file

Transcription

file

1
2
3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE FOLEY LAND
CUT PORTION OF THE GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
4
5
GULF SHORES AND ORANGE BEACH, ALABAMA
6
7
8
9
10
DRAFT
FEBRUARY 2009
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Submitted to:
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers
Mobile District
Mobile, Alabama
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Contents
1.0 Purpose, Need, and Scope ............................................................................ 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................... 1-3 1.2.1 Market Demand .................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2 Gulf Shores/Orange Beach Site Selection ............................................................................ 1-3 1.3 SCOPE .......................................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................................... 1-5 1.4.1 NEPA Public Involvement Process ...................................................................................... 1-5 1.4.2 Notice of Intent .................................................................................................................... 1-5 1.4.3 Scoping Process ................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.4.4 Relevant Public Comments Addressed in the EIS ............................................................... 1-9 1.4.5 Additional Resource Areas to be Addressed in the EIS ..................................................... 1-11 1.4.6 Public Review of the Draft EIS .......................................................................................... 1-12 1.4.7 Final EIS............................................................................................................................. 1-12 1.4.8 Record of Decision ............................................................................................................. 1-12 1.5 REGULATORY AUTHORITIES AND PROCESSES ............................................................. 1-12 1.6 RELEVANT STATUTES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ......................................................... 1-14 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................ 2-1 2.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 47 Canal Place ...................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.1.2 501 Point West ..................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.1.3 Bayside Harbour................................................................................................................... 2-8 2.1.4 Bon Secour Village East .................................................................................................... 2-10 2.1.5 Bon Secour Village West ................................................................................................... 2-12 2.1.6 Delfino Resort Phase 1 ....................................................................................................... 2-14 2.1.7 Delfino Resort Phase 2 ....................................................................................................... 2-16 2.1.8 Harbour Lights ................................................................................................................... 2-17 2.1.9 KFPH Properties ................................................................................................................ 2-19 2.1.10 Lawrenz Eastern Marina ................................................................................................ 2-21 2.1.11 Lawrenz Western Marina............................................................................................... 2-23 2.1.12 Oyster Bay Marina ......................................................................................................... 2-25 2.1.13 Summerdance................................................................................................................. 2-27 2.1.14 Walker Creek/Portage Crossing ..................................................................................... 2-35 2.1.15 Waterways East.............................................................................................................. 2-37 2.1.16 Alabama Marine Resources ........................................................................................... 2-39 2.1.17 Wetland Impacts ............................................................................................................ 2-39 2.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS ....................... 2-40 2.3 ALTERNATIVES....................................................................................................................... 2-40 2.3.1 Alternative Considered but not Selected for Detailed Analysis ......................................... 2-40 2.3.2 Alternatives Selected for Detailed Analysis....................................................................... 2-41 2.4 MITIGATION PLAN AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ........................................................ 2-44 2.4.1 Mooring Facilities .............................................................................................................. 2-44 2.4.2 Mooring Facilities Maintenance......................................................................................... 2-45 2.4.3 Design and Use Conditions to any Permit ......................................................................... 2-45 2.4.4 Signage on FLC.................................................................................................................. 2-47 2.4.5 Map for Commercial Operators ......................................................................................... 2-47 2.4.6 Marine Police ..................................................................................................................... 2-47 2.4.7 Boater Education ................................................................................................................ 2-47 2.4.8 City’s Overhead ................................................................................................................. 2-47 Foley Land Cut, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, AL
February 2009
i
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
2.4.9 Impact Fee Credits ............................................................................................................. 2-47 2.4.10 Assessments ................................................................................................................... 2-47 2.4.11 Miscellaneous Legal Principles ..................................................................................... 2-47 2.4.12 Savings Clause ............................................................................................................... 2-48 2.5 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION/MANAGEMENT MEASURES............................................... 2-48 2.5.1 Regulated Navigation Area ................................................................................................ 2-48 2.5.2 Hazardous Cargo Operation ............................................................................................... 2-48 3.0 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 Regional Geographic Setting and Location.......................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Overview and History .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.3 Climate ................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 LAND USE AND LAND COVER............................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 Land Use Trends .................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.2 Existing Land Use/Land Cover ............................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.3 GIS Data ............................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.4 Zoning .................................................................................................................................. 3-5 3.2.5 Land Use Plans ..................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.3 WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY ..................................................................... 3-8 3.3.1 Watershed Characterization ................................................................................................. 3-8 3.3.2 Hydrogeology/Groundwater............................................................................................... 3-10 3.3.3 Water Quality ..................................................................................................................... 3-11 3.4 INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................................. 3-15 3.4.1 Traffic and Transportation ................................................................................................. 3-15 3.4.2 Utilities ............................................................................................................................... 3-27 3.5 SOCIOECONOMICS ................................................................................................................. 3-38 3.5.1 Population .......................................................................................................................... 3-38 3.5.2 Employment ....................................................................................................................... 3-41 3.5.3 Income ................................................................................................................................ 3-46 3.5.4 Housing .............................................................................................................................. 3-48 3.5.5 Quality of Life .................................................................................................................... 3-50 3.5.6 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................ 3-56 3.5.7 Protection of Children ........................................................................................................ 3-57 3.6 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 3-57 3.6.1 Boating Access ................................................................................................................... 3-58 3.6.2 FLC Recreational and Commercial Use............................................................................. 3-58 3.6.3 Boating Safety .................................................................................................................... 3-61 3.6.4 Recreational Sanitary Services ........................................................................................... 3-61 3.6.5 Gulf State Park ................................................................................................................... 3-61 3.6.6 Water Recreation ................................................................................................................ 3-62 3.6.7 Other Recreational Resources ............................................................................................ 3-62 3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................................... 3-63 3.7.1 Geology .............................................................................................................................. 3-63 3.7.2 Soils .................................................................................................................................... 3-63 3.8 ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 3-66 3.8.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 3-66 3.8.2 Vegetative Communities .................................................................................................... 3-67 3.8.3 Wildlife .............................................................................................................................. 3-68 3.8.4 Sensitive Species ................................................................................................................ 3-70 3.8.5 Sensitive Habitats ............................................................................................................... 3-73 Foley Land Cut, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, AL
February 2009
ii
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
3.8.6 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 3-76 3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 3-79 3.9.1 Prehistoric and Historic Background of the Project Region .............................................. 3-79 3.9.2 Cultural Resources Compliance ......................................................................................... 3-82 3.9.3 Cultural Resources in the Project Area .............................................................................. 3-82 3.9.4 Native American Resources at Fort Lee............................................................................. 3-84 3.9.5 Pending Investigations and Compliance ............................................................................ 3-84 3.10 AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................................... 3-84 3.10.1 National Ambient Air-Quality Standards and Attainment Status .................................. 3-84 3.10.2 State Implementation Plan ............................................................................................. 3-85 3.10.3 Local Ambient Air Quality ............................................................................................ 3-85 3.10.4 Ozone in the Gulf Coast Region .................................................................................... 3-85 3.11 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND POLLUTION ..................................... 3-86 3.11.1 Hazardous Waste Facilities in Southern Baldwin County ............................................. 3-88 3.11.2 Baldwin County Hazardous Waste Sites ....................................................................... 3-88 3.12 NOISE .................................................................................................................................... 3-88 3.12.1 Noise Fundamentals ....................................................................................................... 3-88 3.12.2 Regulatory Overview ..................................................................................................... 3-90 3.12.3 Aircraft Noise ................................................................................................................ 3-92 3.12.4 Boating Noise ................................................................................................................ 3-94 3.13 LIGHT POLLUTION ............................................................................................................. 3-94 3.13.1 Overview........................................................................................................................ 3-94 3.13.2 Marine Navigation ......................................................................................................... 3-94 3.13.3 Community Ecology ...................................................................................................... 3-94 3.13.4 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................................... 3-95 4.0 Environmental Consequences....................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Direct versus Indirect Impacts.............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.2 Short-term versus Long-term Impacts.................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.3 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.4 Intensity of Impacts .............................................................................................................. 4-2 4.1.5 Significance .......................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.6 Rationale for Alternative Analysis ....................................................................................... 4-3 4.2 LAND USE AND LAND COVER............................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.1 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.2 Maximum Boat Slip Alternative .......................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.3 Minimum Boat Slip Alternative ........................................................................................... 4-5 4.3 WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY ..................................................................... 4-6 4.3.1 Watershed Characterization ................................................................................................. 4-6 4.3.2 Hydrogeology/Groundwater................................................................................................. 4-6 4.3.3 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.4 INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................................... 4-9 4.4.1 Traffic and Transportation ................................................................................................... 4-9 4.4.2 Utilities ............................................................................................................................... 4-13 4.5 SOCIEOECONOMICS............................................................................................................... 4-20 4.5.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................ 4-20 4.5.2 Maximum Boat Slip Alternative ........................................................................................ 4-20 4.5.3 Minimum Boat Slip Alternative ......................................................................................... 4-24 4.6 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 4-24 4.6.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................ 4-24 Foley Land Cut, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, AL
February 2009
iii
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
4.6.2 Maximum Boat Slip Alternative ........................................................................................ 4-25 4.6.3 Minimum Boat Slip Alternative ......................................................................................... 4-27 4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................................... 4-27 4.7.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................ 4-27 4.7.2 Maximum Boat Slip Alternative ........................................................................................ 4-27 4.7.3 Minimum Boat Slip Alternative ......................................................................................... 4-28 4.8 ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 4-28 4.8.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................ 4-28 4.8.2 Maximum Boat Slip Alternative ........................................................................................ 4-28 4.8.3 Minimum Boat Slip Alternative ......................................................................................... 4-29 4.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 4-29 4.9.1 No action alternative .......................................................................................................... 4-29 4.9.2 Maximum Boat Slip Alternative ........................................................................................ 4-30 4.9.3 Minimum Boat Slip Alternative ......................................................................................... 4-31 4.10 AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................................... 4-31 4.10.1 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................... 4-31 4.10.2 Maximum Boat Slip Alternative .................................................................................... 4-31 4.10.3 Minimum Boat Slip Alternative..................................................................................... 4-34 4.11 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND POLLUTION ..................................... 4-35 4.11.1 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................... 4-35 4.11.2 Maximum Boat Slip Alternative .................................................................................... 4-35 4.11.3 Minimum Boat Slip Alternative..................................................................................... 4-36 4.12 NOISE .................................................................................................................................... 4-36 4.12.1 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................... 4-36 4.12.2 Maximum Boat Slip Alternative .................................................................................... 4-36 4.12.3 Minimum Boat Slip Alternative..................................................................................... 4-40 4.13 LIGHT POLLUTION ............................................................................................................. 4-42 4.13.1 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................... 4-42 4.13.2 Maximum Boat Slip Alternative .................................................................................... 4-42 4.13.3 Minimum Boat Slip Alternative..................................................................................... 4-42 4.14 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................................... 4-43 4.14.1 Socioeconomic Impacts of Development ...................................................................... 4-43 4.14.2 Environmental Impacts of Development ....................................................................... 4-44 4.14.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ....................................................................................... 4-45 5.0 List of Reviewers and Preparers ................................................................... 5-1 6.0 References..................................................................................................... 6-1 7.0 Persons Consulted......................................................................................... 7-1 8.0 Distribution List ............................................................................................ 8-1 Foley Land Cut, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, AL
February 2009
iv
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Tables
Table 1. Newspapers that Received the Press Release .............................................................................. 1-7
Table 2. Radio and Television Stations that Received the Press Release .................................................. 1-7
Table 3. Newspapers that Advertised Public Notices ................................................................................ 1-7
Table 4. Issues and Sub-issues Identified During the Scoping Process ..................................................... 1-8
Table 5. Public Libraries Provided Copies of the Draft EIS .................................................................... 1-12
Table 6. Summary of Original Proposed Developments ......................................................................... 2-42
Table 7. Summary of Alternatives Selected for Detailed Analysis ......................................................... 2-44
Table 8. Gulf Shores and Orange Beach Land Use Types ......................................................................... 3-4
Table 9. General Aviation Forecasts Summary of Jack Edwards Airport 2005-2025 ............................... 3-8
Table 10. Foley Land Cut Hydrologic Unit Codes .................................................................................... 3-9
Table 11. Average annual loads for 5-day BOD, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and fecal coliform
based on model results from 2001-2005 .................................................................................. 3-12
Table 12. Water Pollution Control Plant Discharges ............................................................................... 3-13
Table 13. ADEM trend monitoring stations............................................................................................. 3-14
Table 14. Average Daily Traffic Volumes............................................................................................... 3-23
Table 15. Potable Water Utilities ............................................................................................................. 3-27
Table 16. Summary of City of Gulf Shores Water System Capacity....................................................... 3-29
Table 17. Wastewater Utilities ................................................................................................................. 3-31
Table 18. Historical Population Levels and Rates of Change, 1970-2000 ROI and Comparison Areas . 3-39
Table 19. Population Levels, 2001-2005 ROI and Comparison Areas .................................................... 3-40
Table 20. Historical Employment Levels and Rates of Change, 1970-2000 ........................................... 3-41
Table 21. Employment Levels, 2001-2005 and Comparison Areas ........................................................ 3-42
Table 22. Total Full-time and Part-time Historical Employment by Industry (1970 & 1980) ................ 3-43
Table 23. Total Full-time and Part-time Historical Employment by Industry (1990 & 2000) ................ 3-44
Table 24. Labor force and unemployment rates....................................................................................... 3-45
Table 25. Largest Employers in Baldwin County .................................................................................... 3-45
Table 26. Historical Income Levels for Baldwin County and Alabama .................................................. 3-46
Table 27. 1989 Income Levels by Tract .................................................................................................. 3-47
Table 28. 1999 Income Levels by Tract .................................................................................................. 3-47
Table 29. 1990 Housing Stock ................................................................................................................. 3-49
Table 30. 2000 Housing Stock, ROI and Comparison Areas .................................................................. 3-49
Table 31. Baldwin County Housing Stock............................................................................................... 3-49
Table 32. Building Permits – Total Value of Construction ..................................................................... 3-50
Table 33. Historical School District Enrollment ...................................................................................... 3-51
Table 34. List of Schools in Baldwin County School District ................................................................. 3-51
Table 35. Gulf Shores and Orange Beach Historic School Enrollment ................................................... 3-53
Table 36. Gulf Shores and Orange Beach Actual and Projected Student Enrollment ............................. 3-53
Table 37. 2006 Police Resources in Baldwin County .............................................................................. 3-54
Table 38. 2007 Fire Protection Resources ............................................................................................... 3-54
Table 39. 2006 Violent and Property Crimes in Baldwin County, Adjusted to Population .................... 3-55
Table 40. Hospitals Serving Gulf Shores and Orange Beach .................................................................. 3-56
Table 41. 2000 Race, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status ................................................................................ 3-57
Table 42. Number of vessels observed during the 6 survey days ............................................................ 3-58
Table 43. Time of vessel observations by vessel designation and time period ........................................ 3-59
Table 44. List of Wildlife Species ........................................................................................................... 3-69
Table 45. List of EFH Species ................................................................................................................. 3-75
Table 46. Cultural resource status of the 16 proposed developments ...................................................... 3-83
Table 47. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards and local ambient air quality ........................... 3-86
Table 48. Government environmental databases available for Orange Beach and Gulf Shores.............. 3-87
Foley Land Cut, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, AL
February 2009
v
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Tables (continued)
Table 49. Common sounds and their level ............................................................................................... 3-89
Table 50. Perception of changes in noise levels ...................................................................................... 3-90
Table 51. Orange Beach maximum permissible sound levels (dBA) by receiving land use ................... 3-92
Table 52. Principles of Cumulative Impacts Analysis ............................................................................... 4-2
Table 53. Existing and Future Average Daily Traffic.............................................................................. 4-10
Table 54. Summary of Transportation System Impacts ........................................................................... 4-11
Table 55. Summary of Gulf Shores Water System Impacts .................................................................... 4-14
Table 56. Summary of Wastewater System Impacts ............................................................................... 4-16
Table 57. Summary of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Impacts .................................................... 4-18
Table 58. Calculations of Recommended Capacity with Construction of 16 Proposed Marinas and
Implementation of Management Plan ...................................................................................... 4-26
Table 59. Estimated Total Annual Emissions .......................................................................................... 4-32
Table 60. Estimated Automobile and Watercraft Emissions ................................................................... 4-32
Table 61. Estimated Level of Short-term Impact Due to Construction Noise ......................................... 4-38
Table 62. Annual Noise Conditions from Proposed Boating Activity..................................................... 4-39
Table 63. Peak Noise Conditions from Proposed Boating Activity......................................................... 4-40
February 2009
vi
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Figures
Figure 1. General Site Location ................................................................................................................. 1-2 Figure 2. Issues of Concern ....................................................................................................................... 1-9 Figure 3. Proposed Developments ............................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 4. 47 Canal Place ............................................................................................................................ 2-4 Figure 5. 501 Point West ........................................................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 6. Bayside Harbour ......................................................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 7. Bon Secour Village East ........................................................................................................... 2-11 Figure 8. Bon Secour Village West ......................................................................................................... 2-13 Figure 9. Delfino Resorts 1 and 2 ............................................................................................................ 2-15 Figure 10. Harbour Lights........................................................................................................................ 2-18 Figure 11. KFPH Properties ..................................................................................................................... 2-20 Figure 12. Lawrenz Eastern Marina ......................................................................................................... 2-22 Figure 13. Lawrenz Western Marina ....................................................................................................... 2-24 Figure 14. Oyster Bay Marina ................................................................................................................. 2-26 Figure 15. Summerdance ......................................................................................................................... 2-28 Figure 16. Summerdance West ................................................................................................................ 2-30 Figure 17. Summerdance Central............................................................................................................. 2-32 Figure 18. Summerdance East ................................................................................................................. 2-34 Figure 19. Walker Creek/Portage Crossing ............................................................................................. 2-36 Figure 20. Waterways East ...................................................................................................................... 2-38 Figure 21. Proposed Developments and Mooring Locations ................................................................... 2-46 Figure 22. Land Use and Land Cover ........................................................................................................ 3-3 Figure 23. Watershed Topography from Wolf Bay to Bon Secour Bay .................................................... 3-9 Figure 24. Land use activities from Wolf Bay to Bon Secour Bay along the FLC.................................. 3-11 Figure 25. Subbasins delineated for watershed modeling ........................................................................ 3-12 Figure 26. Mobile Bay Ferry Route ......................................................................................................... 3-19 Figure 27. Holiday cruise ship parked at the Mobile Alabama Cruise Terminal..................................... 3-20 Figure 28. 2001 Average Daily Traffic Volumes .................................................................................... 3-22 Figure 29. Hurricane Evacuation Routes ................................................................................................. 3-26 Figure 30. Gulf Shores Utilities water service area ................................................................................. 3-29 Figure 31. Orange Beach Water Authority Service Area ........................................................................ 3-30 Figure 32. Baldwin County Landfill Locations ....................................................................................... 3-36 Figure 33. Comparison of population growth rates by decade and area .................................................. 3-40 Figure 34. Comparison of employment growth rates by decade and area ............................................... 3-41 Figure 35. Baldwin County employment by sector, 2000 ....................................................................... 3-42 Figure 36. Census Tracts in Southern Baldwin County, 2000 ................................................................. 3-48 Figure 37. Private and public boating access near the FLC ..................................................................... 3-59 Figure 38. Soil Types ............................................................................................................................... 3-65 Figure 39. Wetlands ................................................................................................................................. 3-78 Figure 40. 2005 Jack Edwards Airport noise contours ............................................................................ 3-91 Figure 41. 2015 Jack Edwards Airport noise contours ............................................................................ 3-93 Figure 42. 2030 Projected Average Daily Traffic ...................................................................................... 4-9 Figure 43. Maximum Noise Levels vs. Distance for Construction Related Activities ............................ 4-37 Figure 44. Maximum Boat Slip Alternative - Hourly Sound Levels from Boating Activity on a Peak
Summer Day ........................................................................................................................... 4-40 Figure 45. Minimum Boat Slip Alternative - Hourly Sound Levels from Boating Activity on a Peak
Summer Day ........................................................................................................................... 4-41 Foley Land Cut, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, AL
February 2009
vii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Appendix K
Appendix L
Appendix M
Appendix N
Appendix O
Appendix P
Appendix Q
Appendix R
Appendix S
Appendix T
Appendix U
Appendix V
Appendix W
Public Involvement Plan
Notice of Intent
47 Canal Place Permit Application
501 Point West Permit Application
Bayside Harbour Permit Application
Bon Secour Village East Permit Application
Bon Secour Village West Permit Application
Delfino Resort Phase 1 Permit Application
Delfino Resort Phase 2 Permit Application
Harbour Lights Permit Application
KFPH Properties Permit Application
Lawrenz East Permit Application
Lawrenz West Permit Application
Oyster Bay Permit Application
Summerdance Permit Application
Walker Creek/Portage Crossing Permit Application
Waterways East Permit Application
Waterway Capacity Study
Watershed Modeling Methodology and Assumptions
Baldwin County Hurricane Evacuation Plan
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
InfoMap Database Report
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
February 2009
viii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
This page intentionally left blank.
February 2009
1
1.0 PURPOSE, NEED, AND SCOPE
2
1.1 INTRODUCTION
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has prepared this environmental impact statement (EIS) to
evaluate the potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences of granting permits for developing
17 marinas along the Foley Land Cut (FLC) portion of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) in
southern Baldwin County, Alabama. This EIS has been undertaken in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,1 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations,2 and
USACE regulations for implementing NEPA.3
As shown in Figure 1, the FLC is a federally authorized and maintained commercial shipping channel that
extends from Wolf Bay in the east to Oyster Bay in the west. The authorization for the construction of
this part of the GIWW was enacted in the Rivers and Harbors Act of July 3, 1930, as part of the Pensacola
Bay to Mobile Bay segment of the GIWW. Easements for constructing the channel (–9-foot mean lower
low water (MLLW) by 100-foot-wide at that time) were acquired in the 1932 time frame, and the
FLC portion of the Pensacola Bay to Mobile Bay GIWW segment was completed in 1934. The Pensacola
Bay to Mobile Bay segment was constructed at a cost of $443,000, which was less than the $600,000
appropriated for the work. Currently, the authorized channel is –12-foot MLLW and 125-foot-wide.
Operation and maintenance funding for the FLC is based on the commercial tonnage that is annually
transported on the waterway. The FLC is approximately 10 miles long with the USACE holding
easements fronting the majority of the FLC and maintaining disposal areas for federal channel
maintenance dredging.
The property fronting the FLC historically has been developed for light industrial use to support
commercial waterway users. However, the western end of the FLC near Oyster Bay supports singlefamily residences on the southern shore, and in the 1970s the Sailboat Bay condominium/marina complex
(100 wet slips) was constructed on the north shoreline. Between 1998 and 2002, approximately 150 openwater slips were permitted for condominium/marina development; between 2002 and December 2004
approximately 360 open-water slips were authorized for both commercial marinas and marinas associated
with condominiums. To date, the USACE has received applications for approximately 3,500 additional
boat berthing areas (both open-water slips and dry berths) proposed for construction fronting the FLC
along the northern shoreline and along the southern shoreline of Oyster Bay.
The majority of the FLC is within the city limits of Gulf Shores and has been designated as the ICWIntracoastal Waterway District and Intracoastal Waterway District – East (Gulf Shores Ordinance No.
1276 dated 24 January 2005). This ordinance was added to the city’s existing Use Regulations for
Business and Industrial Districts “to create a unified and continuous development district [that]
emphasized a maritime theme and takes advantage of the natural beauty of the Intracoastal Waterway and
its potential appeal as a premier living and tourist destination.” The city of Gulf Shores through this
ordinance encourages urban-scale waterfront development, high-quality mixed-use developments that
include residential, commercial, marina, and tourist uses. The area west of the State Road (S.R.) 59 bridge
is zoned Residential Planned Community. The eastern end of the FLC, specifically the area east of the
1
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91–190, 42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321–4347, January 1, 1970.
Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500–1508).
3
Procedures for Implementing NEPA, 33 CFR Part 230; Processing of Department of the Army Permits, 33 CFR Part 325.
2
February 2009
1-1
1
2
Figure 1. General Site Location
February 2009
1-2
1
2
Foley Beach Expressway, is in the city limits of Orange Beach and is zoned as Planned Unit
Development.
3
1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
The purpose of the proposed action is to provide private marinas for condominium residents’ and tourists’
watercraft. The marina facilities would complement on-site mixed-use resort communities and would
have direct access, via the FLC, to federally or state maintained waterbodies in Gulf Shores and Orange
Beach, Baldwin County, Alabama. The proposed action is needed to meet market demand of residential
property owners along the FLC for wet and dry storage of watercraft and for convenient and safe
waterway access for recreational pursuits, such as boating and fishing. The applicants provided the site
selection rationale for marinas along the FLC that is summarized below.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1.2.1
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Market Demand
Applicants of the proposed upland developments and marinas identified the market demand for resort
locations to serve the needs and desires of second-home buyers and vacationers looking for affordable
coastal communities. The applicants evaluated many motivational factors associated with this targeted
customer group, including the statistic that the number one amenity requested by the group is waterfront
location and access (Urban Land Institute 2007). The 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons resulted in a shift
in consumer demand to be near the ocean, but not necessarily on the ocean, to avoid the stress associated
with renovating and rebuilding after hurricanes. Insurance rates have increased for oceanfront and gulffront residences creating a migration off of the ocean/gulf to the protected waters of backbays and
sheltered waterbodies (i.e., GIWW).
On the basis of this research, the applicants identified the Gulf Shores/Orange Beach region as being
available to meet the resort community demand. The economy in this area is reliant on water-based
tourism activities (i.e., boating and fishing) and has the existing infrastructure to support new
developments.
1.2.2
Gulf Shores/Orange Beach Site Selection
The applicants selected the Gulf Shores/Orange Beach region on the basis of market demand research and
location. This area is within an 8-hour drive of many major cities in the southeast United States, including
Nashville, Memphis, Birmingham, New Orleans, and Atlanta. The Alabama gulf coast has an established
brand as a vacation destination, and the local governments have provided the infrastructure necessary to
accommodate the anticipated increase in visitors. The region also has an economic and employment base
necessary to construct and operate the resort communities.
By developing along the FLC, the marinas will provide fishing and recreational boating opportunities via
Bon Secour Bay, Wolf Bay, Mobile Bay, Perdido Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico. Having marinas directly
connected to these waterbodies is critical to developing the resort communities. These marinas will
provide facilities for watercraft during tropical storm events and minimize the evacuation boat traffic on
the GIWW prior to a tropical storm event. The waterfront developments also provide an aesthetic view of
the FLC, Oyster Bay, and Wolf Bay.
41
1.3 SCOPE
42
43
44
45
This document was developed in accordance with NEPA, implementing regulations issued by the
President’s CEQ, and federal regulations for implementing NEPA for federal actions involving navigable
waters under the jurisdiction of the USACE as presented at 33 CFR Parts 230 and 325.
February 2009
1-3
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
This EIS will provide the District Engineer, USACE, Mobile District, with information regarding
socioeconomic and environmental impacts to consider as part of the public interest review of the
applications in accordance with USACE regulations. This EIS also will provide information to other
regulatory and commenting agencies and the general public about the likely environmental consequences
of the proposed action and alternatives. The NEPA process ensures that the public has an opportunity to
raise issues and concerns to the District Engineer before decisions are made on the permit applications.
An interdisciplinary team of environmental scientists, aquatic and terrestrial biologists, toxicologists,
ecologists, geologists, planners, economists, engineers, and cultural resource specialists have analyzed the
proposed action and other alternatives in light of existing conditions. The team has identified relevant
beneficial and adverse impacts associated with the action. This document analyzes both the direct impacts
(those caused by the action and occurring at the same time and place) and the indirect impacts (those
caused by the action and occurring later in time or farther removed in distance but still reasonably
foreseeable) and the impacts from secondary actions (reasonably foreseeable actions taken by others). The
potential for cumulative impacts are also addressed, and mitigation measures are identified where
appropriate.
Section 2.0 describes the proposed action and No Action Alternative in detail. Section 3.0 describes
existing environmental conditions that could be affected by the proposed action, and Section 4.0 identifies
potential socioeconomic and environmental impacts that could occur by implementing the proposed
action.
Several federal and state agencies have joined the USACE in preparing this EIS. The USACE is the lead
agency, and the other agencies are participating in cooperating agency roles. These other agencies bring
to the NEPA process information and experience in resource-specific areas, as well as an interest in
identifying and analyzing the relevant issues. The following have accepted cooperating agency status for
preparing the draft EIS: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of the Interior—
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Department of Commerce—National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), Alabama
Emergency Management Agency (AEMA), Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
(ALDCNR), Alabama Department of Transportation (ADOT), Alabama State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), city of Gulf Shores, and city of Orange Beach.
Pursuant to section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) of 1972, the USACE, through its Mobile District Office, issue permits for all areas in the study
area. The human and natural environments consist of a variety of components. Specifically, the USACE
has identified the following issues and components of the human and natural environments for analysis in
the EIS: hydrologic and hydraulic regimes, threatened and endangered species (TES), essential fish
habitat (EFH) and other marine habitat, wetlands, air quality, noise, light (impacts on nesting sea turtles
and their hatchlings), cultural resources, safety, wastewater treatment capacities and discharges, erosion
control, channel sustainability, potential of added operations and maintenance costs, drainage discharges,
transportation systems, alternatives, secondary and cumulative impacts, impact to authorized use of
commercial navigation, navigation safety, socioeconomic impacts, waterway capacity, hurricane
evacuation, environmental justice (impact on minorities and low income groups) (Executive Order [EO]
12898), and protection of children (EO 13045).
February 2009
1-4
1
1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
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
1.4.1
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
1.4.2
NEPA Public Involvement Process
Under regulations issued by the CEQ4, the evaluation of potential environmental impacts of federal
actions is open to the public. Public participation in the NEPA process promotes open communication
between the public and the USACE and better decision making. All persons and organizations that have a
potential interest in the proposed action, including minority, low-income, disadvantaged, and Native
American groups, are urged to participate in the NEPA environmental analysis process.
Public participation opportunities regarding the proposed action are guided by CEQ regulations and
USACE regulation.5 These regulations provide for five major aspects of public participation available in
conjunction with preparing this EIS: (1) Notice of Intent, (2) scoping, (3) 45-day public review of the
draft EIS, (4) public meeting on the draft EIS, and (5) 30-day public review of the final EIS. Each of these
steps in the process provides for public involvement and is briefly discussed below. Throughout this
process, the public could obtain information on the EIS through Dr. Susan Ivester Rees, Coastal
Environmental Team, Mobile District, phone (251) 694-4141 or Mr. Michael B. Moxey, Regulatory
Division, Mobile District, phone (251) 694-3771.
