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
Senior Natural Resource Planner
Kenneth McIlwain
Derek Lemoine
Natural Resource Planner
Natural Resource Analyst
Table of Contents
a.
b.
c.
d.
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................................iv
List of Acronyms.........................................................................................................................................v
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................vi
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.
8.2.
8.3.
8.4.
8.5.
8.6.
Summary of All Project Related Activities....................................................................................82
Validation Project Results................................................................................................................89
RFWAM Technical Protocol ..........................................................................................................93
Final Summary Table......................................................................................................................111
Wetland Validation Newspaper Article .......................................................................................113
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
b. List of Acronyms
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
ADCNR...................................... Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
ADEM ...................................................... Alabama Department of Environmental Management
ADID........................................................................................ Advance Identification of Wetlands
AFC .................................................................................................. Alabama Forestry Commission
ANHP ........................................................................................Alabama Natural Heritage Program
BCC ...................................................................................................... Baldwin County Commission
BCDWL ..............................................................................Baldwin County Digital Wetland Layer
BCEAB ............................................................... Baldwin County Environmental Advisory Board
BCHS ................................................................................................... Baldwin County High School
BCWCP ..................................................................... Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
CACWP ......................................................................... Coastal Alabama Clean Water Partnership
CIAP .........................................................................Alabama Coastal Impact Assistance Program
CIR ................................................................................................................................. Color Infrared
DLG ........................................................................................................................Digital Line Graph
EPA ..............................................................................................Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA ..............................................................................Federal Emergency Management Agency
GIS .................................................................................................. Geographic Information System
GPS ........................................................................................................... Global Positioning System
GSA.....................................................................................................Geological Survey of Alabama
HGM ...................................................................................................................... Hydrogeomorphic
HUC ..................................................................................................................Hydrologic Unit Code
MBNEP ................................................................................Mobile Bay National Estuary Program
MBRT ........................................................................................... Mitigation Banking Review Team
MOA ..................................................................................................... Memorandum of Agreement
MOU ...............................................................................................Memorandum of Understanding
NLCD ....................................................................................................... National Land Cover Data
NRCS ................................................................................ Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWI ....................................................................................................... National Wetland Inventory
RFWAM ............................................................. Remote Functional Wetland Assessment Model
USACE ..............................................................................United States Army Corps of Engineers
USCB......................................................................................................Unites States Census Bureau
WPOD..................................................................................... Wetland Protection Overlay District
WRP ...........................................................................................................Wetland Reserve Program
v
c. List of Figures
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Baldwin County locator map (USA and Alabama) .......................................................................48
Baldwin County waterways (bays, rivers, streams) ........................................................................49
Continuous 10 foot contour in Baldwin County ..........................................................................50
Land use map of Baldwin County ...................................................................................................51
Color infrared map of Baldwin County (2001)..............................................................................52
Population distribution .....................................................................................................................53
Existing Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) boundaries......................................................................54
Proposed Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) boundaries ...................................................................55
Countywide map of wetlands ...........................................................................................................56
Countywide map of hydrogeomorphic classes ..............................................................................57
Graph of hydrogeomorphic classes by watershed .......................................................................58
Map of a flat wetland ........................................................................................................................59
Map of a depressional interdunal swale ..........................................................................................60
Map of a depressional Grady Pond wetland .................................................................................61
Map of a riverine wetland ................................................................................................................62
Map of a fringe wetland ...................................................................................................................63
Wetland validation sites ....................................................................................................................64
Functional assessment model interface (1).....................................................................................65
Functional assessment model interface (2).....................................................................................66
Functional assessment model interface (3).....................................................................................67
Functional assessment model interface (4).....................................................................................68
Distribution of depressional wetlands among percentages of possible points earned ............69
Distribution of flat wetlands among percentages of possible points earned.............................70
Distribution of riverine wetlands among percentages of possible points earned.....................71
Map of countywide functional assessment results ........................................................................72
Countywide functional assessment results by wetland acreage ...................................................73
Functional assessment results by percent of acreage in hydrogeomorphic class......................74
Functional assessment results by percent of wetland acreage in watershed .............................75
BCWCP results Orange Beach Vicinity ..........................................................................................76
BCWCP results Eastern Shore ........................................................................................................77
BCWCP results Lillian Swamp/Perdido River ..............................................................................78
BCWCP results Dyas Creek Watershed (North Baldwin) ..........................................................79
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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 10and 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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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.
