Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan - Alabama Department ...

The Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan 

Final Summary Document 

A cooperative project between the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency 

and the Baldwin County Commission 

Chairman David E. Bishop – District 2 

Commissioner Frank Burt, Jr. – District 1 

Commissioner Wayne A. Gruenloh – District 3 

Commissioner Albert Lipscomb – District 4 

May 2005 

Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Department 

Http://www.wetlands.co.baldwin.al.us 

Cara Stallman Kenneth McIlwain Derek Lemoine 

Senior Natural Resource Planner Natural Resource Planner Natural Resource Analyst

Table of Contents 

a. Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................................iv 

b. List of Acronyms.........................................................................................................................................v 

c. List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................vi 

d. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................vii 

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................1 

2. Background .................................................................................................................................................4 

2.1. General Information about Baldwin County, Alabama ................................................................4 

2.1.1. Geography and Demography ...............................................................................................4 

2.1.2. Soils...........................................................................................................................................4 

2.1.3. Waterways and Watersheds...................................................................................................5 

2.1.4. Climate .....................................................................................................................................5 

2.2. Summary of wetland resources in Baldwin County.......................................................................6 

2.2.1. Wetland Classification ...........................................................................................................6 

2.2.2. General Summary of wetland hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classes ...................................6 

2.2.2.1. Flat ....................................................................................................................................6 

2.2.2.2. Depressional .....................................................................................................................7 

2.2.2.3. Riverine ............................................................................................................................8 

2.2.2.4. Fringe.................................................................................................................................8 

2.2.2.5. Slope .................................................................................................................................9 

2.3. Summary of wetland protection efforts in Baldwin County.........................................................9 

2.4. Existing wetland regulatory framework.........................................................................................10 

2.4.1. Federal....................................................................................................................................10 

2.4.2. State .......................................................................................................................................10 

2.4.3. Local .......................................................................................................................................10 

2.5. Regulatory limitations.......................................................................................................................11 

3. Summary of Project Objectives/Goals..................................................................................................12 

3.1. Further develop a Wetland Protection Overlay District (WPOD) and incorporate it into the 

Baldwin County Zoning Regulations.............................................................................................12 

3.1.1. Recommendations and Future Direction..........................................................................13 

3.1.1.1. Interagency Relationship between BCC and USACE..............................................13 

3.1.1.2. Suggested changes to Zoning and Subdivision Regulations....................................14 

3.2. Develop a countywide GIS wetland data layer containing information on the location, type 

and functional capacity of wetlands ...............................................................................................15 

3.2.1. Creation of the Baldwin County Digital Wetland Layer (BCDWL) .............................15 

3.2.2. Wetland Validation Project .................................................................................................15 

3.2.2.1. Fieldwork ........................................................................................................................16 

3.2.2.2. Statistical Analysis/Results...........................................................................................17 

3.2.3. Remote Functional Wetland Assessment Model (RFWAM)........................................19 

3.2.3.1. Conceptual Framework.................................................................................................19 

ii

3.2.3.2. Acquisition of GIS data layer for use in the BCWCP database..............................19 

3.2.3.3. Wetland classification: NWI to HGM Conversion ..................................................20 

3.2.3.4. Wetland model development .......................................................................................20 

3.2.3.5. Calibration of functional assessment ..........................................................................26 

3.2.3.6. Results of the RFWAM ................................................................................................26 

3.2.3.7. Future direction and recommendations .....................................................................27 

3.3. Develop a wetland education/outreach program for area stakeholders...................................28 

3.3.1. Public meetings.....................................................................................................................28 

3.3.2. Presentation to government and civic organizations ......................................................28 

3.3.3. Presentations at Professional Meetings .............................................................................28 

3.3.4. Other BCWCP activities......................................................................................................29 

3.3.5. Future direction and recommendations ............................................................................30 

3.4. Research, design and implement wetland restoration/construction projects at selected sites 

throughout the County.....................................................................................................................31 

3.4.1. Perdido Beach Shoreline Restoration Project ..................................................................31 

3.4.2. Gulf Shores Wetlands Park.................................................................................................35 

3.4.3. Baldwin County High School Wetland Restoration Project ..........................................36 

3.4.4. Keeney Driver East Wetland Reserve Program...............................................................37 

3.4.5. Coastal Land Trust/Tensaw Lake acquisition..................................................................38 

3.4.6. Future direction and recommendations ...........................................................................39 

4. Summary and Conclusions .....................................................................................................................40 

5. References ..................................................................................................................................................41 

6. Glossary......................................................................................................................................................42 

7. Figures ........................................................................................................................................................47 

8. Appendices.................................................................................................................................................81 

8.1. Summary of All Project Related Activities....................................................................................82 

8.2. Validation Project Results................................................................................................................89 

8.3. RFWAM Technical Protocol ..........................................................................................................93 

8.4. Final Summary Table......................................................................................................................111 

8.5. Wetland Validation Newspaper Article .......................................................................................113 

8.6. Gulf Shores Wetlands Park Conceptual Plan .............................................................................115 

iii

a. Acknowledgments 

There have been many people and agencies associated with the development of the Baldwin 

County Wetland Conservation Plan. First, this document could not have been completed without 

the continual support of the Baldwin County Commission. All phases of this endeavor have been 

approved by the Commission and they have provided unanimous agreement for the continuation of 

this project, making Baldwin County the leader in the protection of wetland resources in Alabama. 

Also, funding and technical support came from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

Hudson Slay, the EPA grant manager assigned to this project, provided endless technical support 

and patience throughout the development of this project. The United States Army Corps of 

Engineers – Mobile District Regulatory Branch donated many hours of staff time for the execution 

of the wetland validation project, with special thanks to Eric Buckelew and Larry “Chip” Dixon for 

their field expertise and to Linda Peterson for the statistical support. Also, the International Paper 

(IP) Corporation deserves thanks for donating its staff support in navigating to 36 validation sites on 

its property. There were also many private land owners in Baldwin County who allowed us to 

conduct wetland delineations for the wetland validation project. The Technical Advisory Committee 

endured many long meetings and lent their expertise to all phases of this project, most notably to the 

fine tuning of the remote functional assessment model. The Technical Advisory Committee was 

made up of representatives from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne Field Office (Randy 

Roach, Darren LeBlanc); the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (Carl Ferraro, 

Roy Collins); the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, State Lands 

Division (Garth Crow, Jeff Jordan); the University of South Alabama (Dr. Judy Stout); and many 

others. 

The Baldwin County Planning Commission has been stalwart in the protection of wetland 

resources during its monthly review of subdivision and rezoning applications. Also, support from 

the Baldwin County Environmental Advisory Board was extremely helpful in the development of 

this program, with special thanks to Fred Nation who assisted with the plant species lists. We are 

also very thankful to our colleagues in the Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Department, who 

utilize the wetland information generated by this project in their review of new subdivisions, 

rezoning requests, and variance applications and in turn have proved the usefulness of this project. 

We sincerely thank William H. Brantley Jr. of the Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, State Lands Division who had the foresight and vision to develop this project 

and has a sincere interest and desire to continue Baldwin County’s effort to protect its natural 

resources. We also thank Hank Burch of the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, State Lands Division, Coastal Section who provided meticulous and insightful review 

during all phases of this endeavor. 

iv

. List of Acronyms 

1. ADCNR...................................... Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

2. ADEM ...................................................... Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

3. ADID........................................................................................ Advance Identification of Wetlands 

4. AFC .................................................................................................. Alabama Forestry Commission 

5. ANHP........................................................................................Alabama Natural Heritage Program 

6. BCC...................................................................................................... Baldwin County Commission 

7. BCDWL ..............................................................................Baldwin County Digital Wetland Layer 

8. BCEAB...............................................................Baldwin County Environmental Advisory Board 

9. BCHS ................................................................................................... Baldwin County High School 

10. BCWCP ..................................................................... Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan 

11. CACWP ......................................................................... Coastal Alabama Clean Water Partnership 

12. CIAP .........................................................................Alabama Coastal Impact Assistance Program 

13. CIR ................................................................................................................................. Color Infrared 

14. DLG........................................................................................................................Digital Line Graph 

15. EPA..............................................................................................Environmental Protection Agency 

16. FEMA ..............................................................................Federal Emergency Management Agency 

17. GIS .................................................................................................. Geographic Information System 

18. GPS ........................................................................................................... Global Positioning System 

19. GSA.....................................................................................................Geological Survey of Alabama 

20. HGM ...................................................................................................................... Hydrogeomorphic 

21. HUC..................................................................................................................Hydrologic Unit Code 

22. MBNEP................................................................................Mobile Bay National Estuary Program 

23. MBRT ........................................................................................... Mitigation Banking Review Team 

24. MOA ..................................................................................................... Memorandum of Agreement 

25. MOU...............................................................................................Memorandum of Understanding 

26. NLCD ....................................................................................................... National Land Cover Data 

27. NRCS ................................................................................ Natural Resources Conservation Service 

28. NWI ....................................................................................................... National Wetland Inventory 

29. RFWAM ............................................................. Remote Functional Wetland Assessment Model 

30. USACE ..............................................................................United States Army Corps of Engineers 

31. USCB......................................................................................................Unites States Census Bureau 

32. WPOD..................................................................................... Wetland Protection Overlay District 

33. WRP ...........................................................................................................Wetland Reserve Program 

v

c. List of Figures 

1. Baldwin County locator map (USA and Alabama) .......................................................................48 

2. Baldwin County waterways (bays, rivers, streams)........................................................................49 

3. Continuous 10 foot contour in Baldwin County ..........................................................................50 

4. Land use map of Baldwin County ...................................................................................................51 

5. Color infrared map of Baldwin County (2001)..............................................................................52 

6. Population distribution .....................................................................................................................53 

7. Existing Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) boundaries......................................................................54 

8. Proposed Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) boundaries ...................................................................55 

9. Countywide map of wetlands ...........................................................................................................56 

10. Countywide map of hydrogeomorphic classes ..............................................................................57 

11. Graph of hydrogeomorphic classes by watershed .......................................................................58 

12. Map of a flat wetland ........................................................................................................................59 

13. Map of a depressional interdunal swale ..........................................................................................60 

14. Map of a depressional Grady Pond wetland .................................................................................61 

15. Map of a riverine wetland ................................................................................................................62 

16. Map of a fringe wetland ...................................................................................................................63 

17. Wetland validation sites ....................................................................................................................64 

18. Functional assessment model interface (1).....................................................................................65 




22. Distribution of depressional wetlands among percentages of possible points earned ............69 

23. Distribution of flat wetlands among percentages of possible points earned.............................70 

24. Distribution of riverine wetlands among percentages of possible points earned.....................71 

25. Map of countywide functional assessment results ........................................................................72 

26. Countywide functional assessment results by wetland acreage ...................................................73 

27. Functional assessment results by percent of acreage in hydrogeomorphic class......................74 

28. Functional assessment results by percent of wetland acreage in watershed .............................75 

29. BCWCP results Orange Beach Vicinity..........................................................................................76 

30. BCWCP results Eastern Shore ........................................................................................................77 

31. BCWCP results Lillian Swamp/Perdido River ..............................................................................78 

32. BCWCP results Dyas Creek Watershed (North Baldwin) ..........................................................79 

33. Example of wetland map made for the public .............................................................................80 

vi

d. Executive Summary 

The objective of the Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan (BCWCP) was to provide 

local decision-makers the best tools possible to make wise land use decisions regarding 

Baldwin County’s wetland resources. There were four major tasks of this project. First, the 

development of a Wetland Protection Overlay District (WPOD) was incorporated into the 

Baldwin County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Another task was the development of 

a GIS wetland data layer containing information on the location, type and functional capacity 

of wetlands throughout Baldwin County. Third, this project implemented a wetland 

education/outreach program for area stakeholders. Finally, wetland restoration/construction 

projects were designed and implemented at selected sites throughout the County. 

There are approximately 300,000 acres of wetlands in Baldwin County. Wetlands perform 

many natural functions such as: floodwater storage; sediment, toxicant, and nutrient 

removal; groundwater recharge; and habitat for fish and wildlife. 

Wetland protection is accomplished successfully at the local level. The Baldwin County 

Subdivision Regulations prevent the platting of entire lots in areas that are considered 

wetland. Also the Baldwin County Zoning Regulations require an upland buffer between a 

jurisdictional wetland and any land disturbance activity within a zoned area. 

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data was acquired, merged, edge-matched and verified 

using color infrared photography. Baldwin County staff and United States Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) staff ground-truthed the wetland data through a rigorous wetland 

validation project. It was determined that the Baldwin County Digital Wetland Layer 

(BCDWL) is 85.6% accurate in representing jurisdictional wetlands. 

In order to assess the functions of each wetland area throughout the County, a remote 

functional assessment model was developed using GIS software through the integration of 

other remotely sensed data layers such as flood zones, National Wetland Inventory data, and 

endangered species. The model was written, executed and calibrated with the support of an 

interagency Technical Advisory Committee. The results categorized Baldwin County’s 

wetlands as suitable for conservation, enhancement, or restoration. The resulting data is 

available to local stakeholders in digital and hard copy format. The results provide 

watershed-based wetland restoration strategies for Baldwin County’s wetlands. The majority 

of wetlands were categorized as wetlands suitable for conservation. 

Education and outreach programs were implemented throughout the project period through 

speaking engagements and public meetings. Wetland maps were a successful method of 

conveying information about wetland resources to developers, realtors, and the general 

public. Wetland restoration projects such as shoreline stabilization, riverine wetland creation, 

and isolated wetland protection were implemented. 

This document summarizes the 4 years of effort and creates a framework for future wetland 

protection efforts in Baldwin County, Alabama. 

vii

Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan Final Summary Document 

1. Introduction 

Baldwin County, Alabama is located is the southwestern corner of the State of Alabama 

(Figure 1). It is one of two coastal counties in the State of Alabama and is one of the largest counties 

east of the Mississippi River, encompassing an area of approximately 1,655 square miles. Except for 

a seventeen-mile stretch along its northeastern border, Baldwin County is entirely surrounded by 

water. It is bordered by Mobile Bay, the Tensaw River and the Mobile River to the west; Little River 

to the north; Perdido River and Perdido Bay to the east; and the Gulf of Mexico to the south. It also 

contains many miles of major inland waterways including Bay Minette Creek, Styx River, Blackwater 

River, Fish River, Magnolia River, Weeks Bay, Bon Secour River, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, 

Oyster Bay, Wolf Bay, Soldier Creek, and Palmetto Creek, among many others (Figure 2). 

Numerous wetlands are associated with these creeks, rivers, streams and bays, as approximately onethird 

of the land area in Baldwin County is considered wetland. 

As a coastal county with many miles of coastal and inland waters coupled with a mild 

climate, Baldwin County offers an attractive lifestyle to its residents and is experiencing explosive 

population growth. There was a 42.9% increase in population from 1990 to 2000. This rate of 

increase is expected to rise significantly by 2010. It is estimated that greater than one million tourists 

visit Baldwin County every year, generating several million dollars of revenue annually. According to 

a study published by the Alabama Gulf Coast Visitors Bureau, travel-related expenditures in 2002 in 

Baldwin County were $1.7 billion (Economic Impact of the Alabama Travel Industry, 2003). As a 

result of population growth, there is an increased demand for commercial, residential, and 

infrastructure development, thus bringing growth management issues to the forefront for local 

elected officials. One of the more visible changes in the landscape of Baldwin County is the rapid 

transformation of agricultural and forested lands to residential development. These development 

pressures are threatening the natural resources which make Baldwin County a popular place to live 

and visit. As a result, land use planning has become necessary to direct growth to appropriate areas 

and to strike a balance between development and the protection of natural resources. 

Wetlands in Baldwin County are regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers – 

Mobile District Regulatory Branch as per the guidelines set forward in §404(b) of the Clean Water 

Act. Also, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management regulates wetlands below the 10 

foot contour elevation (Figure 3). Land use changes and subdivision regulations are regulated via an 

ordinance in each municipality within their respective corporate limits. In unincorporated areas, 

subdivisions are regulated through the Baldwin County Subdivision Regulations and land use is 

regulated in areas that elect to come under the Planning and Zoning Authority of Baldwin County 

Commission. Subsequently, there are many areas of unincorporated Baldwin County that are not 

subject to land use review. With the lack of local regulations directly protecting wetland resources, 

direct and indirect impacts to wetlands can occur. For example, wetlands adjacent to developments 

can receive abnormal amounts of stormwater runoff, thus altering their beneficial functions. Also, 

wetlands in Baldwin County have been altered due to intensive agricultural and forestry practices for 

the past 200 years, creating wetland areas suitable for restoration and enhancement. There is a need 

for increased information about the location, types and functional capacity of wetland resources in 

Baldwin County. 

Wetlands perform many important functions in the landscape of Baldwin County, and these 

functions protect the high quality of life enjoyed by its residents and visitors. First, a lucrative 

commercial and recreational fishing industry thrives in Baldwin County. Fringe wetland habitats (e.g. 

1


salt marshes) provide food and habitat for spawning fish, thus supporting the multi-million dollar 

commercial fishery in Baldwin County. The principal species are shrimp, oysters, and crab. A 1996 

study reported that $835,615,325.00 was spent on sport fishing in Alabama (Economic Impact of 

Sport Fishing in Alabama, 1996). Second, wetlands store floodwater during large rainfall events. 

Baldwin County is extremely vulnerable to large tropical events originating in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The increase of impervious surfaces from development throughout a watershed increases the 

quantity and velocity of stormwater runoff during large rainfall events. Wetlands absorb the 

floodwaters and can decrease catastrophic flood damage. Third, the quality of water in the bays, 

rivers, streams, and Gulf of Mexico is directly related to the success of the tourist industry. Tourists 

and residents enjoy many water-dependent recreational activities such as boating, skiing, swimming, 

canoeing, and surfing. Wetlands can remove toxicants, excess sediment and nutrients from runoff 

and can maintain and improve water quality. Finally, some wetlands recharge groundwater via 

percolation. A majority of the water systems in the county obtain water from groundwater. In sum, 

wetland functions can be directly tied to the economy and high quality of life in Baldwin County. It 

is in the best interests of the public to protect, conserve, enhance and restore wetland resources to 

maintain Baldwin County’s appeal as a place to live and visit. 

In 1999, the Baldwin County Commission, the Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency completed the Baldwin 

County Advance Identification Project (ADID), which located, identified, and assessed wetland 

resources in an 89,000 acre area of southern Baldwin County. The resulting information provided 

federal, state and local regulators an opportunity to identify wetland areas as either suitable or 

unsuitable for disposal of fill or dredged material. This non-regulatory effort established a 

framework for future wetland protection efforts and provided more information to the public about 

wetland functions within the project boundary. 