A Public Involvement Plan (PIP) was prepared as part of the EIS process (Appendix A). This PIP
describes the framework for broadly distributing and providing public access to information regarding the
development of the EIS; promoting an understanding of the NEPA process, studies, and analyses; and
providing a number of opportunities for the public to provide input. The specific goals of the PIP are to
increase public awareness of the NEPA process, to educate the public on the issues associated with the
permitting activities and development along the FLC portion of the GIWW in Baldwin County, Alabama,
and to encourage the public to become involved in the EIS process by attending public meetings, where
they can articulate their concerns.
This PIP also identifies and explains the objective of each of the tasks that will help to ensure that the
public understands the EIS process. Implementing these tasks will help strengthen the EIS by providing
methods to identify areas of public concern and gathering historical information.
Notice of Intent
The Notice of Intent (NOI) (Appendix B), informing the public that an EIS will be prepared, is the first
formal step in the NEPA public involvement process. The notice is published in the Federal Register
before the start of the scoping process by the agency proposing the action. The NOI includes a description
of the proposed action and gives the name and address of an agency contact person. The NOI declaring
the USACE’s intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on May 26, 2006.6
In the NOI, the USACE identified the study area and region of influence (ROI) as the FLC portion of the
GIWW in Baldwin County, Alabama. The FLC extends from Wolf Bay in the east to Oyster Bay in the
west. The notice stated that the EIS will address the potential impacts associated with mixed-use
development along the FLC. The USACE will use the EIS in making permitting decisions under section
404 of the CWA, section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and NEPA.
4
Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act, 40 CFR Parts 1500–1508.
5
NEPA Implementation Procedures for the Regulatory Program, 33 CFR Part 325, Appendix B.
6
Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 102, Friday, May 26, 2006, page 30393.
February 2009
1-5
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
1.4.3
Scoping Process
The purpose of scoping is to solicit public comment on issues or concerns that should be addressed in the
EIS. It is designed to involve the public early in the EIS process. Public comments were solicited through
mailings, media advertisements, and both agency and public scoping meetings. While informal comments
are welcome at any time throughout the process, the scoping period and the scoping meeting provide
formal opportunities for public participation in, and comment on, the environmental impact analysis
process. Five categories of interested parties affected by the proposed action have been solicited for their
opinions: (1) FLC-area residents, (2) business owners and operators; (3) recreational waterway users; (4)
environmental organizations and other similar groups; and (5) federal, state, and local agencies. A
description of each category follows:
Category 1: FLC-area residents
• Adjacent northern and southern shoreline residents
• City of Gulf Shores residents
• City of Orange Beach residents
Category 2: Business owners and operators
• Commercial waterway operators
• Marinas
• Developers
• Restaurants
• Gas stations and convenience stores
• Businesses authorized to conduct commercial operations along FLC portion of GIWW
Category 3: Recreational GIWW users
• Nonadjacent residents
• Other recreational users that participate in activities along the GIWW
Category 4: Environmental organizations
• Audubon Society
• Ducks Unlimited
• Sierra Club
• Wolf Bay Watershed Watch, Inc.
• Others
Category 5: Federal, state, and local agencies
• Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
• Alabama Department of Transportation
• Alabama Department of Environmental Management
• Alabama Emergency Management Agency
• Alabama Port Authority, Harbormaster
• Alabama State Historic Preservation Office
• Baldwin County
• Cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach
• National Marine Fisheries Service
• U.S. Coast Guard
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
February 2009
1-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
A press release summarizing the proposed actions and date, time, and location of the August 22, 2006
public scoping meeting was sent to several newspapers (Table 1), radio and television stations in the
region (Table 2), and the Alabama Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau. The Alabama Gulf Coast
Convention and Visitors Bureau distributed an announcement in its August 2006 monthly newsletter
regarding the public scoping meeting to business owners and operators in the southern Baldwin County,
Alabama area. In addition, advertisements were published in several newspapers in the region (see Table
3). The advertisements included information on the proposed action, as well as the date and location of
the public scoping meeting.
Table 1. Newspapers that Received the Press Release
Publication
The Gulf Shores Islander
The Mullet Wrapper
Mobile/Baldwin Register
Location
Gulf Shores, Alabama
Pensacola, Florida
Foley, Alabama
11
12
13
Table 2. Radio and Television Stations that Received the Press Release
Name
Sunny 105.7 (Radio)
WEAR TV 3
WKRG TV 5
WALA TV 10
WPMI TV 15
Location
Pensacola, Florida
Mobile, Alabama
Mobile, Alabama
Mobile, Alabama
14
15
16
Table 3. Newspapers that Advertised Public Notices
Date of Publication
8/1/06
8/2/06
8/2/06
8/8/06
8/9/06
8/16/06
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Publication
The Mullet Wrapper
The Mullet Wrapper
Location
Foley, Alabama
Pensacola, Florida
Foley, Alabama
Pensacola, Florida
The USACE held an open-house style public scoping meeting on August 22, 2006, at the Gulf Shores
Adult Activity Center at 260 Clubhouse Drive, Gulf Shores, Alabama. Twenty-four information stations
with displays, maps, and a PowerPoint presentation were available for viewing. Ten stations presented
information on the proposed action, the NEPA and EIS process, biological and natural resources, water
quality, socioeconomic impacts, environmental impact analyses, waterway capacity, and hurricane
evacuation. Environmental contractors staffed the stations. In addition, representatives of each
development staffed and displayed 14 stations representing the proposed developments planned for the
FLC. A welcome and instruction, a court reporter, and media stations were available to provide
information and accept oral and written comments.
February 2009
1-7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
More than 70 members of the public attended the public scoping meeting. Comments concerning the EIS
were requested to be submitted by September 6, 2006, addressed to Dr. Susan Rees, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Mobile District, 109 St. Joseph Street, Mobile, AL 36602.
12
Table 4. Issues and Sub-issues Identified During the Scoping Process
The scoping process resulted in approximately 75 individuals and organizations submitting comments.
Each comment was carefully reviewed, grouped into one of seven categories of common issues, and
assigned a numeric code. After the initial review, the issues were analyzed further to determine the issues
of specific concern. As a result, 16 specific sub-issues were identified during the scoping process. Table 4
lists the issues and sub-issues identified during the scoping process for the EIS.
Issues
Infrastructure Impacts
Socioeconomic Impacts
Waterway Capacity
Biological and Natural Resources
Water Quality
Environmental Impacts
Hurricane Evacuation
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Sub-issues
Existing roads
Utilities
Labor force capacity
Economic improvement
Affordable housing
Safety
Commercial versus recreational traffic
Speed restrictions
Habitat loss
Expand study area
Pollution
Debris
Noise
Dredging
Vessel plan
Infrastructure
The issues of concern identified during the scoping process are provided in Figure 2. Comments of a
similar nature were grouped by subject matter into broad categories. Issues of concern related to
waterway capacity were commented on most often (58 comments). Issues related to socioeconomic
impacts were commented on 54 times; followed by infrastructure impacts (34 comments); biological and
natural resources (27 comments); water quality (26 comments); environmental impacts (20 comments);
hurricane evacuation (20 comments); and 11 other comments that did not fall into any of the seven
common issue categories.
The USACE also established a project Web site to make information about the EIS process available to a
wide audience. The Web site includes a description of the EIS and NEPA processes, information on
public meetings, management activities that will be addressed in the EIS, media information such as press
releases, and a scoping meeting brochure, as well as a way to submit comments electronically. Interest
items, links to other sites, contacts for media inquiries, and more information about the EIS were
available on the Web site. The Web site is housed on Tetra Tech, Inc.’s server at http://www.tetratechffx.com/giwweis/.
February 2009
1-8
58
Waterway Capacity
54
Socioeconomic Impacts
Issue
34
Infrastructure Impacts
27
Biological and Natural Resources
26
Water Quality
Environmental Impacts
20
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Number of Comments
1
2
Figure 2. Issues of Concern
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
1.4.4
Relevant Public Comments Addressed in the EIS
As a result of the scoping process, issues relevant to the EIS were verified and defined. Relevant issues
raised during scoping are addressed under the following resource areas in the EIS:
•
Land Use. Land use refers to human use of the land for economic production (residential,
commercial, industrial, recreational, or other purposes) and for natural resource protection. Land
cover, an increasingly important attribute of land use, describes what is physically on the ground.
The proposed developments will place demands on FLC resources and resources associated with
waterbodies hydrologically connected to the FLC. The demands placed on FLC resources and
surrounding land use could impede the ability of the USACE to sustainably manage the FLC. In
the EIS, the USACE will analyze the impacts that existing and future land uses, such as the
proposed mixed-use developments, would have on the FLC resources. The EIS will consider
existing and proposed development, population growth, recreation resources, zoning regulations,
and other issues related to how the land surrounding the FLC is used. The EIS will also analyze
the activities the USACE undertakes to maintain the FLC for commercial barge traffic, including
USACE upland disposal sites, maintaining a 500-foot easement area, and stormwater
management.
•
Noise. In terms of the EIS, noise impacts would generally be considered an indirect impact
resulting from the proposed developments. The EIS will analyze any noise-related impacts
resulting from the use of heavy equipment during construction of the proposed developments,
increased use of the FLC by recreational boat traffic, and any other noise-generating activities
associated with FLC operation and maintenance. The EIS will also consider the cumulative
impacts associated with recreational and commercial uses of the FLC.
February 2009
1-9
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
•
Water Resources and Water Quality. Water resources include various bodies of water residing or
flowing in basins, channels, and other various natural and artificial landforms on the Earth’s
surface. This resource area includes analysis of the surface water entering the FLC, the
hydrogeology of the canal, groundwater, and the waterbodies hydrologically connected to the
FLC. Potential pollutant loads to be analyzed include watershed runoff, point source discharges
into the FLC and surrounding waterbodies from the proposed developments and marinas, septic
systems within the FLC watershed, and recreational and commercial boating activities in the FLC
and surrounding waterbodies. Water quality issues to be analyzed include dissolved oxygen (DO),
nutrients, heavy metals, gray water, and other pollutants. In addition, dredging impacts on water
resources and water quality are analyzed.
•
Ecological Communities. NEPA requires that analyses conducted for an EIS consider ecological
information. Direct and indirect impacts that result in the loss of native vegetation, populations or
species of fish and wildlife, sensitive species, tidal and non-tidal wetland areas, and sensitive
habitats must be considered for any action involving disturbance in naturally vegetated areas. The
EIS will evaluate any impacts on state or federally listed threatened or endangered species in the
FLC vicinity, nonnative plant and animal management, and wetland areas.
•
Infrastructure Systems, Utilities, and Traffic and Transportation Systems. Analysis of
infrastructure, utilities, and transportation systems related to the proposed developments will
include potable water treatment and distribution; sewer collection and treatment, including septic
systems and on-site wastewater treatment systems; stormwater collection and stormwater
discharge; electricity; natural gas; solid waste; telecommunication systems; road networks; traffic
and congestion; parking facilities; and road improvement and road maintenance.
•
Socioeconomic Resources. Socioeconomics comprises the social, economic, and demographic
characteristics of a region. The socioeconomic analysis includes an evaluation of labor force
capacity, availability of affordable housing, public services, educational facilities, impacts on
regional transportation, and fiscal revenues. The EIS will provide historical data (including
population, employment, income, and gross regional product) to describe the regional growth of
the area in the vicinity of the FLC. The historical data provides a frame of reference for
determining the significance of any impacts on the socioeconomic environment expected as a
result of the proposed developments. An economic model will be used to generate a forecast that
simulates the expected long-term growth of the project area on the basis of past and current trends
and conditions. Environmental justice and protection of children are addressed, in accordance
with EOs 12898 and 13045.
•
Waterway Capacity. The EIS evaluates waterway capacity of the FLC and focuses on the present
level of use of recreational watercraft, the future level of use that could be expected with the
proposed developments, and the level of commercial marine traffic. A waterway capacity study
(WCS) has been prepared to evaluate compatible uses and potential conflicts between private and
commercial use of the FLC. The study focused on safety, environmental, social, economic,
recreation, and aesthetic issues. The study provided a well-documented basis for identifying the
maximum number of boat slips that could be permitted on the FLC without impeding or
adversely affecting commercial navigation. The study also included a focus on the navigational
safety of cargo vessels, especially fuel-carrying tows. The EIS and study also evaluated impacts
on current and future structures along the FLC, which include, but are not limited to, mooring and
fueling docks, access channels, and bridge substructures. The study recommended the maximum
number of watercraft berthing areas (open-water and dry-stack storage) to be allowed in current
and future developments along the FLC. This analysis took into account both privately-owned
February 2009
1-10
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
watercraft used for recreation in the area and watercraft used for transit from locations outside the
study area. The study evaluated management options to include items such as mandatory
exclusion zones around commercial vessels, a dedicated marine police presence, flow-through
breakwaters, and safe-access channels into permitted facilities along the waterway. The study
results offer a range of management measures to implement the recommendations developed
from the study and to mitigate for the impacts of recreational watercraft that exceed the
recommended capacity. The study was conducted concurrently with the EIS and developed
information to be incorporated into the EIS and to be used in evaluating the impacts on
commercial navigation and the environment of the proposed action and considered alternatives as
appropriate.
•
1.4.5
Hurricane Evacuation. A hurricane evacuation study was completed to evaluate the impacts of
the proposed developments on the ability for residents and visitors to evacuate the region safely
and quickly. The study includes an evaluation of existing infrastructure (evacuation routes and
hurricane shelters) and a vessel plan that describes how watercraft will be secured during a
tropical storm event.
Additional Resource Areas to be Addressed in the EIS
In addition to the resource areas on which the public commented during the scoping process, the
following resource areas or issues are addressed:
•
Soils and Geology. This resource considers the environmental aspects of stratigraphy,
topography, soils, and sediments; engineering properties of the materials; seismic hazards; slope
stability; earthworks; mineral resources; unique landforms; and geological conditions that could
limit the proposed developments, influence contaminant distribution and migration, or influence
groundwater resources. The EIS will include an analysis of the impacts of FLC activities on
shoreline erosion and the vegetative buffer areas along the FLC.
•
Hazardous and Toxic Materials. This resource area analyzes hazardous material management and
hazardous waste management as it relates to the proposed development activities and the indirect
impacts of residential and commercial boat traffic on the FLC. The EIS will consider the impacts
of potential hazardous spill areas, such as marinas and boat ramps, and leaking petrochemicals
from residential and commercial watercraft.
•
Cultural Resources. The EIS will identify properties within the project boundary that are on, or
eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places or that qualify as Native American traditional
cultural properties. The analysis will consider impacts on any identified properties that could
result from the construction and operation of the proposed developments, increased recreational
and commercial waterway traffic, and USACE operation and maintenance activities.
•
Air Quality. The EIS will analyze any impacts on air quality associated with the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the proposed developments and marinas, as well as emissions from
additional boat traffic on the waterway.
•
Light. The EIS will provide recommendations that would minimize or mitigate unnecessary light
on, or adjacent to, the waterway that could create a hazard to mariners by washing-out navigation
lights, blinding pilots, and so on. In addition, the EIS will evaluate the impacts on sea turtle
nesting and behavior from artificial light created by the proposed developments.
February 2009
1-11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.4.6
Public Review of the Draft EIS
11
Table 5. Public Libraries Provided Copies of the Draft EIS
The USACE will make a draft EIS available for public review and comment, publish a notice of
availability (NOA) of the draft EIS in the Federal Register on February 27, 2009, and send copies of the
draft EIS to individuals who requested copies. In addition, the USACE will provide copies of the draft
EIS to local libraries in the vicinity of the FLC (Table 5). Agencies, organizations, and individuals will be
invited to review and comment on the document. The draft EIS will be available for a period of 45 days
for comments on the proposed action, the alternatives, and the adequacy of the analysis. During the 45day comment period, the USACE will hold a public meeting to receive comments on the draft EIS. The
USACE will advertise the time and place of the meeting in local newspapers.
Thomas B. Norton Public Library
221 W. 19th Avenue
Gulf Shores, AL 36542
(251) 968-1176
Orange Beach Public Library
26267 Canal Rd
Orange Beach, AL 36561
(251) 981-2923
Fairhope Public Library
161 N. Section Street
Fairhope, AL 36532
(251) 928-7483
Daphne Public Library
2607 US Hwy 98
Daphne, AL 36526
(251) 621-2818
Foley Public Library
319 E. Laurel Street
Foley, AL 36535
(251) 943-7665
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1.4.7
Final EIS
As provided for in CEQ regulations, the USACE will consider all comments provided by the public and
agencies on the draft EIS. The final EIS will incorporate changes suggested by the comments on the draft
EIS, as appropriate, and will contain responses to all comments received during the review period. The
USACE will mail copies of the final EIS to various federal, state, and local agencies, and will place
copies in local libraries.
1.4.8
Record of Decision
19
20
21
22
23
Thirty days following publication of the final EIS, the USACE will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD)
that will provide an overview of the range of alternatives considered for the proposed action, identify the
decisions made, and include any required mitigation measures associated with the proposed action.
24
1.5 REGULATORY AUTHORITIES AND PROCESSES
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
NEPA requires analysis of every major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. Compliance with NEPA is part of the USACE’s action on each permit application under
section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 or section 404 of the CWA of 1972.
The Rivers and Harbors Act protects navigable waters and maintains interstate commerce. Section 10 of
the act prohibits the creation of obstructions to navigation in waters of the United States and authorizes
the USACE to regulate the construction of structures in, over, or under navigable waters; the excavation
of materials from navigable waters; and the deposition of material into navigable waters, including
dredging and filling activities. Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the USACE to regulate the discharge
of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, including wetlands. The USACE and EPA
jointly administer section 404 insofar as the USACE acts on permits in accordance with guidelines
developed by EPA and USACE for assessing the environmental impacts of proposed projects.
February 2009
1-12
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
The USACE issues five types of individual or general permits:
•
Individual permits
o Standard permits. A standard permit is a permit processed through the public interest
review procedures (see below), including public notice and receipt of comments. The
standard individual permit is contained in Engineering Form 1721.
o
•
Letters of permission. A letter of permission identifies the permittee, the authorized work
and its location, the statutory authority, limitations on the work, a construction time limit,
and a requirement for a report of completed work. A copy of relevant general conditions
from Engineering Form 1721 is attached to the letter of permission.
General permits
o Regional permits. A regional permit is a type of general permit issued after compliance
with specified USACE regulations published at 33 CFR Part 325. If the public interest so
requires, the permit could require a case-by-case reporting and acknowledgment system.
No other separate applications or authorization documents are required.
o
Nationwide permits. Nationwide permits represent Department of the Army
authorizations that have been issued at 33 CFR Part 330 for certain specified activities
nationwide. If certain conditions are met, the specified activities could take place without
the need for an individual or regional permit.
o
Programmatic permits. A programmatic permit is a type of general permit founded on an
existing state, local, or other federal agency program and is designed to avoid duplication
with that program.
The USACE and participating government agencies are neither a proponent nor an opponent of a permit
application. The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts
including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the
national concern for both protection and use of important resources. The benefit that reasonably could be
expected to accrue from the proposed action must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable
detriments. All factors that might be relevant to the proposal are considered including the cumulative
impacts thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns,
wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use,
navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality,
energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership and,
in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving section 404 discharges, a permit
will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by that permit would not comply with guidelines
issued by the EPA under section 404(b)(1) of the CWA.
The USACE considers three general criteria in evaluating a permit application: (1) the relative extent of
the public and private need for the proposed structure or work; (2) where there are unresolved conflicts as
to resource use, the practicality of using reasonable alternative locations and methods to accomplish the
objectives of the proposed structure or work; and (3) the extent and permanence of the beneficial or
detrimental impacts that the proposed structure or work is likely to have on the public and private uses for
which the area is suited. The weight of each of these factors can vary with each proposal.
The USACE adds special conditions to permits when such conditions are necessary to satisfy legal
requirements or to otherwise satisfy the public interest requirement. Permit conditions are directly related
to the impacts of the proposal, appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts, and reasonably
February 2009
1-13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
enforceable. If the USACE determines that special conditions are necessary to ensure the proposal will
not be contrary to the public interest, but that those conditions would not be reasonably able to be
implemented or enforced, the permit is denied.
14
1.6 RELEVANT STATUTES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
A decision on whether to proceed with the proposed action rests on numerous factors such as schedule,
availability of funding, and environmental considerations. In addressing environmental considerations,
the USACE is guided by relevant statutes (and their implementing regulations) and EOs that establish
standards and provide guidance on environmental and natural resources management and planning. These
include the Clean Air Act (CAA), CWA, Noise Control Act, Endangered Species Act (ESA), National
Historic Preservation Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act. EOs bearing on the proposed action include EO 11988
(Floodplain Management), EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), EO 12088 (Federal Compliance with
Pollution Control Standards), EO 12580 (Superfund Implementation), EO 12898 (Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), EO 13045
(Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks), EO 13101 (Greening the
Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition), EO 13123 (Greening the
Government Through Efficient Energy Management), EO 13148 (Greening the Government Through
Leadership in Environmental Management), EO 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments), and EO 13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds).
These authorities are addressed in various sections throughout this EIS when relevant to environmental
resources and conditions. The full text of the laws, regulations, and EOs is available on the Defense
Environmental Network & Information Exchange Web site at http://www.denix.osd.mil.
The USACE evaluates applications for permits for activities that might adversely affect the quality of
waters of the United States for compliance with applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards
during the construction and subsequent operation of the proposed activity. The evaluation includes
considering both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The CWA assigns responsibility for control of
nonpoint sources of pollution to the states. Certification of compliance with applicable effluent limitations
and water quality standards required under provisions of section 401 of the CWA are considered
conclusive with respect to water quality considerations unless EPA’s Regional Administrator advises of
other water quality aspects to be considered.
February 2009
1-14
1
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2
2.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
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
34
35
The permit applications submitted to the USACE propose construction of 15 mixed-use developments
along the FLC consisting of the following: 17 marinas, in excess of 16,700 condominium units, 1,722 wet
boat slips, 1,742 dry boat storage spaces, various commercial establishments, support facilities, and resort
amenities. The projects are in south Baldwin County on 15 parcels of land, of which 14 are along the
northern shoreline of the FLC and are generally bounded to the north by Baldwin County Road (C.R.) 4.
The other parcel of land proposed for development is on the Oyster Bay southern shoreline, south of the
FLC (Figure 3). The portions of the properties fronting the FLC are expected to be used for water-based
developments and will include marinas, ship stores, and associated infrastructure. The remaining portions
of the properties are expected to accommodate mixed-use development and will include condominium
units; amenities such as pools, boardwalks, and restroom facilities; and light commercial outlets.
Construction of the proposed projects would impact approximately 711 acres and require excavation of
approximately 3,143,195 cubic yards of material from uplands, wetlands, and waterbottoms.
Per 33 CFR Section 320.4, General policies for evaluating permit applications, the decision of whether to
issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of
the proposed activity and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable impact that the
proposed activity could have on the public interest requires a careful weighing of all those factors that
become relevant in each case. The benefits that reasonably can be expected to accrue from the proposal
must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision of whether to authorize a
proposed action, and if so, the conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, is determined by the
outcome of this general balancing process.
That decision should reflect the national concern for both protecting and using important resources. All
factors which could be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative impacts
thereof: among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands,
historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore
erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food
and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership and, in general, the needs and
welfare of the people. For activities involving section 404 discharges, a permit will be denied if the
discharge that would be authorized by such permit would not comply with EPA’s 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable guidelines and criteria (see Sections 320.2 and
320.3), a permit will be granted unless the district engineer determines that it would be contrary to the
public interest.
February 2009
2-1
1
2
Figure 3. Proposed Developments
February 2009
2-2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
The FLC was selected as the location for developing resort communities because of the benefits realized
over alternative sites (see Section 1.2). Gulf-front property was not considered because the property is
expensive ($80,000–$100,000 per square foot), the location is not suitable for marinas, and the tidal surge
during a tropical storm event could cause property damage. Property along Little Lagoon, which is south
of the FLC, is not adequate because the west beach pass to the Gulf of Mexico is very narrow, making it
difficult for watercraft to navigate. Property along other backbays and sheltered waterbodies (i.e., Bon
Secour River) is not suitable because the low elevation makes it subject to flooding risks, and more
material would need to be dredged to provide suitable ground to construct the marinas. In addition,
property along the FLC has been zoned for marinas and resort development, whereas alternative sites
would require a change in zoning. The applicants have stated that there are no other practical alternative
sites to the FLC location that provide the unique combination of access to the Gulf of Mexico and other
waterbodies and the overall economic benefit to the Gulf Shores/Orange Beach area.
16
17
18
19
20
21
2.1.1
The 47 Canal Place development will be a 44-acre site in Orange Beach, Alabama, along the northern
shoreline of the FLC, west of the Foley Beach Expressway (Figure 4). Development associated with the
project will include a marina, condominiums, and commercial space. A joint application and notification
was submitted to the USACE and ADEM on December 16, 2004, and assigned application number
AL04-03402-J (Appendix C).
22
2.1.1.1 Project Description
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
2.1.1.1.1
42
43
44
The following sections provide detailed information on each proposed mixed-use development and
practicable alternative site analysis for each respective project.
47 Canal Place
Original Site Design
The proposed development will include approximately 1,275 condominiums, with 905 seasonal units and
370 permanent units. The percent of the project area that will be used for commercial and green space has
not been determined. The project will include excavation of approximately 500,000 cubic yards of sandy
clay material from uplands to create a marina and two access channels to the FLC. The marina basin and
access channels will create approximately 724,900 square feet of water area. The marina will entail
excavating a “U”-shaped canal across the site with open ends originating in two existing key hole slips.
The marina will provide 270 wet boat slips for vessels up to 50 feet in length. The slips will consist of a
floating pier system connected to concrete pilings and would be constructed to a height of +5 to 6 feet
above mean low water (MLW). The marina will also provide 308 dry dock boat storage units. The marina
and two access channels will be dredged to a bottom depth of -16.0 MLW and will have a sloping
gradient toward the FLC. The margins of the basin and entrance channel would be constructed of steel
sheet pile bulk heading with a concrete cap, walkways, and a cathodic protection system for the proposed
bulk heading. The existing grade, +14 to 15 feet, of the site will be maintained.
The nature of the material to be dredged is uplands. All dredge material will be dewatered and contained
on adjacent uplands on the project property. One vehicular bridge will connect the condominiums to the
interior island of the development. No net loss of wetlands will occur as a result of the proposed
development.
2.1.1.1.2
Revised Site Design
A revised site design, submitted in March 2007, decreased the number of access channels to the FLC
from two to one. The marina basin was redesigned to create approximately 540,700 square feet of water
February 2009
2-3
1
2
Figure 4. 47 Canal Place
February 2009
2-4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
area. The access channel will measure 208 feet wide by 500 feet long and would be constructed at an
existing key hole slip that has historically been used as an entry point into the FLC. Approximately
425,810 cubic yards of material will be dredged to create the marina and access channel. Approximately
7,720 feet of bulkhead will be installed. The line of sight distance from the access channel to the FLC will
be approximately 1,900 feet to the west and 1,400 feet to the east. At the current speed of a barge (6 miles
per hour (mph)), a boater exiting the marina will have a reaction time of approximately 3.6 minutes (west)
and 2.7 minutes (east) to decide whether to exit the marina or to wait and yield to the barge that has just
entered the sight line.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2.1.1.2 Site Selection Rationale
All other elements of the development will remain as described in the original site design.
Water-based activities support tourism in southern Baldwin County, and the 47 Canal Place development
would help sustain this industry. The site along the FLC was selected for the development because it will
provide facilities for watercraft during tropical storm events and provides access to fishing and recreation
activities in the Gulf of Mexico and other waterbodies in the vicinity. The development will be critically
associated with marine usage made available via access to the FLC.
This site has been previously developed to support commercial marine activities and an existing key hole
slip will be used as the entrance channel into the FLC. In addition, the site was chosen because of its
proximity to, and view of, Wolf Bay.
2.1.2
501 Point West
21
22
23
24
25
26
The 501 Point West development will be a 49-acre site in Gulf Shores, Alabama, along the northern
shoreline of the FLC, northeast of Oyster Bay (Figure 5). Development associated with the project will
include a marina, condominiums, and other amenities. A joint application and notification was submitted
to the USACE and ADEM on February 23, 2006, and assigned application number SAM-2006-949-MBM
(Appendix D).
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
2.1.2.1.1
Original Site Design
The proposed development will include approximately 1,137 condominiums, with 797 seasonal units and
340 permanent units, in six buildings. Amenities associated with the condominiums will include
swimming pools, a spa, tennis courts, and a yacht club. No retail or commercial space will be constructed
as part of the proposed project. Approximately 18.5 acres of green space will be incorporated into the
proposed project layout and will include parks and walking paths.
The project will include excavation of approximately 72,000 cubic yards of sand and clay material to a
depth of -16.0 MLW to create the marina and one access channel to the FLC. The marina basin will be
excavated from the shallow water bottoms of Oyster Bay and adjacent marsh wetlands. The marina will
be in the southwest corner of the property, extending into Oyster Bay, and consist of a semicircular basin,
flow-through breakwater, and access piers and finger piers with tie-off piles to create 82 wet boat slips.
An additional 80 dry boat slips will be provided in an onshore dry storage facility.
The nature of the area to be dredged for project development will include uplands, wetlands, and
waterbottom. All excavated material will be contained in an existing upland dredge material disposal area
adjacent to the marina and used as fill for on-shore project development.
February 2009
2-5
1
2
Figure 5. 501 Point West
February 2009
2-6
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Approximately 100 acres of non-jurisdictional wetlands, within a man-made dredge material disposal cell,
and 2.15 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be filled or dredged for project development. The applicant
has proposed to mitigate for unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with a
mitigation plan developed during the permit evaluation process. In addition, a 360-foot bridge will span
an existing wetland in the northeastern portion of the property to provide access to the development from
County Road 4 (C.R. 4).