A Pitcher Plant Bog in Baldwin County
2.2.2.2 Depressional
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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.
A Baldwin County Grady Pond, Belforest Community
2.2.2.3 Riverine
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 MobileTensaw 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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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 MobileTensaw 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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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:
“Where a parcel of land proposed to be subdivided contains an area of wetlands delineated
as jurisdictional by the USACE...”
to:
“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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
BCWCP
Correct
Incorrect
Wetlands
Uplands
Total
#
34
9
%
79.1
20.9
#
84
11
%
88.4
11.6
#
118
20
%
85.5
14.5
100.0
95
100.0
138
100.0
Actual/Field 43
18
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Table 2. Summary of GIS Layers Utilized in BCWCP RFWAM.
Data Layer
NWI
Endangered Species
Fire Locations
Flood Zones
Wellhead Protection Areas
Land Use
8 Digit HUC
11 Digit HUC
Hydrology
CIR
True Color Photos
Centerlines
Source
USFWS
USFWS and ANHP
AFC
FEMA
EPA and GSA
GSA
NRCS
NRCS
USCB TIGER
BCC
BCC
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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.Value(plyRtField) = 4
plyRow.Store
End If
If dblAcre > 10 Then
plyRow.Value(plyRtField) = 6
plyRow.Store
End If
If dblAcre > 100 Then
plyRow.Value(plyRtField) = 8
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Riverine
>80%
60-80%
Flat
>61%
41-60%
Depressional
>50%
25-50%
Restoration
<60%
<40%
<25%
3.2.3.6 Results of the RFWAM
The results of the Remote Functional Wetland Assessment Model were that 88% of the
wetland polygons assessed were suitable for conservation (260,000 acres), while 10% of all the
wetland polygons were suitable for enhancement (30,000 acres) and only 1% of the wetland
polygons were suitable for restoration (4,300 acres). Figures 25 and 26 illustrate the results of the
RFWAM on the county level.
As by model design, all fringe wetlands were assessed as suitable for conservation. Riverine
had the second highest percentage of wetlands suitable for conservation, most likely due to the
predominance of high quality wetlands in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta and along the Perdido River
Corridor. Depressional wetlands contained the highest percentage of wetlands suitable for
restoration (8%) and enhancement (31%). These data indicate that restoration priorities should
focus on depressional wetlands throughout the County. Figure 27 illustrates the model results.
Figures 29-32 are representations of RFWAM results at a smaller scale. The results of the RFWAM
were fairly consistent for 8-digit HUC watersheds (Figure 28). The three watersheds that contain the
highest percentage of wetlands suitable for restoration and enhancement are the Mobile Bay (4,700
26
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
•
•
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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.
Brush Fence Beach Accretion Data
4.5
July (preconstruction)
Rod Level (feet)
5
5.5
Nov ember
6
February
6.5
June (2001)
7
7.5
2
6
4
10
8
14
12
16
18
Brush Fence
Distance (m)
Survey data from the brush fence project
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Destroyed brush fences following Tropical Storm Hannah
3.4.2 Gulf Shores Wetlands Park
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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.