Continuing in the efforts of the ADID project, in 1999 the Baldwin County Commission 

and the United States Environmental Protection Agency launched an effort to identify, assess, and 

restore wetland resources countywide. This effort has been named the Baldwin County Wetland 

Conservation Plan (BCWCP) and elaborates on objectives and findings of the ADID project. This 

project started in October 1999 and was completed in September of 2003. The objective of the 

Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan is to identify, assess and restore wetland resources 

throughout Baldwin County and to provide local decision makers with the best tools to make wise 

land use decisions regarding wetland resources. Although this effort is non-regulatory in nature, it 

has been successful in increasing the awareness of the importance of wetland functions throughout 

Baldwin County. There are four major project objectives for this study: protect wetland resources 

throughout Baldwin County, raise awareness of wetlands through education and outreach, restore 

degraded wetlands, and promote interagency coordination. 

This document describes the tasks and results of the Baldwin County Wetland Conservation 

Plan (BCWCP). This study accomplished the major objectives by developing the four major project 

tasks. Each of these project tasks will be discussed in detail throughout this document. The first 

major task was to develop a Wetland Protection Overlay District (WPOD) and incorporate it into 

the Baldwin County Zoning Regulations. The second task involved the development of a GIS 

wetland data layer containing information on the location, type and functional capacity of wetlands 

throughout Baldwin County. The third task enhanced a wetlands education/outreach program for 

area stakeholders. Last, wetland restoration/construction projects were researched, designed and 

implemented at selected sites throughout the County. 

2


The development of the Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan (BCWCP) has been a 

collaborative effort among many agencies and partners. First, the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency provided the funding through the Region IV Wetlands Protection State 

Development grant. In addition, the United States Army Corps of Engineers - Mobile District, 

Regulatory Branch provided staff support for the wetland validation component of this project. 

Also, an interagency Technical Advisory Committee met numerous times through the grant period 

to provide technical expertise on all aspects of the project. The agencies represented were the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Alabama 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources State Lands Division, the Alabama Department 

of Environmental Management, the University of South Alabama, and the Baldwin County 

Commission. Also, insight was obtained from members of Baldwin County’s real estate and 

development community and the general public throughout the project period. 

3


2. Background 

2.1 General information about Baldwin County 

2.1.1 Geography and Demography 

Baldwin County is located in the southwest corner of the State of Alabama. It is one of two 

coastal counties in Alabama which border in the Gulf of Mexico. As a coastal county, it contains 

diverse upland and wetland habitats, such as bottomland hardwood swamps, longleaf pine forests, 

coastal scrub forest, maritime forest, sand dunes, salt marshes and many others. According to the 

1992 EPA National Land Cover Data (NLCD), approximately 22% is wetlands, 51% is forested, 1% 

is urban/residential, and 26% is agriculture (Figure 4). The terrain in the northern two-thirds of 

Baldwin County consists of long, rolling hills, entrenched streams, and rivers with steep banks. A 

majority of the land area has been converted to pine plantations. Approximately 21% of the land 

area is owned by timber companies. There is very little change in elevation in the southern portion 

of Baldwin County where most of the streams and rivers have broad channels and low gently 

sloping banks. Agriculture and residential development dominate land use in the southern portion of 

the county. Figure 5 is a color infrared (CIR) map of the entire County. 

The cities along the Eastern Shore (Spanish Fort, Daphne and Fairhope) and the coastal 

communities (Gulf Shores, Orange Beach and Foley) are the most rapidly developing areas in 

Baldwin County. Figure 6 is a map of recent census data depicting the population distribution. 

Currently, there are large-scale developments on the drawing board for the Stockton/Bay Minette 

area in the north and the Seminole and Lillian area in the southeast. The largest employers in 

Baldwin County are, in order, local government, retail, and hospitals (Baldwin County Economic 

Development website). 

Baldwin County lies within the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic setting. The majority 

of the land area of Baldwin County lies within the Southern Pine Hills District. The land area 

bordering the Mobile and Tensaw Rivers falls within the Alluvial-Deltaic Plain District and the 

coastal area of Baldwin County falls within the Coastal Lowlands District. The typical landform in 

the Coastal Lowlands District is flat to gently rolling plains, tidal streams, marshes and wetlands. 

The Holocene and Pleistocene Series makes up the upper 150 feet. Alluvium and coastal deposits 

are the geologic units. The Pliocene layer is dominated by the Citronelle Formation in the northern 

portion of the County. The Miocene Series is approximately 300 to 1000 feet thick. The major 

aquifer system for drinking water in Baldwin County is found in the Miocene and Pliocene series. 

2.1.2 Soils 

Baldwin County is located within the Lower Coastal Plain of Alabama. The area has five 

major regions that influence soil genesis. These five regions are the river flood plains and terraces of 

the Tombigbee and Alabama Rivers, marine terraces, the Citronelle Geologic Formation, 

Hattiesburg Clays, and areas of recent marine deposits (beaches). 

Soils in the river floodplains and terraces mainly consist of silts and clays that have been 

transported and deposited by the river systems from areas to the north. The origin of these 

sediments can vary greatly from weathered materials of the Piedmont Region to materials 

transported from the Black Belt region of Alabama and Mississippi. Soils in this area are typically 

poorly drained to moderately well drained. The marine terraces of south Baldwin County are 

4


derived from marine deposits overlaying the Citronelle formation. These soils typically have sandy 

surfaces underlain by sandy loam to clayey subsurfaces. These soils range from moderately well 

drained to somewhat excessively drained. Soils of the Citronelle Formation are mostly sandy in 

nature but do contain areas of heavy clays. These soils are generally found along the ridges and the 

plateaus of central and north Baldwin County. The Hattiesburg Clays underlie the Citronelle 

Formation and are usually exposed in areas of steep topography and along stream and riverbanks 

where erosion has removed the material overlying these clays. These soils range from moderately 

well drained to excessively drained. Recent marine deposits along the Alabama coastal corridor are 

mainly coarse to fine grain sands. These soils have very little, if any, subsurface development and 

range from poorly drained to excessively drained. In general, the soils of Baldwin County are sandy 

in nature, and most of the soils in the area are acidic to varying degrees. These two generalizations 

are evidenced by the rich history and current use of land resources for agriculture, horticulture, and 

silviculture. 

2.1.3 Waterways and Watersheds 

There are approximately 1800 miles of streams and rivers in Baldwin County identified in 

the United States Census Bureau (USCB) TIGER files. There are six 8-digit hydrological unit codes 

(HUC) and twenty-seven 11-digit hydrological unit codes. Since the completion of the BCWCP, the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has finished updating the HUC boundaries to 10- 

and 12 -digit codes. A cursory review of the draft version of the new HUCs showed eighteen 10digit 

watersheds and sixty-three 12-digit subwatersheds. Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the existing and 

the proposed HUC maps. The watershed boundary used in the BCWCP analysis is based on the 

older HUC boundary as the updated HUCs had not been formally released by the NRCS. There is a 

surface water divide running approximately down the center of the county. West of the divide, the 

drainage flows into the Tensaw River and Mobile Bay. East of the divide, the drainage flows into the 

Perdido River and Perdido Bay. There are a few man-made lakes, the largest being Steelwood Lake, 

which is located almost in the geographic center of the county. 

2.1.4 Climate 

The average rainfall in Baldwin County is approximately 66 inches per year, with July and 

August as the wettest months and October and November as the driest months. There is a good 

deal of variability in the average rainfall. For example, rainfall in Bay Minette (north Baldwin 

County) totaled 34.1 inches in 2000, but reached 93.7 inches in 2003. The coldest month is January 

and the warmest moth is July. Average monthly temperatures range from about 49 to 81 degrees and 

the average annual temperature is 66. The growing season usually begins in March and ends in 

October or November. 

5


2.2 Summary of Wetland Resources in Baldwin County 

2.2.1 Wetland Classification 

There is a diversity of wetland types in Baldwin County. According to the data generated in 

this study, approximately 300,000 acres (or 30% of the land area) is defined as wetland (Figure 9). 

The wetland definition defers to the 1987 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

definition, which states: “Wetlands are defined by the USACE as areas that are inundated or saturated by 

surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do 

support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include 

swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” The BCWCP utilized two types of wetland classification. First, 

the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data was used to create a continuous wetland coverage. The 

base NWI data was developed through interpretation of National Aerial Photography Program 

(NAPP) imagery (approx. 1:50,000 scale, typically color-infrared) in conjunction with limited field 

verification studies. Ancillary data sources, particularly USGS Quadrangle Maps and soil surveys, 

were also used in the interpretation process. The NWI data for most quads was developed in 1979, 

but the data for some quads was developed in 1985 using USGS data. Wetland polygons were 

classified according to the Cowardin (1979) classification. Second, the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) 

classification was used in the functional assessment component of this project. The HGM 

classification defines wetlands through their hydrologic sources, as hydrology is the driving force of 

wetland function within a landscape. For the purpose of this study, Baldwin County’s wetlands were 

classified into five HGM types: flat, depressional, riverine, fringe, and slope. 

Figure 10 illustrates a map of the HGM types in Baldwin County. Figure 11 illustrates the 

percentage of HGM type per 8-digit HUC watershed. It is evident from these graphs that the most 

dominant HGM type in each watershed is riverine. In the Perdido Bay watershed, almost 25% of the 

wetlands are depressional wetlands while 25% are fringe wetlands. These numbers are relatively 

higher than the other watersheds as the Perdido Bay Watershed includes interdunal swales and 

fringe wetlands along the coastal corridor of the County. There is a relatively high amount of flat 

wetlands in the Mobile Bay watershed due to a large extent of low-lying areas in the vicinity of 

Weeks Bay. The Mobile-Tensaw watershed included a relatively high amount of fringe wetlands as 

this area includes the southern extent of the Mobile-Tensaw Delta (at the northern extent of Mobile 

Bay). Finally, the Perdido and Lower Alabama watersheds are dominated by riverine wetlands. 

2.2.2 General Summary of wetland hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classes 

Each of the main wetland HGM classes that are commonly found in Baldwin County is 

particularly associated with important functions. Flat wetlands are particularly good for floodwater 

storage and for capturing sediment on its way downstream. Depressional wetlands recharge 

groundwater supplies and provide isolated pockets of valuable habitat. Riverine wetlands store 

much water during times of normalcy and of flooding. Finally, fringe wetlands provide exceptional 

habitat for fisheries and wildlife while also removing sediment, toxicants, and nutrients from 

outflows into large bodies of water. 

2.2.2.1 Flat 

6


Flat wetlands are categorized as seasonally saturated or inundated areas that contain a high or 

perched water table and that contain soils that are mineral to slightly organic. They are commonly 

referred to as wet pine flats, pine savannas, and pitcher plant bogs. These systems are non-riverine 

wetlands and the primary source of hydrology is precipitation. These areas typically have a sparse 

overstory dominated by several pine species including longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), slash pine (Pinus 

elliotti), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). The understory is dominated by southern wax myrtle (Myrica 

cerifera,) gallberry (Ilex glabra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), 

and red maple (Acer rubrum). There also can be a high diversity of herbaceous species, such as 

(Dicanthelium spp., Andropogon spp., Cyperus spp., Panicum spp., Sarracenia leucophylla, Drosera capillaris, 

Polygala nana, and Eriocaulon decangulare. It is also important to note that Gulf Coast pitcher plant bogs 

are the most diverse terrestrial habitats in North America in terms of vascular flora. Fire is an 

important component to these wetlands. As natural fires have been suppressed in recent history, it is 

estimated that many of these systems have become more dominated by woody species and overall 

plant species diversity has decreased. There are several large flat wetlands in Baldwin County, such 

as the Weeks Bay Mitigation Bank, Splinter Hill Bog. There are approximately 14,000 acres of flat 

wetlands. Figure 12 is a color infrared (CIR) map of a large flat wetland in southwest Baldwin 

County. 

2.2.2.2 Depressional 

A Pitcher Plant Bog in Baldwin County 

Depressional wetlands are wetlands located in a depression in the landscape, and they have a 

very small catchment area for surface runoff. Depressional wetlands in Baldwin County can include 

interdunal swales along Fort Morgan and Grady Ponds located throughout the agricultural areas in 

the southern half of the County. 

Interdunal swales are generally not very diverse and are dominated by the following 

herbaceous species: Juncus roemerianus, Myriophyllum laxum, Sagittaria graminea, Spartina spp., 

Dicanthelium spp., Carex spp. and Hydrocotyle bonariensis. However, as localized expressions of the nearsurface 

groundwater table, interdunal swales are important for both habitat and water quality 

protection. Figure 13 shows interdunal swales along Fort Morgan Peninsula. 

7


Grady Ponds are characterized by being composed of grady soils and the dominant woody 

species in Grady Pond are pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens), tupelo (Nyssa biflora), black willow 

(Salix nigra), sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), popcorn tree (Sapium sebiferum), titi (Cyrilla 

racemiflora), black titi (Cliftonia monophylla), and slash pine (Pinus elliotti). There are approximately 9,600 

acres of depressional wetlands in Baldwin County. Figure 14 is a color infrared map of a Grady 

Pond north of Bay Minette. 

2.2.2.3 Riverine 

A Baldwin County Grady Pond, Belforest Community 

Riverine wetlands are wetlands whose primary source of water is a river or stream. These 

are typically thought of as swamps, bottomland hardwoods, or floodplains. These wetlands store a 

good deal of flood waters during large rain events. Riverine wetlands are the most extensive wetland 

type in Baldwin County, encompassing eighty percent of the county’s wetlands. The dominant 

overstory species include: bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), 

tupelo (Nyssa biflora), water oak (Quercus nigra), green ash 

(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), swamp redbay (Persea palustris), and water 

hickory (Carya aquatica). A picture and a color infrared map of a 

riverine wetland are presented in Figure 15. The most extensive 

riverine wetland system in Baldwin County is the Mobile- 

Tensaw Delta, which contains many acres of bottomland 

hardwood swamp. The Perdido River Floodplain also contains 

many acres of riverine wetlands, with the prominent species 

being Atlantic White Cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides). 

A Riverine Wetland in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta 

2.2.2.4 Fringe 

Fringe wetlands are located adjacent to a large body of 

8


water, most typically the Gulf of Mexico or a large bay system, and they receive frequent and regular 

two-way flow from astronomic tides or from wind-driven water level fluctuation. The dominant 

fringe wetlands in Baldwin County are salt marshes. The largest fringe wetland is found in the lower 

Mobile-Tensaw Delta (Figure 16). The dominant species are Juncus roemerianus and Spartina altiflora. 

Fringe wetlands can improve water quality and protect the natural shoreline. There are 

approximately 35,500 acres of fringe wetlands in Baldwin County. Figure 16 displays a color infrared 

map of fringe wetlands. 

2.2.2.5 Slope 

Slope wetlands are defined as wetlands located along a slope and the primary source of water 

is groundwater seepage springs. Slope wetlands have been identified in the northern portion of the 

county in areas of steep stream embankments. However, due to limited extent, slope wetlands were 

not classified or mapped in this study. It is estimated that only a small amount of wetlands can be 

classified as slope in Baldwin County. Slope wetlands are dominated by Sphagnum spp. 

2.3 Summary of wetland protection efforts in Baldwin County 

There are several concurrent programs throughout Baldwin County that are raising the 

awareness of wetland resources for area stakeholders. In the last decade, Alabama Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), State Lands Division, along with other partners, 

has acquired 38,264 acres of wetlands in the Baldwin County portion of the Mobile-Tensaw Delta. 

These tracts protect wetlands and are accessible to the public for recreational activities. Several 

thousand acres have also been acquired in the Weeks Bay watershed and in Lillian Swamp through 

the Forever Wild Program. The State of Alabama and the Nature Conservancy have recently 

partnered to acquire approximately 1000 acres of a pitcher plant bog in North Baldwin County 

(Splinter Hill Bog). This flat wetland system contains a high diversity of plant species and also 

contains the panhandle lily (Lilium iridollae), a federally listed candidate species. The largest known 

population of this species is found in the Splinter Hill bog, which also harbors the American 

chaffseed (Schwalbea americana), a federally listed endangered plant. The ADCNR, State Lands 

Division and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) have partnered to 

target restoration on state-owned lands in Baldwin County. This project is funded by the EPA. 

Federally, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has worked with Partners in 

Wildlife to restore and protect wetlands throughout the County. In addition, USFWS Bon Secour 

National Wildlife Refuge has protected many acres of precious interdunal swales on Fort Morgan 

through acquisition of sensitive property. 

Locally, the City of Orange Beach has drafted a wetland ordinance, whereby all wetland 

mitigation must occur within the corporate limits of the city. This ordinance is expected to pass in 

early 2004. Grassroots watershed protection plans have been written or are in the process of being 

written for the Weeks Bay, Wolf Bay and Bon Secour River watersheds. All of these documents 

propose and encourage wetland protection efforts. The City of Fairhope recently completed a 

greenspace plan for its planning jurisdiction. Also other watershed protection groups such as the 

Mobile Bay National Estuary Program (MBNEP) and the Coastal Alabama Clean Water Partnership 

(CACWP) have outlined wetland efforts in their management plans. 

In 2001, Baldwin County received 3.1 million dollars through the Coastal Impact Assistance 

Program to implement environmental restoration projects which mitigate for outer continental shelf 

9


impacts. One of the initiatives of this program dedicated almost 500,000 dollars to implement the 

Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan. To date, the Baldwin County Commission has 

protected and restored a Grady Pond and acquired 400 acres of sensitive property in the Mobile- 

Tensaw Delta using these funds. Furthermore, other partnerships with the NRCS for a Wetland 

Reserve Program (WRP) have helped implement the efforts of this initiative. The Baldwin County 

Commission hopes that the information acquired through this project will assist in the continuation 

of the above efforts and will provide more information on the location, function and type of 

wetlands throughout Baldwin County. 

2.4 Existing wetland regulatory framework 

2.4.1 Federal 

Baldwin County lies within the Mobile District of the US Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE). The USACE has been tasked by Congress with protecting the integrity of navigable 

waters of the United States (Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899-§§ 9-11), and the USACE jointly 

administers the Clean Water Act §404 with the EPA to protect the nation’s wetlands through the 

regulation of discharge of dredged and fill material. In addition, the Food Security Act of 1985 (as 

amended) grants the United States Department of Agriculture the authority to withhold benefits 

from a person who converts a wetland to make the production of an agricultural commodity 

possible. 

The USACE issues individual or general permits for wetland-related impacts and it 

delineates wetlands according to the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and evidence 

of hydrological indicators. The following activities require a permit when they affect waters and 

wetlands of the United States: placement of fill material; slab-on-grade foundations; levee and dike 

construction; most other construction; mechanized land clearing; grading and landscaping; ditching 

activities when the excavated material is sidecast; and certain pile-supported structures. The final 

determination of whether an area is a jurisdictional wetland and whether the activity requires a 

permit must be made by the USACE. 

2.4.2 State 

The Coastal Area of Alabama includes waters, water bottoms, and adjacent shorelines lying 

seaward of the continuous 10-foot contour (Figure 3). Within this area, wetlands are regulated by the 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Administrative Code Rule 335-8. 

ADEM utilizes regulations that apply to wetland-related activities, such as dredge, fill and mitigation, 

and it uses strategies relating to buffers and setbacks to protect wetland and riparian areas. To avoid 

duplication and overlap, ADEM and USACE executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

whereby permitting in the coastal area is conducted through a Joint Public Notice. 