2.1.2.1.2
Revised Site Design
A revised site design was submitted in June 2007 to address original site design wetland impacts. The
marina will be relocated from the southwest corner of the property to the center of the property and out of
Oyster Bay. This change in the location of the marina reduced the amount of jurisdictional wetland
impacts from 2.15 acres to 0.8 acres, and a 9 percent reduction in the surface area impacted by dredging
from 5.69 acres to 5.15 acres. As a result, the amount of wet boat slips decreased by 23 percent, from 82
to 63. The amount of dredged material increased from 72,000 cubic yards, in the original site design, to
approximately 130,000 cubic yards. Approximately 85,000 cubic yards of dredged material will be below
mean high water (MHW), and approximately 45,000 cubic yards will be above MHW. Approximately
300 cubic yards of rip-rap material will also be incorporated in the revised site design. In addition, the
entry bridge to the development from C.R. 4 was relocated further east to minimize the distance necessary
to cross wetlands along the northern border of the property. Hydrology will be maintained at the site entry
road through the use of culverts.
Approximately 0.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be filled or dredged for project development.
Marina construction will require the dredging of 0.45 acres of jurisdictional wetlands (marsh) and 0.35
acres will be filled for construction of the entrance road. The applicant has proposed to mitigate for
unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with the mitigation plan described in
Section 2.1.17. Avoided jurisdictional wetlands will be incorporated into the project’s green space.
Additional modifications to the marina design include the following:
• A flared opening to improve lines of sight
• Queuing areas for boats departing and returning to dry storage, on the east side of the marina
away from the marina entry/exit
The line of sight distance from the access channel to the FLC will be approximately 880 feet to the west
and 587 feet to the east. At the current speed of a barge (6 mph), a boater exiting the marina will have a
reaction time of approximately 1.6 minutes (west) and 1.1 minutes (east) to decide whether to exit the
marina or to wait and yield to the barge that has just entered the sight line.
Water-based activities support tourism in southern Baldwin County, and the 501 Point West development
associated with marine usage made available via access to the FLC.
In addition, the site was chosen because of its views of Oyster Bay, Bon Secour River, and Mobile Bay.
The site is away from bends and bridges in the FLC, which offers an increased level of safety over
alternative sites on the waterway.
February 2009
2-7
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
34
2.1.3
Bayside Harbour
The Bayside Harbour development will be an 8-acre site in Gulf Shores, Alabama, at the intersection of
the northern shoreline of the FLC and eastern shoreline of the Bon Secour River, north of Oyster Bay
(Figure 6). Development associated with the project will include a marina, condominiums, and other
amenities. A joint application and notification was submitted to the USACE and ADEM on July 29, 2005,
and assigned application number AL05-03418-J (Appendix E).
The proposed development will include approximately 116 condominiums, with 81 seasonal units and 35
permanent units, in one residential building. Amenities associated with the condominiums will include a
clubhouse and swimming pool. One restaurant will be in the clubhouse. No other retail or commercial
space will be constructed as part of the proposed project. Approximately 4.7 acres of the project area will
be used as green space.
The project will include excavating approximately 38,900 cubic yards of silty sand material to create a
marina (216,000 square feet) and two access channels to the FLC. The marina will consist of 116 wet boat
slips, ranging from 32 feet to 52 feet in length, for the mooring of private vessels. The material dredged to
create the marina will be from the waterbottom of Oyster Bay. All dredge material will be disposed of on
adjacent uplands and will be contained within a 4.6-acre earthen berm.
There will be two access channels from the marina to the FLC. One channel, on the western edge of the
marina, will be approximately 820 feet long by 80 feet wide and will run in a north-south direction. The
second channel, on the eastern edge of the marina, will be approximately 380 feet long by 80 feet wide
and will run in a north-south direction.
The line of sight distance from the access channel to the FLC will be approximately 1,840 feet to the west
and 4,900 feet to the east. At the current speed of a barge (6 mph), a boater exiting the marina will have a
There will be approximately 900 linear feet of 8-foot-wide, pile-supported boardwalk running north-south
along the Oyster Bay shoreline and tidal fringe wetland, and approximately 155 linear feet of 4-foot–
wide, pile supported boardwalk running east-west across wetlands. No net loss of wetlands will occur as a
result of the proposed development. An oyster reef 2.5 miles northwest of the proposed project in Bon
Secour Bay will not be affected by the development.
February 2009
2-8
1
2
Figure 6. Bayside Harbour
February 2009
2-9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
2.1.4
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Water-based activities support tourism in southern Baldwin County, and the Bayside Harbour
development would help sustain this industry. The site along the FLC was selected for the development
because it will provide facilities for watercraft during tropical storm events and provides access to fishing
and recreation activities in the Gulf of Mexico and other waterbodies in the vicinity. The development
will be critically associated with marine usage made available via access to the FLC.
In addition, the site was chosen because of its views of Oyster Bay and Bon Secour River. The site is
away from bends and bridges in the FLC, which offers an increased level of safety over alternative sites
on the waterway.
Bon Secour Village East
The Bon Secour Village East Marina development will be a 5-acre site in Gulf Shores, Alabama, along
the northern shoreline of the FLC, between State Road 59 (S.R. 59) and Oyster Bay (Figure 7).
Development associated with the project will include a marina and dry stack facility. A joint application
and notification was submitted to the USACE and ADEM on April 21, 2005, and assigned application
number AL05-01741-J (Appendix F).
Residential and commercial space is not planned as part of this project. The proposed marina and dry
stack facility will support the Bon Secour Village planned community on the western adjacent property.
The marina will have 10 permanent 40-foot boat slips, transient tie-ups, fueling facilities, and two forklift
accessible launching ramps. In addition, there will be a 1.6-acre dry-stack facility that will have a 528
boat capacity and will also contain a ship’s store. The marina basin will be constructed by excavating
uplands from an average elevation of +14 feet MLW to an average elevation of -16 feet MLW. The
access channel (55 feet by 120 feet) will be dredged from the waterbottom of the FLC to match the depth
of the marina basin. The marina basin and access channel will create approximately 82,760 square feet of
water area. The vertical walls of the marina basin and access channel will be stabilized by approximately
2,165 linear feet of vertical concrete sheet pile.
Approximately 65,000 cubic yards of material will be dredged above MHW and 33,000 cubic yards of
waterbottom will be dredged below MLW to create the marina basin and access channel to the FLC. All
dredge material will be dewatered in a containment berm on uplands on the north side of C.R. 4 on
property owned by the applicant. In addition, approximately 185 cubic yards of rip-rap will be placed
above MLW and 265 cubic yards will be placed below MLW.
No net loss of wetlands would occur as a result of the proposed development.
February 2009
2-10
1
2
Figure 7. Bon Secour Village East
February 2009
2-11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
2.1.5
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Water-based activities support tourism in southern Baldwin County, and the Bon Secour Village East
Marina would help sustain this industry. The site along the FLC was selected for the development
In addition, the site was selected on the basis of its proximity to the Bon Secour Village planned
community. The dry-stack storage facility will allow for boats to be kept in storage during tropical storm
events, which will minimize the amount of boats that will need to be evacuated from the FLC vicinity.
Bon Secour Village West
The Bon Secour Village West development will be a 34-acre site in Gulf Shores, Alabama, along the
northern shoreline of the FLC, between S.R. 59 and Oyster Bay (Figure 8). Development associated with
the project will include a marina, residential and commercial space, and other amenities. A joint
application and notification was submitted to the USACE and ADEM on November 23, 2005, and
assigned application number AL05-04850-B (Appendix G).
The marina will support the 1,000-acre Bon Secour Village planned community on the eastern adjacent
property, which will include approximately 6,000 condominium units, with 3,000 seasonal units and
3,000 permanent units. Also included in the development will be single-family homes, apartments,
townhomes, schools, police and fire precincts, and hotels. There will be approximately 500,000 to
750,000 square feet of retail and commercial space in the development, which will include restaurants,
medical facilities, and professional office space. Approximately 500 acres of the proposed project
footprint will be used as green space, with parks, lakes, and boardwalks.
The 5-acre marina project includes excavating approximately 49,000 cubic yards of sand, silt, and riprap
material to create a marina and access channel to the FLC. The marina will consist of 107 wet boat slips,
with 14-foot-long finger piers. The marina and access channel will be dredged to -16.0 MLW and
constructed in the location of two existing municipal drainage ditches. Two upland land cuts will be
excavated to link the two ditches together to promote circulation and enhance water quality.
Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of sand and silt will be dredged above MHW, and 9,000 cubic yards
will be dredged below MLW to connect the access channels. Vertical sheet-pile will be constructed along
both sides of the access channels. All dredge material will be dewatered and contained on-site in a 13-acre
upland spoil containment berm with an estimated 120,000 cubic yard capacity. In addition, approximately
118 cubic yards of rip-rap will be placed above MLW and 236 cubic yards will be placed below MLW.
February 2009
2-12
1
2
Figure 8. Bon Secour Village West
February 2009
2-13
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
34
35
36
37
No net loss of wetlands would occur as a result of the proposed development. One road will cross the two
drainage ditches at the western limits of the development, and culverts will be used to allow hydrologic
connectivity between the drainage ditches on each side of the road. Five-foot setbacks from jurisdictional
wetlands will be maintained throughout the remainder of the development.
Water-based activities support tourism in southern Baldwin County, and the Bon Secour Village West
will be critically associated with marine usage made available via access to the FLC. The marina is
around an existing drainage ditch, which minimizes the amount of material to be dredged.
2.1.6
Delfino Resort Phase 1
The Delfino Resort Phase 1 development will be a 26-acre site in Gulf Shores, Alabama, along the
northern shoreline of the FLC, east of S.R. 59 and south of Jack Edwards Airport (Figure 9).
Development associated with the project will include a marina, condominiums, and other amenities. A
joint application and notification was submitted to the USACE and ADEM on March 2, 2006, and
assigned application number SAM-2006-686-MBM (Appendix H).
The proposed project will include approximately 724 condominiums, with 580 seasonal units and 144
permanent units. Approximately 25,000 square feet of commercial and retail space will be in the
development. Of this, approximately 7,000 square feet will be dedicated to restaurants, with the remaining
18,000 square feet for general retail. Approximately forty percent of the project footprint will be used as
green space consisting of parks, boardwalks, and ponds.
The project includes excavating approximately 34,900 cubic yards of sand material above MHW and
17,105 cubic yards of material below MLW to create the marina and one access channel to the FLC. The
marina will be approximately 123 feet wide and 522 feet long, with an access channel measuring 62 feet
wide and 155 feet long. The marina will consist of 50 30-foot-long, wet boat slips, three visitor’s slips,
finger piers, and boardwalks. The marina and access channel will be dredged to a depth of -16.0 MLW.
The margins of the marina and access channel will be constructed of steel sheet-pile bulkheading, with a
concrete retaining wall constructed behind the bulkheads. Approximately 1,555 linear feet of bulkhead
will be installed.
February 2009
2-14
1
2
Figure 9. Delfino Resorts 1 and 2
February 2009
2-15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Delfino Resort Marina Basin 1 will be designed to offer ample line of sight for the boats leaving the
marina to enter the main waterway, in both directions, thus allowing clear visibility to see and yield to
oncoming main waterway traffic from either direction. This will be accomplished by locating the marina
exit along the linear frontage buffer zones on either side of the exit. The buffer zones will be designed
with gradually inward-curving bulkheads on either side of the centered marina exit path. This buffer zone
will allow boaters a clear line of sight and waiting space until bypassing traffic has safely cleared before
they enter the main waterway. The line of sight distance from the access channel to the FLC will be
approximately 1,015 feet to the west and 1,320 feet to the east. At the current speed of a barge (6 mph), a
boater exiting the marina will have a reaction time of approximately 1.9 minutes (west) and 2.5 minutes
(east) to decide whether to exit the marina or to wait and yield to the barge that has just entered the sight
line. As another safety measure, signs will be posted in the marina that state, “Idle Speed Only While
Entering or Exiting Marina. All Vessels Entering the GIWW Must Yield to Canal Traffic.” Also signs
will be posted on both sides of the marina facing oncoming canal traffic that state, “Caution: Marina
Ahead. Watch for Boats Entering the Waterway.”
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Additional marina design features will include the following:
• 100-foot opening at the entry/exit sufficient enough to allow several boats to pass each other,
especially in emergency situations
• There will be a floating breakwall system so boaters inside the marina and both recreational and
commercial barge operators in the FLC can see each other
• The opening was widened to increase the site lines as boats approach entry allowing them to see
and yield to oncoming commercial and recreational traffic coming from both directions in FLC
Water-based activities support tourism in southern Baldwin County, and the Delfino Resort Phase 1
and recreation activities in the Gulf of Mexico and other waterbodies in the vicinity. The development is
critically associated with marine usage made available via access to the FLC.
2.1.7
Delfino Resort Phase 2
The Delfino Resort Phase 2 development will be a 12-acre site in Gulf Shores, Alabama, along the
northern shoreline of the FLC, east of S.R. 59 and south of Jack Edwards Airport (see Figure 9).
Development associated with the project will include a marina, condominiums, and other amenities. A
joint application and notification was submitted to the USACE and ADEM on February 27, 2006, and
assigned application number SAM-2006-687-MBM (Appendix I).
development; of which, approximately 7,500 square feet will be dedicated to restaurants, with the
remaining 22,500 square feet for general retail. Approximately forty percent of the project property will
be green space consisting of parks, boardwalks, and ponds.
marina will be approximately 272 feet wide and 240 feet long, with an access channel measuring 72 feet
wide and 165 feet long. The marina will consist of 50 wet boat slips, ranging from 20 to 40 feet in length,
February 2009
2-16
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
and finger piers and boardwalks. The marina and access channel will be dredged to a depth of -16.0
MLW. The margins of the marina and access channel will be constructed of steel sheet-pile bulkheading,
with a concrete retaining wall constructed behind the bulkheads. Approximately 1,200 linear feet of
bulkhead will be installed. No net loss of wetlands would occur as a result of the proposed development.
The Delfino Resort Marina Basin 2 will be designed to offer ample line of sight for the boats leaving the
marina to enter the main waterway, in both directions, thus allowing clear visibility to see and yield to
oncoming main waterway traffic from either direction. This will be accomplished by locating the marina
exit along the linear frontage buffer zones on either side of the exit. The buffer zones will be designed
with gradually inward-curving bulkheads on either side of the centered marina exit path. This buffer zone
allows boaters a clear line of sight and waiting space until bypassing traffic has safely cleared before they
enter the main waterway. The line of sight distance from the access channel to the FLC will be
approximately 1,015 feet to the west and 1,320 feet to the east. At the current speed of a barge (6 mph), a
boater exiting the marina will have a reaction time of approximately 1.9 minutes (west) and 2.5 minutes
(east) to decide whether to exit the marina or to wait and yield to the barge that has just entered the sight
line. As another safety measure signs will be posted in the marina that state, “Idle Speed Only While
Entering or Exiting Marina. All Vessels Entering the GIWW Must Yield to Canal Traffic.” Also signs
will be posted on both sides of the marina facing oncoming canal traffic that state, “Caution: Marina
Ahead. Watch for Boats Entering the Waterway.”
Additional marina design features include the following:
• 100-foot opening at entry/exit is sufficient enough to allow several boats to pass each other,
especially in emergency situations
• There will be a floating breakwall system so boaters inside the marina and both recreational and
commercial barge operators in the FLC can see each other
• The opening was widened to increase the site lines as boats approach entry allowing them to see
and yield to oncoming commercial
Water-based activities support tourism in southern Baldwin County and the Delfino Resort Phase 2
2.1.8
Harbour Lights
The Harbour Lights development will be a 16-acre site in Gulf Shores, Alabama, along the northern
shoreline of the FLC, west of S.R. 59 (Figure 10). Development associated with the project will include a
marina, condominiums, and other amenities. A joint application and notification was submitted to the
USACE and ADEM on January 19, 2006, and assigned application number AL06-00206-B (Appendix J).
development and will include restaurants and retail shops. The percent of the project area that will be used
as green space has not been determined.
February 2009
2-17
1
2
Figure 10. Harbour Lights
February 2009
2-18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
marina and access channel will be dredged to a depth of –16.0 MLW. The marina will consist of 76 wet
boat slips, ranging from 20 to 50-feet in length. Approximately 1,415 linear feet of 10-foot-wide dock and
2,920 linear feet of 5-foot-wide dock will be constructed. The marina interior will be constructed with
sheet-pile bulkhead, and areas along the FLC will be bulkheaded with sheet-pile and protected by riprap.
All dredge material will be dewatered and contained on an upland spoil site.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
The south end of the marina will be aligned with the northern boundary of the FLC easement. The entire
opening to the waterway will be approximately 220 feet wide (T-dock plus openings). The marina will
have two 75-foot-wide fairways that open to the FLC. These fairways will be set back 66 feet (east) and
84 feet (west) from the existing banks of the FLC. The opening will be flared to improve site distance for
boats entering the FLC from the marina. The banks of the entrance way will be protected by a riprap wall
with a top approximately 3.0 feet above MHW. The banks behind the walls will be sloped from +3.0
MHW gradually up to the finished site elevation. It is anticipated that the docks inside the facility will be
floating docks. There will be no docking allowed on the outside of the center T-dock.
marina or to wait and yield to the barge that has just entered the sight line. In addition, signs will be
posted at the entrance/exit point of the access channel identifying no-wake and idle-only zones.
Water-based activities support tourism in southern Baldwin County, and the Harbour Lights Marina
2.1.9
KFPH Properties
The KFPH Properties development will be a 5-acre site in Gulf Shores, Alabama, along the northern
shoreline of the FLC, west of S.R. 59 (Figure 11). Development associated with the project will include a
marina, condominiums, and commercial space. A joint application and notification was submitted to the
USACE and ADEM on March 7, 2006, and assigned application number SAM-2006-685-MBM
(Appendix K).
The proposed project will include approximately 72 condominium units. Approximately 20,000 square
feet of commercial space will be in the development. The percent of the project area that will be used as
green space has not been determined.
The project will include excavating approximately 53,000 cubic yards of sand and silt material above
MHW and 11,500 cubic yards of material below MLW to create a marina and one access channel to the
FLC. The marina and access channel will be dredged to a depth of -16.0 MLW. The marina will consist of
February 2009
2-19
1
2
Figure 11. KFPH Properties
February 2009
2-20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
50 wet boat slips and finger piers. The marina slips will be 28 feet deep by 15.75 feet wide, and the finger
piers will be 14 feet long by 3.5 feet wide. The marina basin will be armored with sheet-pile. All dredge
material will be dewatered and contained within a 1.8-acre spoil containment berm on uplands. The
containment berm will be approximately 6 feet tall and have a capacity of 11,650 cubic yards. In addition,
approximately 113 cubic yards or rip-rap will be placed above MLW and 202 cubic yards will be placed
below MLW.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
No net loss of wetlands will occur as a result of the proposed development.
Water-based activities support tourism in southern Baldwin County, and the KFPH Properties
2.1.10 Lawrenz Eastern Marina
The proposed Lawrenz Eastern Marina development will be a 37-acre site in Gulf Shores, Alabama,
along the northern shoreline of the FLC, east of S.R. 59 (Figure 12). Development associated with the
project will include a marina, condominiums, and commercial and retail space. A joint application and
notification was submitted to the USACE and ADEM on October 18, 2006, and assigned application
number SAM-2006-2330-MBM (Appendix L).
The proposed project will include approximately 1,250 condominium units, with 500 seasonal units and
750 permanent units. Approximately 500,000 square feet of retail space will be in the development and
includes restaurants, a marina store, and retail shops. Approximately 200,000 square feet of commercial
space will be in the development and includes professional offices and banks. Green space in the
development includes approximately 1.85 acres of parks, including a children’s park.
The project includes excavation of approximately 83,000 cubic yards of sandy clay material above MHW
and 97,000 cubic yards of material below MLW to create the marina and one access channel to the FLC.
The marina and access channel will conform to an existing drainage ditch and boat slip that has been
historically used as an entrance point onto the FLC. All excavated material will be disposed of in an onsite 12-acre upland spoil containment berm, with a capacity of approximately 83,170 cubic yards. The
marina will consist of 77 wet boat slips. Approximately 1,850 linear feet of sheet-pile bulkhead will be
installed around the perimeter of the marina and approximately 880 linear feet of wave attenuation will be
placed waterward of the marina for protection. In addition, approximately 1,470 cubic yards of rip-rap
will be placed above MLW and 1,680 cubic yards will be placed below MLW.
February 2009
2-21
1
2
Figure 12. Lawrenz Eastern Marina
February 2009
2-22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.1.11 Lawrenz Western Marina
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Water-based activities support tourism in southern Baldwin County, and the Lawrenz Eastern Marina
The marina and access channel will be constructed in the same location as an existing drainage ditch and
boat slip, which has historically been used as an entrance point onto the FLC. In addition, the site is in an
area away from bridges or curves in the FLC, which reduces the navigation and safety risks in this area.
The Lawrenz Western Marina development will be a 8.4-acre upland site in Gulf Shores, Alabama, along
the northern shoreline of the FLC, west of S.R. 59 (Figure 13). Development associated with the project
will include a marina and condominiums. A joint application and notification was submitted to the
USACE and ADEM on October 18, 2006, and assigned application number SAM-2006-2329-MBM
(Appendix M).
The proposed project will include approximately 288 condominium units, with 115 seasonal units and
173 permanent units. No retail or commercial space will be included in the development. Green space in
the development includes approximately 0.84 acre of landscaped buffer space.
The project includes excavating approximately 90,000 cubic yards of sandy clay material above MHW
and 20,000 cubic yards of material below MLW to create the marina and one access channel to the FLC.
All excavated material will be disposed of in an on-site 2.4-acre upland spoil containment berm, with a
capacity of approximately 13,620 cubic yards. The marina will consist of 43 wet boat slips.
Approximately 1,250 linear feet of sheet-pile bulkhead will be installed around the perimeter of the
marina, and approximately 110 linear feet of wave attenuation will be placed waterward of the marina for
protection. The marina entrance/exit will be approximately 345 feet west of the S.R. 59 bridge. In
addition, approximately 125 cubic yards of rip-rap will be placed above MLW and 189 cubic yards will
be placed below MLW.
February 2009
2-23
1
2
Figure 13. Lawrenz Western Marina
February 2009
2-24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2.1.12 Oyster Bay Marina
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Water-based activities support tourism in southern Baldwin County, and the Lawrenz Western Marina
The Oyster Bay Marina development will be a 205-acre site in Gulf Shores, Alabama, along the southern
shoreline of Oyster Bay, approximately 4,700 feet south of the FLC (Figure 14). Development associated
with the project will include a marina, condominiums, and other amenities. A joint application and
notification was submitted to the USACE and ADEM on February 6, 2006, and assigned application
number AL06-00310-B (Appendix N).
The proposed project will include approximately 1,000 condominium units, with 500 seasonal units and
500 permanent units. Approximately 7,000 square feet of restaurant space will be in the development. No
other retail or commercial space will be on the project property. Approximately 155 acres of the project
property will be green space consisting of parks, boardwalks, and ponds.
The project will include excavation of approximately 675,000 cubic yards of sand material to create the
marina and one access channel to the FLC. All dredge material will be dewatered and contained on
uplands on the property. The marina will be along the southern shoreline of Oyster Bay and the access
channel will be dredged approximately 4,600 linear feet through Oyster Bay from the marina to the FLC.
The marina and access channel will be dredged to a depth of -16.0 MLW for a distance of 300 feet from
the edge of the FLC channel. A 2005 survey of the project area to be dredged concluded that there are no
known oyster beds or submerged aquatic vegetation within the area to be dredged.
The marina will consist of 396 wet boat slips, 60-feet in length. Approximately 3,360 linear feet of
boardwalk will cross a tidally influenced wetland to connect the upland development to the marina.
According to ADEM regulations, the boardwalk will be constructed as high as wide (10 feet by 10 feet)
and have ¾ inch spacing between planks to allow sufficient light to pass to wetland vegetation below.
The access channel will connect to the FLC at a 90 degree angle at the northern open end of the bay. The
line of sight distance from the access channel to the FLC will be approximately 1,000 feet to the west and
2,700 feet to the east. At the current speed of a barge (6 mph), a boater exiting the marina will have a
February 2009
2-25
1
2
Figure 14. Oyster Bay Marina
February 2009
2-26
1
2
3
4
5
6
Water-based activities support tourism in southern Baldwin County, and the Oyster Bay Marina
development would help sustain this industry. The site south of the FLC was selected for the development
2.1.13 Summerdance
7
8
9
10
11
12
The Summerdance development will be a 240-acre site in Gulf Shores, Alabama, along the northern
shoreline of the FLC, east of S.R. 59 and southeast of Jack Edwards Airport (Figure 15). Development
associated with the project will include three marinas, condominiums, and other amenities. A joint
application and notification was submitted to the USACE and ADEM on February 24, 2006, and assigned
application number SAM-2006-952-MBM (Appendix O).
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
2.1.13.1.1 Original Site Design
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
The proposed development will include approximately 3,175 condominium units, with 2,127 seasonal
units and 1,048 permanent units. Amenities associated with the condominiums will include swimming
pools, tennis courts, and a clubhouse. There will be approximately 27,000 square feet of retail and
commercial space in the development, including restaurants and convenience stores. Approximately 100
acres of the proposed project will be green space, with parks, lakes, and boardwalks. The site will have
approximately 9,000 feet of shoreline along the FLC.
The project will include excavation of approximately 569,000 cubic yards of sand and clay material to
create the three marinas and three access channels to the FLC. Each marina will consist of flow-through
breakwater, access piers, and finger piers with tie-off piles. The east marina will consist of 182 wet boat
slips and 336 dry boat slips. The west marina will consist of 92 wet boat slips and 490 dry boat slips. The
central marina will consist of 139 wet boat slips. All marinas and associated entrance channels will be
dredged to -16.0 MLW. All dredge material will be contained on uplands adjacent to the marinas and
used a fill for associated on-shore development. Riprap (7,500 cubic yards) and sheet-pile bulkheads
(6,000 linear feet) will form the marina basins and stabilize the adjacent shoreline. Flow-through
breakwaters (1,687 linear feet) will separate the marina basins from the FLC. Approximately 4.12 acres of
non-jurisdictional wetlands and 10.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be filled or dredged for project
development. The applicant has proposed to mitigate for unavoidable impacts on the 10.8 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands by purchasing credits at an approved mitigation bank. Approximately 15.6 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands will be avoided and incorporated into the project’s green space.
2.1.13.1.2 Revised Site Design
A revised site design was submitted in May 2007 to address original site design wetland impacts. The east
marina was moved further west, and line of sight distance from the marina to the FLC will be
approximately 2,585 feet to the east and 700 feet to the west. The west marina will be relocated 400 feet
further west, and line of sight distance from the marina to the FLC will be approximately 1,550 feet to the
east and 1,615 feet to the west. The central marina will be shifted approximately 550 feet further west,
and line of sight distance from the marina to the FLC will be approximately 2,585 feet to the east and 700
feet to the west.
February 2009
2-27
1
2
Figure 15. Summerdance
February 2009
2-28
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
The number of wet boat slips for each marina was changed in the revised site design. The east marina was
redesigned to have 88 slips, resulting in a reduction of 94 boat slips. The west marina was redesigned to
have 107 slips, resulting in an increase of 15 boat slips. The central marina was redesigned to have 123
slips, resulting in a reduction of 16 boat slips. The revised site design resulted in a net reduction of 95 wet
slips. The number of dry boat slips remained unchanged.
29
Modifications to the marina design include the following:
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
The amount of jurisdictional wetlands affected as a result of the revised site design decreased from 10.8
acres to 0.29 acres.
On June 8, 2007, an additional revision was submitted, which divided the project into three parcels named
Summerdance West, Summerdance Central, and Summerdance East (Appendix O). A detailed description
of each project is provided below.
Summerdance West. Summerdance West will include an area of approximately 371,790 square feet
over land north and south of the FLC easement (Figure 16). There will be approximately 282,810 square
feet to the north and 88,980 square feet to the south. The amount of material to be dredged below MHW
will be approximately 133,325 cubic yards, with 93,745 cubic yards north of the FLC easement and
39,580 cubic yards south of the FLC easement. The amount of material to be dredged above MHW will
be approximately 129,675 cubic yards, with 94,795 cubic yards north of the FLC easement and 34,880
cubic yards south of the FLC easement. Overall, there will be approximately 263,000 cubic yards
removed for this project. There will also be a total of 550 cubic yards of rip-rap associated with this
project. Excavating the basin could create two acres of estuarine habitat.
The Summerdance West marina, which will contain 107 wet slips and 490 dry slips in a single storage
building, will be moved 400 feet further west from the bend in the FLC, adding another 45 seconds onto
the reaction time for a barge traveling 6 mph. A barge in the curve to the east will be able to see a boat
exiting the marina from a distance of approximately 3,920 feet and will have approximately 7.4 minutes
to react.
•
•
•
•
•
•
A flared opening so boats exiting the marina will be able to see other boats that are 1,615 feet to
the west and 1,554 feet to the east of the marina entry
Widening the marina fairway at the entry to 105 feet from 68 feet to improve navigation and site
lines by 54 percent
Increasing the marina entry/exit width 25 percent from 120 feet to 150 feet
Relocating the dry storage up against the inflow/outflow easement and creating a long, dedicated
queuing area so boats no longer are loaded and unloaded in the middle of the marina
Adding two queuing areas for boats departing and returning to dry storage
Replacing flow-through breakwater with a floating breakwater to improve visibility/site lines and
improve flushing
February 2009
2-29
1
2
Figure 16. Summerdance West
February 2009
2-30
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
Summerdance Central. Summerdance Central will include an area of approximately 560,825 square
feet over land north and south of the FLC easement (Figure 17). There will be approximately 337,650
square feet to the north and 223,175 square feet to the south. The amount of material to be dredged below
MHW will be approximately 197,700 cubic yards, with 111,925 cubic yards north of the FLC easement
and 85,770 cubic yards south of the FLC easement. The amount of material to be dredged above MHW
176,280 cubic yards south of the FLC easement. Overall, there will be approximately 512,165 cubic yards
project. Excavating the basins could create approximately 3.75 acres of estuarine habitat.
The Summerdance Central marina will be relocated 550 feet further west from its original location on the
FLC, adding another 45 seconds onto the reaction time for a barge traveling 6 mph, and modified to
include a 12 percent reduction in wet boat slips from 139 to 123. With the marina relocation, a barge in
the curve to the east of the marina will be able to see a boat exiting the marina from a distance of
approximately 2,615 feet and will have approximately 4.9 minutes to react.