Riverine1 – 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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Riverine2 – 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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
7. Figures
47
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 1: Baldwin County Locator Map
48
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 2: Baldwin County Waterways
49
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 3: Continuous 10 Foot Contour in Baldwin County
(Data Source: Baldwin County Communications & Information Systems)
50
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 4: Land Use Map of Baldwin County
(Data Source: National Land Cover Data, EPA 1992)
51
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 5: Color Infrared Map of Baldwin County (2001)
52
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 6: Population Distribution
53
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 7: Existing Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Boundaries
54
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 8: Proposed Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Boundaries
55
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 9: Countywide Map of Wetlands
56
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 10: Countywide Map of Wetland Hydrogeomorphic Classes
57
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 11: Graph of Wetland Hydrogeomorphic Class By Watershed
HGM Percentage Per Watershed
100.0%
98%
95%
Perdido Bay Wetlands
90.0%
Perdido Wetlands
Mobile-Tensaw Wetlands
80.0%
Mobile Bay Wetlands
77%
Lower Alabama Wetlands
Percentage
70.0%
60.0%
48%
50.0%
42%
40.0%
28%
30.0%
24%
24% 22%
20.0%
14%
10.0%
1%
0%
11%
9%
3%
0%
1%
1%0%
2%
0.0%
Riverine
Fringe
Flat
Depressional
HGM Type
58
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 12: Map of a Flat Wetland
59
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 13: Map of a Depressional Interdunal Swale
60
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 14: Map of a Depressional Grady Pond Wetland
61
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 15: Map of a Riverine Wetland
62
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 16: Map of Fringe Wetland
63
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 17: Wetland Validation Sites
64
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 18: Functional Assessment Model Interface (1)
65
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 19: Functional Assessment Model Interface (2)
66
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 20: Functional Assessment Model Interface (3)
67
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 21: Functional Assessment Model Interface (4)
68
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 22: Distribution of Depressional Wetlands Among Percentages of Possible Points Earned
Depressional Wetlands Categorized by Percentage of Possible Points Earned
1000
Enhancement
n=2372
900
800
Restoration
700
Conservation
Frequency
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
>100
Bins
N.B. Bonus points can bring percentage above 100.
69
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 23: Distribution of Flat Wetlands Among Percentages of Possible Points Earned
Flat Wetlands Categorized by Percentage of Possible Points Earned
Enhancement
400
n=1186
350
Restoration
300
Conservation
Frequency
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
>100
Bins
N.B. Bonus points can bring percentage above 100.
70
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 24: Distribution of Riverine Wetlands Among Percentages of Possible Points Earned
Riverine Wetlands Categorized by Percentage of Possible Points Earned
Conservation
1800
n=6394
1600
Enhancement
1400
1200
Frequency
Restoration
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
>100
Bins
N.B. Bonus points can bring percentage above 100.
71
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 25: Map of Countywide Functional Assessment Results
72
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 26: Countywide Functional Assessment Results by Wetland Acreage
Functional Assessment Countywide
100.0%
88%
Baldwin County Wetlands
90.0%
80.0%
Percentage
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
10%
20.0%
1%
10.0%
0.0%
conservation
enhancement
restoration
Functional Assessment
73
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 27: Functional Assessment Results by Percent of Acreage in Hydrogeomorphic Class
Functional Assessment Per HGM Type
100%
100.0%
Riverine Wetlands
88%
90.0%
Fringe Wetlands
Flat Wetlands
79%
Depressional Wetlands
80.0%
Percentage
70.0%
60%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
31%
30.0%
19%
20.0%
10%
10.0%
8%
0%
1% 0%
3%
0.0%
conservation
enhancement
restoration
Functional Assessment
74
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 28: Functional Assessment Results by Percent of Wetland Acreage in Watershed
Functional Assessment Per Watershed
98%
100.0%
94%
Perdido Bay Wetlands
90.0%
Perdido Wetlands
85%
85%
Mobile-Tensaw Wetlands
80%
Mobile Bay Wetlands
80.0%
Lower Alabama Wetlands
Percentage
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
18%
12%
20.0%
12%
5%
10.0%
2%
3% 2%
0%
3%
0%
0.0%
conservation
enhancement
restoration
Functional Assessment
(Percentages are based on total HGM type found in Baldwin County)
75
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 29: BCWCP Results Orange Beach Vicinity
76
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 30: BCWCP Results Eastern Shore
77
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 31: BCWCP Results Lillian Swamp/Perdido River
78
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 32: BCWCP Results Dyas Creek Watershed (North Baldwin)
79
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Figure 33: Example of Wetland Map Made For the Public
80
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
8. Appendices
81
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
8.1 Appendix 1: Summary of Project-related Activities for the entire project period
(October 1999-December 2003)
December 27 1999- January 9, 2000
January 2000
February 2000
February 2000
March 2000
March 2000
March 2, 2000
March 10, 2000
March 16, 2000
April 2000
June 5, 2000
June 7, 2000
June 12, 2000
June 29, 2000
Collected recycled Christmas trees for use in
shoreline wetland restoration demonstration
projects.