2.4.3 Local 

At the county and municipal levels, there are some additional regulatory controls for wetland 

protection, but all of these regulations defer to the USACE for regulation and permitting. Baldwin 

County lacks “home rule,” meaning that the creation of a local ordinance requires an Act of the 

Alabama Legislature. Nonetheless, Baldwin County does have the authority to regulate subdivisions 

via subdivision regulations. §5.2.2 of the Baldwin County subdivision regulations state, “Lots may be 

10


platted where sufficient upland area exists to provide a building site for the principal structure and necessary ancillary 

facility. Fill is used where necessary to provide access to lots where approval for such fill has been received from the 

USACE and other appropriate governmental agencies.” In addition, on July 15, 2003 the City of Orange 

Beach passed Resolution No. 1955, which declares a moratorium on filling wetlands where 

mitigation is proposed to occur outside the corporate limits of the city of Orange Beach. 

2.5 Regulatory Limitations 

There are thirteen municipalities in Baldwin County, all of which are rapidly expanding their 

corporate limits via annexation. Each municipality has adopted its own zoning and subdivision 

ordinance. Further, municipal governments can regulate subdivisions up to 5 miles outside of their 

corporate limits. This leads to overlapping jurisdiction and inconsistent land use controls throughout 

the County, which can be confusing to both the development and regulatory communities. 

Prior to approval of any zoning or subdivision application for non-municipal county land, 

the Baldwin County Commission (BCC) requires certification of all federal and state permits to 

ensure proper compliance. However, general loopholes do exist, and the BCC does not have the 

explicit authority to regulate wetlands via the subdivision regulations. It has become customary for 

the BCC to comment on USACE public notices when the proposed activity contradicts the 

County’s Zoning and Subdivision requirements. 

11


3. Summary of Project Objectives/Goals 

3.1 Further Develop a Wetland Protection Overlay District (WPOD) and incorporate it 

into the Baldwin County Zoning Regulations. 

A revision of the Baldwin County, Alabama Zoning Regulations (Regulations) has taken place 

during this grant period. The revision process lasted approximately eighteen (18) months and was 

spearheaded by the Baldwin County Commission, the Baldwin County Planning and Zoning 

Commission, and the Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Department. Input from a variety of 

stakeholders, including real estate professionals, developers, environmental organizations, and 

individuals was obtained through public hearings, interest group meetings and written comments. 

The revision process ended with the adoption of the Regulations by the Baldwin County 

Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting. 

Part of the revision process of the Regulations included the development of various overlay 

districts. These overlay districts were designed to provide special accommodations for cultural 

features, unique infrastructure features, public safety considerations and natural resource features. 

Information concerning the various overlay districts can be found in Section 24 of the Regulations. 

A Wetland Protection Overlay District (§24.4) was developed and included in the 

Regulations. The purpose of the wetland protection overlay district is to provide “wetland protection, 

while taking into account varying ecological, economic development, recreational and aesthetic values and to protect 

wetlands from alterations that will significantly affect or reduce their primary functions for water quality, flood plain 

and erosion control, groundwater recharge and wildlife habitat.” Specific permit requirements are set forth in 

§24.4(e). During the review of a proposed development, if the Wetland Protection Overlay District 

indicates that a site is wet, then a jurisdictional determination is now required. 

Additionally, the Baldwin County Subdivision Regulations contain provisions for wetland 

protection. § 5.2.2, Character of the Land, states the following: “Where a parcel of land proposed to be 

subdivided contains an area of wetlands delineated as jurisdictional by the USACE, said wetlands shall be subject to 

§404(b)(1) guidelines concerning fill material disposal into wetlands. Lots may be platted where sufficient upland 

areas exist to provide a building site for the principal structure and necessary ancillary facilities. Fill may be used where 

necessary to provide access to lots where approval for such fill has been received from the USACE and other 

appropriate governmental agencies.” These regulations provide that lots will be platted only where there is 

sufficient upland area to accommodate the built structures. This addresses a need since there are 

numerous lots in the county platted years ago that are comprised entirely of jurisdictional wetlands 

and the property owners of these platted wetland lots may run into permitting difficulties when they 

start to develop them. The County now does not allow lots that are entirely wetland to be platted. 

Both sets of county regulations, along with preliminary information from the BCWCP, are 

regularly used as the basis for comments on Joint Public Notices from the USACE and ADEM 

concerning local wetland fill activities. 

In addition, the Planning Commission met in March 2002 to discuss updates to the 

Subdivision and Zoning Regulations. Several members of the Planning Commission suggested 

increasing wetland protection measures in the subdivision regulations. Planning Commission 

members discussed changing the definition of wetlands in the subdivision regulations in order to 

include isolated wetlands. Isolated wetlands that do not contain a hydrologic connection to an 

12


adjacent water body have been recently considered non-jurisdictional by federal courts and thus do 

not fall within the Wetland Protection Overlay District. In addition, the Planning Commission 

considered increasing the wetland buffer distance (currently 5 feet) in the zoning regulations. 

The Planning Commission reassembled for another meeting on October 14, 2002 in order to 

update the subdivision regulations. BCWCP staff suggested altering the definition of a wetland in 

the subdivision regulations from: 

to: 

“Where a parcel of land proposed to be subdivided contains an area of wetlands delineated 

as jurisdictional by the USACE...” 

“Where a parcel of land proposed to be subdivided contains an area of wetlands defined as a 

wetland according the to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual....” 

By the new definition, wetlands which contain the three characteristics of a wetland (soils, 

hydrology and wetland plants) as per the US Army Corps of Engineers definition (1987) would be 

protected under the Baldwin County Subdivision regulations. The current definition of wetlands 

refers to the jurisdictional status by the USACE. Unfortunately, there are wetlands in Baldwin 

County that meet the 1987 Wetland Delineation manual criteria but are not considered jurisdictional 

by the USACE. This is due to a January 2001 Supreme Court ruling which determined that isolated 

wetlands (i.e., wetlands that are not adjacent to or connected via surface water to a navigable water) 

were no longer protected under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Baldwin County contains 

numerous Grady Ponds, which can be considered isolated or non-jurisdictional wetlands. 

Nonetheless, these ponds can perform many important functions such as wildlife habitat, floodwater 

storage, groundwater recharge and nutrient/toxicant/sediment removal. USACE staff have 

indicated that there have been losses of these wetlands in Baldwin County since the 2001 Supreme 

Court ruling. 

Due to the important functions performed by Grady Ponds in the landscape, BCWCP staff 

proposed altering the subdivision regulations to include isolated wetlands in the Wetland Protection 

Overlay District. The Planning Commission supported the idea and the final revision to the 

subdivision regulations should occur in the future. 

3.1.1 Recommendations and Future Direction 

3.1.1.1 Interagency relationship between BCC and USACE 

A future course of action has become evident throughout this process in order to expand 

and enhance existing county-supported wetland protection efforts. First, we suggest the BCC 

coordinate efforts with the USACE to minimize fill permitting for lots in a subdivision. We are 

aware of the large jurisdiction of the Mobile District, and it would be logistically very difficult to 

recognize individual local restrictions. Therefore, it is suggested the USACE issue only one permit 

per subdivision so that piecemeal wetland losses do not occur. 

Additionally, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the BCC and the USACE 

regarding permitting of fill of isolated wetlands is suggested. This MOU would result in an 

acknowledgement by the USACE in the permit that an isolated wetland meets the criteria of the 

13


USACE 1987 definition but is not considered jurisdictional. Because the definition of wetland in the 

Baldwin County Subdivision Regulations will refer to the USACE 1987 definition, this 

acknowledgement would result in the protection and regulation of isolated wetlands. 

3.1.1.2 Suggested Changes to Zoning and Subdivision Regulations 

A recent study by Wenger (1999) reviewed the benefits of buffers for various riparian 

systems. This study concluded that while minimum buffer width depends upon the value to be 

maximized, the absolute minimum buffer width is 30 feet. Wenger (1999) summarizes the literature 

by offering three options for wetland protection, all of which include buffers wider than 30 feet. 

Using this scientific basis, it is recommended that the upland buffer around wetlands be increased in 

both the zoning and subdivision regulations from its current 5 feet. Additionally, it is recommended 

that Conservation District be created as a new zoning designation in the Baldwin County Zoning 

Regulations. This zoning designation would restrict construction and would reflect areas set aside 

for mitigation and/or protection of wetland resources. 

14


3.2 Develop a countywide GIS wetland data layer containing information on the location, 

type and functional capacity of wetlands. 

3.2.1 Creation of the Baldwin County Digital Wetland Layer (BCDWL) 

The first step in creating a digital wetland data set for Baldwin County was the acquisition 

of National Wetland Inventory data. The data was acquired from the USFWS National Wetland 

Inventory website. The data quads were re-projected into the projection used by the County’s GIS 

Department (State Plane, NAD 1983 (feet), Alabama West FIPS 0102 (feet)) to ensure that other 

local entities would be able to use the data. The data quads were then merged and edge-matched to 

create a continuous digital wetland coverage based on the 1979 digital NWI data. 

The Baldwin County Commission awarded a contract to collect digital orthophotography 

in early 2001. In addition to a true color data set, the Commission purchased color infrared 

photography (CIR) for all of Baldwin County at a resolution of 3 feet. This data set proved to be a 

vital resource in the development of the BCDWL. 

The NWI data quads in Baldwin County were generated by different entities not utilizing 

uniform standards. Therefore, there were some discrepancies found during the edge-matching 

process. Project staff compared the continuous wetland coverage to color infrared photography to 

visually assess data quality. CIR was used to make decisions on where polygon lines should be placed 

in areas where discrepancies were found. Upon completion of this dataset, metadata was created 

using the FGDC standards. 

3.2.2 Wetland Validation Project 

In an effort to provide accurate and updated information regarding BCWCP project outputs, 

BCWCP staff initiated a wetland validation study for the project. The purpose of the validation 

study was to compare the remotely sensed wetland maps to on-the-ground wetland jurisdictional 

determinations. When discrepancies between the computer generated maps and the field results 

were found, the field-based information could be used to update the GIS wetland database. 

Performing the validation study would ensure that the final map products accurately represented 

actual wetland conditions and would provide statistical confidence estimates for the data. 

The precedence for such a validation study was established during the development and 

implementation of the Baldwin County Wetland Advance Identification (ADID) project. In that 

project, the wetland areas in the southern part of the county were mapped using remotely sensed 

technologies and then compared to on-the-ground wetland jurisdictional determinations. The results 

of that validation study indicated that the GIS-based wetland maps were 95% accurate when 

compared to jurisdictional wetland determinations. 

In January of 2001, BCWCP staff met with a US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

statistician to establish a statistical framework for the current validation study. When the ADID 

project validation study was initiated, the accuracy (p-value) of the NWI maps was estimated to be 

0.90. The results of that study, however, indicated that wetlands identified and mapped during the 

ADID project were actually 95% accurate when compared to on-the-ground jurisdictional 

15


determinations. Accordingly, BCWCP and USACE staff chose the p-value of the BCWCP wetland 

validation study to be 0.90 with an error of ±5%. Using the table provided by the USACE, it was 

determined that 138 sampling locations would be necessary in order to establish a strong statistical 

foundation in comparing the NWI maps to on-the-ground jurisdictional wetlands. 

BCWCP staff found several random sampling scripts on the ESRI web page and reviewed 

them with the USACE statistician. After review, it was determined that the Simple Random Sampler, 

written in Avenue, be used since it offered supporting documentation. A total of 160 sampling 

locations were chosen to account for those locations where site access would be limited or 

permission to access the property would not be granted. The sampling script was run with the 

Baldwin County boundary as the base coverage to generate a point theme with 160 records. The 

point coverage was converted to a polygon coverage using each point as the centroid of a square 

acre. A site identification field was added to the data table using a numbering script. 

The polygon coverage was then overlaid on Baldwin County’s parcel data. A spatial join was 

executed, linking the parcel identification number to the sample table. The data were linked to the 

Revenue Commission’s database, in which the property owner’s name and address were linked to 

the sampling location. The database was then modified to house all of the data that would be 

collected in the validation study. BCWCP staff collected additional field data while making the 

jurisdictional determination at each sampling location. These data included the date visited and a 

determination of HGM class, functional capacity and soil survey type. 

Letters were sent to all property owners requesting permission to access the respective 

property. A form was created in the relational database for fieldwork purposes to increase the 

efficiency of data collection. 

3.2.2.1 Fieldwork 

Prior to validation study site visits in the field, BCWCP staff prepared maps of the site in 

order to aid in the access of the sites. The recently acquired color infrared (CIR) aerial photography 

was used extensively in this process. Site visits were coordinated with USACE staff and property 

owners. Each property owner was contacted via telephone prior to a site visit. This also gave staff 

the time to educate and inform each of the property owners on the significance of wetland 

functions. 

Field work at each sampling site consisted of the following steps: 

1. GPS: Way points of the sampling location were entered into the Trimble GeoExplorer 3. 

This instrument was used to navigate to the sampling locations. In areas of dense canopy 

cover, aerial photography and pacing methods were used to reach the square acre sampling 

location. GPS data points, site ID number and wetland/upland status were collected at the 

southeast corner of each square acre. Upon return from the field, these data were 

differentially corrected and exported in a shapefile format. 

2. Wetland determination: USACE staff conducted routine wetland determinations at each site per 

the guidance provided in the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual. Dominant 

vegetation, hydrological indicators and soil color (type) were noted on the field data sheet. 

Other notable features such as disturbances or atypical conditions were also noted. 

16


3. Photos: Digital photographs of each site were taken and documented. 

4. BCWCP data collection: A separate field data form was developed for collecting additional 

sampling site information while in the field. Approximate wetland boundaries within the 

square acre sampling location were noted when applicable. HGM determinations (riverine, 

depressional, slope, flat or fringe) were also noted when the sampling location was a 

jurisdictional wetland. In addition, the capacity (i.e. high, medium or low) for each wetland 

function was determined by best professional judgment of the field team members and 

noted on the field data form. Upon return from the field, these data forms were organized 

according to site order and updated in the validation site database. 

Validation Project Site Visit 

On April 17, 2002, the field component of the wetland validation study was completed. 

BCWCP staff and USACE staff visited 138 randomly selected sites. Figure 17 shows the wetland 

validation sites visited by BCWCP and USACE staff over the course of the project. 

3.2.2.2 Statistical Analysis/Results 

Upon completion of the field component of the wetland validation project, the staff 

prepared the field data for analysis. First, the GPS data was differentially corrected and the field 

points were exported as an ArcView shape file. Second, the GPS data for each site (total 138) was 

then systematically replaced with the randomly selected point generated in the initial phase of this 

17


effort. In addition, the information in the database (i.e., field data, property ownership, latitude and 

longitude) was merged from the original data to the spatial GPS data. Third, a 40-foot buffer was 

created from the GPS point data to create a polygon coverage. This buffer was created as per 

suggestion from US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory experts to allow for the 

40 foot line error accounted for in the original National Wetland Inventory Maps (Charlie Storrs, 

personal communication). Lastly, the buffered polygon data was then spatially joined to the Baldwin 

County Digital Wetland Layer. There were a few instances where the 40-foot buffered polygon 

overlapped on both upland and wetland on the Baldwin County Digital Wetland Layer. For each of 

these polygons, staff made a determination based on the predominant coverage within the polygon. 

A final spreadsheet was generated that contained the Site ID and the field data and the Digital 

Wetland data. The spreadsheet was subsequently forwarded to the Corps statistician for analysis. 

The wetland status of each of the 138 sites was determined by the Corps regulatory experts, and 

compared to the Baldwin County Digital Wetland Layer to calculate the proportion of sites correctly 

identified as either wetland or upland by the remote sensing method. A total of 20 (14.5%) of the 

138 sites were incorrectly classified by the Baldwin County Digital Wetland Layer. There were a 

total of 43 actual wetland sites based on the expert field assessments. The Baldwin County Digital 

Wetland Layer misclassified 9 (20.9%) of the 43 wetland sites as upland. Of the 95 actual upland 

sites, 11 were misclassified as wetland. Hence, the overall estimated accuracy of the Remote Sensing 

Method was approximately 86 percent. However, the proportion of correctly identified wetlands 

was 79.1 percent. The table below compares the Baldwin County Digital Wetland Layer with the 

expert assessment of the 138 sites. The complete data is in Appendix 9.2. 

Table 1: Accuracy of the Baldwin County Digital Wetland Layer 

Wetlands Uplands Total 

BCWCP # % # % # % 

Correct 34 79.1 84 88.4 118 85.5 

Incorrect 9 20.9 11 11.6 20 14.5 

Actual/Field 43 100.0 95 100.0 138 100.0 

18


3.2.3 Remote Functional Wetland Assessment Model (RFWAM) 

3.2.3.1 Conceptual Framework 

The ADID project developed a series of remotely sensed wetland functional assessment 

models to be applied using computer-based GIS analysis. The Technical Advisory Committee met 

several times over the course of this project, principally to provide guidance for the development of 

the Remote Functional Wetland Assessment Model (RFWAM). As a considerable amount of time 

was spent on the RFWAM during the ADID project, the Technical Advisory Committee continued 

to build on the existing model framework. Each model was broken down by function and then run 

for each 8-digit HUC watershed. The most notable difference in comparing the BCWCP to the 

ADID project was the lack of countywide digital soil information. To address this, the Baldwin 

County Commission has contracted with NRCS in Auburn to digitize the Baldwin County soil 

survey. As of the completion of this document, this soil data is scheduled to be released to the 

County in 2004. The BCWCP Technical Protocol document was developed by the Technical 

Advisory Committee and modified as needed at advisory committee meetings (Appendix 9.3). 

3.2.3.2 Acquisition of GIS data layers for use in the BCWCP database 

As stated earlier, the NWI data was obtained from the USFWS. This data was broken down by 

watershed in the county. There are six 8-digit HUCs in Baldwin County. Only a very small portion 

of the Lower Tombigbee HUC is in Baldwin County and all wetlands in this HUC are riverine. 

Therefore, this HUC’s polygons were combined with those of the Lower Alabama HUC to help 

streamline the modeling process. A shapefile containing point data of known endangered species 

was provided by the USFWS and Alabama Natural Heritage Program. In an effort to account for 

wildlife movement, a 1/8 mile buffer was placed around the points to represent areas with sensitive 

populations. Fire locations and approximate acreages were obtained from the Alabama Forestry 

Commission and converted to a shapefile format. This shapefile is only an approximation of burned 

acreage and is not intended to reflect actual fire conditions. FEMA flood data was obtained by the 

County’s GIS department. This data is in shapefile format and represents areas prone to flooding 

during large rain events. A wellhead protection area coverage was obtained from the EPA and 

represents sensitive areas surrounding public drinking water wells. Land use data was broken down 

into four categories (urban, agriculture, forest, water) to complete the model, and four coverages 

were developed to represent each category. A hydrology coverage was obtained from the US 

Census Bureau (USCB) to represent the locations of streams, creeks, rivers, and large open water 

areas such as Wolf and Weeks Bay. The road centerlines file was generated by the Baldwin County 

Commisssion via a contract with a consultant. Due to the nature of NWI polygons, a 100 ft buffer 

was applied to the centerlines to more accurately identify areas where natural wetlands systems have 

been disrupted by roadway corridors. 