• A flared opening so boats exiting the marina will be able to see other boats that are 700 feet to the
west and 2,585 feet to the east of the marina entry
• A widened marina fairway at entry to 100 feet from 67 feet for a 50 percent improvement in
navigation and site lines
• Increased marina entry/exit width from 184 feet to 200 feet
• Flow-through breakwater with a floating breakwater to improve visibility/site lines and flushing
February 2009
2-31
1
2
Figure 17. Summerdance Central
February 2009
2-32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Summerdance East. Summerdance East will include an area of approximately 322,390 square feet
over land north and south of the FLC easement (Figure 18). There will be approximately 238,750 square
feet to the north and 83,640 square feet to the south. The amount of material to be dredged below MHW
41,225 cubic yards south of the FLC easement. The amount of material to be dredged above MHW will
be approximately 123,115 cubic yards, with 88,868 cubic yards north of the FLC easement and 34,250
cubic yards south of the FLC easement. Overall, there will be approximately 243,480 cubic yards
project.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
The Summerdance East marina will be relocated as far west and south as possible to reduce the surface
area affected by dredging from approximately 8.65 acres to 6.97 acres, as well as a 95 percent reduction
of impacts on jurisdictional wetlands (6.77 acres to 0.29 acres). Wet boat slips will be reduced by 52
percent from 182 to 88. With the relocation, a barge in the curve to the west or east of the marina will be
able to see a boat exiting the marina from a distance of approximately 2,300 feet from the west and 2,370
feet from the east. Reaction times will be approximately 4.3 minutes from the west and 4.5 minutes from
the east.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A flared opening so boats exiting the marina will be able to see other boats that are approximately
905 feet to the west and 1,490 feet to the east of the marina entry
A widened marina fairway at entry to 83 feet from 75 feet for an 11 percent improvement in
navigation and site lines
Increased marina entry/exit width from 130 feet to 150 feet
Replaced the flow-through breakwater with a floating breakwater to improve visibility/site lines
and flushing
Added queuing areas for boats departing and returning to dry storage
Moved the road connecting to the eastern portion of the site to minimize impacts on wetlands
Avoided creating isolated wetlands by maintaining hydrology at the road through the use of
culverts
February 2009
2-33
1
2
Figure 18. Summerdance East
February 2009
2-34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Water-based activities support tourism in southern Baldwin County, and the Summerdance development
associated with marine usage made available via access to the FLC. The three marina basins are in areas
where natural breaks in the land exist created by two existing inflow/outflow structures and easements
that connect the FLC to a dredge maintenance disposal area.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
2.1.14 Walker Creek/Portage Crossing
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
The Walker Creek/Portage Crossing development will be a 10-acre site in Orange Beach, Alabama, along
the northern shoreline of the FLC, east of the Foley Beach Expressway (Figure 19). The site is triangular
in shape and is transected by Portage Creek near the property’s east end. Development associated with the
project will include condominiums and a marina. A joint application and notification was submitted to the
USACE and ADEM on February 11, 2005, and assigned application number AL05-00466-J (Appendix
P).
The proposed development will include approximately 516 condominium units in four residential
buildings. No retail or commercial space will be constructed as part of the development. A public boat
launch is proposed to be constructed on the west side of the property as a benefit to the public.
The project includes excavating approximately 39,400 cubic yards of sand material to create a marina
consisting of 42 wet boat slips and one access channel to the FLC. The marina and access channel will be
dredged to a depth of -16 MLW. All dredge material will be impounded and dewatered on-site and used
as fill for upland project development.
Existing conditions show that the eastern line of sight from boats exiting Portage Creek are limited
because of trees and other vegetation. However, during construction, a portion of the uplands will be
dredged and most of the remaining uplands will be cleared according to the site plan. The line of sight
distance from the access channel to the FLC will be approximately 1,700 feet to the west and 1,800 feet to
the east. At the current speed of a barge (6 mph), a boater exiting the marina will have a reaction time of
approximately 3.2 minutes (west) and 3.4 minutes (east) to decide whether to exit the marina or to wait
and yield to the barge that has just entered the sight line.
Approximately 0.97 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be filled or dredged for project development.
February 2009
2-35
1
2
Figure 19. Walker Creek/Portage Crossing
February 2009
2-36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Water-based activities support tourism in southern Baldwin County, and the Walker Creek development
associated with marine usage made available via access to the FLC. In addition, the development offers
continuity to the Bama Bayou and Wharf developments, allowing visitors to benefit from the attractions
at nearby facilities.
9
10
11
12
13
14
2.1.15 Waterways East
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
2.1.15.1.1 Original Site Design
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
The Waterways East development will be a 12-acre site in Gulf Shores, Alabama, along the northern
shoreline of the FLC, east of S.R. 59 and south of Jack Edwards Airport (Figure 20). Development
associated with the project will include condominiums, a marina, and other amenities. A joint application
and notification was submitted to the USACE and ADEM on February 23, 2006, and assigned application
number SAM-2006-951-MBM (Appendix Q).
The proposed development will include approximately 292 condominium units, with 200 seasonal units
and 92 permanent units, in three residential buildings. Amenities associated with the condominiums
include swimming pools and tennis courts. No retail or commercial space will be constructed as part of
the development. Approximately 10 acres of the project footprint will be used as green space, with parks,
walking paths, and boardwalks. The project will include excavation of approximately 52,000 cubic yards
of sand and clay material to create a 2-acre marina and one access channel to the FLC. The marina will
incorporate an existing 1-acre barge slip. The marina will consist of 44 wet boat slips, 220-feet long flowthrough breakwater, access piers, and finger piers with tie-off piles. Riprap (300 linear feet) and a sheetpile bulkhead (990 linear feet) will form the marina basin and stabilize the adjacent FLC shoreline. The
marina and access channel will be dredged to -16.0 MLW. All dredge material will be contained on
uplands adjacent to the marina and used as fill for on-shore development.
2.1.15.1.2 Revised Site Design
A revised site design was submitted in May 2007 to address potential safety issues. To improve
navigation and lines of sight, the marina fairway will be widened at the entry from 59 feet to 94 feet, the
marina entry way will be widened by 25 percent from 80 feet to 100 feet, and the flow-through
breakwater will be replaced with a floating breakwater, which will also improve flushing. The first two
rows of boat slips (four slips total) were eliminated to accommodate the changes to improve safety.
Additional boat slips were added, as well, to bring the total number of slips to 51.
This project footprint will have an area of approximately 144,205 square feet over the land north and
south of the FLC easement. There will be approximately 103,540 square feet to the north and 40,665
square feet to the south. The amount of material to be dredged below MHW will be approximately 54,550
cubic yards, with approximately 34,320 cubic yards north of the FLC easement and 20,230 cubic yards
south of the FLC easement. The amount of material to be dredged above MHW will be approximately
February 2009
2-37
1
2
Figure 20. Waterways East
February 2009
2-38
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
61,485 cubic yards, with approximately 42,375 cubic yards north of the FLC easement and 19,110 cubic
yards south of the FLC easement. Overall, there will be approximately 116,040 cubic yards removed for
this project. There will also be a total of 275 cubic yards of rip-rap associated with this project.
The line of sight distance from the access channel to the FLC will be approximately 1,090 feet to the east
and 805 feet to the west. With a barge traveling at 6 mph, a boater exiting the marina will have a reaction
time of 1.5 minutes (west) and 2.1 minutes (east) to decide whether to exit the marina or wait and yield to
a barge that has just entered the line of sight.
Water-based activities support tourism in southern Baldwin County, and the Waterways East
2.1.16 Alabama Marine Resources
In addition to the boat slips previously discussed, there will be four boat slips located at a facility along
the FLC for use by the Alabama Marine Resources. These slips will be constructed on the north side of
the FLC located between the Summerdance and Delfino developments. The boat basin will be 100 feet by
85 feet, and each boat slip will have dimensions of 40 feet by 10 feet. Two of these slips would be for the
Marine Police, which would patrol the FLC as part of the safety/mitigation plan. The other two slips
would be used by the Marine Resources staff for their purposes.
2.1.17 Wetland Impacts
On the basis of the project descriptions provided for each proposed development, three developments will
impact jurisdictional tidal and non-tidal wetlands. 501 Point West, Summerdance East, and Walker
Creek/Portage Crossing will affect 0.79 acres (34,848 square feet), 0.29 acres (12,632 square feet), and
0.97 acres (42,253 square feet), respectively. The project descriptions for 501 Point West, Summerdance
East, and Walker Creek/Portage Crossing are presented in Sections 2.1.2.1, 2.1.13.1, and 2.1.14.1,
respectively. Mitigation plans for 501 Point West and Summerdance East are summarized in Sections
2.1.17.1 and 2.1.17.2. Walker Creek/Portage Crossing has not prepared nor submitted a mitigation plan.
2.1.17.1 501 Point West Mitigation Plan
The goal of the mitigation plan for 501 Point West is to replace wetlands functions lost at the project site
by restoring tidal marsh and tidally influenced marsh along the fringes of existing tidal marsh and tidally
influenced marsh. Total wetland impact associated with this proposed development is 0.79 acres. The
unavoidable wetland impacts will be mitigated on site through the restoration of tidal marsh and tidally
influenced marsh. A total of 68,744 ft2, or 1.58 acres, of marsh will be restored contiguous to existing
tidal and tidally influenced marsh. Wetlands will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. The proposed mitigation site
was selected because it is already owned by the developer, it is adjacent to existing tidal wetlands, and the
type of wetland restoration proposed has proven to have a high rate of success. Implementation of the
restoration work will be done prior to, or concurrent with, permitted wetland impacts associated with
project construction. The detailed wetland mitigation plan for 501 Point West can be found in Appendix
D.
February 2009
2-39
1
2
3
4
5
6
2.1.17.2 Summerdance East Mitigation
The total amount of wetland impacts associated with this project is 0.29 acres. Wetland Rapid Assessment
Procedure (WRAP) was utilized to determine that the function of wetlands slated to be impacted is within
the medium quality range. In lieu of a mitigation plan, Summerdance East will achieve compensatory
mitigation for any unavoidable, permitted impacts through purchasing the appropriate amount of wetland
credit from an approved mitigation bank.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
The mitigation ration for medium quality wetland credits through the Weeks Bay Mitigation bank is
2.5:1. Which means 0.73 acres worth of credits will be purchased to mitigate for the 0.29 acres to be
impacted. Credits will be purchased as specified in conditions of the USACE permit.
14
2.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
After reviewing the permit applications, the USACE has recommended the following general
requirements for each of the proposed 17 marinas on the FLC:
A copy of the letter stating Summerdance East’s intention to purchase credits, as well as the WRAP form,
can be found in Appendix O.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
No structures on the government right-of-way or within the waterway.
Fueling facilities must be within the protected area of the marina.
Lighting must be designed so as not to impact commercial navigation.
All marinas must be designed for wakes produced from the waterway and must provide wave
attenuation within the marinas.
Entrances must be designed to provide safe ingress and egress into the facilities.
All marina entrance channels must be a minimum of -16 feet MLW from the toe of the waterway
channel to the government right-of-way limit.
Slope protection/erosion control must be provided at all marina entrances.
All facilities must provide an engineering design and analysis to address all the general and specific
requirements cited within these requirements.
30
2.3 ALTERNATIVES
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
The USACE regulatory analysis requires the applicants to provide a detailed analysis of alternative sites
considered as well as alternative project site plans considered to demonstrate the avoidance and
minimization of impacts on the aquatic resources to the greatest extent possible. The applicants’ analysis
must also address the public interest factors that are relevant to their project.
42
43
44
45
46
For the purposes of this EIS, the applicants were required to provide an analysis of alternative sites and
alternative site plans that demonstrated an avoidance or minimization of impacts on aquatic ecosystems,
wetlands, critical habitat, EFH, federally listed TES, and cultural resources. The analysis also includes an
explanation for the alternate site selection including, but not limited to ownership, housing demand,
economic benefit to the public and private sectors, availability of green space, proximity to navigable
waterways, an absence of hazardous or toxic materials/waste, and infrastructure.
2.3.1
Alternative Considered but not Selected for Detailed Analysis
One other alternative, the original proposed site designs, was considered but not carried forward in the
analysis. Between November 2004 and October 2006, joint applications and notifications were submitted
to the USACE and ADEM for 15 proposed developments on the FLC. The applicants applied for 3,591
boat slips, which included 1,849 wet boat slips and 1,742 dry boat slips, and proposed dredging 2,710,064
February 2009
2-40
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
cubic yards of uplands, waterbottoms, and wetlands to create the marinas for each development.
Approximately 12.95 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 4.12 acres of non-jurisdictional wetlands would
be dredged or filled as part of construction activities. In March 2008, 501 Point West and Summerdance
submitted revised applications and site designs for avoidance of wetlands, and Waterways East submitted
revised designs for safety and navigational improvements. Walker Creek/Portage Crossing has not
proposed a reduction in affected jurisdictional wetlands. This resulted in a final slip count of 1,722 wet
slips and 1,742 dry slips for a total of 3,464 slips. In addition, the quantity of dredged material increased
to 3,143,195 cubic yards and the acres of affected jurisdictional wetlands was reduced to 2.05 acres.
Detailed descriptions of each development’s original site designs are provided in Section 2.1 and
summarized in Table 6.
This alternative was not carried forward for further analysis because the total number of slips applied for
(3,464) exceeds the maximum number of slips (3,093) that the USACE will approve for permits (see
Section 2.3.2.2 and Appendix R). Because the federally authorized purpose of the FLC is for commercial
traffic, increased recreational use must not affect present and future commercial operations. On the basis
of information provided in the WCS (see Appendix R) and best professional judgment, the number of
boats that would occupy these slips has the potential to adversely affect commercial barge traffic on the
FLC and increase safety risks because of the increased volume of traffic on the waterway at any time. As
a result, approving permits for, and construction of, 3,464 boat slips on the FLC is not a reasonable
alternative and will not be discussed further in this EIS.
2.3.2
Alternatives Selected for Detailed Analysis
The USACE has identified the No Action Alternative, Maximum Boat Slip Alternative, and Minimum
Boat Slip Alternative as the principal alternatives for detailed analysis. These alternatives were selected
for further analysis because they propose a conservative approach in the number of boat slips to be
permitted, select management options to decrease impacts on commercial barge navigation while
maintaining a safe environment for recreational boaters, propose site designs and management options to
minimize wetland impacts, and adhere to guidelines set forth in section 10 and section 404 regulations.
Developing management options included in the selected alternatives involved a screening analysis of
resource-specific management activities. Marina and boat slip specific issues focused on acceptable linesof-sight to ensure safe egress from marinas, number and location of mooring facilities for commercial
craft (e.g., barges), general marina designs, and appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland
impacts. The screening analysis involved using accepted standards, guidelines, and policies, as well as
best professional judgment and information presented in the WCS, to identify management practices to
achieve the management objectives for the FLC.
Consistent with NEPA, developing the selected alternatives focused on a reasonable range of resourcespecific management options and using those options to develop a Preferred Alternative that could be
implemented in the foreseeable future. Applying the screening analysis in developing the selected
alternatives eliminated the need to define and evaluate hypothetical alternatives that could not, or would
not, be implemented. As a result, the EIS formally addresses the three principal alternatives. These
alternatives are summarized in Section 2.3.2.4 (Table 7).
February 2009
2-41
1
Table 6. Summary of Original Proposed Developments
578
143
116
Dredge
(cubic
yards)
425,810
130,000
38,900
Total
slips
Development
47 Canal Place
501 Point West
Bayside Harbour
Bon Secour Village
Eastern Marina
Bon Secour Village
Western Marina
Delfino Resort Phase
1
Delfino Resort Phase
2
Harbour Lights Marina
KFPH Properties
Lawrenz Eastern
Marina
Lawrenz Western
Marina
Oyster Bay Marina
Summerdance West
Summerdance
Central
Wet slips
270
63
116
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
N/A
300
N/A
450
10
528
538
98,000
107
0
107
49,000
53
0
53
52,000
50
0
50
53,900
76
50
0
0
76
50
92,000
64,500
77
0
77
180,000
43
0
43
110,000
396
107
0
490
396
597
675,000
263,000
123
0
123
512,165
88
336
424
243,480
42
0
42
39,400
51
0
51
116,040
275
1,722
1,742
3,464
3,143,195
6,665
Summerdance East
Walker Creek/Portage
Crossing
Waterways East
Total
Dry slips
308
80
0
Riprap
(cubic
yards)
360
N/A
N/A
N/A
315
3,150
315
Wetlands impact
(acres)
0
0.79 (JD)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/A
550
650
0
0
300
0.29 (JD),
4.12 (non-JD)
N/A
0
0.97 (JD)
0
2.05 (JD),
4.12 (non-JD)
JD – jurisdictional wetland
Non-JD – non-jurisdictional wetland
3
yd – cubic yards
2.3.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the USACE would not issue any permits. Including the CEQ-required
No Action Alternative in the EIS serves as a benchmark against which the Preferred Alternative and
alternatives can be evaluated. Under this alternative, the Mobile District would not allow any marinas
proposed in this EIS to be constructed on the FLC. The number of wet boat slips on the FLC, not
including single-family residential boat slips, would remain at 610 and no slips would be added. The
proposed uplands developments could be constructed along the FLC and Oyster Bay, but dredging of
uplands, waterbottoms, or wetlands for marina construction would not be permitted. The No Action
Alternative is evaluated in detail in this EIS.
2.3.2.2 Alternative 2: Maximum Boat Slip Alternative
Under the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative, the USACE would approve permits for up to 3,093 boat slips
on the FLC through the year 2025. The methodology used to calculate this maximum number is presented
in Table 10.3 of the WCS. On the basis of implementing management options and approved site plans,
February 2009
2-42
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
the WCS-recommended capacity in the year 2025 to maintain commercial navigation traffic is 254 boats
on the FLC at any time. This capacity translates to 3,639 boat slips on the FLC. Because no detailed
guidance exists for calculating waterway capacity for a waterbody similar to the FLC, the WCS
recognizes that some uncertainty exists with the recommended capacity. Therefore, a confidence range of
+/– 15 percent was applied, resulting in a waterway capacity range of 3,093 to 4,185 boat slips. Using a
conservative approach in approving permits for marinas along the FLC, the USACE selected the low end
of this range as the maximum number of boat slips that will be approved.
2.3.2.3 Alternative 3: Minimum Boat Slip Alternative (Preferred Alternative)
Under the Minimum Boat Slip Alternative, the USACE would initially approve permits for 1,818 boat
slips through the first year of construction , with the option of phasing-in 1,150 additional boat slips until
the maximum number of slips (3,093) is reached. The methodology used to calculate this number is
presented in Table 9.3 of the WCS (Appendix R). This alternative assumes that mitigation management
options (see Section 2.4) have not been implemented by the first year of construction but site plans have
been approved. As a result, the WCS-recommended capacity in the year 2025 to maintain commercial
navigation traffic is 191 boats on the FLC at any time. This capacity translates to 2,139 boat slips on the
FLC. Because no detailed guidance exists for calculating waterway capacity for a waterbody similar to
the FLC, the WCS recognizes that some uncertainty exists with the recommended capacity. Therefore, a
confidence range of +/– 15 percent was applied, resulting in a waterway capacity range of 1,818 to 2,460
boat slips. Using a conservative approach in approving permits for marinas along the FLC, the USACE
selected the low end of this range (1,818) as the number of boat slips that will be initially approved. Due
to the implementation of mitigation options, specifically the construction of four dedicated primary
commercial barge mooring locations, the number of boat slips initially approved increased to 1,943. This
number was derived by updating Tables 9.1, 9.3, and 10.2 in the WCS as a result of applying the
“Commercial Vessels” updated reduction factor (Appendix R).
The option of phasing-in additional slips will occur approximately one year after completion of the buildout of the intial 1,943 boat slips. An evaluation period will occur each year to evaluate impacts of
increased recreational boat traffic on commercial barge navigation and overall waterway safety. During
this period, the applicant could implement mitigation management options and provide monitoring reports
to include, but not limited to, the following:
• Additional baseline data to include marina vessel use, peak volumes/flow rates, and peak hour uses.
• Impacts of projects on safety on the FLC, including Alabama Marine Police and USCG reports.
• Impacts on commercial navigation operations, including impacts on commercial traffic schedules.
The decision to release additional boat slips will adhere to the permitting processes of the USACE,
Mobile District Regulatory Division. If during the evaluation period it is determined that increased
recreational boat traffic is having adverse impacts on commercial barge navigation or safety, the USACE
has the authority to deny permits for additional boat slips on the FLC.
February 2009
2-43
1
2.3.2.4 Summary of Selected Alternatives
2
Table 7. Summary of Alternatives Selected for Detailed Analysis
Alternatives
a. No Action
b. Maximum
Boat Slip
Alternative
c. Minimum
Boat Slip
Alternative
Proposed changes from
original proposals
N/A
Conservative RD approach (bottom
number of the 15% confidence range)
in the number of boat slips additional
slips for implementing accepted
mitigation options approved site plans
Conservative RD approach (bottom
number of the 15% confidence range)
in the number of boat slips potential
future phase in approach no additional
boat slips, mitigation options not
implemented approved site plans
Maximum number of
additional boat slips
0
3,093 boat slips permitted
1,943 boat slips initially
permitted in Year 1
1,150 additional boat slips
phased in at 25% per year
beginning after Year 1.
Phase-in for additional
boat slips
N/A
N/A
Year 1 = 1,943
Year 2 = 2,230
Year 3 = 2,517
Year 4 = 2,804
Year 5 = 3,093
3
4
5
6
Note: Timing of the release of additional boat slips will be contingent upon the Corps determination that the current and proposed
increased recreational boat traffic will not have an adverse impact on commercial navigation or safety.
This table does not include single-family residential boat slips.
7
2.4 MITIGATION PLAN AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
8
9
10
11
12
13
The applicants submitted a fully adopted mitigation plan for section 10 issues consisting of management
activities aimed at increasing safety on the FLC and minimizing impacts of increased recreational boat
traffic on commercial barge operations. If the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative was to be implemented,
these management activities would be implemented immediately to minimize the impacts of increased
boat traffic on the FLC. Under the Minimum Boat Slip Alternative, these management activities will be
phased in accordingly as the boat slips are constructed. Details of the mitigation plan are presented below.
14
2.4.1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
2.4.1.1 Primary Use Mooring
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
Mooring Facilities
17 mooring spaces for commercial barge operators will be established (Figure 21).
Spaces shown in red are deemed Primary Use.
Design specifications for the mooring facilities to be constructed at these Primary Use spaces will
be prepared subject to the reasonable approval of the. These facilities will have land- and wave
attenuator-based tie-off infrastructure.
The City of Gulf Shores will engage an engineering firm to engineer the Primary Use facilities
and to estimate the total cost of the construction thereof. The City will report to the applicants the
total of such estimate plus the actual then to-date and estimated remaining engineering costs for
the completion of construction of the Primary Use facilities.
Within thirty (30) days after the USACE issues a final action on the last of the applications being
considered in the EIS, the City will assess each applicant such applicant’s proportionate share of
the aforesaid total estimate, plus 25% for possible overruns, change orders, etc. Each applicant’s
share will be a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of slips permitted to such applicant
by the USACE and the denominator of which is the total number of slips permitted all of the
applicants. Within thirty (30) days of such assessments, each applicant shall pay its assessment.
The City shall perform as project manager for the Primary Use facilities to be constructed with
such funds and completed on or before 180 days after the USACE issues a final action on the last
February 2009
2-44
1
2
3
4
5
(F)
of the applications being considered in the EIS to be acted upon. Any excess shall be refunded
proportionately. Any deficit shall be covered proportionately by assessments issued by the City.
The applicants acknowledge their understanding that the Primary Use facilities are intended for
tows only and that unmanned barges, large yachts, or other motor vessels should not be moored
there.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
2.4.1.2 Secondary and Tertiary Mooring
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2.4.2
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
The twelve mooring spaces shown in Figure 21 in orange are identified as Secondary Use facilities for
temporary emergency mooring (fog, mechanical failure, etc.) only of commercial tows, not unmanned
barges, large yachts, or other motor vessels. One tertiary mooring location, identified in yellow, is located
immediately west of the bend in the eastern portion of the FLC near the Summerdance development. This
mooring location will be used only in extreme weather events (hurricanes), but will otherwise remain
vacant during normal waterway operations. The spaces are located in front of various applicants’
properties. Each applicant agrees that a condition of any slip permit issued by the USACE shall be that
such applicant construct, at its expense and prior to putting any slip in use and prior to development of the
applicant’s land pursuant to any USACE permit, the mooring facility(ies) in front of such applicant’s
property. All of these will be land-based or wave-attenuator based facilities. Design specifications for the
secondary mooring land-based and wave attenuator-development facilities will be prepared subject to the
reasonable approval of the USACE and the cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach.
Mooring Facilities Maintenance
The applicants and the City of Gulf Shores will coordinate a permanent assessment program to fund the
City’s ongoing routine maintenance of the mooring facilities. The applicants acknowledge that no
construction shall be conducted pursuant to any slip permit until such a maintenance program is provided.
The maintenance program shall not relieve from liability or responsibility any person, including any
commercial or recreational boater, who damages any mooring facility or who would otherwise be liable
or responsible for repair under applicable law. The maintenance program will be coordinated with the
USACE.
2.4.3
Design and Use Conditions to any Permit
Each applicant agrees that any slip permit issued to it will contain the USACE’s customary conditions,
the condition for Secondary Use mooring facilities as aforesaid, and the following:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
Except for the aforesaid mooring facilities, no permanent structure shall be permitted within the
500 foot right-of-way that comprises the GIWW.
Marina entrances shall be sited and designed to minimize interference with bridges and marine
traffic near curves in the GIWW.
Marina entrances will be designed to optimize visibility for entering and exiting marine traffic.
Covenants will be recorded prohibiting the operation or wet storage of personal watercraft within
or from any marina.
Only lighting approved by the USACE will be installed on the shoreline in order to reduce
interference with nighttime marine traffic.
Only barge-friendly bank stabilization will be permitted, subject to the approval of the USACE.
All slip owners or users shall be required, as a condition to such ownership or usage, to
participate in the GIWW boater educational program referenced in Section 2.4.7 below.
February 2009
2-45
1
2
Figure 21. Proposed Developments and Mooring Locations
February 2009
2-46
1
2
3
4
2.4.4
5
6
7
8
2.4.5
9
10
11
12
13
2.4.6
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Signage on FLC
The Cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach will work with the applicants, USACE, and USCG to
develop and locate appropriate signage as safety necessitates. The City will assess the applicants
proportionately for the costs of this signage project.
Map for Commercial Operators
The Cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach will develop a map of all development sites on the FLC and
provide those to commercial operators of the FLC. The Cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach will
assess the applicants proportionately for the costs of this map project.
Marine Police
The applicants will coordinate with the City of Gulf Shores for the establishment of a marine police
division in order to provide a dedicated law enforcement presence on the GIWW within the City of Gulf
Shores municipal limits. The City of Gulf Shores will assess the applicants proportionately for a
reasonable portion of the cost of establishing this division.
2.4.7
Boater Education
The marine police division will develop a GIWW boater education program to include maps, radio usage,
and the “Lifelines” brochure. The City will assess the applicants for a reasonable portion of the cost of
this program.
2.4.8
City’s Overhead
This Agreement contemplates active participation by the Cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach in the
implementation of the mitigation plan. The applicants and the Cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach
will agree on a formula to calculate the administrative expenses attributable to the Cities of Gulf Shores
and Orange Beach involvement in this plan, and the Cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach will assess
the applicants proportionately the amount of such administrative expenses.
2.4.9
Impact Fee Credits
This Agreement states that the City will assess the applicants for the construction of the Primary Use
facilities as aforesaid, for maintenance of all of the mooring facilities, for a reasonable share of the
establishment of the Marine Police Division, and for certain other expenses. This assessment program will
be defined and enacted prior to March 15, 2009, in cooperation with the applicants, but an underlying
principle is that all sums paid by the applicants pursuant to this Agreement shall be, to the extent
permitted by applicable law, deemed credits against impact fees otherwise payable for any development
on the applicants’ land included in the EIS.
2.4.10 Assessments
Each applicant could delegate responsibility for future assessments to any subsequently established
property owners association, slip owner or leaseholder, or other responsible entity(ies). The Cities of Gulf
Shores and Orange Beach shall have the power to lien the land of applicants to enforce the assessments,
and liability for these assessments shall run with the said land. In lieu of assessments or in addition to
assessments, the Cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach could create a special taxation district or
employ any other fair and legal arrangement consistent with the objectives and principles set forth in this
Agreement in order to obtain the funding required by this Agreement.
2.4.11 Miscellaneous Legal Principles
No third party beneficiaries are intended by the parties to this Agreement. No party hereto, including the
February 2009
2-47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, assumes any responsibility for consequential damages that could
arise from such party's failure to discharge its obligations hereunder. The consent of other applicants to
modifications of any USACE permit of another applicant shall not be required as long as such
modifications do not impose any burden on such other applicants. The captions in this Agreement are for
convenient reference only and shall not be used to interpret this Agreement. This Agreement could be
executed in counterparts, which shall be taken together and construed as one agreement. Electronic or
telecopied signatures shall have the same impact as original signatures. This Agreement contains the
entire understanding of the parties.
2.4.12 Savings Clause
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
The applicants recognize that implementing the mitigation plan will likely involve details not addressed in
this Agreement, because such details are not specifically anticipated at this time, because though
anticipated, the means to best address the details are not yet known or agreed to, or because such details
are beyond the scope of this Agreement. The applicants also recognize that the Cities of Gulf Shores and
Orange Beach’s participation has been informally and unofficially approved only and is subject to legal
and formal review by the Cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach and its counsel. However, the
applicants explicitly affirm their intention that this Agreement be binding and that questions of
interpretation or questions of details not addressed in this Agreement shall be resolved in order to give
full impact to the intentions and objectives apparent from this Agreement. The applicants further agree
that should any provision in this Agreement not be reasonably susceptible of being given full impact due
to legal or other limitations not within the applicants’ reasonable control, the applicants will not
unreasonably withhold their consent to any amendment to this Agreement that would enable the
intentions and objectives apparent from this Agreement to be met.
23
2.5 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION/MANAGEMENT MEASURES
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
2.5.1
32
33
34
35
36
37
Regulated Navigation Area
As described in Section 2.4, the applicants and cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach will implement a
mitigation plan and management options to increase safety and minimize impacts of recreational boat
traffic on commercial barge operations. In addition to these measures, the USCG may implement
independent regulatory changes with respect to safety, security, and navigation under 33 CFR 165
(Regulated Navigation Areas and Limited Access Areas). These regulatory changes would only be
implemented if the USCG determines that the mitigation plan and management options do not provide
sufficient safeguards for recreational users and minimum impacts to commercial barge operations.