Baldwin County Commission developed job
description and advertised for Resource Analyst
position in local and state newspapers,
professional journals, and appropriate websites.
Interview process for Resource Analyst position
was started
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
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
Received permit from the USACE to construct
Christmas
tree
brush
fence/breakwater
structures as part of the shoreline wetland
restoration projects
First meeting of the BCWCP Technical Advisory
Committee
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.
Presentation on the BCWCP at the annual
meeting of the Alabama chapter of the American
Planning Association
Purchased GIS related computer hardware and
software
Resource Analyst begins work for the Baldwin
County Planning and Zoning Department.
Shoreline wetland restoration project begins in
the Perdido Beach community located in
southeastern Baldwin County. Construction of
offshore brush-fence breakwaters begins.
Meeting with NRCS and other stakeholders to
discuss funding opportunities for the updating
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
July 17 through July 18, 2000
August 30, 2000
September 8, 2000
October 4, 2000
November 2, 2000
November 17, 2000
November 27, 2000
December 25, 2000 through January 5, 2001
Jan. 4, 2001
Jan. 29, 2001
Feb. 1, 2001
Feb. 5, 2001
Feb. 14, 2001
Feb. 23, 2001
Final Summary Document
Watershed Project
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
Performed visual survey of offshore breakwater
bins with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service personnel.
BCWCP Technical Advisory Committee meeting
BCWCP staff visited wetland sites in the field
looking for reference wetland locations
First quarterly elevation survey of brush fence
shoreline wetland restoration project
BCWCP Technical Advisory Committee meeting
to discuss the wetland functional assessment
protocol
BCWCP staff met with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency staff to discuss project
activities and tour wetland sites in Baldwin
County
Collected recycled Christmas Trees for use in
shoreline wetland restoration projects
Meeting between County staff and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineer statistician to set up
experimental design for the BCWCP wetland
validation study
BCWCP Technical Advisory Committee meeting
Quarterly survey of shoreline wetland restoration
project in the Perdido Beach community
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
BCWCP project update to the Baldwin County
Commission at a scheduled worksession.
Mar. 26, 2001
Mar. 27, 2001
Planning meeting to discuss construction of new
offshore breakwater structures at the Perdido
Beach community to encourage shoreline
wetland restoration.
BCWCP Technical Advisory Committee meeting
BCWCP staff commence Construction of new
offshore breakwater structures in the Perdido
Beach community
BCWCP public meeting in Bay Minette, Alabama
BCWCP public meeting in Foley, Alabama.
Mar. 29, 2001
BCWCP public meeting in Fairhope, Alabama.
Mar. 7, 2001
Mar. 12 - 16, 2001
83
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Apr. 19, 2001
April 23, 2001
May 23 - 25, 2001
June 7, 2001
June 8, 2001
June 14, 2001
June 21, 2001
June 22, 2001
July 6, 2001
July 13, 2001
July 27, 2001
August 1, 2001
August 3, 2001
August 23, 2001
September 14, 2001
September 21, 2001
September 27, 2001
October 3, 2001
October 5, 2001
October 10, 2001
October 18 - 19, 2001
October 26, 2001
November 1-2, 2001
November 15, 2001
November 30, 2001
January 11, 2002
December 13, 2002
January 25, 2002
February 14, 2002
Final Summary Document
BCWCP Technical Advisory Committee
meeting.
