YEAR
Figure 105. Air cargo at Bates International Airport
(from Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, 1974).
-------
50 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1
I960 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 7 1 72 73
YEAR
Figure 106. Emplaned passengers at Bates International Airport
'(from Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, 1974) .
-------
7 r
CO
Ln
O
"a
o
5 -
£ 3 -
<
o;
LLI
CL
o
I—
U_
<
cc
(J
ct:
<
i—
o
7 r
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
-5 3
t—
U_
<
q;
U
os
<
Q
LL!
c-O
<
cc
<
i—
o
YEAR
1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR
1990
Figure 107. General aviation £crecast--Southeast Alabama Region
(data from South Alabama Regional Planning Commission, 1972).
-------
Table 74. FORECASTED GENERAL
AVIATION ACTIVITY
(From: South Alabama Regional
Planning Commission, 1972)
Total Aircraft Operation (in thousands)
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Mobile County
149.
.7
177
.1
248.
.2
326.2
480.8
Bates
95.
,1
90
.3
114.
.5
148.7
214.1
Brookley
30.
.0
55
.0
85,
.0
114.0
169.0
Dauphin Island
1,
,8
2
.3
3,
.5
4.7
7.0
St. Elmo
22.
.8
29
.5
45.
.2
58.8
90.7
Total Based Aircraft
Mobile County
112
160
246
318
497
Bates
56
60
95
120
185
Brookley
25
52
86
115
182
Dauphin Island
2
5
7
8
10
St. Elmo*
29
43
58
75
120
^Includes Idle Hour, Sky Ranch and Ray Airports
351
-------
HIGHWAYS
South Mobile County has a well developed highway transportation
system consisting of two interstate highways and a network of federal,
state, county, and local paved roads. Interstate 65 starts at Mobile
and continues to Montgomery, Birmingham, Nashville and points north.
Interstate 10 connects Houston and New Orleans and points west,
through the Mobile area, to Pensacola and Jacksonville. Figures 108
and 109 indicate the dominant highways within 400 km (250 mi) of the
south Mobile County study area. These are supplemented by a network
of good two-lane, farm-to-market roads.
Motor vehicle registration in Mobile County has shown a 34 per-
cent increase from 1969 to 1973 (Figure 110). This increase has re-
sulted in a heavier volume of traffic on the existing roads, and the
construction of a more extensive network of roads to accommodate this
increased load. A traffic density map (Figure 111) , published in
1973 by the State of Alabama Highway Department, indicated that on an
average day, the traffic density ranged from a maximum of 12,540 ve-
hicles along Interstate 10 between Mobile and the Mississippi Gulf
Coast to a minimum of 1,550 vehicles along state road 188 between
Alabama Port and Bayou La Batre in the southern part of the area.
The Mobile Area Transportation Study (MATS) conducted by the
South Alabama Regional Planning Commission (SARPC) have been underway
in the Mobile Urban Area for several years. Long range projections
of the MATS program indicated that a construction priority of nearly
500 million dollars is needed to upgrade the highway transportation
system of the Mobile Urban Area over the 25 year period from 1970 to
1995.
WATER TRANSPORTATION
Water development projects in Alabama's estuaries include the con-
struction of channels and other facilities associated with navigation
that comprise a vital part of the state's transportation system (Table
3). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been responsible for the
construction, maintenance, operation, and administration of most of
these projects. Navigational facilities and dock sites have been
built by the Alabama State Docks and other local interests.
The major portion of Mobile Bay is shallow (average depth of 3.0
m (9.7 ft), and therefore impossible to navigate with modern ships.
This necessitated dredging of the Mobile ship channel by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. The channel extends for 40 km (25 mi) in a north-
352
-------
Figure 108. Major highways within 250 miles of the South MoDile County area
(source: American Hotel Register Company, 1975).
-------
HIGHWAY DESIGNATION
_ Interstate
" ~ County
Figure 109. Highway Transportation in the South Mobile
County area (source: American Hotel Register Company, 1975)
354
-------
190
uO
UJ
U
x
LU ~d
> g
u. ">
O g
a •£
uj
c£i
r5
Z
180
170
160
150
1969
1970
197)
1972
1973
YEAR
Figure 110. Motor vehicle regisuration-
Mobile County.
355
-------
5760
HIGHWAY designation
f^j Interstate
j ] F cderol
C3 Siatr
VEHICLE DENSITY ON AM
AVERAGE DAY
MOO
<16'I0 ~ Number of vclirclc'i on nn
ovcrago day at specific points
Figure 111. Traffic density in the South Mobile County area,
(adapted from Alabama Highway Department, 1973).
356
-------
south direction (Figure 112), and is 12.2 m (40 ft) deep and 122 m
(400 ft) wide to accommodate ocean-going vessels. Hollingers Island
ship channel connects the Mobile ship channel to the mainland near
Theodore. It is 6.4 km (4 mi) long and has a depth of 3.4 m (11 ft)
and a width of 53.3 (175 ft) (Crance, 1971).
The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway crosses Mississippi Sound in an.
east-west direction and is an important inland water transportation
link along the coast. The Waterway is maintained to a depth of 3.7 m
(12 ft), and a width of 45.7 m (150 ft) by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. In 1973, almost 7,800,000 MT (8,000,000 t) of waterborne
freight (Figure 113) were transported along the Intracoastal Waterway
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973).
Several secondary barge channels have also been dredged and are
maintained in Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound (Figure 112).
Mobile is served by more than 100 steamship lines, with connections
to nearly every major port in the world (Mobile Area Chamber of Com-
merce, 1971). Of the 108 piers, wharves and docks, 60 are used for
cargo, 42 for related activities, and 6 are not in use. Forty-five
facilities are on the west bank, and 30 are on the east bank of the
Mobile River. Nineteen facilities are owned by the State of Alabama,
five by the U.S. Government, two by the City of Mobile and 82 by
various private industrial and shipbuilding firms (U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 1971).
Twenty of the waterfront facilities are equipped to receive and/
or ship crude oil and petroleum products with available storage capa-
city for approximately 447,000 barrels. There are three locations
where water-front facilities are maintained for handling ores and other
dry bulk commodities. Three waterfront grain elevators with a capa-
city- of approximately 2,600,000 bushels are maintained for shipping
and receiving bulk grain and meal. Other facilities are equipped to
handle a wide variety of cargo types (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1971, 1973c).
On the basis of total tonnage handled in 197 2, Mobile ranked as
the eleventh largest port in the United States and sixth largest on
the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico ports that exceeded Mobile's
26,390,458 MT (27,291,063 t) in 1972 are New Orleans 121,570,639 MT
(125,719,378 t); Houston 69,073,573 MT (71,430,789 t); Baton Rouge
51,157,541 MT (52,903,352 t) ; Tampa 41,803,563 MT (43,230,158 t); and
Beaumont 31,322,150 MT (32,391,055 t) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1972b).
The principal commodities handled at the port include metallic
ores and concentrates; crude oil and petroleum products; food grains;
357
-------
w
Ui
CO
(
J
~ - •- / if.
3*3 Cr,
O « iOG'
Figure 112. Major ship channels in Coastal Alabama
(from Cherraock, 1974) .
-------
7 -
6.5
6 -
- 5.5
CO
vo
5 -
L 4.5
4 -
- 3.5
TT i-O
SO <>
o o
o r\
sO o -
o cs o
s
OS O
vO r-v
o o
CN
r-s
o
CO
r--
o
YEAR
'igure 113. Waterborne traffic on the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway; Pensacola Bay, Florida-Mobile Bay, Alabama
(data from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973).
-------
coal and lignite; sand, gravel, and crushed roclc; and unmanufactured
marine shells. The tonnages of various principal commodities for 1972
are given in Table 9. Mobile's tonnage has been constantly increasing
since 1961 (Figure 114).
RAILROADS
Mobile County is served by four major rail lines that connect
Mobile to other major cities throughout the eastern part of the
country.
1. The Southern Railroad links major cities in the southeastern
part of the nation through a total of 16,566 km (10,296 mi)
of track. The Southern railway system includes some sepa-
rately operated subsidiaries and links Mobile to other areas
of the southeast (Figure 115).
2. The Illinois Central Gulf Railroad connects Mobile through
the east-central to the north-central part of the nation.
The ICGRR operates and maintains 14,895 km (9,257 mi) of
track (Figure 116) .
3. The Louisville and Nashville Railroad links the major cities
in the east-central part of the nation with 10,603 km (6,590
mi) of track. It connects Mobile to major cities in the
east-central part of the nation (Figure 117).
4. The St. Louis-San Francisco (Frisco) Railroad serves the
central part of the nation with 8,389 km (5,214 mi) of
track. It connects Mobile to cities to the north and west
(Figure 118).
There are approximately 34 freight trains serving Mobile, Baldwin,
and Escambia counties on each typical day. The heaviest traffic is on
the Louisville and Nashville railroad which has 24 daily freight trains
passing through this region. Frisco operates two freight trains a
day; Southern operates six every day.
Local freight service is provided to and from industrial and
business Caciliti.es and the Alabama State Docks. Tlic industries scr~
ved are located along main line and spur tracks. Yard switching,
local delivery service and interchange movements at the Alabama State
Docks add considerably to the overall railroad service in the Mobile
area.
360
-------
Fi.gure 114. Total water-borne tonnage at the port of Mobile
(data from Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, 1974, and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1972).