2.5.2
Hazardous Cargo Operation
The USCG will coordinate with the USACE and cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach to develop a
plan and procedures with respect to hazardous cargoes that will traverse the FLC. Maritime security
issues with these cargoes may occur due to the close proximity to medium density populations along the
waterway. The result of this coordination effort will protect the public and ensure safe operations in the
waterway.
February 2009
2-48
1
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
2
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
3.1.1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
3.1.2
43
44
45
Regional Geographic Setting and Location
The FLC portion of the GIWW is in southern Baldwin County, Alabama, and lies within the city limits of
Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, Alabama. The waterway extends from Oyster Bay in the west to Wolf
Bay in the east (Mile Marker 151 to Mile Marker 160) and is approximately 2 miles inland of the Gulf of
Mexico beach coastline. The authorized channel dimensions of the FLC are 125 feet wide by 12 feet
deep, which the USACE maintains for commercial barge traffic operations. The USACE holds easements
fronting the majority of the FLC and maintains disposal areas for federal channel maintenance dredging.
The commercial tonnage transported through the FLC each year provides the basis for federal funds to
maintain the authorized depth.
Historically, the property fronting the FLC has been developed for light-industrial use to support
commercial waterway traffic. The southern shoreline of the waterway supports single-family residences,
and a condominium marina complex is on the northwest shoreline in Oyster Bay. The majority of the
FLC was rezoned from single-family residential or light-industrial use to marina resort in order to
encourage urban-scale waterfront development.
Overview and History
Baldwin County, Alabama, was formed December 21, 1809, and named for Abraham Baldwin. Spain,
France, England, the Confederacy, and the United States have all ruled over Baldwin County. In 1868 the
county seat was moved to Daphne from its previous location at McIntosh Bluff near the Tombigbee
River. In 1901 it was moved again to its present location in Bay Minette. Much of Baldwin County was
settled by Greeks, Italians, Germans, French, and Swedes, mainly from Midwestern states.
Historical agricultural practices in the region are not fully known but are assumed to consist of crops
grown by Native Americans, which include corn, beans, pumpkins, and melons. Hunting and fishing were
also predominant sources of food for Native Americans. As settlers moved into the area, they continued to
practice agriculture similar to the Native Americans but also cultivated peas, potatoes, rice, and cotton. In
1918 agriculture began to develop rapidly in the southern part of Baldwin County, and other crops
including lemons, grapefruits, and Satsuma oranges are still being cultivated in this area. Timber and
wood products have comprised a large portion of the county’s income since 1900. Principal wood
products include pulpwood, saw logs, veneer logs, poles and piling, fence posts, and firewood. Industrial
production has never been predominant in lower Baldwin County, with most industry in this region
located in or near Mobile and Pensacola.
Over the past 20 years, the cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach have experienced an increase in
population because of the area being developed and marketed as a tourist destination. From 1990 to 2000,
permanent population in Gulf Shores increased 50 percent, and population in Orange Beach increased 68
percent. Seasonal population in Gulf Shores and Orange Beach were expected to increase approximately
30 percent by 2008. Tourism has become a dominant economic driver for Gulf Shores and Orange Beach.
As of 2000, arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food service made up more than 20
percent of the economy in lower Baldwin County.
3.1.3
Climate
Baldwin County has a humid, nearly subtropical climate with long, hot summers and short, mild winters.
Because of its location near the Gulf of Mexico, Baldwin County’s climate is oceanic, which is generally
February 2009
3-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
less extreme in temperature. The range in temperature between summer and winter is less than 30
degrees. Average temperature in lower Baldwin County, is 65 degrees in winter and 90 degrees in
summer. Average annual rainfall in this region is 64 inches, with the least amount of rainfall occurring in
the fall. Snowfall is rare in Baldwin County, but there are occasional short periods of subfreezing
temperatures that are accompanied by frost. The region is also subject to impacts from tropical storms;
most recently, Hurricane Ivan in 2004 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
8
3.2 LAND USE AND LAND COVER
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Land use refers to human use of the land for economic production (residential, commercial, industrial,
recreational, or other purposes) and for natural resource protection, and it generally describes what is
practiced, permitted, or planned on the land. Land cover, an increasingly important attribute of land use,
describes what is physically on the ground. It is defined as the type of material that covers the earth’s
surface at a specific location at a specific time. For example, the land use in an area might be cropland,
but the land cover at a specific location within the area might be an agricultural crop, bare soil, grass, or
trees. Similarly, in an area used for single-family residences, the land cover at a specific location might be
concrete, grass, or trees. Furthermore, land cover can change dramatically in a short period of time while
land use remains the same. The following sections address land use and land cover immediately adjacent
to the FLC.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
In 1993 the South Alabama Regional Planning Commission (SARPC) conducted a land use survey to
determine how the land was being used in Baldwin County (SARPC 1993). Existing land use in 1993
showed that less than 5 percent of the total area in Baldwin County was developed. Approximately 68
percent of the land use was for resource production and extraction (forestry and agriculture), 16 percent
was wetlands, 6 percent was vacant, and 4 percent was open water. Changes in land use trends over the
past 20 years include (1) larger residential lot size; (2) reduced coverage on industrial parcels; (3)
organizing related activities into efficient commercial, medial, and industrial type complexes; (4)
developing shopping centers at strategic locations with provisions for ample off-street parking; and (5)
securing land for open space, parks, and other recreational purposes. These changes reflect the increased
reliance on the automobile as the principal mode of transportation, higher standards of living, and
changing concepts in regard to what is necessary for one’s living enjoyment (SARPC 1993).
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
3.2.1
3.2.2
Land Use Trends
Existing Land Use/Land Cover
The existing land use at the proposed project sites consists of undeveloped, upland pine habitat and, in
some areas, narrow marsh fringe along the northern shoreline of the FLC. The upland vegetative
community is dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), slash pine (Pinus elliottii), live oak (Quercus
virginiana), water oak (Quercus nigra), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera),
yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), and tallow tree (Triadica sebifera). The narrow marsh fringe consists primarily
of sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) and black needle rush (Juncus roemerianus). The proposed project
locations have been historically undeveloped, but some of the locations along the northern shoreline of
the FLC have been historically disturbed by USACE construction and maintenance of the waterway.
Specifically, some areas have been used for the confined and unconfined disposal of dredged material for
over 60 years. These disturbed areas are characterized by early succession shrub and herbaceous species.
Figure 22 identifies the existing land use/land cover for areas in the vicinity of the FLC.
February 2009
3-2
1
2
Figure 22. Land Use and Land Cover
February 2009
3-3
1
2
3
4
5
6
Land use adjacent to the proposed project locations consists of a mix of residential and commercial
development, greenspace, and undeveloped property. Property along the southern shoreline of the FLC
consists of single-family residences, commercial businesses, recreational parks, and undeveloped
property. West of S.R. 59, property north of the proposed project locations consists of undeveloped
upland pine habitat. East of S.R. 59, property north of the proposed projects includes Jack Edwards
Airport, commercial fishery ponds, residential housing, and undeveloped upland pine habitat.
3.2.3
GIS Data
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
The cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach occupy approximately 80,350 acres of Baldwin County.
Geographic Information System (GIS) land use coverage of Baldwin County was selected to map current
land use patterns in Gulf Shores and Orange Beach. On the basis of 2005 data, 10 land use types were
identified in the vicinity of the FLC: agriculture/forest, community services, disturbed land, infrastructure,
industrial, residential, retail/commercial, tourism services, undeveloped land, and water/wetlands (Table
8.)
15
Table 8. Gulf Shores and Orange Beach Land Use Types
Land use type
Water/Wetlands
Agriculture/Forest
Residential
Community Services
Infrastructure
Disturbed Land
Undeveloped Land
Retail/Commercial
Tourism Services
Industrial
Acres
29,500
29,300
12,500
3,650
1,950
1,040
1,000
909
370
124
16
17
Source: Baldwin County 2005
18
19
20
21
3.2.3.1 Agriculture/Forest
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Percentage
36.7
36.4
15.5
4.5
2.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.5
0.15
Land used for agriculture and forestry occupies approximately 29,300 acres (36.4 percent) of the Gulf
Shores/Orange Beach area. Land cover includes pastures, row crops, aquaculture, pine savanna habitat,
upland hardwood habitat, tree plantations, and upland shrub habitat.
3.2.3.2 Community Services
Approximately 3,650 acres (4.5 percent) of the Gulf Shores/Orange Beach area are used for community
services, such as schools, churches, hospitals, government offices, recreational facilities, and other city
services.
3.2.3.3 Disturbed Land
Disturbed land includes land cover that is exposed rock, borrow areas, spoil areas, and other types of
impacted land. This type of land use occupies approximately 1,040 acres (1.3 percent) of the Gulf
Shores/Orange Beach area. Many of the proposed project locations fall within this land use category
because of their use as storage areas for dredge material originating from FLC maintenance activities.
February 2009
3-4
1
2
3
4
3.2.3.4 Infrastructure
5
6
7
8
3.2.3.5 Industrial
9
10
11
3.2.3.6 Residential
12
13
14
15
3.2.3.7 Retail/Commercial
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Land used for infrastructure purposes covers approximately 1,950 acres (2.4 percent) of the Gulf
Shores/Orange Beach area. Land cover types include roads, airports, wastewater treatment facilities, other
utilities, and communication facilities.
Industrial land use occupies approximately 124 acres (0.15 percent) of the Gulf Shores/Orange Beach
area. Land cover types include oil and gas facilities, manufacturing facilities, food processing, and other
light industry.
Approximately 12,500 acres (15.5 percent) of the Gulf Shores/Orange Beach area are used for residential
purposes, including single family homes, apartments, mobile homes, and condominiums.
Retail and commercial land use occupies approximately 909 acres (1.1 percent) of the Gulf
Shores/Orange Beach area. Land cover types include shopping centers, restaurants, convenience stores,
warehouses, and other professional services.
3.2.3.8 Tourism Services
Land used for tourism services covers approximately 370 acres (0.5 percent) of the Gulf Shores/Orange
Beach area. Land cover types include museums, amusement parks, hotels, campgrounds, and travel trailer
parks.
3.2.3.9 Undeveloped Land
Approximately 1,000 acres (1.2 percent) of the Gulf Shores/Orange Beach area is undeveloped land,
which includes undeveloped land within urban areas, inactive land with street patterns, and urban land in
transition without activity.
3.2.3.10 Water and Wetlands
Water and wetlands occupy approximately 29,500 acres (36.7 percent) of the Gulf Shores/Orange Beach
area. Land cover includes lakes, bays, swamps, tidal flats, marshes, and waterways.
3.2.4
Zoning
The majority of the FLC is within the city limits of Gulf Shores and has been designated as the ICWIntracoastal Waterway District and Intracoastal Waterway District-East. The addition of this designation
to the city’s Use Regulations for Business and Industrial districts was, “to create a unified and continuous
development district which emphasized a maritime theme and which takes advantage of the natural
beauty of the Intracoastal Waterway and its potential appeal as a premier living and tourist destination.”
(Gulf Shores Ordinance No. 1276 dated 24 January 2005).
According to Gulf Shore’s zoning map dated August 2006 (SARPC 2006), the proposed projects in Gulf
Shores are in five zoning districts identified as R-1A (Low-Density Single-Family Residential), BTL
(Tourist Lodging Sub Areas), BTB (Tourist Business Mixed Use Sub Areas), CZ (Conditional Zoning
Sites), and ICW (Intracoastal Waterway). According to the Orange Beach zoning map dated June 2006
(Orange Beach 2006), the two proposed projects in Orange Beach are in zoning district Planned Unit
Development (PUD). A PUD is defined as a type of ownership where individuals actually own the
February 2009
3-5
1
2
building or unit they live in, but common areas are owned jointly with the other members of the
development or association.
3
4
5
6
3.2.5
Land Use Plans
Baldwin County and the cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach are currently updating their
comprehensive land use plans and smaller studies have been conducted for Plash Island/Bon Secour River
area, the Jack Edwards Airport, and the Fort Morgan Peninsula.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
3.2.5.1 Baldwin County
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
3.2.5.2 Gulf Shores
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Baldwin County is currently developing a Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Review,
which builds upon the Strategic Plan 2006-2016 that was adopted on November 21, 2006 (Baldwin
County Commissioners, 2006). According to the Baldwin County public workshop and review for the
process, the Comprehensive Plan is a representation of what a community wants to be in the future, and
serves as a guide for future growth. There are three important factors: geographical coverage, which will
include all of the land area subject to regulatory jurisdiction; subject matter, which will include all subject
matter related to the physical development of a community; and time horizon, which will provide a
relatively long-term planning horizon (2025), with updates every 7 years. Notably, no coastal issues were
established in the Strategic Plan; however there is a coastal management element in the Comprehensive
Plan. The draft Comprehensive Plan has been submitted to the county for review.
The city of Gulf Shores is updating its land use and zoning plans to accommodate for anticipated
population growth. The hearing draft for the Gulf Shores Land Use Plan was released in January 2008,
which the city prepared to guide decisions regarding land use, development, zoning and capital
improvements. The draft document builds upon the Citywide Framework Plan (Bodenhamer 1999) and
the Envision Gulf Shores Plan, a long-range plan adopted by the city after Hurricane Ivan (City of Gulf
Shores, 2004). The Land Use Plan outlines a strategic development concept which enhances the physical
organization of Gulf Shores with a series of activity centers that support, and are supported by, the city’s
neighborhoods. Major elements of the concept include the following goals: use and build on the existing
plans and studies for Gulf Shores; promote a compact development pattern within a well-defined city
boundary; maintain and enhance the City’s character and sense of place as defined by its neighborhoods,
districts, corridors, and edges; organize the city with a framework of transportation alternatives that
balance access, mobility safety and emergency response; promote a variety of housing types and densities
throughout the community; promote a safe, diverse, quality living environment; promote quality
commercial design throughout the city and in all appropriate activity centers; and protect and enhance
natural habitat/ecosystems within the developed landscape of Gulf Shores (KPS Group 2008). Relevant to
the project area, the Intracoastal Waterway is proposed to be utilized as a mixed-use corridor dominated
by waterfront-dependant uses.
3.2.5.3 Orange Beach
Orange Beach has recognized that its Comprehensive Planning Program is an ongoing process. As part of
the planning process, the City Council created Horizon 20/20, which was a visioning plan created from
four special interest groups of citizens that consisted of Transportation; Land Use Zoning and
Comprehensive Plan Update; Education, Culture and Quality of Life; and Environment. Horizon 20/20
was endorsed by the City Council and then used as a basis for the Community Preservation and Growth
Management Plan (City of Orange Beach 2006). The Community Preservation and Growth Management
Plan was adopted on November 14, 2006 and outlines a management vision to the year 2020. The plan
identifies five neighborhood areas, each with specific mission statements. The Comprehensive Plan seeks
to maintain and advance Orange Beach as a resort destination by achieving the following: promoting a
city of neighborhoods featuring Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) characteristics; improving
February 2009
3-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
mobility by creating a pedestrian-oriented environment and establishing some form of mass transit;
emphasizing water, fishing and nature related recreational activities; encouraging economic development
to furnish diversity in employment opportunities; preserving the natural environmental beauty of the area;
protecting and enhancing property values and marketability of homes, residences and commercial
property through modifying existing zoning laws and adopting specific urban design criteria; and
adopting guidelines to preserve and improve public health, safety, comfort, appearance, and protection
against natural disasters within Orange Beach.
8
9
10
11
12
13
3.2.5.4 Fort Morgan Peninsula
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3.2.5.5 Plash Island/Bon Secour River
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The Fort Morgan Peninsula Resource Assessment provides a survey of the Fort Morgan Peninsula,
including information on the natural characteristics, physical characteristics, and history of the area. The
assessment recommended that a strategic planning process be implemented on the peninsula that would
provide critical information that local decision makers could use to prepare for future growth and
infrastructure needs. The culmination of this effort will be reported in the Fort Morgan Peninsula Study.
The Plash Island/Bon Secour River Land Use Plan was commissioned in 2005 to assess the likely
outcomes and impacts of growth and development in the Plash Island/Bon Secour River area (Jordan,
Jones, & Goulding, 2005). Three buildout scenarios were prepared and assessed for the study area,
including maximum, moderate, and low density scenarios. A set of standard conditions for annexation
and rezoning applications were developed, as well as a set of measures for mitigating the potentially
negative impacts of development in the area.
According to the three buildout scenarios assessed in the Land Use Plan, traffic congestion would be the
most significant impact resulting from growth and development in the area. Mitigation measures proposed
include the following: adding left-hand turn lanes for the larger developments; improving the signalized
intersection of C.R. 4 and C.R. 6 and Plash Road; improving the paving surface and shoulders of Plash
Road; and creating several new street connections to increase route options. The Land Use Plan also
identified new demands on the City Fire Department, Police Department, Libraries, Parks, and Schools,
and water and sewer supply as other potential impacts; although modest system expansions could
adequately address the new demands evaluated through the buildout scenarios.
3.2.5.6 Jack Edwards Airport Master Plan
The Jack Edwards Airport Master Plan was prepared in 2006, for the purpose of determining the aviation
needs of the Jack Edwards Airport and its service area for the next 20 years (Counts 2008). Several
categories were analyzed to evaluate future aviation needs in the Master Plan, including: Airport
Inventory, Aviation Demand Forecasts, Demand/Capacity Analysis, Facility Requirements, Land Use
Analysis, Environmental Overview, Airport Layout Plans, and Capital Improvements Program Cost
Estimates. While the level of analysis of the Master Plan in each of these areas is too detailed for a
complete breakdown here, a summary of the major findings follow:
• Aviation Demand Forecasts: Current data indicates that the demand for air transportation will
likely warrant the inception of scheduled air carrier service in the near future.
• Demand/Capacity Analysis: With its current configurations, the airport has an annual service
volume of 230,000 annual operations, with a peak hour capacity of approximately 98 operations.
• Facility Requirements: Many facilities would need to be expanded or added to accommodate the
growth predicated for the time frame. This includes the construction of an access road from
Cotton Creek Drive, a commuter terminal, commuter automobile parking, taxiways, and an
airport traffic control tower.
February 2009
3-7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
•
•
•
•
Land Use Analysis: Expand the Airport Overlay District boundary to include the area within 65
day-night sound level (DNL) noise contour projected for 2015, to help ensure that future
development in the Airport vicinity will be required to meet noise attenuation construction
standards.
Environmental Overview: No significant impacts were identified, except for wetlands, as more
detailed information about improvements is required for jurisdictional determination.
Airport Layout Plans: Shows anticipated phased 5, 10 and 20 year plan of proposed
development.
Capital Improvements Program Cost Estimates: The total cost estimate for the planning period is
$37,491,984. Of this total, $21,806,285 would be Federal funding; $573,850 state; $1,923,850
local; and $12,348,000 private funding.
The conclusion of the Master Plan is that a majority of the existing facilities at the Jack Edwards Airport
are capable of meeting the forecasted demand throughout the planning period; however, with the
continued growth in the area and air traffic, some facilities will need to be improved or expanded in order
to adequately service airport patrons. Table 9 shows the General Aviation Forecasts Summary of Jack
Edwards Airport 2005-2025.
Table 9. General Aviation Forecasts Summary of Jack Edwards Airport 2005-2025
Forecast by planning period
Category
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
110
151
185
226
259
91,277
115,942
130,902
148,092
162,997
Peak Hour
Pilots/Passengers
48
58
65
74
81
Local Operations
5,125
6,133
6,924
7,834
8,622
Itinerant Operations
74,600
89,689
101,260
114,557
126,087
Annual General Aviation
Operations
79,725
95,822
108,184
122,391
134,709
40
48
54
61
67
Based Aircraft
Annual General Aviation
Pilots/Passengers
Peak Hour Operations
20
21
22
3.3 WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY
23
3.3.1
24
25
26
27
28
3.3.1.1 Watershed Description
Watershed Characterization
The FLC is in Baldwin County, Alabama, with a portion of the drainage area in the cities of Gulf Shores
and Orange Beach. The FLC is made up of two waterbody Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs), as assigned
by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The location of each HUC is described in Table 10. The total
watershed area discharging directly to the federally designated FLC is 25 square miles. Located along the
February 2009
3-8
1
2
3
Gulf of Mexico, land use activities in the FLC watershed are dominated by forested and residential areas
with some pasture, cropland, and wetlands.
4
Table 10. Foley Land Cut Hydrologic Unit Codes
Waterbody ID (name)
AL 03160205-070_01 (ICWW)
AL 03140107-040_01 (ICWW)
Use classification
Fish and Wildlife
Fish and Wildlife
Downstream/upstream location
Oyster Bay/Alabama S.R. 59
Alabama S.R. 59/Wolf Bay
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
3.3.1.2 Topography
The FLC watershed falls in three Level IV ecoregions: Southern pine plains and hills, Gulf Coast
flatwoods, and Gulf Barrier Islands and coastal marshes (Griffith et al. 2001). Topography in the
watershed from Wolf Bay to Bon Secour Bay ranges from 100 feet above sea level in the headwaters of
the Wolf Bay watershed to sea level in the marshes surrounding Oyster Bay. Figure 23 illustrates the
topography of the watershed.
National Elevation Dataset
(feet)
-10 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 30
N
30 - 40
40 - 60
60 - 80
80 - 100
100 - 120
1
0
1
2 Miles
Wolf
Bay
Mobile Bay
La
Li ttle
13
14
goon
Gulf of Mexico
Figure 23. Watershed Topography from Wolf Bay to Bon Secour Bay
15
16
17
18
19
20
3.3.1.3 Hydrodynamics
Data in the FLC to quantify water surface elevation, salinity, and velocity through the waterway has been
collected over short periods, as grab samples, or in profiles of the water column. If available, these data
are used to quantify hydrodynamics, or water transport, in the waterway. A dye study was conducted of
the waterway in the early 1980s for the purpose of developing a hydrodynamic and water quality model
February 2009
3-9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(Tetra Tech, Inc. 1984). The report observed that the FLC between Wolf Bay and Bon Secour Bay is
subject to rapid flushing, and that the net flow is toward the west. Since this study, the GIWW has been
deepened by dredge operations for commercial navigation purposes. Currently, the waterway’s average
depth is approximately 13 feet, 7 feet deeper than the 1984 study. In 2007, the ADEM collected cross
sectional flow and velocity measurements at various points along the GIWW from Wolf Bay to Bon
Secour Bay.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3.3.1.4 Water Quality Standards
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
The tributaries discharging directly to the FLC are first-order streams that drain small areas and receive
salt water intrusion from the GIWW. In the FLC, salinity measured since 1996, ranges from 17 to less
than 5 parts per thousand (ppt). For comparison purposes, salinity in the ocean is 35 ppt.
Alabama has designated the use classification of the FLC from Oyster Bay to Wolf Bay as “Fish and
Wildlife”. This use classification requires that in coastal waters, surface DO concentrations should not be
less than 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L), except where natural phenomena cause the concentration to be
reduced. In estuaries and tidal tributaries, DO concentrations may not be less than 5 mg/L, except in
dystrophic waters or where natural conditions cause the concentration to be depressed. DO should be
collected at a depth of 5 feet in waters 10 feet or deeper.
The bacterial quality of water is acceptable when no source of dangerous pollution has been identified in
samples by the health authorities and when the geometric mean fecal coliform density does not exceed
100 counts/100 milliliters (mL) in June through September in coastal waters and 200 counts/100 mL in
other waters.
Turbidity may not be other than the natural origin that will cause the substantial visible contrast with the
natural appearance of waters or interfere with any beneficial uses. The turbidity cannot exceed 50
Nephelometric units above background in any case (ADEM 2000).
3.3.2
Hydrogeology/Groundwater
Alabama is divided into five groundwater provinces: Coastal Plain, Piedmont Upland, Valley and Ridge,
Cumberland Plateau, and Highland Rim. The Gulf Shores/Orange Beach region is in the Coastal Plain
province. The southern region of Alabama including Franklin and Marion Counties in the northwest
section of the state forms the Coastal Plain province. Sediments such as interlayered sand, gravel, clay,
chalk, and limestone compose the Coastal Plain province and were deposited in shallow-marine
environments in the Cretaceous (144–65 million years ago) to late Tertiary period (65–2 million years
ago), making them the youngest groundwater sediments in Alabama. Aquifers in or near Gulf
Shores/Orange Beach region are part of the Citronelle Formation. The Citronelle Formation consists of
non-marine Pliocene (5.4–2.4 million years ago) sediments, mostly yellow and red sands and clays,
occurring near the seaward margin of the Coastal Plain between westernmost Florida and eastern Texas.
In this area, groundwater flows from north to south and to south-southwest (USGS 2001).
Availability of groundwater in the Coastal Plain province of Alabama is relatively high, with some wells
yielding up to several thousand gallons per minute (gpm). The northern section of the Coastal Plain
province is composed of rock layers too thin to store large quantities of water; therefore, groundwater in
this area of the Coastal Plain is the lowest. Consumption of groundwater in the Coastal Plain province is
also very high, because of a high irrigation demand for agricultural use near Gulf Shores and Orange
Beach. In recent years, the abundant supply of groundwater in this area of the state has slightly declined
because of increasing population and economic development in or near Baldwin County. Approximately
27 of the 36 southern counties in Alabama are completely dependent on groundwater for their water
supply. Rainwater contributes 6 percent to groundwater recharge, as well as other natural occurrences, but
February 2009
3-10
1
2
there is concern that groundwater is being pumped faster than its recharge rate, which suggests that there
will be less available groundwater in the future.
3
3.3.3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3.3.3.1 Pollutant Loadings
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Water Quality
Potential pollutant loadings to the FLC come from various sources, including the following:
• Watershed runoff from the surrounding watershed (i.e., land use activities in the watershed)
• Watershed runoff from land use activities adjacent to the FLC (i.e., marina development)
• Permitted point source discharges to the FLC and surrounding waterbodies
• Recreational and commercial boating activities in the FLC and surrounding waterbodies
3.3.3.1.1
Watershed Loadings
The watershed surrounding the FLC was delineated to include Wolf Bay watershed to the east and Bon
Secour Bay to the west. There are no major tributaries that contribute directly to the 29-square-mile area
discharging directly to the FLC and Oyster Bay. The Wolf Bay watershed to the east of the FLC covers
59 square miles. The Bon Secour Bay watershed west of the FLC covers 31 square miles. A watershed
model was developed to determine pollutant loadings of total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and fecal
coliform bacteria from Wolf Bay west to Bon Secour Bay. The modeling methodology and assumptions
are discussed in Appendix S.
Land use activities were determined using the USGS National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) for 2001 to
establish watershed loadings. Land use for the total delineated area from Wolf Bay to Bon Secour Bay is
presented in Figure 24. Forest activities are prominent throughout the basin. Cropland and pasture make
up a larger portion of the activities in the larger basin than areas surrounding the FLC. Residential
activities from Gulf Shores dominate the areas discharging directly to the waterway.
Wetlands
6%
Urban/Residential
17%
Barren
0%
Cropland
22%
StripMining
0%
Pasture
20%
Forest
35%
25
26
Figure 24. Land use activities from Wolf Bay to Bon Secour Bay along the FLC
27
28
29
The watershed was delineated to establish watershed loads and assess their influence on water quality in
the GIWW. The FLC and Oyster Bay drainage areas were delineated into five areas to quantify loads to
February 2009
3-11
1
2
3
4
the eastern mouth of the FLC, in three sections along the GIWW, and into an area draining to the western
mouth of the FLC and Oyster Bay. The average annual watershed load from model results from 2001–
2005 for 5-day biological oxygen demand (BOD), total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and fecal coliform
bacteria are presented in Table 11. Figure 25 illustrates the delineated areas listed in Table 11.
5
6
7
Table 11. Average annual loads for 5-day BOD, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and fecal
coliform based on model results from 2001-2005
Watershed
Bon Secour Bay
Mobile Bay Side
Oyster Bay
Foley Land Cut
Intracoastal 1
Intracoastal 2
Intracoastal 3
FLC East Mouth
Wolf Bay
East of Wolf Bay
BOD 5-day
(tons/year)
Total nitrogen
(tons/year)
319
3
31
345
3
28
1
13
30
17
344
16
1
13
26
15
301
16
Fecal coliform geomean
(counts/100 mL)
16
<1
<1
Total phosphorus
(tons/year)
108
1
6
0.1
1
4
3
79
3
1
<1
<1
<1
2
<1
8
9
Subbasins
Bon Secour Bay
Mobile Bay Side
Oyster Bay
Intracoastal 1
N
Intracoastal 2
Intracoastal 3
East Mouth
Wolf Bay
East of Wolf Bay
1
0
1
2 Miles
Wolf
Bay
Mobile Bay
o
Lago
Little
10
11
n
Gulf of Mexico
Figure 25. Subbasins delineated for watershed modeling
February 2009
3-12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3.3.3.1.2
9
Table 12. Water Pollution Control Plant Discharges
AL0049042
AL0055841
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DO = dissolved oxygen
WWTP = wastewater treatment plant
mgd = million gallons per day
BOD5 = 5-day biological oxygen demand
TKN = total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Cl = chlorine
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3.3.3.1.3
6
6–9
Winter
19.5 / 13
45 /
30
6/4
Wk Avg/Monthly
Avg Ammonia
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Wk Avg/Monthly
Avg BOD5
Wk Avg/Monthly
Avg TSS
(mg/L)
45 /
30
1.5 / 1
Total residual
Cl (mg/L)
6–9
Wk Avg/Monthly
Avg Enterococci
(#/100mL)
7
pH
(standard
units)
Min DO
(mg/L)
2
Summer
5.7 / 3.8
Winter
9/6
Wk Avg/Monthly
Avg fecal
coliform
(#/100mL)
Gulf Shores
Water
Reclamation
Prior to
12/20/06
Summer
9/6
Wk Avg\/onthly
Avg TKN
(mg/L)
Foley
WWTP
Flow (mgd)
Facility
NPDES permit
NPDES Permitted Point Source Discharges
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are issued for storm water runoff,
industrial discharges, and municipal discharges. EPA’s Environfacts Warehouse of water discharge
permits list three major discharges to surface waters from Wolf Bay east to Bon Secour Bay. The cities of
Gulf Shores and Orange Beach have the only municipal wastewater NPDES permits to discharge directly
to the FLC. Foley has a municipal wastewater NPDES permitted discharge to Wolf Creek in the Wolf
Bay watershed. Table 12 provides permit information for each of these facilities.