BCWCP
presentation
to
the
Sonora
Homemakers Club in Summerdale, Alabama
BCWCP staff met with EPA and USFWS staff in
Atlanta, Georgia to discuss the NWI to HGM
conversion protocol
BCWCP Technical Advisory Committee meeting
Wetland validation study field day
Quarterly brush fence beach profile survey at
Perdido Beach
Wetland validation study field days in the
Mobile-Tensaw Delta
Wetland restoration project field reconnaissance
in Bon Secour
Wetland validation study field day
Wetland validation study field day
Wetland validation study field day
Placement of recycled Christmas trees into new
brush fence structures at Perdido Beach
On-site restoration meeting at potential wetland
restoration site in Gulf Shores, Alabama
Wetland validation study field day
Wetland validation study field day
Wetland validation study field day
Wetland validation study field day.
Meeting with the Alabama Forestry Commission
to discuss use of BCWCP project wetland
information for use in county-wide fire
suppression activities.
Wetland validation study field day
Meeting with the City of Gulf Shores to discuss
potential wetland restoration opportunities.
Wetland validation study field days in the
Mobile-Tensaw Delta
Meeting with the Alabama Forestry Commission
to discuss use of BCWCP project wetland
information for use in county-wide fire
suppression activities
SERUG Annual Meeting in Orange Beach, Al.
BCWCP staff presents a talk entitled “GIS
Applications of the Baldwin County Wetland
Conservation Plan. ”
Wetland validation study field day
Wetland validation study field day
Wetland validation study field day
On-site meeting with Gulf Shores to discuss
Wetland Restoration Project
Wetland validation study field day
Wetland validation study field day
84
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Wetland Restoration at Perdido Beach Brush
Fences
February 22, 2002
March 8, 2002
March 16, 2002
March 27, 2002
March 26-27, 2002
April 10, 2002
April 11, 2002
April 12, 2002
Wetland validation study field day
Wetland validation study field day
Baldwin County Staff gives presentation at
the Baldwin County Environmental
Advisory Board Annual Meeting
Presentation to BC Surveyors Association
Brush Fence Repair and Maintenance and
Christmas Tree Delivery
Meeting with EPA, ADCNR and ADEM
staff to discuss Baldwin ADID applications
of the functional assessment model
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Technical Advisory Meeting
Mobile and Baldwin County Wetland
Mapping Project Meeting
April 17, 2002
April 24, 2002
Wetland validation study field day (Final Site)
May/June 2002
GPS correction and analysis of field data for
submittal to US USACE statistician.
BCWCP staff met with GIS Consulting
Company regarding technical applications of the
Wetlands Functional Assessment Model.
Perdido Beach brush fence survey (final)
BCWOC staff met with consultant to discuss
applications of the Baldwin County Digital
Wetland Layer for wetland delineation purposes.
BCWCP staff met with representative from
ADCNR Fish and Game to discuss applications
of the Baldwin County Digital Wetland Layer for
wetland delineation purposes.
Presentation of Perdido Beach Brush Fence
survey data to a Multi-agency workshop on SW
Alabama coastline management practices
Planted Needle rush at Perdido Beach wetland
shoreline
BCWCP presentation to Bay Minette Rotary
Club
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
BCWCP staff met with Baldwin County survey
crew at Perdido Beach to correct survey data
BCWCP Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
Presented Wetland Validation Project results to
June 7, 2002
June 20, 2002
June 26, 2002
June 27, 2002
July 11, 2002
July 23, 2002
July 24, 2002
August 2, 2002
August 7, 2002
August 15, 2002
August 20, 2002
Meeting with USFWS at Gulf Shores to
demonstrate restoration project at Gulf
Shores Wetlands Park
85
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
August 23, 2003
August 30, 2002
September 12, 2002
October 9, 2002
October 14, 2002
October 17, 2002
November 5, 2002
December 9-13, 2002
December 12, 2002
January 9, 2003
January 23, 2003
January 29, 2003
February 6, 2003
February 13, 2003
February 25, 2003
February 27, 2003
March 6, 2003
Final Summary Document
Baldwin County Commission and sent thank you
letter to USACE.