361
-------
0 200 400 Ki lornctri-'S
gure 1L5. Mainline routes of; the Southern Railroad Company
(modified from Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, 1974).
362
-------
Figure 116. Mainline routes of the Illinois Central Railroad Company
(modified from Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, 1974).
363
-------
0
w 0 0 J 0 0 M11 o s
200 400 Kilometres
Figure 117. Mainline routes of the Louisville & Nashville
ilroad Company (modified from Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce,
364
-------
Figure 118. Mainline routes of Lhe Frisco Railroad Company
(modified from Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, 1974).
365
-------
COMMUNICATIONS
Telephone service in Alabama has increased from 59,652 subscribers
in 1923 to a maximum of more than 1,600,000 in 1971. At this time,
South Central Bell employed over 9,000 people in the state, with an
average payroll of over $7 8 million on an average business day. More
than 9 million local and 240,000 long distance calls are made in the
state every day (Lineback, 1972).
South Central Bell Telephone serves much of southwest Alabama,
with the exception of a small area in extreme southern Mobile County.
Bayou La Batre and its surrounding area are served by the Alabama
Telephone Company with offices in Atlanta, Georgia. This company is
a subsidiary of the Continental Telephone Company located in Washington,
D.C.
In 1973, there were 185,243 telephone units in use in all of
Mobile County. This amounted to over 80 percent of all houses in the
county (Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, 1971).
The city of Mobile has 10 radio stations and three television
stations which are listed in Table 75 (Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce).
The Mobile Press Register is a daily newspaper, published in
Mobile. It has a daily circulation of 103,313 and a Sunday circula-
tion of 94,592. Weekly newspapers published in.the county are:
Mobile
Gulf Coast News Digest
The Mobile Beacon
The Mobile Journal
Bayou La Batre
The Mobile County News
Chickasaw
The News Herald
366
-------
Table 75. RADIO AND TELEVISION STATIONS IN MOBILE, ALABAMA
Television Stations
Power (Watts)
Network
Channel or
Kilo-Cyclea
WEIQ-TV
WKRG-TV
WA LA-TV
234,000
100,000
316,000
Network Educational T.V.
CBS
NBC
42
5
10
Radio Stations
WABB
IVARB-FM
WCOK
WKRG
\VK_RG-FM
W LIQ
WLPR-Stereo
V/MOO
VVMOB
WL' NT
5, 000
100,000
1, 000-Day
1, 000 -Day
500-Night
100,000
5,000-Day
40,000
50, 000 -Day
1, 000-Day
5, 000
ABC
American
Mutual
CBS
CBS American FM
ABC
None
Mutual
ABC
NBC
1480
97. 5 (MC)
900
710
99.9 (MC)
1360
96.1 (MC)
1550
840
1410
-------
ENERGY AVAILABILITY
OIL AND GAS
The discovery and production of oil and gas in Alabama has
increased dramatically over the past decade and all indication are
that it will continue along this same trend (Table 76 and Figure 119).
Table 76. OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND
PRODUCTION IN ALABAMA, 1964-1974
1964 1974
Number of wells drilled
Total drilling metres (feet)
Number of oil and gas fields
Oil production (Barrels)
Gas production (billion cu ft)
49 120.
99,670 (327,000) 268,224 (880,000)
5 35
8.5 million 13.2 million
.011 29.4
Source: Oil & Gas Board of Alabama
Perhaps the most significant oil discovery in recent history oc-
curred in December, 1973, when Getty Oil Company drilled a successful
well in north-central Mobile County that has reactivated exploration
activity in Alabama's coastal area. This discovery well is in the
Smackover Formation and indicates potential petroleum production from
a large area of southern Alabama and Mississippi underlain by the
Smackover Formation.
No drilling has been done to date in Alabama's offshore waters.
However, information from onshore wells and seismic exploration
368
-------
z t
2-S
U °
D *
S°
o: -3
Q- p
J.I 46
L-.l. .1 . .1 _ 1 1 I L
J I I I
'18 50 52 54 56 58 60 6? 64 66 68 70 72 74
YEAR
Figure 119. Oil production in Alabama
(from Oil and Gas Board of Alabama).
369
-------
indicates that the Smackover Formation extends offshore beneath
Mobile Bay and petroleum production there is a distinct possibility
(Chermock, 1974).
The south Mobile County area is very favorably located in re-
lation to access to oil and gas. In 1972, a total of 3,483,024 MT
(3,840,159 t) of crude petroleum was brought into Mobile harbor.
Some of this petroleum along with some pumped locally is refined at
one of the six petroleum processing plants in the area (Figure 120).
During the period from 1960 to 1970, the pipelines transporting
crude oil and refined products in Alabama increased from 990 to 1,878
km (615 to 1,167 mi) in length. Crude oil lines carry oil from pro-
ducing fields directly to refineries, or to loading terminals for
shipment by rail, barge, or tanker to refineries in other areas. All
the refineries receive their crude oil by water or rail transportation,
but many products from the refineries are shipped by pipeline. Dif-
ferent products are shipped through the same pipeline in "batches."
In 1969, 5,677,500 cu m (1,500,000,000 gal.) of gasoline and 1,336,105
cu m (353,000,000 gal.) of diesel fuel were purchased in Alabama. In
1971, the consumption was 6,056,000 cu m (1,600,000,000 gal.) of gaso-
line and 1,604,840 cu m ( 424,000,000 gal.) of diesel fuel.
The number of miles of natural gas pipelines in Alabama increased
from 18,310 km to 25,052 km (11,380 to 15,570 mi) between 1960 and
1970. In 1970, Alabama had about 8,045 km (5,000 mi) of major trans-
mission pipeline and an additional 17,975 km (10,550 mi) of pipeline
for distribution of natural gas within the State. In 1965, Alabama
used 6,881,760,000 cu m (243,000,000,000 cu ft) of gas. In 1971, it
was estimated that 9,713,860,000 cu m (343,000,000,000 cu ft) were re-
quired, an increase in demand of 2,832,000,000 cu m (100,000,000,000
cu ft) per year in six years.
The study area in south Mobile County is served by a network of
oil and gas pipelines that places the entire area within easy access
to at least one source of this fuel (Figure 121).
ELECTRICITY
There are four major suppliers of electric power in Alabama.
These are: Alabama Power, an investor-owned system supplying the
greater part of the state; the Tennessee Valley Authority, an entity
of the U.S. Government serving the northern part of the state; Alabama
Electric Cooperative, Inc., a generating and transmission cooperative
serving the south-central portion of the state; and Southeastern Elec-
tric Power Administration, the marketing agency of the Department of
370
-------
© Petroleum processing facilities
A Electric po*er generating facilities
220 t
-------
(modified from Chermock, 1974; Catej 1974; White, 1969).
-------
Interior supplying power to electric cooperatives and municipalities
through the transmission facilities of Alabama Power Company and
Alabama Electric Cooperative.
Alabama Power Company furnishes electric power to large areas
of south Alabama. Three electric power generating facilities are
present in southwestern Alabama (Figure 121 and Table 77), and these
furnish the majority of electric power to the south Mobile County
study area (Figure 122). A network of power transmission lines from
a maximum of 230 kv down to 22 kv distribute electricity throughout
the area.
Table 77. POWER GENERATING FACILITIES IN SOUTH-WESTERN ALABAMA
(From Lineback, 1973)
Generating
plant
Operator
Type Kilovolts
Barry Alabama Power Thermal
Chickasaw Alabama Power Thermal
1,525,000
120,000
Alabama Elec-
tric Corpor-
Tombigbee ation
To tal
80.000
1,725,000
373
-------
Y cor
Figure 122. Electrical power requirements: 1940--
1960 (source: Lineback, 1973).
374
-------
REFERENCES
1. Acker, M. F., 1952, Glimpses of old Mobile: Mobile, Alabama, Gill
Printing and Stationery Company, 88 p.
2. Adams, W. H., 1957, Nutria, for better or for worse: Alabama
Conserv., V. 29, No. 1, p. 24-26.
3. Alabama Department of Archives and History, 1959, Alabama official
and statistical register: Alabama Dept. Archives and Hist., 469 p.
4. Alabama Department of Conservation, (po date), Waterfowl harvest and
hunting pressure: Montgomery, Alabama, Alabama Dept. Conserv.
Waterfowl Inv. Work Plan V, Open File Rept., 47 p.
5. Alabama Development Office, 1973, Data line: Montgomery, Alabama,
Alabama Development Office, p. 5-7.
6. Alabama State Highway Department, 1973, Traffic flow map: Mont-
gomery, Alabama, Alabama State Highway Map.
7. Alabama Water Improvement Commission, 1971, 12th Biennial progress
report, 1969-1970: Alabama Water Improvement Commission, 159 p.
8. 1973, 1971-1972 Biennial report of activities and pro-
gress: Alabama Water Improvement Commission, 82 p.
9. Algermissen, S. T., 1969, Seismic risk studies in the United States:
Santiago, Chile, Paper presented at the 4th World Conf. Earthquake
Eng., Jan. 13-18, 1969.
10. Allen, R. H., Jr., 1975, Mammals of coastal counties in Alabama, in
Fishes, birds and mammals of the coastal area of Alabama: Alabama
Dept. Conserv. and Nat. Resources, p. 52-57.
11. American Hotel Register Company, 1975, Leahy's hotel-motel guide
and travel atlas, 100th ed.: American Hotel Register Company,
Chicago, Illinois, 128 p.