-
Summer
2000 /
200
Winter
2000 /
1000
-
-
4.5
/
3.0
-
Summer
158 / 35
Winter
275 / -
1
Loadings from Boating Activities
EPA’s Guidance to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Marinas and Recreational Boating (USEPA
2001) states that marinas are not reported by states to be major sources of nonpoint pollutants that
contributes to poor water quality. Pollutants that can be generated at marinas include:
• Nutrients
• Pathogens – caused by pet waste
• Sediment – runoff from parking lots and shoreline erosion
• Fish waste – dockside fish cleaning
• Petroleum hydrocarbons – fueling and oil dripping
• Metals
Boat maintenance is one potential source of increased metal concentrations. USEPA (1993)
reports that the typical metals that can pollute water surrounding boating activities include:
• Arsenic – used in paint pigments, pesticides, and wood preservatives
• Zinc anodes – used to deter corrosion of metal hulls and engine parts
• Copper and tin – biocides in anti-foulant paints
• Others (iron, chrome) – used in construction of marinas and boats
February 2009
3-13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
The impact a marina has on the FLC is largely dependent on the actions of individuals; making the
quantification of pollutant loadings difficult. The impact of pollutant loading is decreased by
implementing best management practices (BMP). Installing detention ponds to collect storm water runoff
could decrease nutrient loads and sediment to the FLC. Boat wakes are most likely to cause shoreline
erosion where the shoreline has been altered and not stabilized (USEPA 2001), but slope stabilization
measures would decrease the chance of erosion.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
3.3.3.2 Water Quality
39
Illegal discharges from marine toilets can increase the fecal coliform counts in the FLC. The Alabama
Clean Boating Act requires all marinas with customers that use marine sanitary devices (MSDs) with
holding tanks to install boat sewage pump-out systems at their facility. Owners of vessels with onboard
toilets are also required to install USCG-certified MSDs.
To be permitted by the ADEM, flushing studies must be conducted by developments requesting marinas.
Low concentrations of DO have been attributed to high BOD and poor flushing. ADEM confirms
flushing studies to ensure DO will not be impaired. The 1985 EPA Coastal Marinas Assessment
Handbook provides details to determine the impact of marinas on DO.
Data collected in both HUC segments of the FLC in 1990 and 1991 indicated impairment of DO, and the
FLC was placed on Alabama’s 305(b) report to EPA in 1992. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act
requires states to identify water bodies that are not meeting water quality criteria applicable to their
designated use classification in the State’s 305(b) report to EPA.
An assessment of more recent data collected in 2003 found that the FLC was meeting the water quality
criteria for the Fish and Wildlife use classification. EPA wrote a delisting document for the two segments
to be removed from the 303(d) list (USEPA 2003).
ADEM and EPA have collected data at more than 50 stations throughout the GIWW since 1990. Many of
these monitoring projects were for ADEM’s Alabama Monitoring and Assessment Program, which
selected sites randomly for single sampling events. Others were sampled for specific studies over a few
selected days or months. ADEM also has trend monitoring stations that have been sampled monthly over
several years.
ADEM maintains a trend monitoring station in the FLC at the S.R. 59 Bridge. Monthly samples have
been collected at this site since 2004. In addition, profile samples were collected as part of intensive basin
monitoring in the state’s 5-year basin rotation monitoring plan. Table 13 lists the Trend Monitoring
stations from Bon Secour Bay to Wolf Bay used to establish existing conditions in the watershed. Further
discussion of how these data were used in modeling can be found in Appendix S.
Table 13. ADEM trend monitoring stations
Station
BS1
IC1A
WO1A
Station name
Bon Secour River at Oyster Bay Canal
Intracoastal Waterway in Gulf Shores at S.R. 59
Wolf Creek at County Road 12
Latitude
30.308
30.279
30.374
Longitude
-87.738
-87.687
-87.632
February 2009
3-14
1
3.4 INFRASTRUCTURE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3.4.1
Traffic and Transportation
Transportation in and around the Gulf Shores/Orange Beach area is achieved mainly via airways, rail
routes, public transits, waterways, and road networks. The following section describes these
transportation resources and their importance to the surrounding communities. This section also describes
the transportation system that would potentially be affected by future traffic and the proposed
developments. The Region of Influence (ROI) evaluated for traffic and transportation includes the cities
of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, and is located in southern Baldwin County, Alabama.
3.4.1.1 Airports
9
10
11
12
13
The ROI includes two regional airports and a general aviation airport. Mobile Regional Airport and
Pensacola Regional Airport both provide large scale air transport to the area, while Jack Edwards Airport
is an executive facility that serves as a direct connection to the project area for the general aviation
community.
14
3.4.1.1.1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Background
The Mobile Regional Airport (KMOB) is one of two regional passenger airports in the region. The airport
is operated by the Mobile Airport Authority (MAA) and is approximately 60 miles northwest of the FLC
in Mobile, Alabama. The MAA was created in 1982 to own and operate the Mobile Regional Airport and
the Brookley Field Complex, a noncommercial airport also located in Mobile. The Authority’s mission is
to improve the quality of life in the Mobile community through economic development, air service
development, and real estate development at the two facilities. The Authority is not a part of the city or
county and receives no local taxes and, like most airports, must operate on generated income and Federal
Grants. The MAA’s five board members are appointed by Mobile’s mayor, approved by the city council,
and serve staggered six-year terms. Approximately 130 people are employed by the Authority at the two
facilities. The regional airport’s facilities include a passenger terminal, one all-weather jet runway (8,521
linear feet (LF)), one general aviation runway (4,365 LF), and a helipad used for military purposes.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Commercial and Charter Operations
Mobile Regional Airport is served by five airlines providing non-stop service to five cities in the
Southeastern United States. There are approximately 23 daily departures from the airport. While the
airport is the metropolitan area's only airport with scheduled airline service, MOB faces competition from
nearby Pensacola Regional Airport (KPNS) and Gulfport-Biloxi International Airport (KGPT) - both only
about a one-hour drive from Mobile via Interstate 10. A total of 638,953 people utilized the Mobile
Regional Airport in 2005.
Mobile Regional Airport
The major carriers out of KMOB are Delta and Continental Airlines, according to the number of daily
flights. Delta Airlines, which recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, dropped several flights in 2006.
Continental has since added flights from the airport. As of January 2007, Delta offers six weekday flights
to Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. Delta previously offered a nonstop flight to
Cincinnati, Ohio, but that flight was discontinued from the regular schedule in December 2006.
Continental Airlines offers seven flights to Houston, four flights to Charlotte, North Carolina, and three
flights to Memphis, Tennessee, and Dallas/Fort Worth. On weekends, Continental offers flights to the
previously mentioned cities at a reduced schedule. United Airlines previously served Mobile from its
hubs in Chicago and Washington, DC, but the airline withdrew from the regional airport in September
2001 a few weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11th.
February 2009
3-15
1
2
3
4
5
The three major airline alliances represented at KMOB include SkyTeam, Star Alliance, and Oneworld.
All three U.S. members of SkyTeam fly from Mobile and represent approximately 70 percent of the
airport’s schedule services. The passenger terminal at the KMOB includes a small book/magazine shop,
several eateries, car rental shops, and a small arcade. It also includes handicap-accessible elevators and
bathrooms.
6
7
8
9
10
Air Cargo Operations
A former U.S. Air Force base located on Mobile Bay near downtown Mobile, Brookley Field (BFM), has
been transformed into a leading industrial and trade complex. Built around a fully operational airfield
with two runways, one 9,618 LF and one 7,800 LF, the complex offers transportation options that are
rarely available for industrial tenants.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Military Operations
European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company North America (EADS) named Mobile’s Brookley
Complex the site for the KC-330 advanced tanker production facility and Airbus Engineering Center. The
Airbus Engineering Center, co-located with the production facility, opened in 2007 with employment
growing to around 150 workers. The Engineering Center supports “continuing engineering work on
commercial Airbus models and military derivative aircraft-including the A330, A340 and A350 jetliners,
as well as the KC-330 tanker,” commented EADS spokesperson, Guy Hicks. Together the facilities are
expected to infuse $600 million and 1,100 jobs into the Mobile area economy.
EADS currently has a strong presence in the Mobile area with their Casa Support Center headquartered at
MOB. As part of the Homeland Security Deepwater Program, the Casa Support Center aids in providing
aircraft technical support, training and maintenance for the Coast Guard’s CN-235 aircraft. The Casa
Support Center is located next to the USCG Air Training Center where all CN-235 pilots are trained.
EADS-CASA constructed a support and delivery facility at the Regional Airport for the CN-235 aircraft it
sold to the USCG. EADS-CASA and partner Raytheon recently announced that they will build up to 145
small cargo aircraft for the Army and Air Force at Mobile Regional Airport if they win the contract.
28
3.4.1.1.2
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Background
The Pensacola Regional Airport (KPNS) is the second major regional passenger airport in the area. The
regional airport is owned and operated by the City of Pensacola, Florida and is located approximately 30
miles east of the FLC. November 1938 marked the commencement of regular commercial service to the
Pensacola Municipal Airport with National Airlines’ twin-engine Lockheed Electras. Although civilian
air service continued, from 1942 to 1945, the U.S. Navy was granted command of the airport during
World War II. Pensacola was the only municipal airport operating on the coast between New Orleans and
Tallahassee for the few restricted commercial flights available. While under the lease of the Navy, the
airport expanded to 1200 acres, two new runways were built and the existing runways were lengthened by
200 feet to 5,000 feet. Following the end of the war, control of the airport reverted back to the city.
Technical improvements were completed in 1957, with runway approach lights and instrument landing
systems being added to the facility. The increased viability of commercial transport in Pensacola led to
significant occurrences in the 1960’s. The FAA reported in October 1963, that the Pensacola area had the
densest air traffic in the United States, which included military, commercial carrier and general aviation
activity. The terminal was renovated in 1964 and was identified as the 9th busiest airport in Florida in
April 1965.
Pensacola Regional Airport
February 2009
3-16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
An Eastern Airlines Boeing 727 was the first commercial jet ever to land at the airport on August 25,
1965. A new parking lot was completed in May 1966; and in June 1966 the United States Navy donated a
Blue Angels’ F-11 Grumman Tiger which now serves as the primary landmark at the airport entrance. On
February 27, 1968, National Airlines inaugurated the first jet service to Pensacola. The service offered
direct jet flights to and from Washington, D.C. and New York with their Boeing 727.
22
23
24
25
26
Air Cargo Operations
Commercial service to the airport is served from a multi-level 154,000-square foot passenger terminal
building. A 14,500-square foot building serves the cargo needs of the airport, and a single Fixed Base
Operator (FBO), multiple specialized air service operators, and corporate operators serve the needs of the
general aviation community.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Military Operations
Regarding military operations and support, the Pensacola area is home to the second largest military flight
training complex in the world and includes airfields located on Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola, NAS
Whiting Field, as well as many Naval Outlying Landing Facilities (NOLF’s). Airport facilities are used
by the military in their instrument landing system (ILS) training and for touch-and-go operations. The
primary airfield used by the military in the Pensacola area is Sherman Field (KNPA). Located
approximately 15 miles east of Orange Beach on NAS Pensacola, Sherman Field has three runways, two
that are 8000 LF, and one that is 7140 LF.
The 1980's and 1990's witnessed a flurry of construction activity that transformed the Pensacola
Municipal Airport into Pensacola Regional Airport. Dramatic changes occurred in nearly every aspect of
the airport. The entrance to the airport was moved from College Boulevard to Airport Boulevard. The
terminal was completely remodeled and completed in 1990. Additional gates, a second floor, increased
baggage capacity and a parking garage with a skywalk to the concourse created a new and enjoyable
experience for passengers. Runways were extended, a new control tower was dedicated in 1995, and
general aviation operations were moved to the southeast area of the airport property.
This preparation for future traffic is understandable; between 1989 and 1995 traffic at KPNS increased
52%. A multi-level garage was opened in September, 1999. Currently, KPNS is the busiest airport along
the Gulf Coast from Tallahassee, FL to New Orleans, LA. The airport is currently served by Air Tran
Airways, American Airlines, Continental Express, Continental Connection, Delta Airlines, Delta
Connection, Northwest Airlines, and U.S. Airways Express. Combined, these airlines provide 45 daily
flights to Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Tampa, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale, Memphis,
TN, and Charlotte, NC.
NAS Pensacola is known as the “Cradle of Naval Aviation” and is home to the Navy’s Blue Angels flight
demonstration squadron. In addition to the Blue Angels, the naval base is home to two other air training
squadrons, the 2nd German Air Force training squadron and the NAS Pensacola Search and Rescue
detachment. Sherman Field is home to over 130 primarily jet propelled aircraft and manages nearly
110,000 flight operations per year. NAS Pensacola is also home to the Naval Education and Training
Command, the National Museum of Naval Aviation and the historic Fort Barrancas.
NAS Whiting Field is located approximately 55 miles northeast of Orange Beach in Milton, FL. This
facility is home to two airfields (KNSE and KNSZ) with a total of four asphalt runways (6000 LF) and 12
helipads. NAS Whiting Field is one of two primary pilot training bases the Navy utilizes to train student
pilots. Primary flight training takes place on the northern-most field (KNES) while advanced helicopter
training occurs on the southern-most airfield (KNDZ).
February 2009
3-17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
In addition to NAS Whiting Field, the Navy conducts primary flight and advanced helicopter training at
the 12 NOLF’s found around the Pensacola area. Five of the NOLF’s are located just outside the FLC
study area. Saufley and Bronson Fields are just across the state line in southwestern Escambia County,
FL, while Wolf, Barin, and Summerdale Fields are located in the southern half of Baldwin County. Lying
just to the north and east of Wolf Bay, Wolf Field is the closest NOLF to the study area (approximately 5
miles northeast of central Orange Beach). Barin Field is located approximately 8 miles northwest of
Orange Beach along the Foley Beach Express.
3.4.1.1.3
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Jack Edwards Executive Airport
Jack Edwards Airport (KJKA) is a general aviation facility owned and operated by the City of Gulf
Shores. The airport is open to the public and located within the city limits of Gulf Shores, approximately
three miles north of the City’s central business district off S.R. 59, also known as Gulf Shores Parkway.
The airport consists of two asphalt runways, one nearly 7000 LF and the other just over 3500 LF. The
southern boundary of the airport abuts some of the parcels located on the northern shoreline of the
Intracoastal Waterway just east of S.R. 59. In fact, a clear zone for the shorter north-south runway extends
across Mildred Casey Dr. (E. 27th Ave.) to the northern edge of the FLC.
26
3.4.1.2 Transit
27
28
29
30
31
32
3.4.1.2.1
Baldwin Rural Area Transportation System (BRATS)
The Baldwin Rural Area Transportation System (BRATS) began providing rural public transportation
service to the Baldwin County area in 1987. The BRATS services are based in Robertsdale, Alabama, a
town that calls itself “the Hub” because of its central location, in essence, at the crossroads to all parts of
the county. The BRATS has established its new facility and transfer point at this location. The facility has
a waiting room and the property is shared with the county sheriff.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Operations
The BRATS provides a variety of services that have been designed to meet the varying needs across the
county. Using a total fleet of 52 vehicles, that include 40-foot buses, smaller cutaways, simulated trolleys,
and dial-a-ride vans, BRATS provides flexible route transit, work/subscription service, dial-a-ride service,
and special services.
42
43
44
45
Future Transit Plans
The BRATS organization has grown from providing service to approximately 80,000 people in 1987 to
170,000 people currently. A significant portion of BRATS’s revenue – 82 percent – comes from nongovernmental sources. The BRATS receives some funding from Section 5311 through the ADOT, but the
Jack Edwards was originally a NOLF for the NAS Pensacola and NAS Whiting Field. In 1977 under the
Surplus Property Act of 1944 the U.S. Navy sold the land to the Alabama Dept. of Aeronautics. It was
then that the original terminal building was constructed and the airport was named for Congressman Jack
Edwards who was instrumental in the transfer of the property from the Federal government to the State of
Alabama.
In 1983 the City of Gulf Shores purchased the property from the state. Additional acreage was purchased.
The new terminal building was built in 1998. The airport now includes 850 acres. In 1999 there were over
47,000 flights in and out of the airport. This figure is expected to reach 67,000 by 2010.
The flexible route service includes work routes, medical and human service routes, as well as general
public flexible routes that have east-west and north-south routes, meeting at the central transfer point and
serving work, medical, human service, and shopping needs for the entire county.
February 2009
3-18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
state does not have a large Section 5311 allocation. And the system has excellent support (monetary and
other) from Baldwin County. Most of the revenue for the system comes from BRATS’s various programs
and entrepreneurial efforts – services provided for employers such as selling bus seats; shuttles for
community festivals and activities including the Shrimpfest and Arts and Crafts Festivals; transit for the
community college; and special services for many human service agencies and private businesses. The
director would like to have every Baldwin County organization with any transportation needs purchasing
transportation from her system or providing financial support for services in place.
16
17
18
19
20
21
3.4.1.2.2
22
23
24
In Baldwin County, the highest number of common destinations are in the Cities of Bay Minette, Spanish
Fort, Daphne, Loxley, Fairhope, Robertsdale, Foley, Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, with significant
numbers in Elberta, Silverhill and Summerdale. As would be expected, this corresponds with the highest
concentrations of transit dependent populations; however, BRATS is only able to provide limited transit
services in these areas. This indicates that there could be a need for fixed route transit service along the
eastern shore of Mobile Bay (Fairhope, Daphne, and Spanish Fort) and in South Baldwin County (Foley,
Orange Beach and Gulf Shores).
Mobile Bay Ferry
Another form of transit provided near the study area is by ferry boat. The Mobile Bay Ferry Company
offers daily ferry service across the Mobile Bay from Fort Morgan (Gulf Shores) to Dauphin Island.
Figure 26 depicts the ferry crossing location.
Figure 26. Mobile Bay Ferry Route
Source: Hornblower Marine Services
25
February 2009
3-19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3.4.1.3 Ports
3.4.1.3.1
Alabama State Docks
Alabama State Port Authority (ASPA) owns and operates the State of Alabama’s full service public
seaport. The State Docks were first dedicated in 1928 on 4,000 acres of land located nearly 50 miles
northwest of the FLC area. The ASPA’s transportation assets and deepwater terminals are served by five
Class 1 railroads, two interstate highways (I-10 & I-65), air cargo terminal, and immediate access to
intracoastal and inland waterways. The ASPA’s public seaport terminals offer modern wharves,
warehouses, and port services for general cargo, container, bulk, and oversized cargoes between the state
of Alabama and many worldwide destinations. The ASPA, in Fiscal Year 2005, reported over $85 million
in revenues and employs nearly 600 team members. A study completed in 1995 by the University of
Alabama concluded that the State Docks had a $3 billion economic impact statewide, generated
approximately $467 million in state taxes, and generated 118,000 jobs statewide.
The port’s main exports are coal, lumber, plywood, wood pulp, Oriented Standard Board (OSB),
laminate, flooring, roll and cut paper, iron, steel, frozen poultry, soybeans, and chemicals. The ports
primary imports are coal, aluminum, iron, steel, lumber, woodpulp, plywood, fence posts, veneers, roll
and cut paper, and chemicals.
Alabama is also home to the Mobile Alabama Cruise Terminal. The Holiday cruise ship, owned by
Carnival Cruise Lines, has provided cruises to the western Caribbean from Mobile Bay since October
2004. Figure 27 shows an aerial view of the Holiday cruise ship parked at the Mobile Alabama Cruise
Terminal. The terminal consists of 66,000 square foot terminal building and a 500 space parking area.
The terminal is located 0.5 miles from I-10 and 6 miles from the I-65 and I-10 junction.
25
26
Figure 27. Holiday cruise ship parked at the Mobile Alabama Cruise Terminal
February 2009
3-20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
3.4.1.3.2
19
3.4.1.4 Roadways
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
3.4.1.4.1
Port of Pensacola
The Port of Pensacola has evolved into an area leading deep-water port. The Port is located approximately
25 miles east of the FLC area. With eight deep-draft berths and more than 400,000 square feet of covered
storage, the Port is located in the Pensacola Bay, 10 miles from the Gulf of Mexico through the Pensacola
Bay pass. The 50-acre facility offers a Foreign Trade Zone, an Enterprise Zone, and stevedoring and
marine terminal services for bulk, break-bulk and unitized freight. The Port of Pensacola is an enterprise
department of the City of Pensacola and is governed by the Pensacola City Council. The port has easy
access to Interstate I-110 to transport materials via tractor trailer directly to I-10. Additionally, materials
could be imported and exported via Class I rail with a direct connection to the Port.
Among the Port’s leading commodities are bagged agricultural products, cement, paper, aggregate, power
plant and power generation equipment, animal feed and animal feed components, construction supplies
and materials, and frozen cargo. The entrance to the main channel into Pensacola Bay is by the Caucus
Channel. The channel is 500 feet wide at its seaward end and dredged to 33 feet in depth. The approach
channel to the Port of Pensacola is 300 feet wide with a control depth of 35 feet, and intersects Pensacola
Bay in a generally northeasterly direction. The GIWW intersects the Port’s entrance channel just north of
Santa Rosa Island. The GIWW traverses the Gulf of Mexico from Brownsville, Texas to Ft. Meyers,
Florida before connecting to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway via the Okeechobee Waterway.
Background
The roads and bridges that compose Alabama’s roadway network serve as the backbone of the state’s
transportation system. Included with this statewide network are several roadway classifications including
Interstate, Freeways/Expressways, Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Collector, and Local. While there
are no limited access interstate highways or freeways in the immediate project area, the area includes each
of the other listed classification types. The primary roadways within the study area include the following:
•
Alabama S.R. 59 (Gulf Shores Parkway)
This four-lane, principal arterial highway is one of two major routes providing access from all
areas north of the FLC. S.R. 59 extends north and intersects with I-10 and I-65 providing
direct access to all parts of the county by vehicle. This road also bridges the FLC allowing
north-south traffic to and from the beach area and is, therefore, the primary hurricane
evacuation route for the Gulf Shores area.
•
Foley Beach Expressway
Foley Beach Expressway is a four-lane, principal arterial highway that was recently
constructed to provide direct access to Orange Beach from S.R. 59 while bypassing the cities
of Foley and Gulf Shores. This road intersects with S.R. 59 north of Foley and crosses the
GIWW via a toll bridge near the eastern end of the FLC before intersecting with Canal Road
(S.R. 180). The Foley Beach Expressway was constructed not only to help alleviate
congestion on S.R. 59 and S.R.182, but to also act as the primary hurricane evacuation route
for the Orange Beach area.
•
Alabama S.R. 182 (Perdido Beach Boulevard/E. Beach Boulevard/W. Beach Boulevard)
S.R. 182 is the primary road that stretches along the Gulf of Mexico’s coastline from the
Alabama-Florida state line in Orange Beach to Gulf Shores where it terminates near the
western end of Little Lagoon. East of S.R. 59, the road is a principal arterial highway and is
four-lane, while west of S.R. 59, it is minor arterial road and eventually transitions from four
February 2009
3-21
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
lanes to two lanes as the road approaches its terminal point. Most of the area’s resort
condominiums and hotels are along the gulf on S.R. 182.
•
Alabama S.R. 180 (Canal Road/East 2nd Street/Fort Morgan Road)
S.R. 180 generally runs along the southern side of the GIWW from Orange Beach through
Gulf Shores, ending at Fort Morgan. This highway is two lanes, is classified as a collector,
and provides access to most of the developed areas adjacent to the south side of the FLC west
of S.R. 59 and east of the Foley Beach Express.
•
Alabama S.R. 161
S.R. 161 is a minor arterial that connects S.R. 182 to S.R. 180 in Orange Beach. The fourlane road is just west of Cotton Bayou, and as the only north-south road, it is part of the
primary hurricane evacuation route for the Orange Beach area.
•
Baldwin County Road 4 (Oyster Bay Road)
County Road 4 is a two-lane, collector road the traverses the northern shoreline of the FLC,
west of S.R. 59. This road ends to the west at Oyster Bay on Bon Secour Bay.
3.4.1.4.2
Existing Traffic
The ADOT collects data on the state roads every other year. Figure 28 demonstrates the 2001 Average
Daily Traffic Volumes for the state roadways in the area. Using the Mobile Area Transportation Study
Model Capacities by Functional Class (2006), the level of service was determined for the 2005 traffic
volumes as part of the Orange Beach Community Preservation and Growth Management Plan (2006). The
traffic counts from 1999 through 2005 for the state routes in the project area are shown in Table 14.
Figure 28. 2001 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
29
February 2009
3-22
1
Table 14. Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Average Daily Traffic Counts
2001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2003
2005
%
Change
19992005
25%
2005
LOS
S.R. 180
10,900 12,820 13,870 14,590
F
West of
S.R. 161
S.R. 180
4,480
4,820
5,370
5,450
17%
A
East of
S.R. 161
18,130 17,610 18,720 18,680
3%
A
S.R. 182
West of
S.R. 161
S.R. 182
16,280 17,980 18,770 18,740
13%
B
East of
S.R. 161
S.R. 161
11,730 13,960 14,870 17,060
31%
A
10,530 11,730 12,510 12,750
17%
A
S.R. 182 at
Florida
State Line
29,880 38,400 26,800 31,380
5%
D
S.R. 59
south of
Intracoastal
Waterway
1,100
C.R. 4
West of
S.R. 59
Note: Existing Counts: Alabama Department of Transportation Traffic Count Maps
2005 LOS: Orange Beach Community Preservation and Growth Management Plan (2006)
Roadway Capacity: Mobile Area Transportation Study Model Capacities by Functional Class (2006)
3.4.1.4.3
Existing Transportation Plan and Implementation
Various transportation and growth plans have been completed for this area. This section provides
recommendations for the area from those plans to address existing congestion and future growth that is
anticipated. Statewide transportation planning is required by federal law under guidelines established by
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The state’s eligibility for federal
transportation funding is dependent on compliance with the statewide transportation planning
requirement. Federal funding is critical to the provision of transportation facilities and services that
cannot be funded solely with state and local money. Numerous state roadway improvement projects have
been completed in recent years and many more improvements are proposed. The following major
roadway improvements are proposed in the Alabama Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan (2008)
within the study area:
•
Fiscal Year 2008
Widening of S.R. 180 from Foley Beach Expressway to S.R. 161 in Orange Beach.
•
Fiscal Year 2009/2010
Widening of S.R. 180 from S.R. 59 in Gulf Shores to Foley Beach Expressway.
February 2009
3-23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
More site specific data was gathered for the study area from the City of Orange Beach Community
Preservation and Growth Management Plan (2006). Orange Beach has created a list of transportation
priorities and recommendations. Specific recommendations relevant to the project area include:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3.4.1.4.4
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Short-term Recommendations (1–5 years)
• Extend the Foley Beach Expressway to Perdido Beach Blvd
• Widen Canal Road from Foley Beach Express to S.R. 161
• Improve the intersection of S.R. 161 and Canal Road
• Construct additional roadway drainage improvements
• Implement street, bridge, and gateway beautification
• Construct additional boat launches
Long-term Recommendations (5–10 years)
• Construction of the Wolf Bay Bridge
• Develop a park and ride system
• Implement a beach trolley
• Complete the County Road 83 extension from I-10 to I-65
Existing Congestion
S.R. 59 is the primary route for vehicular traffic to get from I-10 and I-65 and the resort areas of Orange
Beach and Gulf Shores. As a result, this thoroughfare is heavily developed with commercial shopping
areas and golf course communities, particularly from Foley south to Gulf Shores. The Foley Beach
Expressway was constructed to alleviate congestion along this stretch of road by allowing travelers whose
destination is Orange Beach to bypass Foley and Gulf Shores.
Nevertheless, S.R. 59 has periods of congestion during the summer tourist season as beachgoers travel to
and from the beach, shopping centers, and restaurants. Additionally, S.R. 59 becomes heavily congested
when a hurricane evacuation is ordered for the south Baldwin County area. There are no other major
sources of congestion in the immediate area of study.
3.4.1.4.5
There are four Hurricane Evacuation Zones in Baldwin County: Category 1-2 Zone, Category 3 Zone,
Category 4 Zone, and Category 5 Zone. All residents south of the FLC, which is in the Category 1-2
Zone, are required to evacuate their residence for a Category 1 or 2 hurricane. Category 1 hurricanes
usually have maximum winds of 95 mph. Shrubbery, trees, foliage, poorly constructed signs, piers, and
mobile homes are subject to damage from a Category 1 hurricane. Category 2 hurricanes have maximum
winds of 110 mph. Major damage from a Category 2 storm consists of destruction of mobile homes,
destruction of poorly constructed signs, and destruction of roofing materials on buildings. Marinas will
flood during a Category 2 hurricane.
All residents in the Category 3 Zone, which extends north of the GIWW to Foley, Alabama, are required
to evacuate for a Category 3 hurricane. Category 3 hurricanes have maximum winds of 130 mph and can
cause extensive damage to roofing materials, windows, and doors of buildings. Category 3 hurricanes can
also destroy mobile homes and can cause serious flooding along the coast. The proposed developments
are in the Category 3 Evacuation Zone.
All residents in the Category 4 Zone, which is south of U.S. Highway 90 between Loxley and Foley, are
required to evacuate for a Category 4 hurricane. Category 4 hurricanes have maximum winds of 155 mph.
Shrubs and trees are typically blown down and most street signs are damaged. Roofing materials,
February 2009
3-24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
windows, and doors receive extensive damage. Roofs on many residences or industrial buildings typically
fail during a Category 4 hurricane. Lower floors of structures near the shore receive major damage from
battering waves and floating debris. Beaches are subject to major erosion.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
3.4.1.5 Commercial Waterway Traffic
All residents south of I-10, which is between I-10 and U.S. Highway 90, are required to evacuate for a
Category 5 hurricane. Category 5 storms have maximum winds of 155 mph. Roofs of buildings and all
signs are damaged or destroyed and windows and doors of buildings are subject to extensive damage.
Roofs on many residences and industrial buildings completely fail, and glass in windows and doors
shatter because of wind capacity.
Hurricane evacuation routes for the Gulf Shores/Orange Beach area are illustrated on Figure 29.
The Institute of Water Resources (IWR) provides data on commercial traffic for specific segments of the
GIWW, including the segment from Mobile, Alabama to Pensacola, Florida. The IWR’s statistics for the
Mobile Bay to Pensacola segment separate the data into eastbound and westbound, commodity shipped,
and type of vessel. A summary of the most recently reported IWR (2004) statistics is presented below.
Data from the 2004 IWR commodity statistics show coal as the primary commodity shipped in the study
area. Ingram Barge Lines transports the majority of the coal from Mobile Bay to the Smith and Crist
power plants that are operated by Gulf Power in Florida. Petroleum and petroleum-related products
represent other materials frequently shipped through the waterway.