19


Table 2. Summary of GIS Layers Utilized in BCWCP RFWAM. 

Data Layer Source 

NWI USFWS 

Endangered Species USFWS and ANHP 

Fire Locations AFC 

Flood Zones FEMA 

Wellhead Protection Areas EPA and GSA 

Land Use GSA 

8 Digit HUC NRCS 

11 Digit HUC NRCS 

Hydrology USCB TIGER 

CIR BCC 

True Color Photos BCC 

Centerlines BCC 

3.2.3.3 Wetland Classification: HGM Classification Development 

Conversion of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) or Baldwin County Digital 

Wetland Layer classification to the HGM classification system was an essential task of the BCWCP, 

as the functional assessment models were based on the HGM system. BCWCP staff were contacted 

by the EPA grant manager to suggest collaboration between EPA GIS and BCWCP staff in order to 

accomplish this task most efficiently. BCWCP staff provided the data necessary to EPA staff in 

order to initiate the conversion process. After an initial review of HGM conversions provided to 

BCWCP staff, discrepancies were found and time became limited to correct these errors. Therefore, 

staff developed a protocol for the HGM classification of polygons. 

Riverine wetlands were identified by a geospatial relationship within the hydrology coverage. In 

other words, if a wetland polygon intersected the hydrology coverage, it was classified as riverine. 

Since many wetland polygons can exist within a riverine system, all polygons touching these riverine 

wetland polygons were also classified as riverine. This process was repeated until all polygons within 

riverine systems were identified and classified as riverine. Fringe wetlands were identified in a 

similar fashion using a coverage of saltwater hydrology. Polygons intersecting or touching saltwater 

areas were identified as fringe wetlands. Further, any polygon with the NWI classification of 

estuarine (E) was classified as fringe. This initial identification was then refined through spot checks 

conducted by local experts familiar with the coastal landscape of Baldwin County. Flat and 

depressional wetlands were identified using a visual interpretation of CIR photography that was 

taken during a very dry year in Baldwin County. Because polygons with visible standing water in 

such a year must have access to groundwater, they were classified as depressional, and polygons 

identified as wetlands but with no water present were classified as flat wetlands. Upon completion 

of this process, BCWCP staff evaluated the final product and found that the classifications were 

largely accurate. As with any remote analysis, there were some errors in classifications. After several 

reviews by other professionals affiliated with other government agencies involved, a final 

classification was reached (Figure 10). 

3.2.3.4 Wetland model development 

20


In order to facilitate development of the RFWAM, staff attended a training class in Atlanta, 

Georgia in December of 2002. This class was taught by members of Environmental Systems 

Research Institute’s (ESRI) technical staff. The models were implemented using ESRI’s marquee 

software package, ArcGIS 8.3. ArcGIS 8.3 allows one to write macros using Visual Basic for 

Applications (VBA). Staff attended a week-long class that covered the basic principles and structure 

of the Visual Basic programming language, development and implementation of graphic user 

interfaces (GUI), the programming infrastructure components of ArcGIS (also known as 

ArcObjects), and how to manipulate ArcObjects to perform custom designed tasks. The knowledge 

acquired during this course was crucial to the process of developing the model. 

ArcObjects is used to programmatically enhance and extend ArcGIS. It allows the model 

developer to create custom processes to be performed at the request of the user. Customizations 

made to the model pertain to the ability to use ArcObjects to add layer files programmatically, to 

identify spatial relationships, to search databases, and to allow data to be programmatically added to 

databases based on the results of queries and functions. 

Most aspects of the model have been addressed and programming language has been written 

to perform the functions outlined in the BCWCP Technical Protocol. Currently, the program allows 

staff to select wetland polygons based on spatial relationships with other GIS layers. The following 

code illustrates how the spatial relationship between wetland polygons and recorded forest fires is 

identified. The spatial relationship of concern in this particular case is simply the intersection of the 

two layers. The ArcObjects component used is esriSpatialRelIntersects, which selects polygons from a 

layer that intersect with another layer as prescribed by the programmer and stores the selection in a 

selection set. 

‘******************************************************************************************** 

**** 

Public Sub SelectIfIntersectSpecies() Sets variables, identify 

Dim pMxDoc As IMxDocument layers of interest, select 

Dim pFeatureLayer1 As IFeatureLayer intersection of polygons. 

Dim pFeatureLayer2 As IFeatureLayer 

Dim pFeatureSelection1 As IFeatureSelection 

Dim pFeatureSelection2 As IFeatureSelection 

Dim pFeatureCursor1 As IFeatureCursor 

Dim pFeatureCursor2 As IFeatureCursor 

Dim pFeature As IFeature 

Set pMxDoc = ThisDocument 

Set pFeatureLayer1 = pMxDoc.FocusMap.Layer(0) 

Set pFeatureLayer2 = pMxDoc.FocusMap.Layer(1) 

Set pFeatureCursor1 = pFeatureLayer1.FeatureClass.Search(Nothing, True) 

Set pFeature = pFeatureCursor1.NextFeature 

If pFeature Is Nothing Then Exit Sub 

Dim pGeometry As IGeometry 

Dim pSpatialFilter As ISpatialFilter 

Set pFeatureSelection1 = pFeatureLayer2 

pFeatureSelection1.Clear 

Do While Not pFeature Is Nothing 

Set pGeometry = pFeature.ShapeCopy 

Set pSpatialFilter = New SpatialFilter 

pSpatialFilter.SpatialRel = esriSpatialRelIntersects 

21


Set pSpatialFilter.Geometry = pGeometry 

pFeatureSelection1.SelectFeatures pSpatialFilter, esriSelectionResultAdd, False 

Set pFeature = pFeatureCursor1.NextFeature 

Loop 

'********************************************************************************************* 

*** 

Dim pCursor As IFeatureCursor Searches for data storage 

Dim pFeature2 As Ifeature space. 

Dim pSelectionSet As ISelectionSet 

Dim pField As IField 

Dim pFeatureClass As IFeatureClass 

Dim pLayerFields As IFields 

Dim pModelField As IField 

Dim pTable As ITable 

Dim pRow As IRow 

Dim pModelField2 As Long 

Dim Fld As Long 

Dim i As Long 

Dim b As Long 

Set pSelectionSet = pFeatureSelection1.SelectionSet 

pSelectionSet.Search Nothing, False, pCursor 

Set pFeatureClass = pFeatureLayer2.FeatureClass 

i = 0 

b = 0 

Set pLayerFields = pFeatureClass.Fields 

Fld = pFeatureClass.Fields.FieldCount - 1 

For i = 0 To Fld 

Set pModelField = pFeatureClass.Fields.Field(i) 

If pModelField.Name = "fire" Then 

Set pModelField = pLayerFields.Field(i) 

i = Fld 

b = i 

Else 

b = 0 

End If 

Next 

If b = 0 Then 

MsgBox "There is no fire Field in the table!", vbOKOnly, "No model Field" 

Exit Sub 

End If 

'********************************************************************************************* 

*** 

Set pFeature2 = pCursor.NextFeature Assigns values 

Set pTable = pFeature2.Table accordingly. 

pModelField2 = pTable.FindField(pModelField.Name) 

Do While Not (pFeature2 Is Nothing) 

Set pRow = pTable.GetRow(pFeature2.OID) 

pRow.Value(pModelField2) = 1 

pRow.Store 

Set pFeature2 = pCursor.NextFeature 

Loop 

pMxDoc.ActiveView.Refresh 

End Sub 

'********************************************************************************************* 

*** 

22


This piece of code identifies the wetland polygons which were subjected to fire, prepares a place in 

the database for data that conveys this information, adds the data to the database, and refreshes the 

on-screen view. 

Programmed macros will also allow wetland polygon attributes to be searched for key 

information, such as HGM classification. The following code contains a structured query language 

(SQL) statement which searches the database for the requested information: 

'********************************************************************************************* 

***Public Sub SelectFeaturesSQL() Declare variables, set 

active 

Dim pMxDoc As IMxDocument map layer, search table 

Dim pMap As Imap using SQL statement. 

Dim pActiveView As IActiveView 

Dim pFeatureLayer As IFeatureLayer 

Dim pFeatureSelection As IFeatureSelection 

Dim pQueryFilter As IQueryFilter 

Dim pLayer As ILayer 

Set pMxDoc = Application.Document 

Set pMap = pMxDoc.FocusMap 

Set pActiveView = pMap 

Set pLayer = pMxDoc.FocusMap.Layer(2) 

If Not TypeOf pLayer Is IFeatureLayer Then Exit Sub 

Set pFeatureLayer = pLayer 

Set pFeatureSelection = pFeatureLayer 

Set pQueryFilter = New QueryFilter 

Dim s1 As String 

Dim sQs As String 

s1 = "d" 

sQs = "HGM LIKE '%" & s1 & "%'" 

pQueryFilter.whereClause = sQs 

pFeatureSelection.SelectFeatures pQueryFilter, esriSelectionResultNew, False 

pActiveView.Refresh 

End Sub 

'********************************************************************************************* 

*** 

This code selects all polygons that contain a lower case “d” in the HGM classification, which is an 

indicator of ditched wetlands. This programming can be coupled with other code to attach data to 

the selected polygons attributes. 

The last example of critical code for the model is essentially an “if then” scenario. A 

procedure was written to examine the acreage of wetland polygons and to then assign values to the 

attribute table accordingly (e.g., if a polygon is < 1 acre, then it scores 2; >1 acre scores 4; >10 acres 

scores 6; >100 acres scores 8). This is a primary component of each model. The following code 

accomplishes this task: 

'********************************************************************************************* 

***Public Sub PopulateAcres_Rate() Declaration of variables. 

Dim pDoc As IMxDocument 

Dim pMap As IMap 

Dim unknFeatLayer As IFeatureLayer 

Dim unknFeatClass As IFeatureClass 

23


Dim plyFeatLayer As IFeatureLayer 

Dim plyFeatClass As IFeatureClass 

Dim plyFeatureCursor As IFeatureCursor 

Dim plyFeat As IFeature 

Dim plyLayerFields As IFields 

Dim plyRateField As IField 

Dim plyAcreField As IField 

Dim plyTable As ITable 

Dim plyRow As IRow 

Dim plyAcField As Long 

Dim plyRtField As Long 

Dim dlbAcre As Double 

Dim Fld As Long 

Dim i As Long 

Dim b As Long 

'********************************************************************************************* 

*** Set pDoc = ThisDocument Set active map layer. 

Set pMap = pDoc.Maps.Item(0) 

Set unknFeatLayer = pMap.Layer(1) 

Set unknFeatClass = unknFeatLayer.FeatureClass 

If unknFeatClass.ShapeType = esriGeometryPolygon Then 

Set plyFeatLayer = unknFeatLayer 

Else 

MsgBox "No Polygon Feature Class Loaded in the Map Document", vbExclamation, "No Polygon Feature 

Class" 

Exit Sub 

End If 

Set plyFeatClass = plyFeatLayer.FeatureClass 

'********************************************************************************************* 

*** Set plyLayerFields = plyFeatClass.Fields Search active 

layer’s 

Fld = plyFeatClass.Fields.FieldCount - 1 attribute table for 

For i = 0 To Fld desired data. 

Set plyAcreField = plyFeatClass.Fields.Field(i) 

If plyAcreField.Name = "ACRES" Then 

Set plyAcreField = plyLayerFields.Field(i) 

i = Fld 

b = i 

Else 

b = 0 

End If 

Next 

If b = 0 Then 

MsgBox "There is no ACRES Field in the table!", vbOKOnly, "No ACRES Field" 

End If 

'********************************************************************************************* 

*** i = 0 Search active 

layer’s 

b = 0 attribute table for 

For i = 0 To Fld space to record data. 

Set plyRateField = plyFeatClass.Fields.Field(i) 

If plyRateField.Name = "Acres_Rate" Then 

Set plyRateField = plyLayerFields.Field(i) 

i = Fld 

b = i 

Else 

24


b = 0 

End If 

Next 

If b = 0 Then 

MsgBox "There is no Acre_Rate Field in the table!", vbOKOnly, "No Acres_Rate Field" 

Exit Sub 

End If 

'********************************************************************************************* 

*** Set plyFeatureCursor = plyFeatClass.Search(Nothing, True) Execution of data 

Set plyFeat = plyFeatureCursor.NextFeature scan & writing results 

Set plyTable = plyFeat.Table to data table. 

plyAcField = plyTable.FindField(plyAcreField.Name) 

plyRtField = plyTable.FindField(plyRateField.Name) 

Do Until (plyFeat Is Nothing) 

Set plyRow = plyTable.GetRow(plyFeat.OID) 

dblAcre = plyRow.Value(plyAcField) 

If dblAcre < 1 Then 

plyRow.Value(plyRtField) = 2 

plyRow.Store 

End If 

If dblAcre > 1 Then 


plyRow.Store 

End If 



plyRow.Store 

End If 



plyRow.Store 

End If 

Set plyFeat = plyFeatureCursor.NextFeature 

Loop 

End Sub 

'********************************************************************************************* 

*** 

These three samples of code encompass most of what is required to accomplish the model’s 

objective. As outlined in the BCWCP Technical Protocol document, there are actually three 

individual wetland models (depressional, flat, and riverine) that make up the entire BCWCP Remote 

Functional Wetland Assessment Model. It is important to note that the code samples shown are 

used for each model with only slight variances as prescribed by the BCWCP Technical Protocol. 

For example, the Riverine Wetland Functional Assessment model asks to identify all wetlands the 

NWI classifies as FO (forested). The Structured Query Language (SQL) statement will simply be 

changed to search for “FO” rather than “d” in the attribute table. The scoring system for wetland 

classification is found in the BCWCP Technical Protocol (Appendix 9.3). 

As mentioned earlier, code was written for each HGM type. Due to the large file sizes and 

the functional capacity of staff’s desktop computers, the model was further simplified by applying 

the final model product to individual watersheds within the county, rather than countywide. The 

model interfaces that guide the user through running the RFWAM can be seen in Figures 18-21. 

25


The development of this model challenged the Baldwin County Staff. Programming with 

Visual Basic for Applications and ArcObjects is a very labor intensive process and is closely akin to 

learning to speak an unfamiliar language. Because there is no room for error in programming, the 

code must be perfect. Much time and effort was spent troubleshooting and proofreading code to 

ensure quality results and a properly functioning model. Actual VBA code for the RFWAM as 

outlined by Technical Protocol document is 161 pages in length and can be obtained from the 

Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Department upon request. 

3.2.3.5 Calibration of functional assessment 

The final step in this process was the calibration with the help of the Technical Advisory 

Committee. For each HGM classification, a scoring system was developed as outlined in the 

technical protocol document (Appendix 9.3). The number of points earned by a wetland polygon 

was then expressed as the percentage of possible points (not counting bonus points), and this 

percentage determined whether the wetland polygon was classified as suitable for conservation, 

enhancement, or restoration. The Technical Advisory Committee chose the classification ranges of 

these percentages to achieve a reasonable distribution of functional assessment types for the 

wetlands in an HGM class (Table 3). Figures 22, 23, and 24 show the distributions of wetland 

polygons by the percentage of possible points earned, and they also show how the functional 

assessment categories classify these distributions using the ranges in Table 3. Lower percentages 

were classified as in need of restoration, middling percentages indicated the possibility for 

enhancement, and high percentages demonstrated conservation value. Because of their 

environmentally sensitive nature, all fringe wetlands were classified as suitable for conservation. 

Table 3. Data Ranges for Wetland Classifications 

Conservation Enhancement Restoration 

Riverine >80% 60-80% 61% 41-60% 50% 25-50%


acres), Perdido (20,000 acres) and Perdido Bay (3,000 acres). The overwhelming majority of 

wetlands are highly functioning and suitable for conservation. Appendix 9.4 lists the results of the 

RFWAM. 

3.2.3.7 Future Direction and Recommendations 

Although complete and useful, there is great potential for future updates of the RFWAM as 

more digital data becomes available. Such data could be more detailed land use coverages or digital 

soils data. This information would increase the accuracy of remotely assessing wetland functions. 

Further, the hydric soils in the digital wetland coverage could be used in combination with the 

Baldwin County Digital Wetland Layer to increase the accuracy of the coverage. Also, field studies 

could be developed to identify relationships between the digital hydric soils data to the BCDWL, as 

the wetland layer was developed remotely and the soils data is field-based. 

BCWCP staff plans to distribute the BCDWL and the model results to all federal, state and 

local wetland stakeholders. The results could aid the USACE in determining suitable sites for 

successful wetland mitigation. Locally, the data will be utilized daily by the Baldwin County Planning 

and Zoning Department and will be provided to the Baldwin County Highway Department for 

future transportation corridor development. 

27


3.3 Develop wetlands education/outreach program for area stakeholders 

The education/outreach component of the BCWCP was achieved through public meetings 

designed to present information and obtain stakeholder input. Activities included presentations to 

governmental and civic organizations and presentations to professional organizations. During the 

course of this project, BCWCP staff were very successful in conveying information to the public 

regarding Baldwin County wetland project activities. 

3.3.1 Public Meetings 

BCWCP staff conducted two sets of public meetings during the course of the project period. 

These meetings were held in Bay Minette, Foley and Fairhope, three locations distributed around 

Baldwin County. These meetings were well-attended. The first meetings were held in March 2001 to 

inform the public of the project goals and activities and to solicit input from the public on wetlandrelated 

issues. The second set of meetings was held in July 2003 to present the results of the Remote 

Functional Wetland Assessment Model. BCWCP staff also utilized this platform to emphasize to the 

public the importance of wetland functions in Baldwin County. 

Throughout the grant period, staff updated and informed the Baldwin County Commission 

of project-related activities at regularly scheduled meetings. In July 2003, a presentation to the 

Commission led to a local newspaper article announcing the results of the remote functional 

assessment model (Appendix 9.4). This article informed the public of the availability of wetland 

maps, which led to many map requests. These meetings were attended by the local media and were 

televised throughout Baldwin County on the public access cable channel. Additionally, BCWCP staff 

solicited input from the Baldwin County Planning Commission and the Baldwin County 

Environmental Advisory Board throughout the project period. 

3.3.2 Presentation to Government and Civic Organizations 

BCWCP staff made presentations to numerous civic organizations throughout the grant 

period. A partial listing of these speaking engagements includes presentations at the Sonora 

Homemakers Club, Faulkner State Community College, Bay Minette Rotary Club, Gulf Shores 

Rotary Club, Point Clear Rotary Club, Daphne Spanish Fort Rotary Club, Fairhope Kiwanis Club, 

and the Gulf Shores Kiwanis Club. 