12. Anderson, J. B., 1968, Ecology of Foraminifera from Mississippi
Sound and surrounding waters: Alabama Acad. Sci. Jour., V. 39,
No. 4, p. 261-269.
375
-------
13. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, 1971, Alabama's
coastal land' and water resources, V. 13 of. Alabama's Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan: Auburn Univ. Agr. Expt.
Sta., 98 p.
14. Austin, G. B., 1954, On the circulation and tidal flushing of Mo-
bile Bay, Alabama, pt. 1: Texas A and M Univ. Dept. Oceanography,
College Research Foundation Proj. 24, Tech. Rept. 12, 28 p.
15. Bault, E. I,, 1973, Hydrology of Alabama estuarine areas: Alabama
Marine Resources Bull. 7, 25 p.
16. Beckham, E. C., 1973, A survey of the fishes of the Escatawpa
River in Alabama and Mississippi: Univ. Alabama Master's thesis,
73 p.
17. Bisbort, H. E., 1957, Mobile harbor and ship channel: Am. Soc.
Civil Engineers Proc., Jour. Waterways and Harbors Div. Paper
1241, 11 p.
18. Boone, P. A., 1973, Depositional systems of the Alabama, Mississippi
and western Florida coastal zone: Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc.
Trans., V. 23, p. 266-277.
19. Boschung, H. T., 1957a, The fishes of Mobile Bay and the Gulf Coast
of Alabama: Univ. Alabama Ph.D. dissert., 626 p.
20. 1957b, Some interesting records of marine fishes from
Alabama: Alabama Acad. Sci. Jour., V. 29, p. 33~34.
21. Boschung, H. T., and Hemphill, A. F., 1960, Marine fishes collected
from inland streams of Alabama: Copeia, V. 1960, No. 1, p. 73.
22. Brown, J. S., 1956, The frogs and toads of Alabama: Univ. of Ala-
bama, Ph.IV dissert., 323 p.
23. Brunson, F. H., 1951, Decapod crustacea of the Mobile area: Univ.
Alabama Master's thesis, 33 p.
24. Burch, J. B., 1972, Freshwater sphaeriacean clams (Mollusca: Pele-
cypoda) of North America, Identification manual 3, in Biota of
freshwater ecosystems: U.S.E.P.A. Water Polution Control Research
Series, Washington, 31 p.
25. 1973, Freshwater unionacean clams (Mollusca: Pele-
cypoda) of North America, Identification manual 11, in Biota of
freshwater ecosystems: U.S.E.P.A. Water Pollution Control Research
Series, Washington, 176 p.
376
-------
26. Caldwell, D. K., and Caldwell, M. C., 1973, Marine Mammals of the
eastern Gulf of Mexico, .in. A summary of knowledge of the eastern
Gulf of Mexico, 1973: Florida State Univ. System Inst. Oceanog-
raphy, p. III-I-1-III-I-23.
27. Carlston, C. W., 1950, Pleistocene history of coastal Alabama:
Geol. Soc. American Bull., V. 61, No. 10, p. 1119-1130.
28. Casper, V. L., and others, 1969, Study of chlorinated pesticides
in oysters and estuarine environment of the Mobile Bay area: U.S.
Public Health Service, Gulf Coast Water Hygiene Lab., 47 p.
29. Cate, P. D., 1974, Southeast: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists
Bull., V. 58, No. 8, 1630-1639.
30. Chermock, R. L., 1952, A key to the amphibians and reptiles of
Alabama: Alabama Mus. Nat. Hist., Paper 33, 88 p.
31. 1957 , A preliminary report on the black bear in Alabama:
Alabama Acad. Sci. Jour., V. 29, p. 34-35.
32. 1974, The environment of offshore and estuarine Alabama:
Alabama Geol. Survey Inf. Ser. 51, 135 p.
33. Chermock, R. L., and Imhof, T. A., 1956, Some interesting bird re-
cords from Dauphin Island, Alabama: Alabama Acad. Sci. Jour., V.
.28, p. 32-34.
34. Christmas, J. Y., ed., 1973, Cooperative Gulf of Mexico estuarine
inventory and study, Mississippi: Gulf Coast Research Laboratory,
Ocean Springs, 434 p.
35. Clarke, 0. M., Jr., 1970, Clays of southwestern Alabama: Alabama
Geol. Survey Circ. 20-E, 97 p.
36. Clench, W. J., and Turner, R. D., 1956, Freshwater mollusks of
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida from the Escambia to the Suwannee
River: Bull. Florida State Mus. V. 1, p. 97-239.
37. Cochran, D. M., and Goin, C. J., 1970, A new field book of reptiles
and amphibians: New York, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 359 p.
38. Collard, S. B., and D'Asaro, C. N., 1973, Benthic invertebrates of
the eastern Gulf of Mexico, _in A summary of knowledge of the east-
ern Gulf of Mexico: Florida State Univ. System Inst. Oceanography,
p. Ill G-l-III.G-27.
377
-------
39,
40,
41,
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Conant, Roger, 1958, A field guide to reptiles and amphibians:
Boston, Houghton-Mifflin Co., 366 p.
Cook, C. W., 1939, Scenery of Florida: Florida Dept. Conserv.
Geol. Bull. 17, 118 p.
Crance, J. H., 1970, Statement presented at the public hearing
affecting shellfish harvesting in Mobile Bay, in. Proceedings con-
ference in the matter of pollution of the navigable waters of
Mobile Bay and its tributaries—Alabama: U.S. Dept. Interior,
Federal Water Pollution Control Adm., p. 316-327.
1971, Description of Alabama estuarine areas: Ala-
bama Marine Resources Bull. 6, 85 p.
Curray, J. R., and Moore, D. G., 1963, Facies delineation by
acoustico-reflection, Northern Gulf of Mexico: Sedimentology,
V. 2, No. 2, px 130-148.
Dauphin Island Park and Beach Board, (no date), Historical Fort
Gaines: Dauphin Island, Alabama, Dauphin Island Park and Beach
Board, brochure.
Deacon, Richard, 1966, Madoc and the discovery of America, some
new light on an old controversy: New York, George Braziller, 269 p.
Dean, B. E., Mason, Amy, and Thomas, J. L., 1973, Wild flowers of
Alabama and adjoining states: Univ. Alabama Press, 230.p.
Delaney, Caldwell, 1948, Remember Mobile: Mobile, Alabama, Gill
Printing and Stationery Company, 242 p.
Deramus, Rebecca, 1970, Studies on the flora of the vascular plants
of Dauphin Island, Mobile County, Alabama: Univ. of Alabama, Ph.D.
dissert., 85 p.
Ecosystems Management, 1974, Additions to an environmental study
of offshore Alabama as related to drilling for oil and gas, Appen-
dix III of. Chermock, R. L., An environmental study of offshore
Alabama as related to drilling for oil and gas: Alabama Geol.
Survey Open-file Rept., unpaged.
Eleuterius, L. N., 1973a, The distribution of certain submerged
plants in Mississippi Sound and adjacent waters, in. Christmas,
J. Y., Cooperative Gulf of Mexico estuarine inventory and study,
Mississippi: Mississippi Marine Conservation Commission, p. 191-
197.
378
-------
51. 1973b, The marshes of Mississippi, in Christmas, J. Y. ,
Cooperative Gulf of Mexico estuarine inventory and study, Missis-
sippi: Mississippi Marine Conserv. Commission, p. 147-190.
52. Eleuterius, C. K., 1974, Mississippi superport study, environmental
assessment: Mississippi Office Sci. and Technol., Governor's
Office, 247 p.
53. Fenneman, N. M., 1938, Physiography of eastern United States: New
York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 714 p.
54. Fisk, H. N., and McClelland, B., 1959, Geology of continental
shelf off Louisiana, its influence on offshore foundation design:
Geol. Soc. American Bull., V. 70, No. 10, p. 1369-1394.
55. Flora, S. D., 1954, Tornadoes of the United States: Norman, Okla-
homa, Univ. Oklahoma Press, 221 p.
56. Foxworth, R. D., Priddy, R.R., Johnson, W. B., and Moore, W. S.,
1962, Heavy minerals of sand from recent beaches of the Gulf Coast
of Mississippi and associated islands: Mississippi Geol. Survey
Bull. 93, 92 p.
57. Franks, J. S., 1970, An investigation of the fish population within
the island waters of Horn Island, Mississippi, a barrier island in
the northern Gulf of Mexico: Gulf Research Repts., V. 3, p. 3-
104.
58. Franks, J. S., Christmas, J. Y., Siler, W. L., Combs, R., Waller,
R., and Burns, C., 1972, A study of nektonic and benthic faunas of
the shallow Gulf of Mexico off the state of Mississippi as related
to some physical, chemical, and geological factors: Gulf Research
Repts., V. 4, 148 p.
59. Fujita, T. T., 1965, Palm Sunday tornadoes of April 11, 1965:
Monthly Weather Rev., V. 98, p. 29-69.
60. Gallagher, T. P., and others, 1969, Pollution affecting shellfish
harvesting in Mobile Bay, Alabama: U.S. Federal Water Pollution
Control Adm. Southeast Water Lab. Tech. Serv., 46 p.
61. Gazzier , C. A., 1972, The effects of changing patterns of sedimen-
tation on tiie ecology of oyster, Little Dauphin Island, Alabama:
Alabama Acad. Sci. Jour,, V. 43, 184 p.