The 2004 IWR trips and tonnage statistics for the study area from 1973 to 2004 shows that the number of
commercial trips varied year to year with no clear trend but generally fell between 11,000 and 15,000. An
abnormally high value of 29,000 trips was recorded in 1986. While the number of trips has remained
relatively constant, the quantity of material per trip has shown an overall increase from 1973 to 2004.
This trend follows recent commercial shipping trends with increasing levels of tonnage, but fewer overall
trips.
The 2004 IWR statistics for trips and drafts for the Mobile Bay, Alabama to Pensacola, Florida, segment
of the GIWW show that the number of eastbound trips nearly equals the westbound trips. The number of
trips equals the number of tugs and barges reported in the waterway. The convention for the trip data
means that a tug and barge combination with one tug and four barges gets reported as one trip for a tug
and four trips for a barge; therefore, the precise number of tug and barge combinations passing through
the waterway cannot be conclusively drawn from this data.
A vessel traffic study conducted by Taylor Engineering on July 1 and 2, 2006 also provides data on
commercial shipping observed during the study period. This study will be elaborated on in later sections.
The Taylor Engineering (2006) traffic study recorded six- and seven-tug and barge combinations on the
two study days. The traffic consisted of eight eastbound and five westbound tows with an average of two
barges per tow.
February 2009
3-25
1
2
Figure 29. Hurricane Evacuation Routes
February 2009
3-26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
3.4.2
Utilities
This section describes the utilities that would potentially be affected by the proposed action and
alternatives. Utilities include water supply, wastewater, storm water, solid waste, hazardous waste,
telecommunications and energy systems. Accordingly, this study evaluates the potential impacts of
USACE permitted actions on the region’s utilities. The geographical region evaluated for utilities
encompasses the FLC of the GIWW in Baldwin County, Alabama.
3.4.2.1 Water Supply
Twelve municipalities, along with public and private water systems, provide treated water to residential,
commercial, and industrial customers in Baldwin County. The inland and rural portions of the county,
however, are largely without public water systems and rely on water associations, privately owned
utilities, and individual wells. The water provided by the municipalities is available for residential,
commercial, industrial, and agricultural use, including landscape irrigation, and it is delivered by a system
of wells, water distribution piping, and water storage tanks (mostly elevated) that make up the water
supply infrastructure of this coastal county.
The current capacity of the primary sources of potable water in the project area, which consists of Gulf
Shores Utilities and Orange Beach Water Authority, can be found below in Table 15. Gulf Shores
Utilities is operating at 79% of capacity and Orange Beach Utilities at 48%. Both of these systems rely on
groundwater as the sole source for drinking water.
20
21
Table 15. Potable Water Utilities
Utility
Gulf Shores Utilities
Orange Beach Utilities
22
23
mgd – million gallons per day
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
3.4.2.1.1
Available
capacity
(mgd)
6.84
12.0
Peak usage
(mgd)
5.4
5.8
Groundwater as a Source of Water Supply
Groundwater is the predominant source of fresh water in coastal Alabama. There are 780 public water
systems that serve an estimated 1,900,000 people from ground water sources. In fact, groundwater is the
exclusive source of public water systems in southern Baldwin County. In addition to water withdrawn for
public water supply, substantial quantities of ground water are withdrawn by agriculture, commercial and
industrial private users.
In the Ground Water Atlas of the United States, the USGS describes the most widely used aquifer in the
coastal counties as the coastal lowland aquifer system (USGS 1990). The coastal lowland aquifer system
extends west to the Rio Grande basin of Texas, east to the western part of the Florida panhandle, and
north to merge with the Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer. To the south, the coastal lowland
aquifer system extends into the Gulf of Mexico to the edge of the continental shelf. The aquifer contains
saline water in most of its offshore locations.
More than 90 years of increasing pumping rates have altered the direction that groundwater naturally
flows. The natural direction of groundwater flowed from the water table to streams and rivers. As water
table levels have fallen, the direction of flow has reversed, with water from the rivers and streams
recharging the groundwater, along with coastal aquifers encountering saltwater contamination.
February 2009
3-27
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
In 1996 the USGS determined that the increased demand of ground water across the State of Alabama had
reduced flow in rivers and lowered groundwater levels in some areas which caused saltwater intrusion
into the coastal aquifer (USGS 2005). In a May 2000 report titled “Hydrogeology and Vulnerability to
Contamination of Major Aquifers in Alabama: Area 13” prepared by the Geological Survey of Alabama
in cooperation with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, existing published data was
revised and expanded to characterize vulnerability of groundwater to contamination. Area 13 classified
the coastal areas as highly vulnerable to salt-water encroachment if pumping rates are excessive but did
not outline what would fall into the excessive category; nor did it mention if the current consumptive use
permit would fall into this scenario. Nearby Dauphin Island is has already begun treating saltwater
intrusion from at least one of their wells by reverse osmosis to remove chlorides. Saltwater intrusion into
wells has also been outlined as a potential problem for Baldwin County. The USGS began monitoring the
aquifer in South Baldwin County daily in October 2006 (USGS 2008). Declines in water levels of the
wells could eventually lead to increased pumping costs, or the need to deepen the wells to maintain
supply.
In the future groundwater withdrawal in the coastal counties could have to be restricted. Other options
would be available, although at higher costs. Use of surface water, treatment of lower quality
groundwater, and desalination are some of the alternative water sources that would possibly be viable
options.
3.4.2.1.2
Gulf Shores Water System
Potable water is supplied to the city of Gulf Shores through Gulf Shores Utilities. Figure 30 depicts the
service area for the Gulf Shores Utilities. The Gulf Shores area has seen a steady increase in potable water
usage in the last six years, as well as a consistent peak in water consumption during the summer tourist
season.
The first Waterworks Board in Gulf Shores was founded in 1967. In 1989, the water service and sewer
service were combined to form Gulf Shores Utilities. The source of supply for drinking water in Gulf
Shores is groundwater, which is pumped from two aquifers (A2 and A3 aquifers). The water is withdrawn
from the ground by eight wells, ranging in depth from 200 to 535 feet. There are two wells with a
pumping capacity of 1,000 gpm each; one well with pumping capacity of 750 gpm; and five wells with
pumping capacity of 500 gpm each, for is a total of 5,250 gpm. During summer (from June to
September), approximately 5 to 6 million gallons per day (MGD) are pumped out of the eight well
system. This is the equivalent of 3,470 to 4,160 gpm. The groundwater is pumped to two Iron Removal
Treatment Facilities, where it is treated with chlorination, fluoridation, corrosion control and filtration.
Water Treatment Plant #1 has a treatment capacity of 2.88 MGD and a 2 million gallon (MG) tank that is
kept full; the pumping capacity of this plant is 4.32 ,MGD. Water Treatment Plant #3 has a treatment
capacity of 2.52 MGD and a pumping capacity of 2.52 MGD. In total, Gulf Shores Utilities is capable of
providing the community with 4,750 gpm, or 6.84 MGD (Table 16). Gulf Shores Utilities also has 7.25
MG in storage in 7 storage tanks. In 2007, 3.3 MGD were distributed to customers by Gulf Shores
Utilities with a summer peak production of 5.4 MGD.
February 2009
3-28
1
Table 16. Summary of City of Gulf Shores Water System Capacity
Facility
WTP # 1
WTP # 3
8 Wells
5 Elevated Storage Tanks
2 Ground Storage Tanks
Capacity
Treatment: 2.88 MGD – Pumping: 4.32 MGD
Treatment: 2.52 MGD – Pumping: 2.52 MGD
7.56 MGD (2 wells: 1.44 MGD each,
1 well: 1.08 MGD, 5 wells: 0.72 MGD each)
3.25 MG
4.0 MG
2
3
4
Figure 30. Gulf Shores Utilities water service area
5
6
7
8
9
10
3.4.2.1.3
Orange Beach Water System
The City of Orange Beach is supplied potable water through the Orange Beach Water Authority. Figure
31 depicts the service area for the Orange Beach Water Authority. The private Utility’s service area
covers the eastern portion of the project area and abuts the Gulf State Park and the eastern edge of the
Gulf Shores Utility Service area to the west.
February 2009
3-29
1
Figure 31. Orange Beach Water Authority Service Area
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
3.4.2.2 Wastewater
This section focuses on the capacity of the wastewater treatment and collection facilities in southern
Baldwin County that serve the project area. The public wastewater system consists of a network of pipes
and lift stations that convey the wastewater to central treatment facilities. Once at the treatment facilities,
the wastewater is treated to remove pollutants as per the NPDES requirements set forth by the ADEM and
the USEPA.
Wastewater customers who cannot connect to a public wastewater system generally employ package
plants or septic tanks and drain fields. Package plants are small, self-contained wastewater treatment
facilities built to serve a developed area, such as a subdivision or a school. Septic tanks and drain fields,
typically installed at individual households, collect wastewater in an underground tank and slowly release
the treated water to a drain field where it is absorbed and filtered by the surrounding soil.
If septic tanks are properly designed, installed, operated, and maintained in appropriate soil and
groundwater conditions, they can be very economical and efficient in treating wastewater. However,
failing septic tanks have contributed significantly to impaired water quality in coastal areas.
Table 17 lists the current treatment capacity of the primary wastewater utilities in the project area, which
consists of Gulf Shores Utilities, City of Orange Beach Sewer, and Baldwin County Sewer Service
(BCSS).
February 2009
3-30
1
Table 17. Wastewater Utilities
Water Service Provider
Available Treatment Capacity (MGD)
Peak Usage (MGD)
Gulf Shores Utilities
4.0
4.0
City of Orange Beach Sewer
4.0
2.0
Baldwin County Sewer Service
4.5
NOT AVAILALBE
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
3.4.2.2.1
Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Collection Systems in South Baldwin County
There are three major utilities that operate wastewater treatment facilities in the project area. Together
these wastewater utilities have the capacity to treat a total of 13.5 MGD. The City of Orange Beach owns
and operates a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) that serves the eastern portion of the project area.
Most of the central and western portions of the GIWW in Baldwin County are served by a WWTP owned
and operated by the City of Gulf Shores.
Gulf Shores Treatment Facility
The current service area for the Gulf Shores wastewater system serves a majority of the parcels within the
city limits as well as some areas outside the city to the north and west. There are 48 lift stations in the
City’s collection system, which convey wastewater from all areas of the City to the treatment facility
located east of S.R. 59 and south of S.R. 180.
The Gulf Shores Wastewater Reclamation Facility has a current system capacity of 4 MGD, which has
never been reached. The average daily flow for the period 2006-2007 was 1.2435 MG. The highest flow
on record for this facility was 2.6 MGD. However, with projects for continued growth in the area, Gulf
Shores Utilities has the capacity and plan in place to increase treatment to 6 MGD and eventually to 12
MGD. The facility utilizes ultraviolet disinfection rather that chlorine. In addition, the water reclamation
facility uses effluent water for irrigation of non-residential facilities.
The Gulf Shores Wastewater Reclamation Facility has three permitted discharge points. The GIWW
serves as the main discharge point for this plant. The other two points of discharge are a pond and the
Gulf State Park, which receives reclaimed water for irrigation.
Gulf Shores Utilities continues to make improvements to existing sewer lines and to expand the system to
provide public sewer service to residents and future development throughout their service area. One of the
Gulf Shores Utilities activities is the replacement of clay pipe with high density polyethylene pipe
through a method of pipe bursting along the north and south side of Beach Boulevard from Gulf Shores
State Park, west to the Callaway Property.
City of Orange Beach Treatment Facility
The City of Orange Beach owns and operates a WWTP that is located at 23908 Canal Road (S.R. 180),
just east of the Foley Beach Express. The plant’s current service area is approximately 26 square miles
and covers much of the City of Orange Beach, as well as various areas north of the city. The population
within the service area is approximately 54,000 people. The service area for this facility covers parcels
both north and south of the GIWW within the boundary of the City’s limits. New developments within
the city limits are required to connect to the City’s sewer collection system, as septic tanks are not
allowed.
February 2009
3-31
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
The City’s wastewater collection system consists of nearly 5 miles of gravity sewer, approximately 120
miles of force mains, and 25 lift stations. These lines collect wastewater from residential, commercial,
and industrial districts in its service area, and they convey it to the central treatment plant, located near the
southern bank of the GIWW. This facility is an advanced wastewater treatment facility that consists of
primary treatment, an aeration basin, clarifiers, and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. Treated effluent from
the facility is conveyed to, and disposed of into, the GIWW.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Baldwin County Sewer Service, LLC
BCSS, LLC is a privately held, full service, sewer treatment company. The home office is in
Summerdale, Alabama. The company was founded in 1998 by a group of local developers and investors
to serve developments where sewer service was unavailable. The system has grown by expansion and
acquisition of municipal systems to serve roughly 11,200 customers, with current permitted capacity to
service 20,000. The BCSS operates over 2.5 million feet of sewer force mains and over 140 lift stations
covering 450 square miles, from the tip of Fort Morgan to south of Bay Minette.
43
44
45
46
47
The treatment capacity of the WWTP is 5 million gallons per day. The collection system is comprised of
low pressure and gravity lines, mostly in the corporate city limits of Orange Beach. Other areas supplied
by the water treatment facility are low-pressure lines to Ono Island and the Miflin Creek region.
During the past four years the wastewater operation has upgraded all primary lift stations and installed
miles of improved force mains. Due to the rapid increase in construction, the City of Orange Beach Public
Works Department is constantly in a state of improvement. The collection system is being expanded on a
daily basis to provide sewer availability to every resident of the city, as well as extending lines into the
outlying areas of the county. This expansion is possible due to the treatment capacity of the primary
facility, which has the capacity to serve twice the current population. A new wastewater treatment plant
with a capacity of 10 MGD is expected to start operating by spring 2010.
The wastewater treatment plant has a discharge permit issued by the ADEM. The treatment facility is also
closely monitored by the USEPA and various local governmental agencies. The liquid leaving the facility
is discharged directly into the GIWW, and therefore has a critical impact on the local fishing industry.
The facility is permitted to discharge limited quantities of the following chemical/substances, through the
discharge point in the concentrations specified in the permit: DO, BOD, total suspended solids, nitrogen,
enterococci, ceriodaphnia chronic and pimephales chronic.
The BCSS has three treatment facilities: Fort Morgan, Lillian, and Plantation Hills. The BCSS operates
by NPDES permit administered by the ADEM, in accordance with, and subject to, the provisions of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, The Alabama Water Pollution Control Act, and the Alabama
Environmental Management Act.
BCSS representatives have indicated that their wastewater plants have enough capacity for the proposed
developments but they do not have the infrastructure in place in the area of the proposed developments
(Baumhauer, 2008). Coordination with BCSS will be needed if they are selected as the wastewater system
provider for these developments.
3.4.2.3 Storm Water
This section focuses on the conveyance and treatment of storm water runoff in the south Baldwin County
area. Alabama has the authority to administer the NPDES permit program for storm water discharges in
the state. A storm water NPDES permit is required for certain activities (e.g., construction) and for cities
with a population over 100,000. The state may also require a NPDES storm water permit if there is high
February 2009
3-32
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
potential for polluted runoff. A storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is required by the ADEM
for a Construction Storm Water General NPDES Permit.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
3.4.2.3.1
A network of open channel ditches, curbs, gutters, piping and natural features, such as wetlands, make up
the storm water systems in this area, and convey the runoff of storm events from developed areas to
surface waters through these storm water systems. In addition, state prescribed erosion and sediment
controls are required in order to protect the state’s waters from storm water runoff created by new
developments. These controls are detailed in ADEM’s Alabama Handbook for Erosion Control, Sediment
Control and Stormwater Management on Construction Sites and Urban Areas last revised in June 2003.
As southern Baldwin County has progressed from a few isolated beach towns to a major tourist
destination, the area’s storm water infrastructure progressed. Flood prevention was the main storm water
design criteria, and open channel swales and ditches were the original means of conveyance for storm
water to reach open water bodies. As the area has grown and become more urbanized, closed drainage
systems comprised of curbing and underground pipes have become more popular, particularly in areas
with increasing impervious areas within narrow rights-of-way.
In addition to the city stormwater management requirements established in the City of Gulf Shores and
City of Orange Beach Code of Ordinances, the submission of the site plan applications to the City
Planning Departments shall include a stormwater management plan that must show compliance with the
ADEM Coastal Area Management Program (Chapters 335-6 and 335-8 of the ADEM Administrative
Code). Chapter 335-6-12-.02 of the ADEM Administrative Code indicates that a construction activity that
disturbs one acre or greater or will disturb less that one acre but is part of a larger common plan of
development or sale whose total land disturbing activities total one acre or greater is required to obtain a
NPDES permit.
Gulf Shores Storm Water System
According to the city’s Code of Ordinances, any new development is required to utilize BMPs for erosion
control and pollution prevention from construction sites. Due to the highly permeable soils in the region,
dry retention ponds and/or infiltration trenches are used to attenuate storm water on-site of a development.
Engineers are required to design these storm water attenuation basins to meet ADEM’s first one-half inch
runoff volume requirement as well as the city’s 10-year, 24-hour storm event requirement. Not only do
these requirements provide treatment for the runoff in the form of removal of suspended solids and
soluble pollutant reduction, they also help to recharge the groundwater supply as storm water infiltrates
into the ground within these basins.
Additionally, there is a provision in the city’s Code for parcels directly adjacent to tidal water bodies.
Developments on these parcels are allowed to discharge storm water directly into the adjacent water body
without detention so long as there are provisions for pollutant removal from the runoff prior to discharge.
Typically developments of this nature have used either an open sedimentation/filtration bed in
conjunction with wetlands, other vegetation, or engineered storm water vaults that trap sediments, oils,
and pollutants.
There are five main open water bodies near the City of Gulf Shores that ultimately accept storm water
runoff – the Gulf of Mexico, Little Lagoon, Bon Secour Bay, Oyster Bay, and the GIWW.
Engineers are required to design systems that retain storm water on the site of a development so as to not
increase the amount of runoff from predevelopment site conditions. The city’s Code of Ordinances
Section 7-108 indicates that drainage plans shall be accompanied by sufficient engineering calculations
February 2009
3-33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
for verification of discharge of stormwater runoff; including retention/detention of runoff where required
to ensure that the maximum stormwater runoff discharge rate after development does not exceed the
maximum predevelopment discharge rate. As an exception to this requirement, stormwater runoff could
be discharged at the maximum post-development rate without retention/detention, directly into Little
Lagoon or the GIWW, from abutting properties if the discharge in no way adversely impacts these water
bodies, any other surrounding property, or any other storm drainage facility. Adverse impact includes, but
is not limited to:
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
3.4.2.3.2
•
Discharge entering a water body in such manner a as to pollute, erode, undermine, silt in, or
otherwise destroy the water body or its ecological system.
•
Discharge entering a water body which raises the stormwater elevation in that water body more
than one hundredth (0.01) of a foot above the predevelopment discharge elevation as a result of
the ten-year storm as certified by a registered engineer.
•
Discharge entering onto, into, or flowing over or through other property as a result of
development without easements for that purpose expressly granted and recorded by the owner of
that property, and without drainage construction in that easement approved by the city as part of
the drainage plan for the development generating the discharge.
•
Discharge flowing, infiltrating, or otherwise entering any other storm drainage facility.
Orange Beach Storm Water System
The City of Orange Beach regulations require new development within the city to use BMPs to prevent
erosion and control pollution prevention. The storm water policies require that runoff from new
developments be at or below pre-development conditions.
There are a multitude of open water bodies that eventually accept runoff discharge from the Orange
Beach area. The Gulf of Mexico, Perdido Bay, Wolf Bay, Bayou La Launch, Bayou Saint John, Cotton
Bayou, and the GIWW are some of the main open water bodies around the city that accept storm water
discharges.
Article IV, Division 3, Section 42-271 of the City Code indicates that “as part of the City’s effort to
minimize water quality problems in its adjacent and internal water bodies, the primary goal of its
retention/detention planning is to eliminate any direct discharges to the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf beaches,
coastal dunes, the Intracoastal Waterway, any contiguous surface waters thereof, and wetlands. In
addition, no direct discharge originating from storms less than or equal to a 25-year, 24-hour event will be
made to the Intracoastal Waterway or Wolf Bay. To achieve these goals, the City encourages the use of
retention/detention areas in future developments. However, other acceptable engineering methods, such as
exfiltration/infiltration devices, could be approved”.
Regarding the water quality requirements, all stormwater management systems shall be evaluated based
on their ability to prevent degradation of receiving waters and adverse impacts on the site’s, and adjacent
sites’, natural systems; their efficiency in removing pollutants; and their ability to conform to state water
quality standards as established in the State of Alabama Coastal Management Regulations. Currently,
development and redevelopment projects must be designed to meet the state of Alabama’s first one-half
inch runoff volume requirement.
February 2009
3-34
1
2
3
4
There are a multitude of open water bodies that eventually accept runoff discharge from the Orange
Beach area. The Gulf of Mexico, Perdido Bay, Wolf Bay, Bayou La Launch, Bayou Saint John, Cotton
Bayou, and the GIWW are some of the main open water bodies around the City that accept storm water
discharges.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
3.4.2.4 Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
3.4.2.4.1
This section focuses on the capacity of the solid waste collection and disposal facilities, as well as
hazardous waste facilities in Baldwin County that serve southern Baldwin County and the FLC area. The
solid waste system consists of means to collect non-hazardous municipal solid waste, and construction
and demolition debris, and a system to dispose of it in a permitted landfill. Non-hazardous solid wastes
consist of municipal solid waste, which includes domestic waste and non-hazardous commercial and
certain industrial wastes, along with construction and demolition debris, which includes concrete, asphalt,
wood, metals, and land-clearing materials.
The hazardous waste system consists of a means to identify, clean up, and dispose of hazardous waste
materials to prevent contamination of the surrounding environment. Hazardous wastes pose potential
health and safety risks and could cause contamination if released into the surrounding environment.
Hazardous waste sources include asbestos, underground storage tanks (USTs), and toxic chemicals.
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Systems in Southern Baldwin County
Baldwin County operates its own federally permitted landfills, with the main non-hazardous landfill being
the Magnolia Landfill. The Magnolia Landfill is located at 15140 County Road 49, Summerdale, AL,
approximately ten miles northwest of Foley (Figure 32). The landfill is currently permitted for a volume
of 350 tons per day but an application has been submitted to increase the permitted volume to 1,500
cy/day (900 tons/day). Additionally, a transfer station is located south of Bay Minette to serve as a point
to transport waste produced in the northern half of the county to the landfill in the south central part of the
county. The county and several private companies provide transportation service.
The Solid Waste Branch of the ADEM regulates the disposal of non-hazardous solid waste. Activities
include permitting of municipal solid waste landfills, construction/demolition landfills, and industrial
waste landfills. The Branch conducts regular inspections of these landfills to assess compliance with the
requirements of the ADEM Administrative Code, Division 13, and enforcement action is taken when
needed. The ADEM also permits and inspects medical waste facilities that generate, collect, store,
transport, and treat medical/infectious waste in the state. The Solid Waste Branch also investigates
complaints of unauthorized solid waste dumps and initiates appropriate enforcement action at these sites.
The results of a statewide survey performed for the first phase of the Alabama Solid Waste Management
Plan by ADEM indicated Alabamians generated an average of 6.5 pounds of solid waste per person per
day. The survey also indicated that approximately 5 percent of the State’s waste stream was recycled.
Later data supplied by local governments and compiled as part of the second phase of the plan indicated
that the average solid waste production per person per day is 6.3 pounds and that 2.6 percent of the waste
stream was actually recycled.
The City of Gulf Shores has contracts with two different companies to collect and dispose of nonhazardous municipal solid waste and construction and demolition debris from within the city’s limits.
February 2009
3-35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Figure 32. Baldwin County Landfill Locations
Residential and non-residential solid waste in the City is collected by B.F.I./Allied Waste Industries, Inc.
The City also has an agreement with Waste Management of Alabama, Inc. to collect non-residential nonhazardous solid waste. The City has a recycling center where items such as newspapers, tin cans,
aluminum cans, cardboard, office paper, milk, and cola plastic jugs are recycled.
The City of Orange Beach has a franchise agreement with B.F.I./Allied Waste Industries, Inc. to collect
and dispose of non-hazardous municipal solid waste, and construction and demolition debris from within
the city’s limits. Additionally, the City has a voluntary recycling program with drop-off bins provided by
Baldwin County centrally located within the City.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
3.4.2.4.2
20
21
22
23
24
3.4.2.4.3
Hazardous Waste Facilities in South Baldwin County
The Hazardous Waste Branch of the ADEM implements state and federal laws related to recycling,
pollution prevention, and hazardous waste management. This branch assists in the cleanup of sites
contaminated with hazardous wastes, hazardous substances, and hazardous constituents due to both
current and historical activities. The major areas of focus are hazardous waste management, brownfield
redevelopment, and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980 remediation.
Baldwin County Hazardous Waste Sites
The Alabama Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund (AHSCF) was established in 1989 by the Alabama
Legislature to provide a mechanism for ADEM to investigate, remediate, and monitor hazardous
substance sites. These hazardous waste sites could be an endangerment to human health and the
environment, but may not qualify to be addressed by another federal or state cleanup program.
February 2009
3-36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Generally, sites utilizing AHSCF funds either are not qualified for, or are unlikely to receive cleanup
funding under CERCLA, commonly referred to as “Superfund”. Funding could also be used for long-term
maintenance and monitoring of sites which have historically been addressed under CERCLA. Since the
inception of the AHSCF, approximately 300 sites have been addressed, with almost 275 sites remediated
to a point where no further action is warranted. Funding for the AHSCF activities is generated by
legislative appropriations, fees from hazardous waste disposal at the Emelle hazardous waste landfill, and
reimbursements from potentially responsible parties (PRPs). For fiscal year 2005, legislative
appropriations and tax revenue provided $116,262 of funding.
14
15
16
17
3.4.2.5 Telecommunications and Energy Systems
According to the AHSCF Annual Report, there were no clean up sites in Baldwin County for fiscal year
2005. According to ADEM, there are no hazardous waste facilities in the area. The Underground Storage
Tank Corrective Action Program of ADEM oversees the initial response, assessment, monitoring, risk
evaluation and remediation of releases from underground storage tanks.
This section focuses on the capacity of the telecommunications and energy facilities in the project area.
The telecommunications system consists of telephone and other communications services. The energy
systems include electrical power and natural gas.
18
19
20
21
22
3.4.2.5.1
23
3.4.2.5.2
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Electrical Power Utilities
Baldwin Electric Membership Cooperative (EMC) is the only provider of electric service to the project
area. It is a member-owned cooperative supplying electric service to more than 60,000 customers
throughout Baldwin County and southern Monroe County in southwestern Alabama. Their service
territory is located between Mobile, Alabama and Pensacola, Florida, and includes both the Gulf Shores
and Orange Beach areas. Baldwin EMC does not operate any power plants, rather purchases its power
from the Power South. The power supply consists of mostly coal and natural gas power with a small
percentage coming form hydro-electric supplies. Baldwin EMC has three offices locations in Baldwin
County with their headquarters in Summerdale.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Natural Gas Utilities
Natural Gas is supplied to the project area through local utilities such as Riviera Utilities and ClarkeMobile Counties Gas District (CMC Gas). Riviera Utilities provides natural gas to the Gulf Shores area
while CMC provides natural gas to the Orange Beach area. The following routes include pipelines within
CMC’s service area:
Telecommunication Systems in South Baldwin County
GulfTel Communications, a CenturyTel Company, provides telecommunications services, including
central offices, basic local phone service, digital subscriber line (DSL), dial-up and long distance service,
to the project area. GulfTel serves more than 60,000 customers. Other internet and telephone providers in
Orange Beach include Network Neighbors and Smart Resort.
•
•
•
Energy Systems in South Baldwin County
Baldwin County Road 4, from Riviera Utilities regulator station across the inner-coastal canal to
the city of Orange Beach.
Alabama S.R.s 180, 182, 161, and most city streets within the police jurisdiction.
Baldwin County EMC power line right of way through the Gulf State Park (right of way also
known as Florida Street).
February 2009
3-37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Riviera Utilities Gas Department serves over 3,300 residential and commercial natural gas customers.
Riviera obtains natural gas through Gulf South Pipeline at its two city gate metering stations, which are
located in Bay Minette and Gateswood. Riviera Utilities has firm gas contracts with Prior Energy and
Phoenix Pipeline Co. Riviera Utilities Gas Department serves customers in Foley, Magnolia Springs,
Summerdale, Elberta, Miflin, Gulf Shores, and the municipalities of Loxley, Robertsdale, Silverhill, and
the gas system customers of Orange Beach.
8
3.5 SOCIOECONOMICS
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
This section describes the social and economic environment that would be potentially impacted by the
Proposed Action and alternative actions. The social and economic environment of the Gulf Shores/Orange
Beach area is characterized by its demographic composition, the structure and size of its economy, and
the types and levels of public services available to its citizens. Accordingly, this study evaluates potential
impacts of the USACE permitting actions along the FLC on the region’s population growth, employment
and income levels, business activities, housing stock, public services, environmental justice, and the
protection of children.
The socioeconomic environment evaluated for this EIS includes the FLC and the area surrounding the
coast, all located in Baldwin County, Alabama. With 1,596 square miles, Baldwin County is the largest
county in Alabama, and has a population density of 88 persons per square mile (USBC 2000a). It lies
along the eastern side of Mobile Bay and is bordered on the east by Escambia County, Florida, and on the
south by the Gulf of Mexico and the GIWW, along which Gulf Shores and Orange Beach are located. The
northern portion of the county is predominantly rural and agricultural.
Baldwin County forms the ROI and defines the geographic area in which most social and economic
impacts from large-scale development projects would likely take place.7 The study recognizes, however,
that socioeconomic impacts from proposed and alternative actions could extend beyond the ROI, and
even beyond the state of Alabama, although these impacts would be significantly diminished beyond the
ROI evaluated in this EIS.
3.5.1
Population
Population growth in Baldwin County during the past three decades has been relatively robust, as shown
in Table 18, especially compared to the State of Alabama and to the U.S. as a whole. The County’s
population increased by an average of 3.6 percent annually during the 1990s, while the State grew by an
average rate of 1 percent annually and the U.S., by 1.2 percent.
Figure 33 illustrates the extent to which Baldwin County’s growth has outstripped that of Alabama and
the U.S. This growth may reflect several trends, including permanent and seasonal (“snowbird”)
migration to the Sunbelt from northern parts of the United States, increasing development along coastal
areas, and growing affluence among retiree populations.