3.3.3 Presentations at Professional Meetings 

Throughout the grant period, BCWCP staff presented the technical aspects of the BCWCP 

to other professionals. The presentations included: 

• Alabama Chapter of the American Planning Association Annual Meeting 

• Nonpoint Source & Watershed Workshop (sponsored by the Weeks Bay Watershed Project) 

• Southeast Regional Users Group (SERUG) Annual Meeting at Orange Beach, AL. BCWCP staff 

presented a talk entitled “Applications of the Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan.” 

This talk focused on the technical aspects of the GIS component of the BCWCP. 

28


• Society of Wetland Scientists Annual Meeting. BCWCP presented a talk entitled: “The Baldwin 

County Wetland Conservation Plan: Development and Implementation” at the annual 

meeting in New Orleans in early June 2003. The presentation was well-received and 

generated a worthwhile discussion. 

• Baldwin County Surveyors Association Monthly Meeting. BCWCP staff was the guest speaker at this 

organization’s monthly meeting. BCWCP presented the methodology of the wetland 

validation project and its potential applications with respect to surveying and engineering 

practices in Baldwin County. 

3.3.4 Other BCWCP education activities include: 

1. Wetland Maps. By far the most successful method of conveying information to the public 

was through the creation and distribution of wetland maps. Wetland maps were provided to 

the public free of charge and approximately 400 wetland maps were created and distributed 

throughout the project period. These maps consisted of color infrared photography, tax 

parcel data and the Baldwin County Digital Wetland Layer (BCDWL) and were extensively 

used by local realtors and developers for obtaining preliminary wetland locations. Also, these 

maps were provided to potential property owners so that they would gain the most 

information about a parcel prior to purchase. Figure 33 is a sample wetland map produced 

by BCWCP staff. Upon requesting these maps, BCWCP staff took advantage of the 

opportunity to educate and inform the public about the importance of wetland resources. 

Also, the BCDWL is used in maps for review by the Baldwin County Planning Commission 

and the Baldwin County Commission during review of site plan applications for zoning and 

subdivision requirements. Planners and other staff in the Baldwin County Planning and 

Zoning Department use the BCDWL daily for site plan review. The BCDWL has been 

provided to municipal governments upon request. Finally, the Baldwin County Highway 

Department utilizes the data for future road projects in order to minimize wetland impacts. 

2. Wetland Information Booth by the Sonora Homemakers Club at the annual Baldwin County Fair. In 

April 2001, BCWCP project staff made a presentation to the Sonora Homemakers Club 

(Club) on countywide wetland activities. Each year the Club picks a specific issue to focus on 

when preparing a booth for the annual County Fair held in September of each year. This 

year the Club chose the issue of wetlands for its focus area. BCWCP staff provided literature 

and map products to the Club for use at its fair booth. The Club’s booth won a blue ribbon 

during the judging portion of the fair. 

3. Fire Suppression Planning by the Alabama Forestry Commission Utilizing BCWCP Products and 

Analyses. BCWCP staff met with staff from the Alabama Forestry Commission (AFC) in 

October 2001 to discuss the possibility of utilizing County wetland information to help aid 

the acquisition of additional fire suppression equipment. Fires in wetlands present unusual 

and sometimes difficult circumstances which hinder containment and control. First, wetland 

fires tend to smolder and burn longer than fires in non-wetland areas, which presents a 

greater hazard to nearby structures. Second, accessing burning wetlands proves difficult since 

traditional fire fighting equipment is not able to get into these areas. AFC was pursuing grant 

programs which would allow the purchase of appropriate wetland firefighting equipment. To 

demonstrate the need for this equipment, AFC staff requested that BCWCP staff perform 

analysis on identified wetland areas and their proximity to vulnerable structures in particular 

29


geographic locations around the county. To date, BCWCP has performed some of these 

analyses and has provided that information to the AFC. 

4. Local Newspaper Coverage. The Gulf Coast newspapers and the Baldwin Register published 

many articles on the BCWCP (a sample is in Appendix 9.5). Most notably, articles on the 

Christmas Tree Recycling Project and the results of the wetland validation project generated 

public enthusiasm and support. 

3.3.5 Future direction and recommendations 

Educating local stakeholders about wetland issues is an integral component of wetland 

resource protection. There is a continuing benefit to developing relationships with the public. For 

example, BCWCP staff attend pre-application conferences with consultants for projects that could 

impact wetland resources. Methods to minimize wetland protection are suggested prior to any 

wetland or subdivision permit application. Although the BCDWL may not reflect the precise 

jurisdictional lines, it provides an effective tool for proper land use planning. BCWCP staff have 

identified future educational actions to continue these efforts. These future activities include: 

1. Wetland Maps: BCWCP staff plan to continue to produce wetland maps for the public using 

the BCDWL and the County’s GIS information. 

2. Workshops: Using Alabama Coastal Impact Assistance Plan (CIAP) funds, BCWCP staff 

will plan for a half day workshop open to all city planners, engineers, wetland consultants, 

and local, state, and federal employees regarding the use of the BCDWL. At this workshop, 

staff will provide a data CD of the BCDWL and instruct how to implement the data in their 

day-to-day activities. Also, this will allow staff to explain the potential applications of the 

RFWAM. 

3. Website: The Baldwin County Commission is currently enhancing the County webpage 

(http://www.co.baldwin.al.us). BCWCP staff plan to develop an informative website for the 

public that summarizes information on local, state, and federal wetland regulations. 

Additionally, this web page will provide information on how to obtain the BCWCP Final 

Summary Document and GIS data. Further, BCWCP staff hopes to include the wetland 

layer in a web-based mapping application in the near future. 

4. BCDWL distribution: The final digital data will be distributed to all local municipalities and 

regulatory agencies so that all stakeholders can use the data and results generated from this 

study. 

30


3.4 Research, design and implement wetland restoration/construction projects at 

selected sites throughout the County 

The Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan was involved with several wetland 

restoration projects. Each of these projects explored innovative means of restoring wetlands and 

provided BCWCP staff with insight for future projects. The successes and lessons learned during the 

wetland restoration projects undertaken during the BCWCP project period are explained below. 

3.4.1 Perdido Beach Shoreline Restoration Project 

A shoreline wetland restoration project was initiated in the southeastern portion of Baldwin 

County. This project involved the construction of offshore brush fence breakwater structures 

designed to reduce the impact of high energy waves reaching the shoreline. Once built, the offshore 

structures are filled with recycled Christmas trees. Waves are allowed to pass through the structures, 

but their energy is greatly diminished. This mitigates the erosive forces attributed to high energy 

wave action. Additionally, these structures promote accretion by allowing sediment to drop out of 

the water column and be deposited on the shoreline. Once sediment accretion has occurred, native 

shoreline wetland vegetation (i.e Juncus roemerianus and Spartina alterniflora) can be established through 

plantings. Such establishment of vegetation should help prevent future erosion. This restoration 

project is modeled after a Mobile Bay National Estuary Program Action Plan Demonstration Project 

where a similar offshore brush fence breakwater structure was built on an eroding Weeks Bay 

shoreline. That project resulted in the establishment of a beach/marsh area on the subject shoreline. 

Construction of the offshore breakwater structures commenced on June 7, 2000 and was 

completed by the end of the month. On July 17 and 18, 2000, recycled Christmas trees were placed 

into the structures by County staff, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service employees, and Youth Conservation 

Corps (YCC) members. The first post construction quarterly survey was completed on November 2, 

2000. Generally, results showed significant accretion along the majority of the affected shoreline. 

Small portions of the southwest shoreline, however, exhibited erosion once the structures were put 

into place. This was probably due to the placement of the structures, the length of the structures, 

and the presence of bulkheads adjacent to the affected shorelines. 

31


Construction of the offshore Perdido Beach brush fences 

While results of the quarterly beach profile monitoring indicate significant sand accretion 

along the beach directly in front of the offshore breakwater structures, there is some visible evidence 

that the areas of the beach corresponding to the ends of the offshore breakwater structures may be 

experiencing erosion. When the restoration effort was initiated, staff did not overlap the structures 

with the corresponding bulkheads located on the shore. As a result, the “gap” between the 

32


structures and the bulkheads appears to have scoured the shoreline on the extreme ends of the 

structures. As a result of this erosion, BCWCP project staff planned and initiated development of 

additional offshore breakwater structures to fill the gap between the structures and the bulkheads. 

County staff built two new offshore structures in March and completed a pre-Christmas tree 

installation survey to provide baseline beach profile information. Data collected from this survey is 

illustrated in the graph below. The data show that there was an initial accumulation of sand after the 

construction of the brush fences. However, the initial increase leveled off to a net gain of sand. 

Seasonal wind patterns could affect the level of accretion and the success of the brush fence. 

Rod Level (feet) 

4.5 

5 

5.5 

6 

6.5 

7 

7.5 

2 

Brush Fence Beach Accretion Data 

4 

6 

8 

10 14 

12 

Distance (m) 

16 

18 

Brush Fence 

Survey data from the brush fence project 

July (preconstruction) 

Nov ember 

February 

June (2001) 

During a minor tropical storm in October 2001, the newly built brush fence bins sustained 

fairly serious damage due to excessive wave action. The damage was repaired and in June of 2002, 

BCWCP staff purchased 500 needle rush plants (Juncus roemerianus) and planted them on the newly 

accreted beach in order to stabilize the beach and create a wetland habitat. Also, needle rush was 

planted adjacent to an eroding shoreline along a large tidal creek (Soldier’s Creek). In all likelihood, 

the shoreline was eroding due to excessive boat wake activity. The survival rate was much higher in 

the more protected fringe system. Therefore, it is hypothesized that the success rate for planting 

marsh vegetation in areas of high wave energy (Perdido Beach) is not as high as in more protected 

waters (Soldier Creek). 

33


Planted needle rush (Juncus roemerianus) at Perdido Beach brush fence 

The brush fences at Perdido Beach were surveyed for the final time in June 2002. The 2002 

hurricane season was quite active in Southwest Alabama, as the area was hit by 3 tropical storms: 

Hannah, Isidore and Lily. Although a relatively mild tropical storm, the brunt of the wind energy of 

Hannah destroyed the brush fences and caused considerable damage to the adjacent bulkheads. 

Isidore was a much stronger storm and it is speculated that it would have also destroyed the brush 

fences. Although quite successful in aiding beach accretion and in educating the public of costeffective 

alternatives to bulk heading, the brush fences were not able to withstand the wind and 

wave energy of a tropical storm. Future brush fence construction should be constructed to 

withstand high wave energy or should be located in semi-protected waters. 

34


3.4.2 Gulf Shores Wetlands Park 

Destroyed brush fences following Tropical Storm Hannah 

The County was approached by the City of Gulf Shores about the possibility of partnering, 

utilizing the BCWCP grant, to restore a degraded wetland area adjacent to the City’s new sportsplex. 

The site was inspected on several occasions and a preliminary determination was made that it would 

be suitable for restoration efforts. The site is adjacent to a small creek called Bright’s creek, and it is 

comprised of riverine wetlands that, over time, were used as borrow areas for highway construction 

projects. These borrow areas have evolved into small ponds which currently support a variety of 

aquatic life. Connecting these ponds with transitional wetland areas and removing soil berms could 

restore the hydrology on certain portions of the property. 

BCWCP staff received a formal request from the City of Gulf shores to conduct wetland 

restoration activities at the Gulf Shores Wetlands Park. The Baldwin County Commission allocated 

60% of the cost of the wetland restoration activities at this site based on the preliminary cost 

estimate. Through this negotiation, the BCC encouraged the City of Gulf Shores to place the 

existing jurisdictional wetlands into a conservation easement. The conservation easement is between 

the City of Gulf Shores and the Baldwin County Commission, and it legally requires the City of Gulf 

Shores to protect the existing wetlands in perpetuity. Baldwin County staff will monitor this site 

periodically to ensure that no impacts occur. In addition, a comprehensive restoration plan was 

requested from the City of Gulf Shores prior to commencement of restoration activities at the site. 

The conceptual site plan of the project is included in Appendix 9.6 of this report. 

35


Restoration activities began in the summer of 2003 at the Gulf Shores Wetlands Park. 

BCWCP and EPA staff visited the site during construction. Hydrologic connections were created 

between the ponds, instead of a slight grading of the surface soil. Also, picnic tables and gazebos 

were installed in the areas to be restored. The changes were discussed in great detail, and BCWCP 

staff negotiated with City for more extensive planting in the open water areas in order to create 

more wetland habitat. The plants were installed in August 2003. The plants that were installed were: 

bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), Juncus effusus, Scirpus californicus, Sagittaria 

latifolia, Peltandra virginica, Thalia geniculaba, Sarracenia leucophyllla, and Nymphea odorata. 

BCWCP continues to monitor the success of this project. Although the wetland restoration 

efforts were not maximized, the site was improved and will provide education and outreach to 

residents and guests of Baldwin County. Future wetland restoration activities will include binding 

documentation to ensure the success of the wetland restoration activities upon construction. 

Gulf Shores Wetlands Park 

3.4.3 Baldwin County High School Wetland Restoration Project 

Staff worked with representatives from the USFWS Daphne Field Office and a teacher and 

principal at the Baldwin County High School (Bay Minette) to develop a Grady Pond wetland 

restoration project on the school’s campus. First, a conservation easement for the property was 

agreed to between the Baldwin County Commission and the Baldwin County Board of Education. 

This project involved the installation of a water control structure at a ditched outlet of the pond to 

help maintain a constant water level. Also a boardwalk and teaching classroom were designed to 

minimally impact the integrity of the Grady Pond. The boardwalk and classroom were constructed 

in fall of 2003. The boardwalk will be used by the students for educational purposes such as water 

36


sampling, plant identification and learning about wetland functions. The Baldwin County Coastal 

Impact Assistance Plan (CIAP) was used as the primary funding source of this project. 

Baldwin County High School Wetland Restoration Project 

3.4.4 Keeney Drive East Wetland Reserve Program 

The Baldwin County Commission and the Natural Resources Conservation Service entered 

into an agreement to restore wetlands at a 1.7 acre site on Keeney Drive East in Marlow. BCWCP 

staff coordinated all activities related to the restoration of wetlands at this site. This project created 

riverine wetlands adjacent to Fish River. This restoration project has been very successful and the 

Baldwin County Commission hopes to accomplish similar wetland restoration projects in the future. 

37


Keeney Drive East Wetland Reserve Program 

3.4.5 Coastal Land Trust/Tensaw Lake acquisition 

In November 2003, the BCC acquired 400 acres of sensitive property along Tensaw Lake in 

the northwest area of the county. This parcel contains approximately 90 acres of slope and riverine 

wetland habitat. Although there are no plans to date, the BCC hopes to restore the wetland on the 

property and to develop an outdoor recreation facility. 

In June of 2003, the 

Baldwin County 

Commission purchased 

400 acres adjacent to 

Tensaw Lake 

38


3.4.6 Future direction and recommendations 

This project has set forth the framework necessary for future wetland restoration activities. 

The results of the Remote Functional Wetland Assessment Model (RFWAM) will aid staff in future 

wetland restoration projects by helping them target watershed areas that may be suitable for wetland 

restoration. This project could be further developed in the following ways: 

• Develop a Wetland Mitigation Bank for County road projects. BCC staff will work with the 

Mitigation Banking Review Team (MBRT) for approval of this endeavor. 

• Using CIAP funds, the Baldwin County Commission hopes to acquire fee simple property 

for the protection of wetlands. Also, the BCC recently drafted the “Baldwin County Parks 

and Public Land Management Initiative” in order to target watersheds in need of water 

access and park development. 

• Continue to work with other agencies to protect isolated wetland from development as they 

are not considered jurisdictional by the USACE. 

• Further develop interagency cooperation, such as the partnership with NRCS for the Keeney 

Drive East Wetland Reserve Program. 

• Explore opportunities for shoreline stabilization and fringe wetland protection, as many 

Baldwin County shorelines are eroding and causing property owners to construct bulkheads. 

Opportunities exist such as the Project Greenshores in nearby Pensacola, Florida. 

39


4. Summary and Conclusions 

The development of the BCWCP has raised the awareness of wetland issues in Baldwin 

County. County officials continue to be more aware of the sensitivity of wetland areas and are taking 

steps to protect these areas through Subdivision Regulations, acquisition of sensitive properties, and 

implementation of wetland restoration projects. The possibility of developing a local mitigation bank 

has been discussed. This mitigation bank would be owned and operated by the Baldwin County 

Commission and would primarily be used to mitigate highway construction projects. 

Although non-regulatory in scope, this project utilizes education and information as a basis 

for wetland protection. Local leader support has been an integral component of this project. Future 

efforts include modifying the Subdivision and Zoning regulations to enhance existing wetland 

restrictions. The Baldwin County Digital Wetland Layer (BCDWL) will aid staff in making informed 

decisions. BCWCP staff will continue to educate the public about the importance of wetland 

functions in Baldwin County’s landscape. Finally, the BCDWL will assist non-profit, local, state, and 

federal entities in identifying priority areas where successful wetland conservation and protection 

projects can be implemented. 

40


5. References 

Baldwin County Economic Development Alliance. Http://www.badwineda.com. 

Baldwin County Subdivision and Zoning Regulations, Baldwin County Commission. 1999 and 2003. 

Brinson, M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Wetland Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Services 

Program. FWS/OBS-79-31. 131 pp. 

Economic Impact of the Alabama Travel Industry, 2003. Alabama Bureau of Tourism and Travel. 

84 pp. 

Economic Impact of Sport Fishing in Alabama, A cooperative effort between the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Aid, and the American Sport Fishing Association. 1996. 

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Technical 

Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. NTIS 

No. AD A176 912. 

Mitsch, W.J and J.G. Gosselink, 1993. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New York. 

Southeast Regional Climate Center. Http://cirrus.dnr.state.sc.us/cgi- bin/sercc/cliMAIN.pl?al0583. 

Wenger, S. 1990. A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent and 

Vegetation. Office of Public Service and Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University of 

Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 

41


6. Glossary 

Advance Identification – federal planning process, authorized by the Clean Water Act, designed to 

locate, identify, and map wetland resources in a specific geographic area. Also, designed to provide 

detailed information on wetland functions in the designated area. 

Anaerobic – refers to an environment in which oxygen is absent. These environments are typical of 

wetland ecosystems. 

Aquifer – a saturated, permeable geologic unit that can transmit significant quantities of water under 

ordinary hydraulic gradients. 

Conservation – one of the three wetland functional assessment categories reached by applying the 

RFWAM. Indicates that a wetland has a high general functional capacity and that it is suitable for 

preservation, protection, and, perhaps, maintenance. 

Critical Habitat – refers to geographic locations which are vital to the survival of a Threatened and 

Endangered species as defined in the Endangered Species Act. The specific areas on which are 

found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which 

may require special management considerations or protection. 

Depressional – one of five wetland classes described in the HGM wetland classification. These 

wetlands occur in topographic depressions and dominant water sources include precipitation, 

groundwater discharge, and both interflow and overland flow from adjacent uplands. Elevation 

contours are closed thus allowing surface water accumulation. 