62. Governmental Guides, Inc., 1974, Alabama governmental guide, 1974:
Madison, Tennessee, Governmental Guides, Inc., 112 p.
379
-------
63,
64,
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Gulf South Research Institute, 1974, Social, economic, and environ-
mental effect assessment study for a planned federal navigation
project Theodore Ship Channel, Mobile Bay, Alabama: Prepared for
the U.S. Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Mobile, Alabama,
287 p.
Gunter, Gordon, 1954, Mammals of the Gulf of Mexico, in Gulf of
Mexico, its origin, waters and marine life: U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service Fishery Bull., V. 55, p. 543-551.
1967 , Some relationships of estuaries to the fisheries
of the Gulf of Mexico in Estuaries: A.A.A.S. Publ. 83, p. 621-
638.
1968, The status of seals in the Gulf of Mexico, with
a record of feral Otarid seals off the United States Gulf Coast:
Gulf Research Repts., V. 2, p. 301-308.
Haltom, W. L., 1931, Alabama reptiles: Alabama Geol. Survey,
Alabama Mus. Nat. Hist. Paper 11, 145 p.
Hamilton, P. J., 1910, Colonial Mobile, an historical study:
Boston, Houghton-Mifflin Co., 594 p.
1911, The founding of Mobile, 1702-1718: Mobile,
Alabama, Commercial Printing Co., 104 p.
Hamilton, W. J., Jr., 1943, The mammals of eastern United States:
Ithaca, New York, Comstock Publ. Co., 432 p.
Hardin, J. D., Sapp, C. D., Emplaincourt, J. L., and Richter, K.
E. , 1975, Shoreline and bathymetric changes in the coastal area
of Alabama: Alabama Geol. Survey Open-file Rept., 177 p.
Harper, R. M., 1913, Economic botany of Alabama: Alabama Geol.
Survey Mon. 8, 228 p.
1926, Alabama present biota and areas available for
study, in shelford, V. E., Naturalist's guide to the Americas:
Baltimore, Maryland, Williams and Wilkins Co., p. 446-454.
1928, Economic botany of Alabama, Part 2: Alabama
Geol. Survey Mon. 9, 357 p.
1943, Forests of Alabama: Alabama Geol. Survey Mon.
10, 230 p.
380
-------
76,
77.
78.
79,
80,
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
Harris, D. L., 1963, Characteristics of the hurricane storm surge:
U.S. Weather Bur., Tech. Paper 48, 139 p.
Hemphill, A. F., 1960, A survey of the fishes of the lower coastal
plain: Univ. of Alabama Ph.D, dissert., 368 p.
Herrick, C. L., 1887, List of the freshwater and marine crustacea
of Alabama, with descriptions of new species and synoptical keys
for identification: Alabama Geol. Survey Mon. 2, 56 p.
Hobbs, H. H., 197 2, Crayfishes (Astacidae) of North and Middle
America, Identification manual 9, .in Biota of freshwater eco-
systems: U.S.E.P.A. Water Pollution Control Research Series,
Washington, 173 p.
1974, A checklist of the North and Middle American
Crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae and Cambaridae): Smithsbnian
Cont. Zool. No. 166, 161 p.
Holliman, D. C., 1963, The mammals of Alabama: Univ. of Alabama
Ph.D. dissert., 316 p.
Howell, A. H., 1921, A biological survey of Alabama: U.S. Dept.
Agriculture Bur. Biol. Survey, North Am. Fauna, No. 45, 88 p..
1928, Birds of Alabama, Second Edition: Montgomery,
Alabama, Alabama Dept. Game and Fisheries, 384 p.
Humm, H. J., 1973a, Seagrasses, in Jones, J. I., and others, eds.,
A summary of knowledge of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, 1973: Florida
State Univ. System Inst. Oceanography, 10 p.
1973b, Benthic algae of the eastern Gulf of Mexico,
in Jones, J. I., and others, eds., A summary of knowledge of the
eastern Gulf of Mexico, 1973: Florida State Univ. System Inst.
Oceanography, 6 p.
1973c, Salt marshes, in Jones, J. I., and others, eds.,
A summary of knowledge of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, 1973: Florida
State Univ. System Inst. Oceanography, 6 p.
Imhof, T. A., 1962, Alabama birds: Montgomery, Alabama, Alabama
Dept. Conserv., 591 p.
Ishording, W. C., and Riccio, J. F., 1974, Use of satellite imagery
in interpretation of physiographic and structural features in
South Alabama, AAPG Bull., V. 58, No. 3, p. 528-532.
381
-------
89. Jackson, C. G., Jr., and Jackson, M. M., 1970, Herpetofauna of
Dauphin Island, Alabama: Florida Acad. Sci.-Quart. Jour., V. 33,
No. 4, p. 281-287.
90. Johnson, R. I., 1967, Additions to unionid fauna of the gulf
drainage of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida (Mollusca: Bivalva):
Breviora, No. 270, p. 1-21.
91. Jones, E. E., 1974a, The Protozoa of Mobile Bay, Alabama: Univ.
South Alabama, Mon., V. 1, No. 1, 113 p.
92. 1974b, Three new species of Panacineta (Suctoria)
from Mobile Bay: Alabama Jour. Marine Sci., V. 2, No. 3, p. 31-40.
93. 1975, The vital role of Protozoa in Mobile Bay: Auburn
Univ. Water Resources Research Inst., Bull. 22, 9 p.
94. Jones, E. E., and Owen, Goronwy, 1974, New species of Protozoa
from Mobile Bay, Alabama: Alabama Jour. Marine Sci., V. 2, No. 3,
p. 41-56.
95. Jordan, C. L., 1973, The physical environment, in Jones, J. I. and
others, eds., A summary of knowledge of the eastern Gulf of Mexico,
1973: Florida State Univ. System Inst. Oceanography, 22 p.
96. Keeler, J. E., 1972, Rare and endangered vertebrates of Alabama:
Montgomery, Alabama, Alabama Dept. Conserv. Game and Fish Div.,
92 p.
97. Lamb, G. M., 1972, Distribution of Holocene Foraminiferida in
Mobile Bay and the effect of salinity changes: Alabama Geol.
Survey Circ. 82, 12 p.
98. Laycock, George, 1966, The alien animals: New York, Amer. Mus.
Nat. Hist., 240 p.
99. Leipper D. F., 1954, Physical oceanography of the Gulf of Mexico,
in Galtsoff, P. S., ed., Gulf of Mexico, its origin, waters and
marine life: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery Bull. 89,
p. 119-137.
100. Lineback, N. G., Traylor, C. T., and Turnage, N. E., 1972, The map
abstract of population and housing: Alabama 1970, Alabama Geol.
Survey Map abs. 1, 148 p.
101. Linzey, D. W., 1970, Mammals of Mobile and Baldwin Counties, Alabama:
Alabama Acad. Sci. Jour., V. 41, No. 2, p. 64-99.
382
-------
102. 1971, Animal harvested in south Alabama, probably
coyote-red wolf hybrid: Alabama Conserv., V. 41, No. 6, p. 6~7.
103. Loding, H. P., 1922, A preliminary catalogue-of Alabama amphibians
and reptiles: Alabama Geol. Survey, Alabama Mus. Nat. Hist. Pa-
per 5, 59 p.
104. Long, A. R., 1959, The climate of Alabama: U.S. Weather Bur.,
Climatography of the United States, No. 60-1, 15 p.
105. Ludwick, J. C., 1964, Sediments in northeastern Gulf of Mexico,
in Miller, R. L., ed., Papers in marine geology: New York,
MacMillan Co., p. 204-238.
106. Lueth, F. X., 1963, Mobile delta waterfowl and muskrat research:
Montgomery, Alabama, Alabama Dept. Conserv. Pittman-Robinson Proj.
7-R, Final Rept., 86 p.
107. (no date), Nutria of the Mobile Delta: Montgomery,
Alabama, Alabama Dept. Conserv. brochure.
108. McAtee, H. W., 1967, The American occupation of West Florida,
1810-1813: Univ. of Alabama, Unpublished Master's thesis, 173 p.
109. Mcllwain, T. D., 1968, Seasonal occurrence of the pelagic cope-
poda in Mississippi Sound: Gulf Research Repts., V. 2, No. 3,
p. 257-270.
110. McPhearson, R. M., Jr., 1970, The hydrography of Mobile Bay and
Mississippi Sound, Alabama: Alabama Univ. Marine Sci. Inst.,
Marine Sci. Jour., V. 1, No. 2, 83 p.
111. Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium, 1975, Dauphin Island
Sea Lab, Bulletin 1975-1976: Dauphin Island, Alabama, Marine
Environmental Sci. Consortium, 35 p.
112. Marsh, 0. T., 1966, Geology of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties,
western Florida panhandle: Florida Geol. Survey Bull. 46, 140 p.
113. May, E. B., 1968, Summer oyster mortalities in Alabama: Progres-
sive Fish Culturist, V. 30, p. 39.
114. 1971a, A survey of the oyster and oyster shell re-
sources of Alabama: Alabama Marine Resources Bull. 4, 51 p.
115- 1971b, Atlas, appendix B, o_f A survey of the oyster
and oyster shell resources of Alabama: Alabama Marine Resources
Bull. 4, 21 p.
383
-------
116.
117,
118,
119,
120,
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
1973, Environmental effects of hydaulic dredging in
estuaries: Alabama Marine Resources Bull. 9, 85 p.
Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, 1971, Mobile, Alabama--an eco-
nomic handbook: Mobile, Alabama, Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce,
102 p.
1974, Mobile, Alabama_-an industrial handbook: Mobile,
Alabama, Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, 55 p.
Mobile County Board of Health, 1970, The South Alabama regional
air pollution study: Mobile, Alabama, South Alabama Regional
Planning Comm., 44 p.
Mobile County Soil and Water Conservation District, 1971, An
appraisal of potentials for outdoor recreation development:
Mobile County, Alabama, Mobile County Soil and Water Conservation
District, 44 p.
Moore, D. B., 1971, Subsurface geology of southwest Alabama:
Alabama Geol. Survey Bull. 99, 80 p.
Morrill, J. F., 1959, A survey of marine algae of Bay St. John
and adjacent Alabama waters: Univ. Alabama Master's thesis, 67 p.
Moskovits, George, 1955, Marine biology, in Literature survey of
Lake Charles, Louisiana; Gulfport, Mississippi; Mobile, Alabama;
and Pensacola, Florida, and their approaches: Texas A & M Re-
search Foundation, Reference 55-39F, p. 91-124.
Mount, R. H., 1975, The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama:
Auburn Univ., Agr. Expt. Sta., 347 p.
National Science Board, 1972, Patterns and perspectives in environ-
mental science: Washington, Nat/1 Sci. Board, 426 p.
Newspaper Enterprise Association, Inc., 1962, The world almanac
and book of facts: New York, Newspaper Enterprise Association,
Inc., 280 p.
1974, The world almanac and book of facts: New York,
Newspaper Enterprise Association, Inc., 976 p.
Parker, F. I.., 1954, Distribution of the Eoraminifcra in the
northeastern Gulf of Mexico: Harvard Univ. Mus. Comp.,Zoology
Bull., V. Ill, No. 10, p. 453-588.
384
-------
129. Parker, R. H., 1960, Ecology and distributional patterns of marine
macroinvertebrates, northern Gulf of Mexico, _in Shapard, F. P.,
Phleger, F. B., and Van Andel, T. H., recent sediments, northwest
Gulf of Mexico: Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., Tulsa, Oklahoma, p.
302-337.
130. Peirce, L. B., 1966, Surface water in southwestern Alabama:
Alabama Geol. Survey Bull. 84, 182 p.
131. Philips, P. J., and Burke, W. D., 1970, The occurrence of sea wasps
(Cubomedusae) in Mississippi Sound and the northern Gulf of Mexico:
Bull. Marine Sci., V. 20, No. 4, p. 853-859.
132. Phleger, F. B., 1954, Ecology of Foraminifera and associated
microorganisms from Mississippi Sound and environs: Am. Assoc.
Petroleum Geologists Bull., V. 38, No. 4, p. 584-647.
133. Rainwater, E. H., 1964, Late PLeistocene and recent history of
Mississippi Sound between Beauvoir and Ship Island: Mississippi
Geol. Survey Bull. 102, p. 32-61.
134. Rawls, 11. C., 1953, The land snails of Alabama, with notes on
their ecology: Univ. of Alabama, Ph. D. dissert., 315 p.
135. Read, W. A., 1937, Indian place-names in Alabama: Baton Rouge,
Louisiana State University Press, University Studies No. 29,
84 p.
136. Reed, P. C., 1971, Geology of Mobile County, Alabama: Alabama
Geol. Survey, Map 93, p. 8.
137. Reintjes, J. W., and Pachelo, A. L., 1966, The relation of men-
haden to estuaries, in A symposium on estuarine fishes: Am.
Fisheries Soc. Spec. Publ. 3, p. 50-58.
138. Riccio, J. F. and Gazzier, C. A. , 1973, History of water supply
of the Mobile area: Alabama Geol. Survey Circ. 92, 33 p.
139. Richardson, J. M., 1966, Alabama encyclopedia, V. 1, book of
facts: Northport, Alabama, American Southern Publishing Co.,
1051 p.
140. Richmond, E. A., 1962, The fauna and flora of Horn Island,
Mississippi: Gulf Research Repts. V. 1(2), 106 p.
141. 1968, A supplement to the flora and fauna of Horn
Island, Mississippi: Gulf Research Repts., V. 2(3), p. 213-254.
385
-------
142. Ripley, S. D., 1975, Report on endangered and threatened plant
species of the United States: 94th Congress, 1st Session, House
Document No. 94~51, 200 p.
143. Ryan, J. J., 1969, A sedimentologic study of Mobile Bay, Alabama:
Florida State Univ. Sedimentological Research Lab. Contr. 30,
110-p.
144. Saunders, R. P., and Fryxell, G. A., 1962, Diatom distribution,
in Bushnell, V. C., ed., Chemistry, primary productivity and
benthic algae of the Gulf of Mexico: Am. Geographical Soc.,
Serial Atlas of the Marine Environment, Folio 22, p. 13-14.
145. Scarbrough, W. L., ed., 1972, Recent sedimentation along the
Alabama coast: Alabama Geol. Soc. Guidebook 10th Ann. Field
Trip, 1972.
146. Science, 1971, Whaling farewell: Science, V. 172, No. 3984, p.
665.
147. Simpson, R. H., and Lawrence, M. B., 1971, Atlantic hurricane
frequencies along the U.S. coast line: Nat.'l Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Adm. Tech. Memo. NWS. SR-58, 14 p.
148. Small, J. K., 1933, Manual of the southeastern flora: Univ.
North Carolina Press, 1554 p.
149. Smith-Vaniz, W. F., 1968, Freshwater fishes of Alabama: Auburn
Univ. Agr. Expt. Sta., 211 p.
150. South Alabama Regional Planning Commission, 1968, An inventory
and analysis of existing land use Baldwin, Escambia and Mobile
Counties, Alabama: South Alabama Regional Planning Commission,
60 p.
151. 1972, South Alabama regional transportation system:
Mobile, Alabama, South Alabama Regional Planning Commission,
104 p.
152. Steidinger, K. A., 1972, Dino-flagellate distribution, in Bushnell,
V. C., ed., Chemistry primary productivity and benthic algae of
the Gulf of Mexico: Am. Geographical Soc., Serial Atlas of the
Marine Environment, Folio 22, p. 14~15.
153. Stow, S. H., Drummond, S. E., and Haynes, C. D., 1975, Possible
heavy mineral resources, off-shore Alabama and Mississippi: Open-
file Rept. Univ. of Alabama Mineral Resource Inst., 18 p.
386
-------
154,
155.
156,
157,
158,
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
Summersell, C. G. , 1949, Mobile—History of a seaport town:
University, Alabama, Univ. of Alabama Press, 81 p.
Swingle, Hugh A., 1969, Record shrimp landing recorded in Alabama
during the year 1968: Alabama Conserv., V. 39(4).
1971, Biology of Alabama estuarine areas: Alabama
Marine Resources.Bull. 5, 123 p.
Swingle, H. A., and Bland, D. G., 1973, Notes and new records of
fishes from the Mobile Bay area: Alabama Marine Resources Bull.
9, p. 86-88.
1974a, Distribution of the estuarine clam Rangia
cuneata Gray, in coastal waters of Alabama: Alabama Marine
Resources Bull. 12, p. 9-16
1974b, A study of the fishes of the coastal water-
courses of Alabama: Alabama Marine Resources Bull. 10, p. 17-102.
Swingle, H. A., Keeler, J. E., and Allen, R. H., 1975, Fishes,
birds and mammals of the coastal area of Alabama: Montgomery,
Alabama, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,
57 p.
Swingle, W. E., 1970, Report on the potential value to the state
of Alabama of the proposal to utilize liberty ships as offshore
reefs: Dauphin Island, Alabama, Alabama Dept. Conserv. Seafoods
Div. Open-file Rept., 3 p.
1972a, Survey of the live bait shrimp industry of
Alabama: Alabama Marine Resources Bull. 8, p. l-7.
1972b, Artificial reef program grows in Alabama
coastal waters: Alabama Conserv., V. 42, No. 4, p. 11-13.
1974, First liberty ship sunk to make fishing reef:
Alabama Conserv., V. 44, No. 3, p. 3~5.
Szabo, M. W., and Clarke, 0. M., J., 1969, Mineral resource map
of Baldwin County, Alabama: Alabama Geol. Survey, Map 83.
Szabo, M. W., Clarke, 0. M., Jr., and Moore, D. B., 1969, Mineral
resource map of Mobile County, Alabama: Alabama Geol. Survey,
Map 89.
Tabb, D. C., 1966, The estuary as a habitat for spotted seatrout,
Cvnoscion nebulosus in A symposium on estuarine fisheries: Am.
Fisheries Soc. Sp. Publ. 3, p. 59-67.
387
-------
168,
169,
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
Tanner, W. F., Brett, C. E., Ryan, J., and Stapor, F., 1969,
Mobile Bay estuarine system, in. Feray, D. E., ed., Case studies
of estuarine sedimentation and its relation to pollution of the
estuarine environment: Federal Water Pollution Control Adra.,
66 p.
Taylor, J. L., Feigenbaum, D. L., Stursa, M. L., 1973, Utilization
of marine and coastal resources .in Jones, J. I., and others, eds.,
A summary of knowledge of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, 1973:
Florida State Univ. System Inst. Oceanography, 63 p.
Tucker, Bill, 1975, Fishing Alabama's bays and tidal streams:
Alabama Conserv. V. XLV(l), ,p. 8-9.