BCWCP staff met with local property owners in
Point Clear regarding local wetland issues
BCWCP presentation to journalism class at
Faulkner State Community College
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Technical Advisory Meeting
Field demonstration with press representative
(Mobile Register) of Wetland Validation Study
methodology
BCWCP staff met with the Baldwin County
Planning Commission regarding updates to the
subdivision regulations to incorporate protection
for isolated wetlands
BCWCP update to Gulf Shores Rotary Club
Ken McIlwain, Resource Analyst, commences
work at Baldwin County
Ken McIlwain attends ESRI training class in
Atlanta, GA. Class pertains to Visual Basic
programming for Functional Assessment Model
development
Meeting with USFWS to discuss Functional
Assessment Model
Work commences on Keeney Drive East
wetland restoration project (joint project with
USDA-NRCS)
Staff met with assistant county engineer to
discuss flooding issues associated with Keeney
Drive East WRP site
Staff met at Keeny Drive East WRP Site with
local citizens to informally discuss public
concerns
Staff, District 6 County Commissioner, County
Administrator, County Engineer, and USDANRCS representative meet formally with
concerned citizens of the Keeney Drive East area
to discuss flooding, aesthetics, and completion
date of the wetland restoration project
Staff met with local conservation oriented
citizens to identify and discuss the conservation
of Pitcher Plant Bogs in Northern Baldwin
County
Keeney Drive East WRP Project completed with
the planting of various types of wetland
vegetation
Staff met at Baldwin County High School
(BCHS) with USFWS to consider a wetland
restoration project on the school campus
Staff conducts field evaluation of large wetland
areas to be impacted by the construction of
86
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
March 7, 2003
March 24, 2003
March 28, 2003
April 8, 2003
April 23-24, 2003
May 7, 2003
May 9, 2003
May 19, 2003
May 23, 2003
June 6, 2003
June 17-24
June 20, 2003
June 26, 2003
July 16, 2003
July 21, 2003
July 23, 2003
July 24, 2003
July 30, 2003
August 11-12, 2003
August 14, 2003
Final Summary Document
5000+ acre subdivision in North Baldwin
County
Staff, Volkert Engineering, and City of Foley
staff meet to discuss the preservation of large
depressional wetland in the City of Foley
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
Staff conducts a field review of wetland projects
in Baldwin County (Keeney Drive & Gulf Shores
Municipal Park)
Basic programming language for Functional
Assessment Model developed. Work
commences on the development of the graphic
user interfaces
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
Baldwin County
Gulf Shores Wetland Park Site Visit
Coastal Local Government Planning Meeting
BCWCP update to Spanish Fort/Daphne Rotary
Club
Meeting with teacher at Fairhope High School to
conduct a Grady Pond restoration project on the
school’s campus
Meeting with consultant and City of Gulf Shores
at Gulf Shores Wetland Park Site Visit
BCWCP staff convert NWI data to HGM
classification in the Remote Functional
Assessment Model
BCWCP update to Fairhope Kiwanis Club
Staff meets representatives from State Lands
Division to assist with pitcher plant bog
identification
Baldwin County High School restoration project
site meeting
BCWCP Public Meeting – Bay Minette
BCWCP Public Meeting – Fairhope
BCWCP Public Meeting – Foley
BCWCP staff meet with EPA grant manager to
go over components of the Remote Functional
Assessment Model
BCWCP staff attends a workshop on
conservation easements
BCWCP staff updates workshop on on-site
sewage disposal
87
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
August 19, 2003
August 27, 2003
August 28, 2003
September 10, 2003
September 11, 2003
September 11, 2003
September 23, 2003
October/November 2003
October 21, 2003
November 13, 2003
December 2003
December 31, 2003
Final Summary Document
BCWCP staff meets with principal of Baldwin
County High School
BCWCP staff conduct site visit at Gulf Shores
Wetland Park
BCWCP Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
BCWCP staff and EPA representatives assist
ADCNR staff with wetland restoration activities
on State Land
BCWCP Advisory Committee Meeting
BCWCP staff and EPA visit the Gulf Shores
Wetland Park
BCWCP staff meets with USFWS representatives
to QA/QC wetland data
Staff calibrates the Remote Functional
Assessment Model and modifies the code as per
Technical Advisory Committee
recommendations.