Enhancement - one of the three wetland functional assessment categories reached by applying the 

RFWAM. Indicates that a wetland has a general functional capacity that is neither high nor low. 

Such a wetland may be suitable for manipulation of physical, chemical, or biological characteristics 

to improve certain wetland functions while possibly allowing a decline in some other functions. 

Estuarine – one of the five wetland systems described in the USFWS wetland classification scheme. 

This system consists of deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually semienclosed 

by land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic access to marine water, and in which 

marine water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater run-off from the land. 

Estuary – a coastal body of water which has a free connection with the open sea and where fresh 

water, derived from land drainage, is mixed with sea water. Often subject to tidal action and, where 

tidal activity is large, ebb and flood tidal currents tend to avoid each other, forming separate 

channels. 

Flat – one of five wetland classes described in the HGM wetland classification. These wetlands 

occur in areas where the main source of water is precipitation. They occur on areas with little or no 

topographic gradient and they do depend partially on groundwater discharge. 

42


Floodplain – the part of a river valley that is made of unconsolidated, river-borne sediment and is 

periodically flooded. It is built up of relatively coarse debris left behind as a stream channel migrates 

laterally and of relatively fine sediment deposited when bankful discharge is exceeded. 

Fringe – one of five wetland classes described in the HGM wetland classification. These wetlands 

occur near a large body of water, most typically the ocean, and receive frequent and regular 

bidirectional flow from astronomic tides or wind-driven water level fluctuations. Other water 

sources may be riverine flow, groundwater discharge and precipitation. 

Function – any ecological, hydrological or other phenomenon that contributes to the selfmaintenance 

of the wetland ecosystem; also, the normal or characteristic activities that take place in 

wetland ecosystems; or simply the things that wetlands do. 

Functional Assessment – a methodology or protocol used to assess the level at which a particular 

function, or suite of functions, is present in a wetland ecosystem. 

Functional Capacity – the level at which a wetland is performing a specific function or suite of 

functions; is usually determined through an objective, scientifically based assessment methodology 

such as the RFWAM. 

Generally Unsuitable for Fill – refers to one of the three designations for area wetlands found on the 

ADID maps. Wetlands with this designation tend to have a high functional capacity where the 

discharge of dredged or fill material could potentially result in significant degradation to waters of 

the United States or coastal resources of the State of Alabama. 

Groundwater – water that occurs below the Earth’s surface. It is either passing through or standing 

in the soil and underlying strata, and is free to move under the influence of gravity. Most 

groundwater is derived from surface sources. 

Groundwater Maintenance – one of four wetland functions assessed in the RFWAM. This describes 

the capacity of a wetland to recharge aquifer water supplies, provide for aquifer discharge, and filter 

surface water which ultimately drains to the aquifer. 

Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) – refers to a federal wetland classification scheme which identifies 

wetlands based on the following criteria: 1) geomorphology (i.e., a wetland’s topographic position on 

the landscape), 2) hydrology (i.e., water source), and 3) hydrodynamics (i.e., the manner in which 

water moves through the wetland). 

Interdunal Swale – a wetland type located in a depressional area between two dune ridges. These 

wetlands commonly occur in the coastal portions of Baldwin County. 

Intermittently Exposed – one of the nontidal water regime modifiers used in the USFWS wetland 

classification scheme. This describes wetland areas where surface water is present throughout the 

year except in years of extreme drought. 

Jurisdictional Wetland – wetlands identified for regulation by the Clean Water Act. The 1987 

USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual is the tool used to determine jurisdictional status of a 

wetland. For a wetland to be jurisdictional, there must be at least one positive wetland indicator 

43


from each of the following criteria: 1) hydric soils, 2) hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) wetland 

hydrology. Since the 2001 decision of the US Supreme Court in SWANCC, isolated wetlands are 

not considered jurisdictional, whether or not they meet the criteria in the 1987 USACE manual. 

Lacustrine – one of the five wetland systems described in the USFWS wetland classification scheme. 

This system includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats with all of the following characteristics: 1) 

situated on a topographic depression or a dammed river channel; 2) lacking trees, shrubs, persistent 

emergents, emergent mosses or lichens with greater than 30% areal coverage; and 3) total area 

exceeding 20 acres. Lacustrine waters may be tidal or nontidal, but ocean derived salinity is always 

less than 0.5 parts per hundred. 

Marine – one of the five wetland systems described in the USFWS wetland classification scheme. It 

consists of the open ocean overlaying the continental shelf and its associated high-energy coastline. 

These habitats are exposed to the waves and currents of the open ocean and the water regimes are 

determined primarily by the ebb and flow of oceanic tides. 

Mitigation Bank – the creation, restoration, or enhancement of an area of functioning wetland in 

advance of anticipated impacts within the same region. 

Mitigation – the compensation for reduction or loss of wetland functions due to filling activities 

through wetland restoration, enhancement, and/or creation activities. 

Obstruction – describes man-made barriers which prohibit or greatly reduce natural river flows and 

prevent overbank discharge of water into adjacent floodplains. Examples include dams, dikes, and 

roads. 

Palustrine - one of the five wetland systems described in the USFWS wetland classification scheme. 

This system includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, 

emergent mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to 

ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 parts per hundred. 

Potentially Suitable for Fill with Compensatory Mitigation – refers to one of three designations for 

area wetlands found on the ADID maps. Wetlands with this designation have a limited or 

significantly impacted functional capacity that may be replaced by mitigation. 

Restoration - one of the three wetland functional assessment categories reached by applying the 

RFWAM. Indicates that a wetland has a low general functional capacity. Such a wetland may be 

suitable for the manipulation of physical, chemical, or biological characteristics to return 

natural/historic functions. Such manipulation may involve re-establishment or rehabilitation. 

Riparian – of, on, or relating to the banks of a natural course of water. 

Riverine 1 – one of five wetland classifications described in the HGM classification. These wetlands 

occur in floodplains and riparian corridors in association with stream channels. Dominant water 

sources are overbank flow from the channel or subsurface hydrologic connections between the 

stream channel and adjacent wetlands. 

44


Riverine 2 – one of the five wetland systems described in the USFWS wetland classification scheme. 

This system includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel, with two 

exceptions: 1) wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or 

lichens; and 2) habitats with water containing ocean-derived salts in excess of 0.5 parts per hundred. 

Saltwater Intrusion – the occurrence of unsuitable levels of salt within local aquifer supplies which 

are usually used for domestic purposes such as drinking, bathing, or irrigating. Causes include overpumping 

of coastal aquifers and the lowering or destruction of coastal dunes and wetlands (which 

serve as aquifer recharge areas) through development activities. 

Seasonally Flooded – one of the nontidal water regime modifiers used in the USFWS wetland 

classification scheme. Surface water is present for extended periods especially early in the growing 

season, but is absent by the end of the season in most years. When surface water is absent, the water 

table is often near the land surface. 

Sediment/Toxicant/Nutrient Removal – one of four wetland functions assessed in the RFWAM. 

This describes the capacity of a wetland to capture, retain, remove and/or transform sediment, 

toxicants, or nutrients which enter a wetland system. These processes are facilitated by physical, 

chemical and biological processes associated with the wetland system. 

Semi-permanently Flooded – one of the nontidal water regime modifiers used in the USFWS 

wetland classification scheme. This describes wetland areas where surface water persists throughout 

the growing season in most years. When surface water is absent, the water table is usually at or very 

near the land surface. 

Site-by-Site Evaluation Required – refers to one of three designation for area wetlands found on the 

ADID maps. Wetlands with this designation have a mixed functional capacity or one that is difficult 

to estimate remotely. Further investigation of the site is required to determine its suitability for fill. 

Stakeholder – a party with a specific interest in a particular activity. For BCWCP purposes, it refers 

to those individuals or entities with an interest in wetland activities as they pertain to Baldwin 

County. BCWCP project stakeholders include, but are not limited to, the following: wetlands 

regulatory/commenting agencies, private landowners, public land managers, land developers and 

real estate professionals, consulting engineers, biologists, landscapers, conservation groups, the 

forest industry, the seafood industry, the agricultural industry, and the Department of 

Transportation. 

Water/Floodwater Storage – one of four wetland functions assessed in the RFWAM. This describes 

the capacity of a wetland to retain surface water for long or short durations. The source of water 

may be overbank flow, overland flow, or precipitation. 

Watershed – a geographic area from which a surface watercourse or groundwater system derives its 

water; the area of land where all precipitation drains to a common sink. 

Water Table – the surface on which the fluid pressure in the pores of a porous medium is exactly 

atmospheric; the level below which the ground is completely saturated with water. 

45


Wetland – those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency or 

duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, 

marshes, bogs and similar areas. 

Wildlife/Fisheries Habitat – one of four wetland functions assessed in the RFWAM. This describes 

the capacity of a wetland to provide the requisite needs, including foraging areas, water, cover, 

nesting areas and resting areas, to support expected species. 

46


7. Figures 

47


Figure 1: Baldwin County Locator Map 

48


Figure 2: Baldwin County Waterways 

49


Figure 3: Continuous 10 Foot Contour in Baldwin County 

(Data Source: Baldwin County Communications & Information Systems) 

50


Figure 4: Land Use Map of Baldwin County 

(Data Source: National Land Cover Data, EPA 1992) 

51


Figure 5: Color Infrared Map of Baldwin County (2001) 

52


Figure 6: Population Distribution 

53


Figure 7: Existing Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Boundaries 

54


Figure 8: Proposed Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Boundaries 

55


Figure 9: Countywide Map of Wetlands 

56


Figure 10: Countywide Map of Wetland Hydrogeomorphic Classes 

57


Percentage 

100.0% 

Figure 11: Graph of Wetland Hydrogeomorphic Class By Watershed 

90.0% 

80.0% 

70.0% 

60.0% 

50.0% 

40.0% 

30.0% 

20.0% 

10.0% 

0.0% 

95% 

42% 

HGM Percentage Per Watershed 

77% 

98% 

48% 

24% 

1% 

22% 

14% 

0% 

11% 

3% 

0% 

28% 

24% 

1% 0% 

Riverine Fringe Flat Depressional 

HGM Type 

Perdido Bay Wetlands 

Perdido Wetlands 

Mobile-Tensaw Wetlands 

Mobile Bay Wetlands 

Lower Alabama Wetlands 

1% 

9% 

2% 

58


Figure 12: Map of a Flat Wetland 

59


Figure 13: Map of a Depressional Interdunal Swale 

60


Figure 14: Map of a Depressional Grady Pond Wetland 

61


Figure 15: Map of a Riverine Wetland 

62


Figure 16: Map of Fringe Wetland 

63


Figure 17: Wetland Validation Sites 

64


Figure 18: Functional Assessment Model Interface (1) 

65



66



67



68


Frequency 

Figure 22: Distribution of Depressional Wetlands Among Percentages of Possible Points Earned 

1000 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Depressional Wetlands Categorized by Percentage of Possible Points Earned 

Restoration 

Enhancement 

Conservation 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 >100 

Bins 

N.B. Bonus points can bring percentage above 100. 

n=2372 

69


Frequency 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Figure 23: Distribution of Flat Wetlands Among Percentages of Possible Points Earned 

Flat Wetlands Categorized by Percentage of Possible Points Earned 

Restoration 

Enhancement 


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 >100 

Bins 


n=1186 

70


Frequency 

1800 

1600 

1400 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

Figure 24: Distribution of Riverine Wetlands Among Percentages of Possible Points Earned 

n=6394 

Riverine Wetlands Categorized by Percentage of Possible Points Earned 

Restoration 

Enhancement 


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 >100 

Bins 


71


Figure 25: Map of Countywide Functional Assessment Results 

72


Figure 26: Countywide Functional Assessment Results by Wetland Acreage 

Percentage 

100.0% 

90.0% 

80.0% 

70.0% 

60.0% 

50.0% 

40.0% 

30.0% 

20.0% 

10.0% 

0.0% 

Functional Assessment Countywide 

88% 

10% 

1% 

conservation enhancement restoration 

Functional Assessment 

Baldwin County Wetlands 

73


Figure 27: Functional Assessment Results by Percent of Acreage in Hydrogeomorphic Class 

Percentage 

100.0% 

90.0% 

80.0% 

70.0% 

60.0% 

50.0% 

40.0% 

30.0% 

20.0% 

10.0% 

0.0% 

Functional Assessment Per HGM Type 

88% 

100% 

79% 

60% 

10% 

0% 

19% 

31% 



Riverine Wetlands 

Fringe Wetlands 

Flat Wetlands 

Depressional Wetlands 

1% 

0% 

3% 

8% 

74


Figure 28: Functional Assessment Results by Percent of Wetland Acreage in Watershed 

Percentage 

100.0% 

90.0% 

80.0% 

70.0% 

60.0% 

50.0% 

40.0% 

30.0% 

20.0% 

10.0% 

0.0% 

Functional Assessment Per Watershed 

85% 

80% 

94% 

85% 

98% 

12% 

18% 

5% 

12% 

3% 2% 3% 

0% 0% 



(Percentages are based on total HGM type found in Baldwin County) 

2% 

Perdido Bay Wetlands 

Perdido Wetlands 

Mobile-Tensaw Wetlands 

Mobile Bay Wetlands 

Lower Alabama Wetlands 

75


Figure 29: BCWCP Results Orange Beach Vicinity 

76


Figure 30: BCWCP Results Eastern Shore 

77


Figure 31: BCWCP Results Lillian Swamp/Perdido River 

78


Figure 32: BCWCP Results Dyas Creek Watershed (North Baldwin) 

79


Figure 33: Example of Wetland Map Made For the Public 

80


8. Appendices 

81


8.1 Appendix 1: Summary of Project-related Activities for the entire project period 

(October 1999-December 2003) 

December 27 1999- January 9, 2000 Collected recycled Christmas trees for use in 

shoreline wetland restoration demonstration 

projects. 

January 2000 Baldwin County Commission developed job 

description and advertised for Resource Analyst 

position in local and state newspapers, 

professional journals, and appropriate websites. 

February 2000 Interview process for Resource Analyst position 

was started 

February 2000 Found suitable location for a shoreline wetland 

restoration demonstration project. Filed an 

application with the U.S. Army USACE to 

receive a permit for project construction. The 

application is attached to this report 

March 2000 Hired individual to fill the Resource Analyst 

position. This position will be responsible for, 

among other things, GIS related activities. 

Individual will start in June 2000 

March 2000 Received permit from the USACE to construct 

Christmas tree brush fence/breakwater 

structures as part of the shoreline wetland 

restoration projects 

March 2, 2000 First meeting of the BCWCP Technical Advisory 

Committee 

March 10, 2000 Meeting with NRCS to discuss possibility of 

updating and digitizing County soil survey. 

Hydric soil information obtained from this data 

layer may be useful in development of the 

Bcwcp. 

March 16, 2000 Presentation on the BCWCP at the annual 

meeting of the Alabama chapter of the American 

Planning Association 

April 2000 Purchased GIS related computer hardware and 

software 

June 5, 2000 Resource Analyst begins work for the Baldwin 

County Planning and Zoning Department. 

June 7, 2000 Shoreline wetland restoration project begins in 

the Perdido Beach community located in 

southeastern Baldwin County. Construction of 

offshore brush-fence breakwaters begins. 

June 12, 2000 Meeting with NRCS and other stakeholders to 

discuss funding opportunities for the updating 

June 29, 2000 

and digitizing of the Baldwin County soil survey 

BCWCP staff made a presentation on the project 

to participants at the Nonpoint & Watershed 

Workshop sponsored by the Weeks Bay 

82


Watershed Project 

July 17 through July 18, 2000 Utilizing County crews, U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service personnel and Youth Conservation 

Corps (YCC) members, recycled Christmas trees 

were placed into offshore bins for the purpose of 

restoring eroding shoreline and creating fringe 

wetland habitat 

August 30, 2000 Performed visual survey of offshore breakwater 

bins with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service personnel. 

September 8, 2000 BCWCP Technical Advisory Committee meeting 

October 4, 2000 BCWCP staff visited wetland sites in the field 

looking for reference wetland locations 

November 2, 2000 First quarterly elevation survey of brush fence 

shoreline wetland restoration project 

November 17, 2000 BCWCP Technical Advisory Committee meeting 

to discuss the wetland functional assessment 

protocol 

November 27, 2000 BCWCP staff met with U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency staff to discuss project 

activities and tour wetland sites in Baldwin 

County 

December 25, 2000 through January 5, 2001 Collected recycled Christmas Trees for use in 

shoreline wetland restoration projects 

Jan. 4, 2001 Meeting between County staff and U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineer statistician to set up 

experimental design for the BCWCP wetland 

validation study 

Jan. 29, 2001 BCWCP Technical Advisory Committee meeting 

Feb. 1, 2001 Quarterly survey of shoreline wetland restoration 

project in the Perdido Beach community 

Feb. 5, 2001 Meeting between County staff and U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineer statistician to discuss Corps 

participation (i.e. Field work) in the BCWCP 

wetland validation study 

Feb. 14, 2001 BCWCP project update to the Baldwin County 

Commission at a scheduled worksession. 

Feb. 23, 2001 Planning meeting to discuss construction of new 

offshore breakwater structures at the Perdido 

Beach community to encourage shoreline 

wetland restoration. 

Mar. 7, 2001 BCWCP Technical Advisory Committee meeting 

Mar. 12 - 16, 2001 BCWCP staff commence Construction of new 

offshore breakwater structures in the Perdido 

Beach community 

Mar. 26, 2001 BCWCP public meeting in Bay Minette, Alabama 

Mar. 27, 2001 BCWCP public meeting in Foley, Alabama. 

Mar. 29, 2001 BCWCP public meeting in Fairhope, Alabama. 

83


Apr. 19, 2001 BCWCP Technical Advisory Committee 

meeting. 

April 23, 2001 BCWCP presentation to the Sonora 

Homemakers Club in Summerdale, Alabama 

May 23 - 25, 2001 BCWCP staff met with EPA and USFWS staff in 

Atlanta, Georgia to discuss the NWI to HGM 

conversion protocol 

June 7, 2001 BCWCP Technical Advisory Committee meeting 

June 8, 2001 Wetland validation study field day 

June 14, 2001 

Quarterly brush fence beach profile survey at 

Perdido Beach 

June 21, 2001 Wetland validation study field days in the 

Mobile-Tensaw Delta 

June 22, 2001 Wetland restoration project field reconnaissance 

in Bon Secour 

July 6, 2001 Wetland validation study field day 



August 1, 2001 Placement of recycled Christmas trees into new 

brush fence structures at Perdido Beach 

August 3, 2001 On-site restoration meeting at potential wetland 

restoration site in Gulf Shores, Alabama 

August 23, 2001 Wetland validation study field day 

September 14, 2001 Wetland validation study field day 

September 21, 2001 Wetland validation study field day 

September 27, 2001 Wetland validation study field day. 