Upshaw, C. F., Creath, W. B., and Brooks, F. L., 1966, Sediments
and microfauna off the coasts of Mississippi and adjacent states:
Mississippi Geol. Survey Bull. 106, 127 p.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1953, Mobile Harbor, Alabama: U.S.
83rd Congress, 1st Session, House Doc. 74, 36, p.
1967a, Hurricane survey of the Mississippi Coast:
U.S. 90th Congress, 1st Session, House Doc. 99, 92 p.
1967b, Hurricane survey of the Alabama coast: U.S.
90th Congress, 1st Session, House Doc. 103, 74 p.
1971, The port of Mobile, Alabama: U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Port Series 18 (revised 1970), pt. 2, 78 p.
1972a, Waterways and Harbors, Gulf Coast, Mississippi
River System, and Antilles: pt. 2 of. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterborne commerce of the United States, pt. 2, p. 62-63.
1972b, National summaries: pt. 5 of. Waterborne com-
merce of the United States, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 137 p.
1973, Environmental assessment, Eastern Gulf, Appendix
F of. Report on Gulf Coast deep water port facilities, Texas, Louisi-
ana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida: U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, 202 p.
1974, Social, economic, and environmental effect as-
sessment study for a planned federal navigation project, Theodore
Ship Channel, Mobile Bay, Alabama: Mobile, Alabama, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 287 p.
388
-------
180. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968, Rare and
endangered fish and wildlife of the United States: U.S. Bur.
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Resource Publ. 34, 130 p.
181. 1973a, Selected list of federal laws and treaties
relating to sport fish and wildlife: U.S. Bur. Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife WL-489, 7 p.
182. 1973b, Threatened wildlife of the United States:
U.S. Bur. Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Resource Publ. 114, 289 p.
183. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1941, Climate and man: U.S. Dept.
Agriculture, Agriculture Yearbook, 1,248 p.
184. U.S, Department of Commerce, 1970, Atlanta sectional aeronautical
chart: U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Science Ser-
vices Administration, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Washington, D.C.,
Map.
185. 1972, New Orleans sectional aeronautical chart: U.S.
Department of Commerce, Environmental Science Services Adminis-
tration, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Washington, D.C., Map.
186. 1973, Tornado preparedness planning: Washington, U.S.
Dept. Commerce, Nat 1 Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm., Nat'1
Weather Service, 28 p.
187. 1974, Memphis sectional aeronautical chart: U.S.
Department of Commerce, Environmental Science Services Adminis-
tration, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Washington, D.C., Map.
188. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1970, Division
of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools in selected districts:
Washington, D.C., U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare,
for Civil Rights, p. 17-18.
189. U.S. Department of Labor, 1970, Summary manpower indicators for
Mobile County, Alabama: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of
Labor, Computer Print-outs.
190. U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1969, Im-
portance of the estuarine zone, pt. IV o£ The national cst'uarine
pollution study: U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Adm., 575
P-
191. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1974, United States list of en-
dangered fauna: Washington, D.C., U.S. Dept. Interior, 22 p.
389
-------
192. U.S. National Marine Fishers Service, 1971, Alabama landings,
annual summary, 1971: U.S. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Service,
Current Fisheries Statistics 5771, 4 p.
193. 1972, Alabama landings, annual summary, 1971: U.S.
Nat'l Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fisheries Statistics
5920, 4 p.
194. 1973, Shrimp landings} annual summary, 1971: U.S.
Nat'l Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fisheries Statistics
5924, 19 p.
195. 1974a, Alabama landings, annual summary, 1971: U.S.
Nat'l Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fisheries Statistics
6121, 6 p.
196. 1974b, Mississippi landings, annual summary, 1972:
U.S. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fisheries Statis-
tics 6122, 5 p.
197. 1974c, Shrimp landings, annual summary, 1972: U.S.
Nat'l Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fisheries Statistics
6125,
198. Van Doren, Mark, ed., 1955, Travels of William Bartram: New
York, Dover Publications, 414 p.
199. Vittor, B. A., 1974, Preliminary report on the macrobenthos of
lower Mobile Bay, Alabama: Open-file Rept. Marine Environmental
Sciences Consortium, Dauphin Island, Alabama, 15 p.
200. Weidie, A. E., 1968, Bay and barrier island sands: Gulf Coast
Assoc. Geol. Soc. Trans., V. 18, p. 405-415.
201. White, H. G., 1969, The petroleum industry in Alabama: Alabama
Geol. Survey Circ. 53, 27 p.
202. White, J. S., 1959, The acarine ectoparasites of Alabama bats:
Univ. of Alabama Ph.D. dissert., 137 p.
203. Williams, A. B., 1965, Marine decapod crustaceans of the Carolinas:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery Bull., V. 61, No. 1, 298
P-
204. Williams, C. II., Jr., Dinkins, T. II. , Jr., and McCutcheon, T. E. ,
1966, George County geology and mineral resources: Mississippi
Geol. Survey Bull. 108, 227 p.
390
-------
205. Wimberly, S. B. , 1960, Indian pottery from Clarke County, and
Mobile County, Southern Alabama: Alabama Geol. Survey, Alabama
Mus. Nat. Hist. Paper 36, 262 p.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
206. Hayes, M. B., Owens, E. H., Hubbard, D. K., and Abele, R. W.,
1973, The investigation of form and processes in the coastal
zone, iii Coates, D. R. , ed., Coastal Geomorphology: Third
Ann. Geomorphology Symposia, Ser., Binghampton, N. Y. proc.,
p. 11-42.
207. U. S. Department of Commerce, 1974, Climates of the states,
v. 1, Eastern states: U. S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Wash. D. C., p. 1-14.
208. U. S. Public Health Service, 1962, Drinking water standards, 1962:
U. S. Public Health Service Pub. 965, 61p.
391
-------
Appendix A. RECORDS OF WELLS IN MOBILE COUNTY
(Well Numbers Correspond to Those Shown on Figure 42)
Water-bearing unit: Tran, Miocene Series undifforuntiatod;
Tc i, Citrorielle Fom.Mion; Oal, alluvium, lcw-terraco,
ap>) coAitsl deposits.
Altitudp' Altitudes dotcmlned by android barometer or
i roni topographic naps.
Water level: Poportod levels given in foot; raoasurol
levels given in fpet ar*i tenths.
Method of lift: C, centrifugal; F, flow; J, jet; N, none, p,
piston; S, submonible; T, turbine.
Use of water: D, domestic; Ind, industrial; Irr, irrigation;
PS, public supply; R, recreation; S, stock; U, unused.
Romark9: Formic numbers given for oil-test wells are those
assigned by the Oil and Gas Board of Alabama.
1
Numbe r
Cwrc c
Driller
Yea r
com-
pleted
Dop th
of
we 1 1
{ feet)
Dian-
e tcr
of wel1s
{ inches)
Water
bea ring
uni t
A1 ti tude
of land
surface
(fco t)
'-.'a i e r
Above ( «¦ j or
belo-v land
su rface
(feet)
ovol
Ua te of
n«_»a s u ru-
ment
Me thod
of
lift
Use
of
wa t e r
Rem a rk s
1
B. w. O-ion, fgr.
II. P. Pa t to n
28
2
Qal
1
0
6-17-75
J
D
2" casing, surface
to 2S1, screen
25 to 85 ft.
2
n. W. Ov'lora
Shurrock W»;ll Co.
1971
95
Tc l
75
6-17-75
0
3
J. P. Sessions
Bay Hardware
R. Duck
1967
66
2
Tc i
45
6-17-75
J
Fa rn
2" casing, surface
to 621 , screen
62 to 7O ft.
4
L'n ivtrsUy of
A ' a b a ra a
450
3
6-17-75
J
Crab
faro
5
Town of Grand
Hay
Acno
1964
155
12
Tc 1
102
57
6-18-75
T
P.S.
12" casing, sur-
face to 11 5 1 ,
3" casing, 74 to
115 ft., 6" ca s-
ing, 115 to 155
ft.
-------
Appendix A (continued). RECORDS OF WELLS IN MOBILE COUNTY
(Well Numbers Correspond to Those Shown on Figure 42)
u>
-O
Nunbor
Ow n (? r
Driller
Yea r
con-
plot cd
Depth
of
wo 1 1
(f«.-et)
Dlftn-
otor
of WV11s
(inchps)
Water
boa ri ri9
un i t
A 1 11 I udc
of 1 a rxi
su rface
(feet}
(*'.» tor
Above( »)o r
below lan'l
surf.icc
(foul)
1 c» vol
Da t e of
noa su re -
men i
Motnod
of
lift
Use
of
v/itcr
Rcna rk s
6
Town of Grand
Ray
Mol larxi Wo L 1 Co.
1975
1 50
12
Tc
90
6- 18-75
T
P. S.
Ca s cick
1905
70
2
Tc i
108
6-19-75
J
D
Cased to 65',
screened 65-70'
2 1
City of fla you
La 3.iire
Si nrfer-Laync
Cent ra1
1962
526
12
Trau
7
6-19-75
T
P.S.
12" casing, sur-
face to 472 1 ,
6" casing, 411*
to 476',
sc rcened 476• to
516'
12
City of £a y o u
La Eatro
S I nyer-Layno
Cen t ra1
1967
363
12
Ttbu
48
6-19-75
T
P.S.