BCWCP staff attends inter-agency scoping
meeting to discuss EIS development of a
proposed large-scale community in northern
Baldwin County
BCWCP update to Point Clear Rotary Club
Staff completes a draft version of the BCWCP
summary document
BCWCP staff submits Draft BCWCP summary
document
88
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
8.2 Appendix 2: Validation Project
Site ID Number
Field Data Results
Baldwin County Digital
Wetland Layer
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
WETLAND
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
WET
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
WET
UP
WET
UPLAND
UP
WET
UP
UP
WET
WET
UP
WET
UP
UP
UP
WET
UP
UP
WET
UP
UP
WET
UP
WET
WET
89
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
45
46
47
48
50
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
62
63
64
66
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
76
77
78
79
82
83
84
85
86
87
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
Final Summary Document
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
WETLAND
WETLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
WET
UP
WET
WET
WET
WET
WET
UP
UP
WET
UP
UP
UP
WET
UP
UP
UP
UP
WET
WET
WET
WET
UP
UP
UP
WET
WET
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
WET
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
WET
WET
UP
90
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
130
131
132
133
135
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
Final Summary Document
UPLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
WETLAND
WETLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UP
UP
WET
WET
WET
UP
UP
UP
UP
WET
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
WET
UP
UP
WET
UP
UP
UP
UP
WET
UP
UP
UP
WET
WET
WET
WET
WET
UP
UP
UP
UP
WET
UP
UP
91
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
156
157
158
160
Final Summary Document
UPLAND
WETLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
WETLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UPLAND
UP
WET
WET
UP
UP
UP
UP
WET
UP
UP
UP
92
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
8.3 Appendix 9.3: Remote Functional Wetland Assessment Model Technical Protocol
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Technical Protocol
November 2003
93
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Functional Assessment Decision Tree:
95
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Sediment/Toxicant/Nutrient Removal
Flood Damage Reduction/Water Quality
Maintenance
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Flat Functional Assessment Model
12 total points; 7 actual; 5 bonus; 2 possible subtractions
Functional Assessment Ranges:
<40% - Restoration Wetlands
41-60% Enhancement Wetlands
>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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Riverine Functional Assessment Model
16 total points; 11 actual; 5 bonus; 1 possible subtraction
Functional Assessment Ranges:
<60% - Restoration Wetlands
60-80% Enhancement Wetlands
>80% Conservation Wetlands
This functional assessment model will be applied to swamps and hardwood bottoms and
fresh marshes associated with riparian systems.
General Items:
Questions of Function:
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.
Data Column: Acres_Rate; 1 point
Question 3: 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 4: 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 5: Is the water regime of the observed wetland either intermittently exposed (G),
semipermanently flooded (F), seasonally flooded (C), or temporarily flooded (A)?
102
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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.
Data Column: wat_reg; 1 point
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).
Data Column: WS_LULC; 1 point
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),
semi- permanently 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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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?
Rationale: The assumption is that developed or agricultural lands which surround a
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.
Data Column: STN_LULC; 1 point bonus
Wildlife/Fisheries Habitat
1. Is the observed wetland free from government maintained roads?
Rationale: Highly traveled road corridors (defined here as government maintained since
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.
Data Column: roads; subtract 1 point
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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.
Data Column: WILDLULC; 1 point
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. 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
Groundwater Maintenance
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
major groundwater pumping center (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 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
variable applies. This variable was identified remotely through digital maps provided by
the EPA.
Data Column: wellhead; 2 point bonus
106
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
Depressional Functional Assessment Model
10 Total points; 4 Actual; 6 Bonus; 2 possible subtractions
Functional Assessment Ranges:
<25% - Restoration Wetlands
25-50% Enhancement Wetlands
>50% Conservation Wetlands
This functional assessment model will be applied to isolated wetlands.