October 3, 2001 Meeting with the Alabama Forestry Commission 

to discuss use of BCWCP project wetland 

information for use in county-wide fire 

suppression activities. 

October 5, 2001 Wetland validation study field day 

October 10, 2001 

Meeting with the City of Gulf Shores to discuss 

potential wetland restoration opportunities. 

October 18 - 19, 2001 Wetland validation study field days in the 

Mobile-Tensaw Delta 

October 26, 2001 Meeting with the Alabama Forestry Commission 

to discuss use of BCWCP project wetland 

information for use in county-wide fire 

November 1-2, 2001 

suppression activities 

SERUG Annual Meeting in Orange Beach, Al. 

BCWCP staff presents a talk entitled “GIS 

Applications of the Baldwin County Wetland 

Conservation Plan. ” 

November 15, 2001 Wetland validation study field day 

November 30, 2001 Wetland validation study field day 

January 11, 2002 Wetland validation study field day 

December 13, 2002 On-site meeting with Gulf Shores to discuss 

Wetland Restoration Project 

January 25, 2002 Wetland validation study field day 

February 14, 2002 Wetland validation study field day 

84


Wetland Restoration at Perdido Beach Brush 

Fences 

February 22, 2002 Wetland validation study field day 

March 8, 2002 Wetland validation study field day 

March 16, 2002 Baldwin County Staff gives presentation at 

the Baldwin County Environmental 

Advisory Board Annual Meeting 

March 27, 2002 Presentation to BC Surveyors Association 

March 26-27, 2002 Brush Fence Repair and Maintenance and 

Christmas Tree Delivery 

April 10, 2002 Meeting with EPA, ADCNR and ADEM 

staff to discuss Baldwin ADID applications 

of the functional assessment model 

April 11, 2002 Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan 

Technical Advisory Meeting 

April 12, 2002 Mobile and Baldwin County Wetland 

Mapping Project Meeting 

April 17, 2002 Wetland validation study field day (Final Site) 

April 24, 2002 Meeting with USFWS at Gulf Shores to 

demonstrate restoration project at Gulf 

Shores Wetlands Park 

May/June 2002 GPS correction and analysis of field data for 

submittal to US USACE statistician. 

June 7, 2002 BCWCP staff met with GIS Consulting 

Company regarding technical applications of the 

Wetlands Functional Assessment Model. 

June 20, 2002 Perdido Beach brush fence survey (final) 

June 26, 2002 BCWOC staff met with consultant to discuss 

applications of the Baldwin County Digital 

Wetland Layer for wetland delineation purposes. 

June 27, 2002 

BCWCP staff met with representative from 

ADCNR Fish and Game to discuss applications 

of the Baldwin County Digital Wetland Layer for 

wetland delineation purposes. 

July 11, 2002 Presentation of Perdido Beach Brush Fence 

survey data to a Multi-agency workshop on SW 

Alabama coastline management practices 

July 23, 2002 Planted Needle rush at Perdido Beach wetland 

shoreline 

July 24, 2002 BCWCP presentation to Bay Minette Rotary 

Club 

August 2, 2002 BCWCP staff met with a consultant for a large 

development corporation to discuss applications 

of the Baldwin County Digital Wetland Layer 

for wetland delineation purposes 

August 7, 2002 BCWCP staff met with Baldwin County survey 

crew at Perdido Beach to correct survey data 

August 15, 2002 BCWCP Technical Advisory Committee Meeting 

August 20, 2002 Presented Wetland Validation Project results to 

85


Baldwin County Commission and sent thank you 

letter to USACE. 

August 23, 2003 BCWCP staff met with local property owners in 

Point Clear regarding local wetland issues 

August 30, 2002 BCWCP presentation to journalism class at 

Faulkner State Community College 

September 12, 2002 Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan 

Technical Advisory Meeting 

October 9, 2002 Field demonstration with press representative 

(Mobile Register) of Wetland Validation Study 

methodology 

October 14, 2002 BCWCP staff met with the Baldwin County 

Planning Commission regarding updates to the 

subdivision regulations to incorporate protection 

for isolated wetlands 

October 17, 2002 BCWCP update to Gulf Shores Rotary Club 

November 5, 2002 Ken McIlwain, Resource Analyst, commences 

work at Baldwin County 

December 9-13, 2002 Ken McIlwain attends ESRI training class in 

Atlanta, GA. Class pertains to Visual Basic 

programming for Functional Assessment Model 

development 

December 12, 2002 Meeting with USFWS to discuss Functional 

Assessment Model 

January 9, 2003 Work commences on Keeney Drive East 

wetland restoration project (joint project with 

USDA-NRCS) 

January 23, 2003 Staff met with assistant county engineer to 

discuss flooding issues associated with Keeney 

Drive East WRP site 

January 29, 2003 Staff met at Keeny Drive East WRP Site with 

local citizens to informally discuss public 

concerns 

February 6, 2003 Staff, District 6 County Commissioner, County 

Administrator, County Engineer, and USDA- 

NRCS representative meet formally with 

concerned citizens of the Keeney Drive East area 

to discuss flooding, aesthetics, and completion 

date of the wetland restoration project 

February 13, 2003 Staff met with local conservation oriented 

citizens to identify and discuss the conservation 

of Pitcher Plant Bogs in Northern Baldwin 


February 25, 2003 Keeney Drive East WRP Project completed with 

the planting of various types of wetland 

vegetation 

February 27, 2003 Staff met at Baldwin County High School 

(BCHS) with USFWS to consider a wetland 

restoration project on the school campus 

March 6, 2003 Staff conducts field evaluation of large wetland 

areas to be impacted by the construction of 

86


5000+ acre subdivision in North Baldwin 


March 7, 2003 Staff, Volkert Engineering, and City of Foley 

staff meet to discuss the preservation of large 

depressional wetland in the City of Foley 

March 24, 2003 Staff met with Dr. Greg Jennings of North 

Carolina State University and Mr. Randy Roach 

of the USFWS to evaluate and develop a 

contingency plan for a possible streambank 

restoration project at Bohemian Park in south 

central Baldwin County 

March 28, 2003 Staff conducts a field review of wetland projects 

in Baldwin County (Keeney Drive & Gulf Shores 

Municipal Park) 

April 8, 2003 Basic programming language for Functional 

Assessment Model developed. Work 

commences on the development of the graphic 

user interfaces 

April 23-24, 2003 Staff meets with EPA Grant manager to discuss 

progress made on the Functional Assessment 

Model. Field tours of environmentally sensitive 

areas and wetland restoration project sites in 


May 7, 2003 Gulf Shores Wetland Park Site Visit 

May 9, 2003 Coastal Local Government Planning Meeting 

May 19, 2003 BCWCP update to Spanish Fort/Daphne Rotary 

Club 

May 23, 2003 Meeting with teacher at Fairhope High School to 

conduct a Grady Pond restoration project on the 

school’s campus 

June 6, 2003 Meeting with consultant and City of Gulf Shores 

at Gulf Shores Wetland Park Site Visit 

June 17-24 BCWCP staff convert NWI data to HGM 

classification in the Remote Functional 


June 20, 2003 BCWCP update to Fairhope Kiwanis Club 

June 26, 2003 Staff meets representatives from State Lands 

Division to assist with pitcher plant bog 

identification 

July 16, 2003 Baldwin County High School restoration project 

site meeting 

July 21, 2003 BCWCP Public Meeting – Bay Minette 

July 23, 2003 BCWCP Public Meeting – Fairhope 

July 24, 2003 BCWCP Public Meeting – Foley 

July 30, 2003 BCWCP staff meet with EPA grant manager to 

go over components of the Remote Functional 


August 11-12, 2003 BCWCP staff attends a workshop on 

conservation easements 

August 14, 2003 BCWCP staff updates workshop on on-site 

sewage disposal 

87


August 19, 2003 BCWCP staff meets with principal of Baldwin 

County High School 

August 27, 2003 BCWCP staff conduct site visit at Gulf Shores 

Wetland Park 

August 28, 2003 BCWCP Technical Advisory Committee Meeting 

September 10, 2003 BCWCP staff and EPA representatives assist 

ADCNR staff with wetland restoration activities 

on State Land 

September 11, 2003 BCWCP Advisory Committee Meeting 

September 11, 2003 BCWCP staff and EPA visit the Gulf Shores 

Wetland Park 

September 23, 2003 BCWCP staff meets with USFWS representatives 

to QA/QC wetland data 

October/November 2003 Staff calibrates the Remote Functional 

Assessment Model and modifies the code as per 

Technical Advisory Committee 

recommendations. 

October 21, 2003 BCWCP staff attends inter-agency scoping 

meeting to discuss EIS development of a 

proposed large-scale community in northern 


November 13, 2003 BCWCP update to Point Clear Rotary Club 

December 2003 Staff completes a draft version of the BCWCP 

summary document 

December 31, 2003 BCWCP staff submits Draft BCWCP summary 

document 

88


8.2 Appendix 2: Validation Project 

Site ID Number Field Data Results Baldwin County Digital 

Wetland Layer 

1 UPLAND UP 

2 UPLAND UP 

3 UPLAND UP 

4 UPLAND UP 

6 UPLAND UP 

7 UPLAND UP 

8 WETLAND UP 

10 WETLAND WET 

11 UPLAND UP 

12 UPLAND UP 

13 WETLAND UP 

14 UPLAND UP 

15 UPLAND UP 

16 UPLAND UP 


18 WETLAND UP 

19 UPLAND WET 

20 UPLAND UPLAND 

21 UPLAND UP 


23 UPLAND UP 

25 UPLAND UP 



28 UPLAND UP 


30 UPLAND UP 

31 UPLAND UP 

32 UPLAND UP 


35 UPLAND UP 

36 UPLAND UP 


38 UPLAND UP 

39 UPLAND UP 


41 UPLAND UP 



89


45 UPLAND WET 

46 UPLAND UP 





53 UPLAND WET 

54 WETLAND UP 

55 UPLAND UP 


57 UPLAND UP 

58 UPLAND UP 

59 UPLAND UP 


62 UPLAND UP 

63 UPLAND UP 

64 UPLAND UP 

66 UPLAND UP 


69 UPLAND WET 



72 UPLAND UP 

73 UPLAND UP 

74 UPLAND UP 



78 UPLAND UP 

79 UPLAND UP 

82 UPLAND UP 

83 UPLAND UP 

84 UPLAND UP 

85 UPLAND UP 

86 UPLAND UP 

87 UPLAND UP 


90 UPLAND UP 

91 UPLAND UP 

92 UPLAND UP 

93 UPLAND UP 

94 UPLAND UP 



97 UPLAND UP 

90


98 UPLAND UP 

99 WETLAND UP 

100 UPLAND WET 



103 UPLAND UP 

104 UPLAND UP 

106 UPLAND UP 

107 UPLAND UP 


109 UPLAND UP 

110 UPLAND UP 

111 WETLAND UP 

112 UPLAND UP 

113 UPLAND UP 

114 UPLAND UP 

115 UPLAND UP 

116 UPLAND UP 

117 UPLAND UP 

118 UPLAND UP 



121 UPLAND UP 


123 UPLAND UP 

124 UPLAND UP 

125 UPLAND UP 

126 UPLAND UP 



130 UPLAND UP 

131 UPLAND UP 







141 UPLAND UP 

142 UPLAND UP 

143 UPLAND UP 


145 UPLAND UP 

146 UPLAND UP 

91


148 UPLAND UP 



151 UPLAND UP 

152 UPLAND UP 

153 UPLAND UP 

154 UPLAND UP 


157 UPLAND UP 

158 UPLAND UP 

160 UPLAND UP 

92


8.3 Appendix 9.3: Remote Functional Wetland Assessment Model Technical Protocol 

Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan 

Technical Protocol 

November 2003 

93


NOTE: For reading purposes, this version of the draft model contains only questions 

currently addressed in the models. 

Data column names and values are in blue type. 

94


Functional Assessment Decision Tree: 

95


Wetland Functions Assessed 

The Advisory Committee agreed that the model should address the same functions as the ADID 

Project. 

Determining the capacity of a wetland to perform a particular function, or suite of functions, is 

an objective of a functional assessment procedure. This capacity is expressed in functional 

capacity designations for all project area wetlands. There are a number of wetland functions to 

consider for possible inclusion into a functional assessment model. Ultimately, the wetland 

functions to be assessed are chosen based on their relative economic value to the local area. 

This value, or perceived societal importance, is measured largely in terms of economic benefits 

derived from the wetland resource. A wetland value is described as “something worthy, 

desirable or useful to humans” (Mitsch and Gosselink 1986). These values are somewhat 

subjective and vary from individual to individual and can range from aesthetic importance to 

recreational importance. This project assesses wetland functions, but these are closely linked to 

wetland values. The following table (Table 1.1) displays the wetland functions assessed for the 

project and their associated value to society. 

Table 1.1. Wetland Functions Assessed and Their Associated Value to Society. 

Wetland Function Associated Value To Society 

Water/Floodwater Storage Flood Damage Reduction/Water Quality 

Maintenance 

Sediment/Toxicant/Nutrient Removal Water Quality Maintenance 

Wildlife/Fisheries Habitat Aesthetic/Recreational/Hunting 

Groundwater Maintenance Water Supply/Water Quality Maintenance 

Each of the above functions will be assessed for each wetland type in the various functional 

assessment models. A number of variables (expressed as questions in the project format) will 

be used to address each function in the functional assessment models. Simply put, a variable is 

96


an indicator of function, which is used collectively with other indicators to address wetland 

functional capacity. Examples of variables to be used in this project include plant structural 

composition, wetland size, and water regime. The definitions for each wetland function to be 

used in the project are seen below. These definitions were adapted from existing literature, but 

were regionalized to better describe processes associated with local wetlands. 

Water/Floodwater Storage - the capacity of a wetland to retain surface water for long or short 

durations. The source of water may be overbank flow, overland flow or precipitation. 

Sediment/Toxicant/Nutrient Removal - the capacity of a wetland to capture, retain, remove 

and/or transform sediment, toxicants or nutrients which enter a wetland system. These 

processes are facilitated by physical, chemical and biological processes associated with the 

wetland system. 

Wildlife/Fisheries Habitat - the capacity of a wetland to provide the requisite needs, including 

foraging areas, water, cover, nesting areas and resting areas, to support expected species. 

Groundwater Maintenance - the capacity of a wetland to recharge aquifer water supplies, 

provide for aquifer discharge, and filter surface water which ultimately drains to the aquifer. 

97


Flat Functional Assessment Model 

12 total points; 7 actual; 5 bonus; 2 possible subtractions 

Functional Assessment Ranges: 

61% Conservation Wetlands 

This functional assessment model will be applied to pine savanna and wet pine flat wetland 

types. 

Questions of Function: 

Water Storage 

Question 1: Is the observed wetland one (1) acre or larger in size? 

Rationale: Wetland size to be the most important factor in terms of water storage. As 

such, this variable has been weighted to consider wetlands of one (1), ten (10) and one 

hundred (100) acres in size. Wetlands of this size will have a significant water storage 

capacity and would be of higher functionality than smaller wetlands. Due to scale of 

mapping, an acre is approximately the smallest mapping unit which would consistently 

show up on the final map products and thus is the smallest area which was considered 

for this variable. This variable was identified remotely through digital NWI (NWI) data. 

Data Column: Acres_Rate; 1 point 

Question 2: Is the observed wetland ten (10) acres or larger in size? 

Rationale: See question # 2. 

Data Column: Acres_Rate; 1 point (for a total of 2 in the column) 

Question 3: Is the observed wetland one hundred (100) acres or larger in size? 

Rationale: See question # 2 

Data Column: Acres_Rate; 1 point (for a total of 3 in the column). 

Question 4: Is the observed wetland free of ditches? 

Rationale: The presence of a ditch may significantly alter the hydrologic regime of a 

wetland and reduce its ability to hold and slowly release water to the water table or 

aquifer. Consequently, the functional capacity to store water is diminished. This variable 

was identified remotely through NWI modifiers. 

Data Column: ditch; subtract 1 point 

Question 5: Does the adjacent land surrounding the observed wetland fall into one of the 

following land use categories: residential, commercial, industrial, transportation or 

mixed urban use? 

98


Rationale: These land use categories are marked by the presence of impervious 

surfaces which will increase the volume of surface water sheet flow entering the wetland. 

Thus, a wetland surrounded by these land uses will be more likely to receive and store 

larger volumes of water. This variable was identified remotely through digital land use 

data provide by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

Data Column: WS_LULC; 1 point 

Sediment/Toxicant/Nutrient Removal 

Question1: Is the water regime of the observed wetland semipermanently flooded (F), 

seasonally flooded (C), saturated (B), seasonally flooded/saturated (E), or 

saturated/semipermanent/seasonally flooded (Y)? 

Rationale: If the wetland exhibits one of the above water regimes, it is likely to provide 

the alternating wet and dry conditions necessary to promote the microbial activity which 

aid in nutrient processing. This variable was identified remotely through digital NWI data. 

Data Column: wat_reg; 1 point 

Question 2: Does the adjacent land surrounding the observed wetland fall into one of the 

following land use categories: residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, mixed urban 

use or agriculture? 

Rationale: The assumption is that developed or agricultural lands which surround a 

wetland increase the nutrient, sediment or toxicant load (fertilizer, animal waste, polluted 

runoff) entering the system. Thus, a wetland in this position would have an increased 

opportunity to cycle nutrients and filter water exiting the system. Since this variable deals 

with the issue of opportunity rather than functional ability, a “no” response will not count 

against a particular wetland. Rather, this will serve as a “bonus” question allowing a 

wetland extra consideration if this variable applies. This variable was identified 

remotely through digital land use data supplied by FEMA. 

Data Column: STN_LULC; 1 point bonus 

Wildlife Habitat 

Question 1: Is the observed wetland free of government maintained roads? 

Rationale: Highly traveled road corridors (defined here as government maintained since 

a government entity would not normally maintain a road that was not highly traveled) 

which bisect wildlife habitat create obvious disturbances which negatively impact wildlife. 

In addition to the obvious traffic disturbances, secondary development (i.e. Commercial 

enterprise) is often a result and is ultimately located adjacent to these highly traveled 

road corridors. Also, roads which bisect a wetland reduce habitat capability by 

fragmenting the landscape. This variable was identified remotely through Baldwin 

County’s digital centerline file. The NWI often have gaps in wetland polygons where 

roads exist. Therefore, a 100’ road buffer was used to identify all wetlands that are 

actually affected by the presence of a road. Wetlands polygons that were contained 

within a wetland system of greater than 100 acres were not affected. 

99


Data Column: roads; subtract 1 point 

Question 2: Is the observed wetland located in area where an endangered species has been 

observed? 

Rationale: The USFWS and ADCNR provided point data of known areas where 

endangered species have been observed. A 1/8 mile buffer was applied to these points. 

The intersection of a wetland and 1/8 mile buffer zones constitutes a bonus point for the 

observed wetland. 

Data Column: endan; 1 point bonus 

Question 3: Does the observed wetland provide a corridor of movement for expected wildlife as 

indicated by its presence in one of the following land use categories: forest or 

wetland? 