6"-casing, sur-
face to 336't
screen 376* to
363*
-------
Appendix
(Well
A (continued). RECORDS OF WELLS IN MOBILE COUNTY
Numbers Correspond to Those Shown on Figure 4 2)
kO
Ln
Nunibo r
C"*no r
1
Dr i11o r
Yea r
con-
pi c ed
Dvn t h
of
i.oil
(foci)
Dl aro-
o to r
of wells
f i nc tlCa )
Wnter
boa rlng
unit
A 1 11 lu'ic
of 1 a rvd
su rf ace
(/net)
U'a mr
Above(~)o r
bt»low 1 and
surt ace
(feet)
I nv«:l
Date of
inea su re-
non t
Met hod
of
lift
Use
o f
w
-------
Appendix
(Well
A (continued). RECORDS OF WELLS IN MOBILE COUNTY
Numbers Correspond to Those Shown on Figure 42)
Nurhor
Cwne r
n r i 1 1 o r
Yea r
cor.
p 1 o i od
Dcp I h
of
UP 1 1
(foci)
D1 n -
ctcr
O f l/P 1 1 "5
( Ll.Chui)
Wa tor
bo.i r l ng
unit
A 1 11tudc
of 1 and
su lice
(J'oo t)
\',iir>r
Abo vc(*)o r
below land
surface
( frte-t )
] rv( 1
Da tc of
Kcasur c-
men t
Mc t hod
of
lilt
Use
Of
iva ler
Rona rks
21
Floyd Foots
Ra y 1U rdwa ro
R. Duck
1073
57
2
Tel
92
6-26-75
J
D
2" cas ing to 52't
screened to 57*
22
Ma s t o r Mar1no
J . Raw I s
1057
497
3
Tmu
3
6-26-75
N
U
3" casing to 4871
screen 4S7 lo 497'
Flc*-15
-------
Appendix A (continued). RECORDS OF WELLS IN MOBILE COUNTY
(Well Numbers Correspond to Those Shown on Figure 42)
Nu"ibc» r
l
Ow f i u r
Uri 1 1 cj r
Yc.i r
p J a oil
Dop t h
of
vie: 1 1
(foot)
Uian-
ctor
of wolIs
(inches)
Wa t e r
bo.i r 1 ng
un i I
A1 ti tu'lc
Of ltifkl
SU 1 AC c
(foe i)
w.j t<-r
Above(*)o r
below la nil
iu rf Lieg
( fcL't )
ovcl
Daio of
n.'a iu ro-
r.cn t
Met hod
of
lift
Use
o f
wa t e r
Rcnar*. s
2'J
M. B. Uarron
Duva11
1973
10O
2
Tc L
25
18
7-10-75
J
D
30
M. U. n.» n«1 c rson No . 1 8
Cootocli CtKjr.
1075
100
2
Tci
86
29
8-19-75
N
U
Pi ezor.cter
37
Mornl<;rson . 3
Goo t cc h Eng r.
1975
50
2
Oal
35
N
U
P ic2oncter
33
Henderson No. 6
Cootoch Cnyr.
1975
100
2
Tci
80
N
U
P iezotno ter
3<;
Ho*xlerson No. 9
Gootoch Engr.
1975
100
2
Tci
66
39
8-19-75
N
u
Piezocseter
-------
Appendix
(Well
A (continued). RECORDS OF WELLS IN MOBILE COUNTY
Numbers Correspond to Those Shown on Figure 42)
u>
V£>
CO
Nurebur
Owne r
Driller
Yea r
con-
|) 1 P t O" 1
Depth
of
I/O 1 1
(feet)
Di am-
otor
of IV o 1 1 s
(i nches)
W.-» tor
bun ri mj
unit
A1 t i i uclo
of land
su rf.tcc
{feet)
Wn tor
Above(~)or
be? low land
surface
(feet)
C V'.'l
Date of
noa su re -
men t
Molhod
o f
lift
Us e
o f
wa t e r
Rerarks
40
Mync'er^on No. 11
G^otcjch Engr,
107S
100
2
Tci
64
5.43
8-14-75
N
U
Piezoretcr
41
Hcr>]<;rion No. 14
C»"*cj t och Cncjr.
1975
100
2
Tci
45
42
8-U-75
N
U
Piezometer
42
lleude t son No. 17
&»o t och Hnrj r.
1975
100
2
Tc 1
68
40
8-19-75
N
U
Pi ezoacte r
43
Henderson No. 4
Or.ivtjs Drilling
Co.
1975
415
6 5/0
Ttlu
72
47
8-19-75
S
U
Production well
for pucping test
-------
Appendix B. CHEMICAL ANALYSES
(Well Numbers Correspond
OF WATER FROM WELLS IN MOBILE COUNTY
to Those Shown on Figure 42)
Wa ter- boa r 1 nrj unit: Tma, Miocene Sorics und i f f o ren t la ted ; Tel, Catronollo Foination, Qal, alluvium and coastal deposits.
u
c
— J3
-« a
o a
2 c
5; *
S o
CT>
C
A -«
1 c
»- 3
CJ
3
c
s • «->
as
V
0
£ 5
o a.
c a
<5 <—
u ci
-< O
U1
VI —•
c —»
0 K
^ b.
a
3
U r,J
- U
a —•
U
E
3
V) OI
. i
0
3
4
./>
E
3
a UL
C
c.
CJ
a
O C*1
.o O
u Ct
n z
U •
a
&
c "rn
| 8
3
cr
<3 rr
•v- O
~
3 —
•y)
o
¦v
c u
£
u
Ci
"C
U .—
0 u.
3 —
&
.-3 f>
Z 1
z
"S_,
o o
ill
E ~
3 0 3
•/I A u
Ma rdncss
as CaCO-j
¦K
z
CL
u
o
«
fc*
3
4
Cf
c.
6
2-70
. 110
0.00
O.OO
14.0
57.0
57.0
188.
4.5
25.8
I
4 it 'n i vo r« 11 y
|o ( A ] i>ari«i
0/17
•>-¦150
41.0
.04
4. 1
1 .2
76.0
4 . 1
1 10.0
O.OO
0.00
67 .0
. 40
I . ho
2S0
1S.O
O.GC
264 .0
7.5
2 5.8
5 Town of
jCrard C.i y
Tc t
6/IB
J 1 5-
i s^.
.03
3.00
0.00
6.0
7.00
5.0
25.0
6. 1
25.8
I
6 ITnwn o(
pram] B.iv
Tc 1
6/18
1 10-
I 1 6
6.1
.05
.40
. 50
3. 20
. 20
4.00
0,00
0,00
4.4
0.00
. 830
3.00
O.OC
24.0
5.7
25.9
7 jllobby KoIds
Crand Bay
Tel
0/1 a
30-35
.310
4.00
0.00
B. 2
6. OO
3.0
45.0
5.6
26.0
1 1
| |
1
1
1
-------
Appendix B (continued). CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF WATER FROM WELLS
(Well Numbers Correspond to Those Shown on Figure
IN MOBILE COUNTY
42)
-A 2
6
t, ~
3 -
8
u
-« y
% 5
li 0
¦
c*
c
•J •"<
•C -«
I c
1
3
Tel
c
0
® 7i
1fl 0
c u
0
tj
il
—
^ o
C u
•« *c
- ^ t
-> «
E ~ ~
3 0 3
¦/"./> u
Hardness
as CaCO^
u
0
m
Cl
„ Is
C y 1
215
o —
in u e
c.
e.
c
3
rt
4
I
H
e
- 3
e -
- 0
5-70
1.20
5.GO
0.00
4.6
2.0
O.CO
22.0
5.7
26.0
1
C. i t v of
[l\you La
iia tr«,Cl ly
nai
6/ IQ
•1 / f> -
51'fj
4S .O
2. lO
l. a
.80
44 .0
3.4
.14.0
o.oo
S. CO
48.O
O.OO
. lar
170. r
8. OO
O.OO
233.0
6.«
25.9
12
Ci ty of
[Viyou La
f'.a t re,Ci ty
Hall
6/ 14
TJO-
J'jJ
.480
52.0
0.00
3.4
18.0
0.00
104
6.9
26.0
13
Cui; s X Mono ,
Mr.Je rncgot
'
6/25
^57-
.220
130,
0.00
110.0
13.0
0.00
540
8.4
24.4
-------
Appendix B
(continued). CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF WATER FROM WELLS
(Well Numbers Correspond to Those Shown on Figure
IN MOBILE COUNTY
42)
w
V
a 5
3 C
u
t %
3 0
c*
c
n
tj ~
I u
U 3
i
~£
c
0
° 5
y «
rt o
c u
•/
£ 5
ci c.
u «
O
T, '/!
l/l —
11
a
3
O nj
-i U
<3 '—
u
s
3
ifl o
f z
&
1
3-
« -}
3 5.
u
3
-i u:
o
c.
CJ
2 ~
Z o
1- u
rt "Z.
U —'
03
o
c
28
Vl —•
fi
L>
T
3 —
l/l
4>
¦o
0 u
0
&>
T3
>i
c u.
3 —
U.
C
£ rf1
- .£
Z
5- '
*¦« n
C u
l Q.\y
Tci
6/25
50-
126
. 320
4.00
. 0.00
5.60
5.00
2.00
27.0
6.2
24.£
15
nCX Oil 11 c r
Rt..i, Box
350, Gr<*«nd
FUy
rc i
6/25
77
.710
6.00
0.00
5.20
16.00
i 1.00
35.0
6.6
24. i
16
J.E. Tur-
nip St">i 1,
Rl . 4 , P.ox
JOlJ, Cra r*!
li-\y
Tci
6/25
76-8f
. 110
5.00
o.oo
6.00
14.0
iO.O
40.0
6.4
24."