Questions of Function:
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.
Data Column: Acres_Rate; 1 point
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.
Data Column: WS_LULC; 1 point
107
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
variable applies. This variable was identified remotely through digital maps provided by
the EPA.
Data Column: wellhead; 1 point bonus
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?
Rationale: The assumption is that developed or agricultural lands which surround a
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.
Data Column: STN_LULC; 1 point bonus
Wildlife Habitat
Question 1: Is the observed wetland free from government maintained roads?
108
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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 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.
Data Column: roads; subtract 1 point
Question 2: 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 a 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. 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.
Data Column: WILDLULC; 1 point
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.
Data Column: wat_reg; 1 point
Groundwater Maintenance
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)?
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
109
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
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
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
8.4 Appendix 4: Final Summary Table
Watershed
Perdido Bay
Perdido Bay
Perdido Bay
Perdido Bay
Perdido
Perdido
Perdido
Perdido
Mobile-Tensaw
Mobile-Tensaw
Mobile-Tensaw
Mobile-Tensaw
Mobile Bay
Mobile Bay
Mobile Bay
Mobile Bay
Lower Alabama
Lower Alabama
Lower Alabama
Lower Alabama
HGM Type
Riverine
Fringe
Flat
Depressional
Riverine
Fringe
Flat
Depressional
Riverine
Fringe
Flat
Depressional
Riverine
Fringe
Flat
Depressional
Riverine
Fringe
Flat
Depressional
Acres
8056
4542
2120
4560
94831
1389
2586
1045
87168
25085
276
407
15305
4557
8881
2968
35491
0
249
644
Total Acres
19278
19278
19278
19278
99851
99851
99851
99851
112936
112936
112936
112936
31711
31711
31711
31711
36384
36384
36384
36384
% HGM Type
41.8%
23.6%
11.0%
23.7%
95.0%
1.4%
2.6%
1.0%
77.2%
22.2%
0.2%
0.4%
48.3%
14.4%
28.0%
9.4%
97.5%
0.0%
0.7%
1.8%
Watershed
Perdido Bay
Perdido Bay
Perdido Bay
Perdido
Perdido
Perdido
Mobile-Tensaw
Mobile-Tensaw
Mobile-Tensaw
Mobile Bay
Mobile Bay
Mobile Bay
Lower Alabama
Lower Alabama
Lower Alabama
Classification
conservation
enhancement
restoration
conservation
enhancement
restoration
conservation
enhancement
restoration
conservation
enhancement
restoration
conservation
enhancement
restoration
Acres
16133
2354
495
78280
17794
2372
100821
5640
477
26582
3705
910
35221
705
52
Total Acres
18982
18982
18982
98446
98446
98446
106938
106938
106938
31197
31197
31197
35978
35978
35978
% Class
85.0%
12.4%
2.6%
79.5%
18.1%
2.4%
94.3%
5.3%
0.4%
85.2%
11.9%
2.9%
97.9%
2.0%
0.1%
County
Baldwin County
Baldwin County
Baldwin County
Classification
conservation
enhancement
restoration
Acres
257037
30198
4306
Total Acres
291541
291541
291541
% Class
88.2%
10.4%
1.5%
HGM Type
Riverine
Riverine
Riverine
Fringe
Fringe
Fringe
Classification
conservation
enhancement
restoration
conservation
enhancement
restoration
Acres
213092
24606
3155
35574
0
0
Total Acres
240854
240854
240854
35574
35574
35574
% Class
88.5%
10.2%
1.3%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
111
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Flat
Flat
Flat
Depressional
Depressional
Depressional
conservation
enhancement
restoration
conservation
enhancement
restoration
Final Summary Document
11104
2637
373
5803
3031
791
14114
14114
14114
9626
9626
9626
78.7%
18.7%
2.6%
60.3%
31.5%
8.2%
112
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
8.5 Appendix 5: Wetland Validation Newspaper Article
113
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
114
Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan
Final Summary Document
8.6 Appendix 6: Gulf Shores Wetland Park Conceptual Site Plan
115