Rationale: A wetland which may not necessarily serve as habitat, but does provide a 

corridor of movement for wildlife between two habitats is important to the habitat 

function. This variable was identified remotely through FEMA land use data. 

Data Column: WILDLULC; 1 point 

Question 4: Is the observed wetland located in an area that has burned within the last ten 

years? 

Rationale: Fire is a variable closely associated with maintaining the characteristic plant 

community of a wet pine flatwood or a pine savannah. It helps maintain the proper 

vegetative cover required for expected species. Thus, a flat which is burned periodically 

is of higher functionality than one that is not. This variable was identified remotely 

through Alabama Forestry Commission (AFC) digital data. 

Data Column: burn; 1 point bonus 

Question 5: Is the adjacent land use compatible with supporting the expected wildlife as 

indicated by being located in one of the following land use categories: agriculture, 

rangeland, forest or wetland? 

Rationale: Land use adjacent to wetland habitat has a significant impact upon the 

species which utilize that habitat. Wetlands are more valuable for habitat when 

surrounding land use meets specific wildlife needs such as temporary escape, resting 

cover and seasonal food sources. The listed land use categories provide for these 

specific needs. This variable can be identified remotely through digital land use data 

from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

Data Column: WILLULC2; 1 point 

Groundwater Maintenance 

100


1. Is the observed wetland within the zone of influence (designated wellhead protection 

area for the 10 year time of travel capture zone) of a major groundwater pumping center (i.e. 

withdrawal rates of three to four million gallons a day)? 

Rationale: Historically, wetlands in the Project area served as aquifer discharge areas. 

Recent development, however, has increased the need for large groundwater pumping 

stations in the Project area. These pumping stations draw down water in the aquifer thus 

forcing the wetland to engage in an aquifer recharge function. So the wetlands within the 

zone of influence become important in replenishing aquifer supplies and filtering 

contaminants before they reach the water supply. Since this variable deals with a 

human- induced condition, a “no” response will not count against a particular wetland. 

Rather, it will serve as a “bonus” question allowing a wetland extra consideration if this 

variable applies. This variable was identified remotely through digital maps provided by 

the EPA. 

Data Column: wellhead; 2 point bonus 

101


Riverine Functional Assessment Model 

16 total points; 11 actual; 5 bonus; 1 possible subtraction 



This functional assessment model will be applied to swamps and hardwood bottoms and 

fresh marshes associated with riparian systems. 

General Items: 


Floodwater Storage 

Question 1: Is the observed wetland within the 100 year floodplain? 

Rationale: If the wetland is in a topographic position which receives frequent flood 

events (as indicated by occurring within the 100 year floodplain), then the wetland is 

likely to perform the floodwater storage function at a higher level than a wetland which is 

outside an area of frequent flooding. This variable was identified remotely through digital 

floodplain maps from FEMA. 

Data Column: Flood; 1 point 

Question 2: Is the observed wetland one (1) acre or larger in size? 

Rationale: Wetland size was considered to be one of the most important factors in terms 

of water storage. As such, this variable has been weighted to consider wetlands of one 

(1), ten (10) and one hundred (100) acres in size. Wetlands of this size will have a 

significant water storage capacity and would be of higher functionality than smaller 

wetlands. Due to scale of mapping, an acre is approximately the smallest mapping unit 

which would consistently show up on the final map products and thus is the smallest 

area which was considered for this variable. This variable was identified remotely 

through digital NWI (NWI) maps. 


Question 3: Is the observed wetland ten (10) acres or larger in size? 

Rationale: See question # 2. 


Question 4: Is the observed wetland one hundred (100) acres or larger in size? 

Rationale: See question #2. 


Question 5: Is the water regime of the observed wetland either intermittently exposed (G), 

semipermanently flooded (F), seasonally flooded (C), or temporarily flooded (A)? 

102


Rationale: Floodwater storage capacity is greatest with alternating wet and dry 

conditions as found in the regimes listed above. Wetlands that are permanently flooded 

have little additional capacity to store water during flood events; while those that flood 

less often than seasonally play a lesser role than others in storing floodwaters. Thus, 

those that exhibit the above NWI water regimes are considered to function at a higher 

level than those that have different regimes. This variable was identified remotely 

through digital NWI maps. 


Question 6: Does the adjacent land use surrounding the observed wetland fall into one of the 

following land use categories; residential, commercial, industrial, transportation or 

mixed urban use? 

Rationale: These land use categories are marked by the presence of impervious 

surfaces which will increase the volume of surface water sheetflow entering the wetland. 

Thus, a wetland surrounded by these land uses will be more likely to receive and store 

larger volumes of water. This variable was identified remotely through digital land use 

data provide by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 


Sediment/Toxicant/Nutrient Removal and Soil Stabilization 

Question 1: Does the observed wetland contain rooted vegetation or coarse woody debris as 

indicated by one of the following NWI class designations: FO, SS or EM? 

Rationale: Rooted vegetation and coarse woody debris provide frictional resistance for 

water flow thus slowing water as it moves through the wetland. This water velocity 

reduction allows sediments to settle out of the water column thus resulting in improved 

water quality. For nutrient cycling to occur, both living and dead biomass must be 

present. The presence of coarse woody debris indicates a level of decomposition which 

will ultimately release nutrients into the soil which can then be assimilated into living 

material through plant uptake. Although the presence of coarse woody debris cannot be 

measured directly through remote techniques, it was determined indirectly. In a natural 

riverine ecosystem there is both living and dead material. Thus, if a site contains rooted 

live vegetation (which was measured remotely through NWI) it follows that the site would 

also contain dead material (in some form). Thus the presence of rooted vegetation is 

indicative of nutrient cycling occurring on the site which indicates a high level of function 

for this variable. 

Data Column: root_veg; 1 point 

Question 2: Is the water regime of the observed wetland either intermittently exposed (G), 

semipermanently flooded (F), seasonally flooded (C), or temporarily flooded (A)? 

Rationale: If the wetland exhibits one of the above water regimes, it is likely to provide 

the alternating wet and dry conditions necessary to promote the microbial activity, found 

in anaerobic conditions, which aid in nutrient processing. This variable was identified 

remotely through digital NWI data. 

103


Data Column: wat_reg2; 1 point 

Question 3. Does the adjacent land surrounding the observed wetland fall into one of the 

following land use categories: residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, 

mixed urban use or agriculture? 


wetland would increase the nutrient, sediment or toxicant load (fertilizer, animal waste, 

polluted runoff) entering the system. Thus, a wetland in this position would have an 

increased opportunity to cycle nutrients and filter water exiting the system. Since this 

variable deals with the issue of opportunity rather than functional ability, a “no” response 

will not count against a particular wetland. Rather, this will serve as a “bonus” question 

allowing a wetland extra consideration if this variable applies. This variable was 

identified remotely through digital land use data supplied by the FEMA. 


Wildlife/Fisheries Habitat 

1. Is the observed wetland free from government maintained roads? 


a government would not normally maintain a road that was not highly traveled) which 

bisect wildlife habitat create disturbances which negatively impact wildlife. In addition to 

the obvious traffic disturbances, secondary development (i.e. commercial enterprise) is 

often located adjacent to these road corridors which can further impact habitat. Also, 

roads which bisect a wetland reduce habitat capability by fragmenting the landscape. 

This variable was identified remotely through county digital centerline data. The NWI 

often have gaps in wetland polygons where roads exist. Therefore, a 100’ road buffer 

was used to identify all wetlands that are actually affected by the presence of a road. 

Wetlands polygons that were contained within a wetland system of greater than 100 

acres were not affected. 


Question 2: Is the observed wetland forested as indicated by the FO class designation from 

NWI? 

Rationale: Forested areas contain a mast supply (hard or soft - depending upon the 

cover type) and provide adequate cover for wildlife. Forested wetlands provide vertical 

and horizontal layers of habitats that are important to a diverse wildlife community. 

Forests also provide other important wildlife niches that are unavailable in non-forested 

habitats, such as cavities, snags and woody debris. Silvicultural activities on forested 

wetlands also provide important habitat components by providing different stages of tree 

growth which attract and support a variety of wildlife. This variable was identified 

remotely through NWI digital data. 

Data Column: forest; 1 point bonus 

104


Question 3: Is the observed wetland located in area where an endangered species has been 

observed? 

Rationale: The USFWS and ADCNR provided point data of known areas where 

endangered species have been observed. A 1/8 mile buffer was applied to these points. 

The intersection of a wetland and 1/8 mile buffer zones constitutes a bonus point for the 

observed wetland. 

Data Column: endan; 1 point bonus 

Question 4: Does the observed wetland provide a corridor of movement for expected wildlife as 

indicated by its presence in one of the following land use categories: forest or 

wetland? 

Rationale: A wetland which may not necessarily serve as habitat, but does provide a 

corridor of movement for wildlife between two habitats is important to the habitat 

function. This variable was identified remotely through FEMA land use data. 



indicated by being located in one of the following land use categories: 

agriculture, rangeland, forest or wetland? 

Rationale: Land use adjacent to wetland habitat has a significant impact upon the 



cover and seasonal food sources. Agricultural or forest lands adjacent to wetlands 

provide better wildlife habitat than a subdivision or shopping center. This variable was 

identified remotely through digital land use data provided by FEMA. 

Data Column: WILLULC2; 1 point 


Question 1. Is the observed wetland within the 100 year floodplain? 

Rationale: Typically, riverine wetlands discharge groundwater into adjacent open waters. 

These wetlands filter the discharged water of contaminants and sediments before 

entering into adjacent open waters. Thus, wetlands located within the 100 year 

floodplain play a critical role in filtering contaminants before they enter a body of water. 

This variable was identified remotely through digital floodplain maps. 

Data Column: flood2; 1 point 

Question 2. Is the observed wetland within the zone of influence (i.e. designated 

wellhead protection area for the 10 year time of travel capture zone) of a 

105


major groundwater pumping center (withdrawal rates of three to four million 

gallons a day)? 





zone of influence become important in replenishing aquifer water supplies and filtering 

contaminants before they reach the water supply. Since this variable deals with a 

human-induced condition, a “no” response will not count against a particular wetland. 

Rather, it will serve as a bonus question allowing a wetland extra consideration if this 


the EPA. 


106


Depressional Functional Assessment Model 

10 Total points; 4 Actual; 6 Bonus; 2 possible subtractions 



This functional assessment model will be applied to isolated wetlands. 


Water Storage 

Question 1. Is the observed wetland one (1) acre or larger in size? 

Rationale: Wetland size was considered to be one of the most important factors in terms 

of water storage. As such, this variable has been weighted to consider wetlands of one 

(1), ten (10) or one hundred (100) acres in size. Wetlands of this size will have a 

significant water storage capacity and would be of higher functionality than smaller 

wetlands. Due to scale of mapping, an acre is approximately the smallest mapping unit 

which would consistently show up on the final map products and thus is the smallest 

area which was considered for this variable. This variable was identified remotely 

through digital National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data. 


Question 2. Is observed wetland ten (10) acres or larger in size? 

Rationale: See question # 1. This question served as a bonus. 

Data Column: Acres_Rate; 1 point bonus (for a total of 2 in the column) 

Question 3. Is observed wetland one hundred (100) acres or larger in size? 

Rationale: See question # 1. This question served as a bonus. 

Data Column: Acres_Rate ; 1 point bonus (for a total of 3 in the column) 

Question 4. Does the adjacent land use (i.e. residential, commercial, industrial, transportation or 

mixed urban use) surrounding the observed wetland provide for overland flow of 

surface water into the wetland? 

Rationale: Impervious surfaces, found mainly in urban setting (including residential, 

commercial or industrial land uses), will increase the volume of surface water entering 

the wetland. Thus, a wetland surrounded by these land uses will be more likely to 

receive and store larger volumes of water. This variable was identified remotely through 

digital land use data from FEMA. 


107


Question 5. Is the observed wetland free of ditches as indicated by the absence of the NWI “d” 

special modifier? 

Rationale: The presence of ditches significantly alters the hydrologic regime of a wetland 

and reduces its ability to hold and slowly release water to the water table or aquifer. 

Consequently, the functional capacity to store water is diminished. This variable was 

identified remotely through digital NWI data. 

Data Column: ditch; subtract 1 point 

Question 6: Is observed wetland inside the zone of influence (designated wellhead protection 

area for the 10 year time of travel capture zone) of a major groundwater pumping 

center (withdrawal rates of three to four million gallons a day)? 

Rationale: Depressional wetlands within the Project area depend partly on groundwater 

discharge for their hydrologic requirements. Proximity of a wetland to a groundwater 

withdrawal well, which lowers the groundwater level within the zone of influence, could 

affect the hydrology of a wetland by lowering the water table. A wetland within the zone 

of influence of a groundwater withdrawal well would be more likely to exhibit a reduction 

in the groundwater table and would thus store more water than a wetland outside the 

zone of influence of a large groundwater withdrawal well. Since this variable deals with a 

human-induced condition, a “no” response will not count against a particular wetland. 

Rather, it will serve as a bonus question allowing a wetland extra consideration if this 


the EPA. 


Sediment/Toxicant/Nutrient Removal 

Question 1: Does the adjacent land use surrounding the observed wetland fall into one 

of the following land use categories: residential, commercial, industrial, 

transportation, mixed urban use or agriculture? 


wetland would increase the nutrient, sediment, and toxicant load (fertilizer, animal waste, 

polluted runoff) entering the system. Thus, a wetland in this position would have an 

increased opportunity to cycle nutrients and filter water exiting the system. Since this 

variable deals with the issue of opportunity rather than functional performance, a “no” 

response will not count against a particular wetland. Rather, this will serve as a “bonus” 

question allowing a wetland extra consideration if this variable applies. This variable was 

identified remotely through digital land use data from FEMA. 


Wildlife Habitat 

Question 1: Is the observed wetland free from government maintained roads? 

108



a government entity would not normally maintain a road that was not highly traveled) 

which bisect wildlife habitat create disturbances which negatively impact wildlife. In 

addition to the obvious traffic disturbances, secondary development (i.e. Commercial 

enterprise) is often located adjacent to these road corridors which can lead to further 

wildlife impacts. Also, roads which bisect a wetland reduce habitat capability by 

fragmenting the landscape. This variable was identified remotely through county digital 

centerline data. The NWI often have gaps in wetland polygons where roads exist. 

Therefore, a 100’ road buffer was used to identify all wetlands that are actually affected 

by the presence of a road. 



indicated by being located in one of the following land use categories: agriculture, 

rangeland, forest or wetland? 

Rationale: Land use adjacent to a wetland habitat has a significant impact upon the 



cover and seasonal food sources. Agricultural or forest lands adjacent to wetlands 

provide better wildlife habitat than a subdivision or shopping center. This variable was 

identified remotely through digital land use data from FEMA. 


Question 3: Is the water regime of the observed wetland either semi-permanently flooded (F) or 

permanently flooded (H)? (According to NWI). 

Rationale: A water source is a critical requirement for all species, both for habitat 

purposes and for drinking. The above water regimes provide both of these components. 

These regimes provide habitat for many wading birds, and also provide species with a 

good source of water to satisfy their daily water requirements. This variable was 

identified remotely through digital NWI data. 



Question1: Is the observed wetland inside the zone of influence (designated wellhead protection 

area for the 10 year time of travel capture zone) of a major groundwater pumping 

center (withdrawal rates of three to four million gallons a day)? 





zone of influence become important in replenishing aquifer supplies and filtering 

109


contaminants before they reach the water supply. Since this variable deals with humaninduced 

condition, a “no” response will not count against a particular wetland. Rather, it 

will serve as a bonus question allowing a wetland extra consideration if this variable 

applies. This variable was identified remotely through digital maps provided by the EPA. 

Data Column: welhead2; 2 point bonus 

110


8.4 Appendix 4: Final Summary Table 

Watershed HGM Type Acres Total Acres % HGM Type 

Perdido Bay Riverine 8056 19278 41.8% 

Perdido Bay Fringe 4542 19278 23.6% 

Perdido Bay Flat 2120 19278 11.0% 

Perdido Bay Depressional 4560 19278 23.7% 

Perdido Riverine 94831 99851 95.0% 

Perdido Fringe 1389 99851 1.4% 

Perdido Flat 2586 99851 2.6% 

Perdido Depressional 1045 99851 1.0% 

Mobile-Tensaw Riverine 87168 112936 77.2% 

Mobile-Tensaw Fringe 25085 112936 22.2% 

Mobile-Tensaw Flat 276 112936 0.2% 

Mobile-Tensaw Depressional 407 112936 0.4% 

Mobile Bay Riverine 15305 31711 48.3% 

Mobile Bay Fringe 4557 31711 14.4% 

Mobile Bay Flat 8881 31711 28.0% 

Mobile Bay Depressional 2968 31711 9.4% 

Lower Alabama Riverine 35491 36384 97.5% 

Lower Alabama Fringe 0 36384 0.0% 

Lower Alabama Flat 249 36384 0.7% 

Lower Alabama Depressional 644 36384 1.8% 

Watershed Classification Acres Total Acres % Class 

Perdido Bay conservation 16133 18982 85.0% 

Perdido Bay enhancement 2354 18982 12.4% 

Perdido Bay restoration 495 18982 2.6% 

Perdido conservation 78280 98446 79.5% 

Perdido enhancement 17794 98446 18.1% 

Perdido restoration 2372 98446 2.4% 

Mobile-Tensaw conservation 100821 106938 94.3% 

Mobile-Tensaw enhancement 5640 106938 5.3% 

Mobile-Tensaw restoration 477 106938 0.4% 

Mobile Bay conservation 26582 31197 85.2% 

Mobile Bay enhancement 3705 31197 11.9% 

Mobile Bay restoration 910 31197 2.9% 

Lower Alabama conservation 35221 35978 97.9% 

Lower Alabama enhancement 705 35978 2.0% 

Lower Alabama restoration 52 35978 0.1% 

County Classification Acres Total Acres % Class 

Baldwin County conservation 257037 291541 88.2% 

Baldwin County enhancement 30198 291541 10.4% 

Baldwin County restoration 4306 291541 1.5% 

HGM Type Classification Acres Total Acres % Class 

Riverine conservation 213092 240854 88.5% 

Riverine enhancement 24606 240854 10.2% 

Riverine restoration 3155 240854 1.3% 

Fringe conservation 35574 35574 100.0% 

Fringe enhancement 0 35574 0.0% 

Fringe restoration 0 35574 0.0% 

111


Flat conservation 11104 14114 78.7% 

Flat enhancement 2637 14114 18.7% 

Flat restoration 373 14114 2.6% 

Depressional conservation 5803 9626 60.3% 

Depressional enhancement 3031 9626 31.5% 

Depressional restoration 791 9626 8.2% 

112


8.5 Appendix 5: Wetland Validation Newspaper Article 

113


114


8.6 Appendix 6: Gulf Shores Wetland Park Conceptual Site Plan 

115

Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan - Alabama Department ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?