17
jQ^-3a lluii-
son, Ft . -4 ,
Box 348,
Cr.incl Uay
Tel
6/25
60-
L00
.060
4.00
0.00
5.60
5.00
2.O0
27.0
7.2
24.<
1 8
L.tuon i!ud-
s o r., Rt . 4 ,
Grand Hay
Tc i
0/25
60-
100
-------
Appendix B (continued). CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF WATER FROM WELLS
(Well Numbers Correspond to Those Shown on Figure
IN MOBILE COUNTY
42)
i,
—
— e
1 o
3 C
k.
fj 5
3 I
0
c
n
i> **
J.) ^
1 c
n 3
c
o
° I
V "
1 0
Q U
-5 -3
£ :j
•j n
c ^
rl
o ft
H O
in
(/I w
c —-
0 o
»-• u.
e
U rt
^ (J
rt •—
u
a
3
A Ol
V z
c
o>
<
X
I-
" rt
"2^
U1
e
-5 'X
a
a.
C>
a
1?
U (J
rt ~
u •—'
S3
CI
c *~»n
58
u —
(J
»J
Ssf
3
Irt
CI
-o
o u
s:
u
o
0 u.
3
Ll.
O
E J"
£
1 J,
— rt
C o
- vi C
c
3 0 3
ry". /I o
Via rdnei s
as CaCO^
in
rj
U < 3
~ £
V. o c
si z
c. z ~
S,
55-05
.060
3.GO
o.oo
5.40
7 .00
5.00
25.GO
6.0
24.6
20 C! yc!n Co ! -
i ins
1
Tc i
6/26
I 10-
120
.000
2.00
o.oo
4.80
4 .GO
3.00
22.OO
6.2
24.3
21
F1ov d Foo t s
,-ou l.a
B.t * re
Tc I
0/26
52- 57
. leo
4 .00
0.00
4 . 60
o.oo
O.OO
22 .00
6.2
24.4
22 ~•U -
j r i , I no .
| R.-iyo;i !.-QS
* 1.
"Data for Wells No. 25-31 is not available.
-------
Appendix B (continued). CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF WATER FROM WELLS IN MOBILE COUNTY
(Well Numbers Correspond to Those Shown on Figure k 2)
V
r-> J3
e
!> 3
3 c
% i
3 o
?
<
.3 ~
i c
u 3
.'J
c
0
•v* *¦>
° *
41 —
rt 0
a u
&>
o
u z:
c —
c»
5~
« nj
3 *
t/1
Q
3
u 'X
o
a.
V
5 ^
So
u y
a ^
a
c *~m
38
4
U
e»
So-
in
3 —
W1
1
V
*0 ___
0 u
-C
&
¦a
U -
G U.
3 •—
il
o
ti ->-i
t ?'
"C
C l
—¦ rt
C
-o •c ~
B — ~
D O ~
\r. * «j
Ha rdncsi
as CaCO^
oU
W.
n
z
L.
Q
U
3
<
s
E
H
e
e -
3
•*
u c
— o
6 £
~* V
rt —
Sf 2
U IZ o
~ ^ £
v. (J £
v 5 2
* 5 u
U c
32
I'omle rson
N'O . 5
Tnu
4/20
500-
SIO
590.0
0.00
19.0(
50 .00
o.oo
372 .0
8.0
27. 1
32
llont'crson
No. 5
Tru
5/7
160-
1o5
5T6-
JQ1
53.00
. 290*
7.90
1 .70
2 I 00
5.70
42.0
0.00
18.00
.013
19. or
. 100
.06
3
.01
147.0.
27.OO
0.00
169.00
7.8
27. 1
33
Mom 1p rson
< o. 1
1
8/20
:o-30
21 .0
1 1.0
4.
74 .O
2.6
15.0
0.00
1. 00
1 40
D.OO
262.0
45.CO
33, GC
470.OO
5. 7
34
Hcixlorson
>.o. lo
Tc I
0/19
S0-6O
5.4
i .n
0.70
4 , 90
O 90
14.0
0.00
c. ao
6.40
"3.00
2b.C
8,00
o.oo
41.00
6.0
35
HoniJo rson
'•'o. 7
Tci
3/16
70
5.5
O. 60
O. 50
4. 10
0. 60
3. Of
o.oo
o.eo
7. 20
o.oo
1.10
21.0
4.00
2.GO
29.00
5.6
36
M(?r>'o rson
'•'o. i 3
Tc 1
V19
50-60
6. 3
1 .00
0. 50
2,70
O. 30
4 . (X
0.00
O. 80
4 . 20
0.00
}.3B
1B.0
5.00
2.00
21.00
5.5
37
Ho nclc* r ion
No. 3
Tci
8/1 9
30-30
0.O(
0,00
9.60
8.00
2.00
44.00
5.0
|
-------
Appendix B (continued). CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF WATER FROM WELLS IN MOBILE COUNTY
(Well Numbers Correspond to Those Shown on Figure 42)
- r
1> 3
5 c
t I
2 0
c
•J —
2 r*
i r.
>- 3
3
c
o V
f —
* 0
o u
I nt.'-rval I
(feet)
rt —
u fi
— o
* (71
—•
li
e
3
<-> <
— u
CTi
O z
c —
c
n
£
1 -
- <
•v z
o —
•f)
e
3
o
a.
4)
4
I?
M y
=3
a
c ""m
58
<
U
V
i?
3 —
l/J
o
¦o ^
o C
JZ
u
0 1a.
3 —
Ll.
V
2 cT
- il
T3
0 •
<— <5
C U
A V
~ «n c
¦s "C £
3 0 3
^ f (J
Ma rcJness
a* c^co^
0°
V!
c.
V
d 1 9
Is NO^ 33
o 1 v«*
r< di r
ng/1
; o 1 v
-------
Appendix C. CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF WATER FROM STREAMS IN MOBILE COUNTY
(Reed, 1971)
-p-
o
Ln
c o 1' • n
>ii t, cb ' *c*¦
Mi f'l.
- 1 p (.• r 'it-.
ipv c1f! c
cor d;.ct-
.inc "
(r, i c *o-
pH
Tu --
u t l. r t'
UiCu-
oon.i: .•
C'.COO
C .i r-
bon-
at.'
fi-1 v
CO,
C-
1 c-
j'jn
"> CT
c.nr-
'jon-
• U-
3 C
7 —
r
Ha'!i V.
1! ntru* Thco.Iori*.
' C~ 5-ou
3 3.5
6
0
:
0
23
7.0
1 *
t>6
4 - T'. 7
30.4
I 6
0
4.0
1 0
0
35
: .3
1 7
6 3
Fo"- ! K'
i r c ^ -> r r <-•.
.0- --\ti
1 - .0
4
0
4 .4
5
;
2 4
. 5
1 S
6?
-- o-o-
1 * .3
-
0
^.0
5
1
77
: •
64
- Kr^nkli"
near Cirri"ii E3n\.
10- 5-cfc
! 3.5
4
0
r .2
5
:
2 Q
•) .6
20
53
is.:
a
0
6.4
3
i 6
7.0
18
6 4
-------
FACTORS FOR COtJVERTLNC BRITISH UNITS TO
INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM (SI) UNITS
The folloulng factors may be used to convert the British units to the
International System o[ Units (SI).
Multiply English Units
Length
To obtain SI Units
inches (in.)
feet (ft)
miles (mi)
25.4-
.0254
.3048
1.609
milliraetres (mm)
metres (m)
metres (m)
kilometres (km)
square
2
miles (rai )
Area
4,047
.4047
.00404 7
.404686
2.590
Volume
square metres (m~)
square hectometres (hm^)
square kilometres (km )
hectares (ha.)
square kilometres (km^)
gallons (gal.)
million gallons (10 gal.)
O
cubic feet (ft )
cfs-day (ft-Vs-day)
acre-feet (acre-ft)
3.785 litres
3.785 cubic
3.785 x 10 cubic
3,785 „ cubic
3.785 x 10J cubic
28.32 cubic
.02832 cubic
2 ,447 cubic
2.447 x 10 cubic
1,233 cunic
1.233 x lO^3 cubic
1.233 x 106 cubic
(1) 3
decimetres (.dm )
metres (iir;
metres (mJ.> ,
hectometres (hm )
decimetres (dm-3)
metres (nP)
metres (m-3)
hectometres (hm"3)
metres (m )
hectometres (Inn"3)
kilometres (km-')
F low
cubic feet per second (cfs)
gallons per minute (gpm)
million gallons per day (mgd)
28.32
28.32
.02832
.06309
.06309
6.309 x 105
43.81
.04381
litres per second (1/s)
cubic decimetres pet
second (dm' /s)
cubic metres pei second
(m-Vs)
litres per second (l/s)
cubLc decimetres per
second (dm^/s)
cubic mcLres per second
(nP/ s)
cubic decimetres
second (dm /s)
cubic metres per
(m / s)
per
second
pounds (lb)
tons (t)
iln s G
.4535
.9071
kilograms (kg)
metric tons (MT)
fahrenbeit (°F)
Tempera tnre
"32 x .555
centigrade (°C)
392
-------
iiliii
~
------- |