7
All of Baldwin County is included in the impact analysis because it is not feasible to measure changes in economic activities at
the sub-county level. Economic models generally project changes at the county level or above. Where data are available at the
sub-county level, the analysis will focus on the southern part of the County.
February 2009
3-38
1
2
Table 18. Historical Population Levels and Rates of Change, 1970-2000 ROI and
Comparison Areas
Location
Baldwin County
Alabama
United States
1970
1980
1990
2000
59,382
78,556
98,280
140,415
3,444,165
3,893,888
4,040,587
4,447,100
203,211,926
226,545,805
248,709,873
281,421,906
Average Annual Percent Change in Population by Decade
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1970-1980
1980-1990
1990-2000
1970-2000
Baldwin County
2.8%
2.3%
3.6%
2.9%
Alabama
1.2%
0.4%
1.0%
0.9%
United States
1.1%
0.9%
1.2%
1.1%
Source of 1970-1990 data: USBC 1995; Source of 2000 data: USBC 2000
Recently, the largest population growth in the county has occurred in the coastal towns of Gulf Shores
and Orange Beach and the communities of Loxley and Foley, directly north of the beach areas (BCEDA
2008). These trends indicate the impact of coastal resort development along the FLC. In 2000, population
in the City of Gulf Shores was 5,044 and in the City of Orange Beach, 3,784. The Alabama Gulf Coast
Area Chamber of Commerce projects that population in the two towns will increase by about 40 percent
by 2008 (AGCACC 2006).
The median age in Baldwin County in 2000 was 39.0 years, compared to 35.8 years for Alabama and 35.3
for the U.S. In Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, the population’s median age was 46.8 and 44.2,
respectively, reflecting a higher proportion of older residents (USBC 2000b).
New population estimates for 2007 were released by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 20, 2008. Table
19 illustrates that population growth has continued in both Baldwin County and Alabama, with Baldwin
County experiencing significantly more growth than the state of Alabama from the period of 2000-2007.
Baldwin County’s average annual population growth between 2000-2007 was three percent, compared to
one percent for Alabama. Baldwin County is the 7th largest county in Alabama and ranked 3rd in terms of
actual population growth between 2006 and 2007 (USBC 2008a). By 2025, Baldwin County is projected
to have a population of about 248,400 and rank as the 6th largest county in Alabama (USBC and UA
2001a).
February 2009
3-39
1
2
3
4
5
6
4.0%
Baldwin County
3.5%
Alabama
United States
7
Average Annual % Change
3.0%
8
2.5%
9
2.0%
10
1.5%
11
1.0%
12
0.5%
13
14
0.0%
1970-1980
1980-1990
15
1990-2000
16
17
Figure 33. Comparison of population growth rates by decade and area
18
19
20
Table 19. Population Levels, 2001-2005 ROI and Comparison Areas
Total
Percent
age
Change
20002007
Average
Annual
Change
Location
Baldwin
County
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
141,364
145,013
148,184
151,714
156,902
162,749
168,233
171,769
22%
3%
Alabama
4,451,887
4,466,618
4,477,571
4,495,089
4,517,442
4,548,327
4,590,240
4,627,851
4%
1%
Source: USBC 2008a
February 2009
3-40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3.5.2
Employment
In the last few decades, rapid population growth in Baldwin County has resulted in substantial economic
growth (AREREC 2005). Baldwin County’s employment growth has exceeded growth rates in Alabama
and the U.S. over the past decades, as shown in Table 20. The county’s employment of 70,247 in 2000
represented nearly three percent of total Alabama employment, while in 1970 it was only 1.4 percent of
the total (BEA 2007). Growth rates in the county have accelerated each decade since 1970, with an
average annual growth rate of nearly 5.6 percent during the 1990s. Figure 34 illustrates employment
trends for the ROI and comparison areas over this period.
9
10
Table 20. Historical Employment Levels and Rates of Change, 1970-2000
Location
Baldwin County
1970
1980
1990
2000
19,749
27,861
40,809
70,247
Alabama
1,412,928
1,735,992
2,061,101
2,416,422
United States
91,281,600
114,231,200
139,380,900
166,758,800
Average Annual Percent Change in Population by Decade
11
12
1970-1980
1980-1990
1990-2000
1970-2000
Baldwin County
3.50%
3.89%
5.58%
4.32%
Alabama
2.08%
1.73%
1.60%
1.80%
United States
2.27%
2.01%
1.81%
2.03%
Source: BEA 2007
6.0%
5.0%
Baldwin Co.
Alabama
Average Annual % Change by Decade
United States
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
1970-1980
1980-1990
1990-2000
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Figure 34. Comparison of employment growth rates by decade and area
33
34
35
Recently released employment figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) illustrate that total
full-time and part-time employment has continued to grow significantly in Baldwin County (Table 21).
February 2009
3-41
1
Table 21. Employment Levels, 2001-2005 and Comparison Areas
Location
Baldwin
County
Alabama
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
Total Percentage
Change 20012005
71,317
72,426
75,098
78,613
88,090
23.52%
2,392,552
2,387,215
2,396,939
2,453,423
2,590,042
8.25%
Source: BEA 2007
The ROI economy has been based in the services sector over the past 30 years, but a general shift from a
rural economy to a services-based urban economy is evident as employment in the manufacturing and
farm sectors has decreased over this period and the services sector has continued to grow. In 2006,
services provided over a quarter of Baldwin County’s employment. Specific components within the
service sector include accommodation and food, repair, entertainment, health, administrative and waste,
educational, and other professional and technical services (BEA 2007). Retail trade has continuously
increased during this period, and in 2006, this sector was the largest source of regional employment,
providing 15 percent of employment (Figure 35). The service and retail sectors combined account for
nearly half of the jobs in Baldwin County. The construction industry was the second largest source of
regional employment, providing 11 percent of ROI employment. About 9,200 people were employed in
the construction sector, an increase of 48 percent over the 6,200 jobs in this sector in 2001 (BEA 2008).
16
17
18
19
Mining, 0.3%
20
Construction, 8.5%
21
22
Manufacturing, 8.8%
23
24
Transportation, Public 25
Utilities, 3.5%
26
Wholesale Trade, 3.1% 27
28
29
30
31
32
Retail Trade, 23.0%
33
34
35
36
Agricultural Services,
Forestry, Fishing, and Other,
1.9%
Government, 12.8%
Services, 26.6%
Finance, Insurance, Real
Estate, 9.7%
37
Figure 35. Baldwin County employment by sector, 2000
38
39
40
41
42
Meanwhile, employment in the manufacturing sector has decreased by about 50 percent over the last three
decades. During this period, there also has been a significant decrease in farm employment, decreasing
from 16 percent in 1970 to 2 percent in 2000. These economic trends are shown in Table 22 and 23,
which presents ROI employment by industry for 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000. The accelerated growth of
February 2009
3-42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
the services sector and the expansion of the retail trades sector in Baldwin County can be partially
attributed to resort development along the Gulf Coast, although these changes parallel national trends to a
large extent. Baldwin County’s 2007 total (direct and indirect) resort/travel-related employment was
almost 42,000, an increase of 8 percent from 2006. Baldwin County accounted for almost 25 percent of
the state’s travel-generated employment (Alabama Tourism Department 2008).
8
Table 22. Total Full-time and Part-time Historical Employment by Industry (1970 & 1980)
1970
1980
%
Alabama
%
Baldwin
Co.
%
Alabama
%
Agricultural
Services,
Forestry, Fishing,
and Other
Mining
617
3.1%
7,631
0.5%
907
3.3%
11,044
0.6%
<10
<0.1%
8,565
0.6%
72
0.3%
17,765
1.0%
Construction
956
4.8%
64,187
4.5%
1,991
7.1%
91,967
5.3%
Manufacturing
3,291
16.7%
331,748
23.5%
4,029
14.5%
376,238
21.7%
Transportation,
Public Utilities
530
2.7%
62,211
4.4%
1,099
3.9%
80,331
4.6%
Wholesale Trade
481
2.4%
55,941
4.0%
1,102
4.0%
81,109
4.7%
2,939
14.9%
184,694
13.1%
4,779
17.2%
244,994
14.1%
Industry
Retail Trade
Baldwin
Co.
Finance,
Insurance, Real
Estate
Services
748
3.8%
59,167
4.2%
2,441
8.8%
97,686
5.6%
4,167
21.1%
257,547
18.2%
4,901
17.6%
303,341
17.5%
Government
2,848
14.4%
286,473
20.3%
4,066
14.6%
348,146
20.1%
Total Nonfarm
Employment
16,582
84.0%
1,318,164
93.3%
25,387
91.1%
1,652,621
95.2%
Farm
Employment
3,167
16.0%
94,764
6.7%
2,474
8.9%
83,371
4.8%
Total
Employment
19,749
100.0%
1,412,928
100.0%
27,861
100.0%
1,735,992
100.0%
9
10
February 2009
3-43
1
Table 23. Total Full-time and Part-time Historical Employment by Industry (1990 & 2000)
1990
%
Baldwin
Co.
%
Alabama
Agricultural Services,
Forestry, Fishing, and
Other
860
2.1%
17,795
%
Alabama
%
0.9%
1,310
1.9%
28,004
1.2%
Mining
148
0.4%
15,050
0.7%
198
0.3%
9,933
0.4%
Construction
2,195
5.4%
118,708
5.8%
5,943
8.5%
156,673
6.5%
Manufacturing
5,586
13.7%
396,248
19.2%
6,156
8.8%
370,962
15.4%
Transportation, Public
Utilities
1,552
3.8%
94,927
4.6%
2,449
3.5%
116,071
4.8%
Wholesale Trade
1,280
3.1%
91,389
4.4%
2,148
3.1%
105,963
4.4%
Retail Trade
8,007
19.6%
321,969
15.6%
16,184
23.0%
406,340
16.8%
Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate
2,891
7.1%
110,817
5.4%
6,779
9.7%
147,909
6.1%
Services
10,388
25.5%
454,447
22.0%
18,655
26.6%
632,666
26.2%
Government
6,229
15.3%
376,744
18.3%
9,022
12.8%
385,840
16.0%
Total Nonfarm
Employment
39,136
95.9%
1,998,094
96.9%
68,844
98.0%
2,360,361
97.7%
Farm Employment
1,673
4.1%
63,007
3.1%
1,403
2.0%
56,061
2.3%
Total Employment
40,809
100.0%
2,061,101
100.0%
70,247
100.0%
2,416,422
100.0%
Industry
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
2000
Baldwin
Co.
Source: BEA 2007, Tables CA1-3, CA04, and CA25
Since 1990, the unemployment rate in Baldwin County has consistently been about one percent less than
that of the State of Alabama and the United States. Baldwin County and the United States experienced
the same decrease in the unemployment rate from 1990 to 2000 (1.6 percent), while the State experienced
a greater decrease of 2.2 percent in this period, bringing its unemployment rate nearly equal to that of the
U.S. (BLS 2007; ALDIR 2007). The benchmarked unemployment rates for 2007 in Baldwin County and
Alabama decreased from 2000, indicating an increase in the demand for labor. Table 24 shows
unemployment data for the ROI and comparison areas. The national average unemployment rate
increased between 2000 and 2007. With the exception of Mobile County, which borders Baldwin County
to the west, all other counties bordering Baldwin County (Clarke, Escambia, Monroe, and Washington
Counties, Alabama) had unemployment rates higher than the national average.
February 2009
3-44
1
Table 24. Labor force and unemployment rates
1990
Civilian
labor force
Baldwin
County
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Rate
Civilian
labor force
2005
Persons
unemployed
Rate
Civilian
labor force
Persons
unemployed
Rate
46,773
2,281
4.9%
70,300
2,291
3.3%
76,943
2,533
3.3%
1,903,248
120,548
6.3%
2,154,545
87,398
4.1%
2,154,897
85,724
4.0%
125,840,000
7,047,000
5.6%
136,901,000
5,655,000
4.0%
141,715,000
7,581,000
5.1%
Alabama
United
States
2000
Persons
unemployed
Source of 1990 and 2000–2005 Alabama and Baldwin County Data: ALDIR 2007; Source of U.S. Data: BLS 2007
The 20 largest employers in Baldwin County are shown in Table 25. These employers represent about 18
percent of the employees in the county. The top employer is the Baldwin County Board of Education,
which is in the government sector. Three of the top six employers fall into the services sector (Thomas
Hospital, South Baldwin Regional Medical Center, and Grand Hotel), and the other two employers are in
the retail industry (Wal-Mart Super Centers and Standard Furniture).
9
10
11
Table 25. Largest Employers in Baldwin County
Number of
Employees
Employer
Location
Baldwin County Board of Education
Baldwin County
3,044
Standard Furniture
Bay Minette
1,400
Wal-Mart Super Centers
Bay Minette, Daphne, Foley,
Gulf Shores
1,290
Thomas Hospital
Fairhope
1,110
Goodrich Aerospace and Aerostructures
Group
Grand Hotel (Marriot Corporation)
Foley
791
Fairhope
590
South Baldwin Regional Medical Center
Foley
550
Baldwin County Commission
Baldwin County
475
Mercy Medical
Daphne
425
Mobile Lumber
Bay Minette
311
Ace Hardware Support Center
Loxley
310
North Baldwin Infirmary
Bay Minette
300
Hazels Family of Restaurants
Gulf Shores, Orange Beach
270
Flowerwood Nurseries
Loxley
260
Vulcan, Inc.
Foley
250
Solutia
Foley
185
Bon Secour Fisheries
Bon Secour
180
PrintXcel
Fairhope
165
Quincy Compressors
Bay Minette
147
International Paper
Bay Minette
130
Source: BCEDA 2008
February 2009
3-45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3.5.3
Income
11
Table 26. Historical Income Levels for Baldwin County and Alabama
Table 26 shows income data for Baldwin County and Alabama as reported for 1969, 1979, 1989, 1999,
and 2006. Income levels in the County and State were fairly equal in 1969 and 1979, but over the last
two decades, the gap has widened between the County and State both in per capita income (PCI) and
median household income, with Baldwin County’s income levels increasing at a faster pace. Table 26
includes county and state PCI as a percentage of U.S. and further illustrates the county’s higher growth
rate in PCI. The income gap is especially evident in comparing Baldwin County’s 2006 median
household income of $44,878 to Alabama’s 2006 median household income of $38,783, a difference of
about 16 percent.
19692
Baldwin
Co.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1979
Alabama
Baldwin
Co.
1989
1999
Alabama
Baldwin
Co.
Alabama
Baldwin
Co.
2006
Alabama
Baldwin
Co.
Alabama
Per Capita
Income
$7,084
$7,292
$9,987
$9,876
$12,275
$11,486
$20,826
$18,189
$24,323
$21,270
As percent
of US. PCI
69%
72%
75%
77%
80%
81%
88%
80%
96%
84%
$44,878
$38,783
Median
Household
Income
$6,430
$6,419
$14,614
$13,669
$25,712
$23,597
$40,250
$34,135
1
Notes: Amounts are in actual dollars, not adjusted for inflation.
2
Each decennial census reports income as of the previous year.
Source of 1969-1989 Data: USBC 2005; Source of 1999 Data: USBC 2000b; Source of 2006 Data: USBC 2008b
Tables 27 and 28 show income levels in Baldwin County in 1989 and 1999 broken down to the census
tract level. The tables show data from the tracts in southern Baldwin County, where coastal development
is proposed. For the 2000 Census, Tract 114.02 in Baldwin County was divided into Tracts 114.03 and
114.04. Figure 36 shows these census tracts as of the 2000 Census.
The PCI and median household income were greatest in Tract 114.02 in 1989 and Tract 114.04 as a
subset of Tract 114.02 in 1999. Of these tracts, the lowest income levels were in Tract 115, which is a
land-locked tract including the town of Foley, directly north of Tract 114.03. These income levels were
below the State in 1989 but increased to closely match the State in 1999. Tracts 114.01, 114.03, and
114.04 showed the highest income levels in 1999; these areas include Orange Beach and Gulf Shores
(Tract 114.04), and north (Tract 114.03) and northwest (Tract 114.01) of Gulf Shores.
February 2009
3-46
1
Table 27. 1989 Income Levels by Tract
Per Capita Income
As % of Baldwin Co.
Median Household Income
Tract 114.01
Tract
1
114.02
Tract
115
Tract 116
$10,480
$15,699
$9,559
$13,242
67%
100%
61%
85%
$25,101
$28,191
$22,096
$26,301
1
2
3
4
Note: Census Tract 114.02 was split into Tracts 114.03 and 114.04 for the 2000 Census.
Source: USBC 1990
5
Table 28. 1999 Income Levels by Tract
6
7
Tract
114.01
Tract
1
114.03
Tract
114.041
Tract 115
Tract 116
Per Capita Income
$18,112
$22,861
$27,217
$19,180
$19,939
As % of Baldwin Co
69%
88%
104%
73%
76%
Median Household
Income
$37,087
$36,796
$41,019
$34,172
$35,820
1
Note: Census Tracts 114.03 and 114.04 were formed by splitting Tract 114.02.
Source: USBC 2000b, File SF3
February 2009
3-47
1
2
Figure 36. Census Tracts in Southern Baldwin County, 2000
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
3.5.4
Housing
Characteristics of the ROI’s housing stock in 1990, 2000, and 2006 are summarized in Tables 29, 30, and
30, respectively. These tables identify occupied and vacant housing units by census tract and for Gulf
Shores, Orange Beach, Baldwin County, and Alabama. The units identified include all structure types
(e.g., single-family homes, apartments, and mobile homes).
The growth in housing stock between 1990 and 2000 shows that Baldwin County, and the Gulf Coast area
in particular, have outpaced Alabama and the U.S. in housing construction. The number of housing units
has increased by nearly 46 percent in Baldwin County, with growth in the coastal census tracts at 52
percent. For the same period, housing stock increased by about 18 percent in Alabama and 13 percent in
the U.S. (USBC 2000 1990).
Housing trends in the ROI indicate that it is a resort and tourist area, in that 62 percent of vacant units in
Gulf Shores and 93 percent of vacant units in Orange Beach are classified as seasonal (Table 30).
Generally, seasonal use of vacant housing was high in all census tracts along the Gulf Coast except in
Census Tract 115, which is inland. Between 1990 and 2000, there was a decrease in seasonal use of
vacant housing, while the number of housing units roughly doubled for all Census Tracts near the Coast.
Looking at Baldwin County as a whole, seasonal use of vacant housing units decreased between 1990 and
February 2009
3-48
1
2
3
2000 and again between 2000 and 2006 (Table 31). This trend suggests an influx of permanent
population to this region of the Gulf Coast.
4
Table 29. 1990 Housing Stock
Tract
114.01
Total Housing Units
Occupied Housing Units
Tract
114.021
Tract
115
Tract
116
Baldwin
Co.
Alabama
2,124
12,362
3,101
3,398
50,933
1,670,379
1,665
3,786
2,751
2,595
37,044
1,506,790
Vacant Housing Units
459
8,576
350
803
13,889
163,589
For Sale (%)
5.9%
1.3%
11.4%
6.1%
4.7%
12.1%
For Rent (%)
10.5%
1.4%
24.6%
5.4%
6.7%
28.0%
53.2%
95.9%
35.4%
73.2%
76.7%
21.8%
Seasonal Use (%)
1
5
6
7
Note: Census Tract 114.02 was split into Tracts 114.03 and 114.04 for the 2000 Census.
Source: USBC 2000b; USBC 1990
8
Table 30. 2000 Housing Stock, ROI and Comparison Areas
Tract
114.01
Tract
1
114.04
Tract
1
114.03
Tract
115
Tract
116
Orange
Beach
Baldwin
Co.
Alabama
Total Housing Units
3,191
2,387
16,023
4,673
5,644
6,810
7,594
74,285
1,963,711
2,675
1,853
4,651
4,159
4,512
2,344
1,779
55,336
1,737,080
516
534
11,372
514
1,132
4,466
5,815
18,949
226,631
For Sale (%)
12.6%
21.5%
15.0%
23.7%
6.4%
7.9%
11.4%
For Rent (%)
12.6%
11.0%
2.8%
24.9%
11.7%
17.1%
28.3%
Seasonal Use (%)
47.9%
44.8%
79.8%
16.5%
58.3%
61.8%
93.1%
62.6%
20.8%
Vacancy Rate, Homeowner
8.7%
8.1%
3.3%
2.0%
Vacancy Rate, Rental
68.6%
28.6%
22.3%
11.8%
1
9
10
11
Note: Census Tracts 114.03 and 114.04 were formed by splitting Tract 114.02.
Source: USBC 2000b, Files SF1 and SF3
12
Table 31. Baldwin County Housing Stock
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Gulf
Shores
Total Housing Units
1990
50,933
2000
74,285
2006
96,349
37,044
55,336
70,427
13,889
18,949
25,922
For Sale (%)
4.7%
7.9%
8.9%
For Rent (%)
6.7%
17.1%
28.5%
Seasonal Use (%)
76.7%
62.6%
42.9%
Source: USBC 2008b
Table 32 shows a building increase in the early 1990s. The value of construction in Orange Beach spiked
in 1995 and 1998, double that of Gulf Shores. In the early 2000s, the value of construction more than
doubled for both Gulf Shores and Orange Beach. Orange Beach rose sharply between 2005 and 2006,
whereas Gulf Shores dropped somewhat, but both Gulf Shores and Orange Beach dropped greatly
between 2006 and 2007.
February 2009
3-49
1
Table 32. Building Permits – Total Value of Construction
Year
2
Gulf Shores
Orange Beach
1990
$10,815,330
-
1991
$10,771,684
$10,610,834
1992
$15,630,754
$17,146,776
1993
$28,128,008
$46,755,156
1994
$43,099,986
$67,815,142
1995
$48,622,228
$102,826,090
1996
$53,001,153
$56,418,972
1997
$40,389,153
$56,155,719
1998
$47,270,964
$101,288,505
1999
$48,442,210
$73,502,263
2000
$52,069,449
$76,786,298
2001
$40,378,369
$73,213,501
2002
$50,853,570
$27,427,545
2003
$96,653,860
$106,841,077
2004
$298,633,020
$237,525,776
2005
$311,988,881
$317,197,363
2006
$229,713,582
$731,868,846
2007
$36,572,783
$37,602,247
Source: AGCACC 2008
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
3.5.5
Quality of Life
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
3.5.5.1 Schools
“Quality of life” encompasses those attributes or resources (man-made or naturally occurring) of a region
that contribute to the well-being of its residents. The relative importance of these attributes to a person’s
well-being is subjective (e.g., some individuals consider educational opportunities essential to their wellbeing, others could place a high value on the availability of healthcare services, and still others could hold
public safety as their primary quality-of-life concern). NEPA quality-of-life analyses typically address
issues relating to potential impacts of the proposed action on the availability of public services and leisure
activities that contribute to quality of life of the affected ROI’s inhabitants. For purposes of this study,
the affected environment for quality of life includes public schools, public safety (law enforcement and
fire protection), medical facilities, and recreational amenities.
The Baldwin County School District serves the entire ROI and includes 46 public schools providing
education for approximately 22,337 students. Table 33 shows general information for the school district
and the increases in enrollment, schools, and teachers from 1990 to 2000. The 43% increase in Baldwin
County’s population between 1990 and 2000 translated to a 31% increase in student enrollment in the
Baldwin County School District during the same period, suggesting that some of Baldwin County’s new
residents did not have school-age children. The District has compensated for the enrollment increase by
increasing the number of schools by 53% and increasing the number of teachers by 78%. Table 34 shows
enrollment by school during the 2005-2006 school year in the Baldwin County School District.
February 2009
3-50
1
Table 33. Historical School District Enrollment
Baldwin Co. School District
1990
2000
% Increase
Student Enrollment
17,054
22,337
31.0%
Schools
30
46
53.3%
Teachers (Full-time equivalent)
882
1,568
77.9%
2
3
Source: USDOE 2007
4
Table 34. List of Schools in Baldwin County School District
School
Free
Lunch
Reduced
Lunch
Location
Students
Type
Baldwin Co. High School
Bay Minette
1170
319
60
Secondary (9-12)
Baldwin Co. Reg Det Ctr
Bay Minette
26
0
0
Secondary (6-12)
Bay Minette Elementary
School
Bay Minette
561
291
46
Primary (KG-3)
Bay Minette Intermediate
School
Bay Minette
357
177
42
Primary (4-5)
Bay Minette Middle School
Bay Minette
830
348
82
Secondary (6-8)
Central Baldwin Middle
School
Robertsdale
784
268
101
Secondary (6-8)
Daphne East Elementary
School
Daphne
513
219
19
Primary (KG-6)
Daphne Elementary
School North
Daphne
599
90
29
Primary (KG-3)
Daphne Elementary
School South
Daphne
306
62
30
Primary (4-6)
Daphne High School
Daphne
1416
160
49
Secondary (9-12)
Daphne Middle School
Daphne
773
149
41
Secondary (7-8)
Delta Elementary School
Bay Minette
279
95
39
Primary (KG-6)
Elberta Elementary School
Elberta
478
172
83
Elberta Middle School
Elberta
613
199
103
Primary (KG-3)
Primary/Secondary
(4-8)
Elsanor School
Robertsdale
250
97
45
Primary (KG-6)
Fairhope High School
Fairhope
1235
177
68
Secondary (9-12)
Fairhope Intermediate
School
Fairhope
469
115
11
Primary (4-5)
Fairhope K-1 Center
Fairhope
498
64
13
Primary (PK-1)
Fairhope Middle School
Fairhope
685
143
63
Secondary (6-8)
Fairhope Primary School
Fairhope
444
70
18
Primary (2-3)
Foley Elementary School
Foley
673
346
92
Primary (KG-3)
Foley High School
Foley
1374
405
166
Secondary (9-12)
Foley Intermediate School
Foley
267
139
39
Primary (4-5)
Foley Middle School
Foley
725
343
86
Secondary (6-8)
February 2009
3-51
Table 34. List of Schools in Baldwin County School District (continued)
School
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Location
Students
Free
Lunch
Reduced
Lunch
Type
Gulf Shores Elementary
School
Gulf Shores
616
140
40
Primary (KG-5)
Gulf Shores High School
Gulf Shores
708
65
26
Secondary (9-12)
Gulf Shores Middle School
Gulf Shores
573
130
32
J. Larry Newton School
Fairhope
799
192
95
Secondary (6-8)
Primary/Secondary
(KG-8)
Loxley Elementary School
Loxley
367
163
61
Primary (KG-6)
Magnolia School
Foley
536
228
70
Primary (KG-6)
Orange Beach Elementary
School
Orange
Beach
357
33
12
Primary (KG-5)
Perdido Elementary
School
Perdido
505
191
71
Primary/Secondary
(KG-8)
Pine Grove Elementary
School
Bay Minette
353
213
40
Primary (KG-3)
Robertsdale Elementary
School
Robertsdale
779
282
78
Primary (KG-6)
Robertsdale High School
Robertsdale
1231
284
128
Secondary (9-12)
Rockwell Elementary
School
Spanish Fort
662
76
24
Primary (KG-6)
Rosinton School
Robertsdale
283
71
49
Primary (KG-6)
Silverhill School
Silverhill
342
99
47
Spanish Fort School
Spanish Fort
696
41
18
Primary (KG-5)
Primary/Secondary
(KG-8)
Spanish Fort High School
Spanish Fort
711
50
26
Secondary (7-10)
Stapleton School
Stapleton
201
58
29
Summerdale School
Summerdale
543
245
77
Primary (KG-6)
Primary/Secondary
(KG-8)
Swift Consolidated
Elementary School
Bon Secour
183
80
33
Primary (KG-5)
Source: USDOE 2007
The cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach prepared a feasibility study for creating an independent
school district along the Gulf Coast of Baldwin County (WW 2006). In March 2007 a referendum to
form an independent school system funded through a 7.5-mil property tax increase failed by more than a
two-to-one margin in both Orange Beach and Gulf Shores.
Table 35 displays the historic enrollment of Orange Beach Elementary School, Gulf Shores Elementary
School, Gulf Shores Middle School, and Gulf Shores High School, while Table 36 displays the projected
enrollment and capacity. Data for the 2006-2007 school year show a total of 2,179 students in the four
schools. The proposed district’s projected enrollment for 2015 is 2,723, an increase of 25% between
2007 and 2015.
February 2009
3-52
1
Table 35. Gulf Shores and Orange Beach Historic School Enrollment
School
1990
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
0
282
274
278
306
327
332
303
746
515
519
517
553
574
609
599
Gulf Shores Middle
0
398
438
451
502
530
548
563
Gulf Shores High
0
355
518
559
553
623
675
714
746
1,550
1,749
1,805
1,914
2,054
2,164
2,179
Total
2
Source: Weaver and Williams 2006
3
4
Table 36. Gulf Shores and Orange Beach Actual and Projected Student Enrollment
School
Capacity
2007
2010
2015
550
303
347
419
650
599
599
629
Gulf Shores Middle
550
563
596
686
Gulf Shores High
700
714
839
989
2,450
2,179
2,381
2,723
Total
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
Source: Weaver and Williams 2006
3.5.5.2 Public Safety
Eleven municipal police departments serve residents in incorporated areas of the county, and the Baldwin
County Sheriff’s Department is responsible for unincorporated areas. Table 37 shows police resources in
Baldwin County in 2005. This analysis follows that of the Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center
in their report, 2005 Crime in Alabama.
In accounting for differences in police resources due to population, a ratio of sworn officers per 100
residents was calculated, assuming that sworn officers represent the officers responsible for patrolling.
Generally, the ratios in the towns of Baldwin County were greater than or equal to those reported for
Alabama (0.23) and the United States (approximately 0.20). The Baldwin County Sheriff’s office has the
lowest ratio of sworn officers to residents (0.09), about half that of Alabama and the United States. The
ratio of sworn officers per 100 permanent residents is approximately 0.5 in Gulf Shores and 0.8 in Orange
Beach.
The Gulf Shores Police Department reported that seasonal population in the City during the summer can
be between 25,000 and 100,000 at any one time (GSPD 2007). Using the U.S. ratio of 0.2 sworn officers
per 100 residents as a benchmark, it is conservatively estimated that the Gulf Shores Police Department
could reasonably protect an additional 10,000 residents without additional officers. Similarly, Orange
Beach police resources could reasonably protect an additional 13,000 residents. This analysis suggests
that police resources in both communities could be somewhat overburdened during the vacation season.
Both the Gulf Shores and Orange Beach Police Departments have marine units that patrol the Gulf of
Mexico shoreline and enforce boating laws. These units operate only in the summer. The Gulf Shores
Police Department also operates a Bike Patrol unit in the spring and summer.
February 2009
3-53
1
Table 37. 2006 Police Resources in Baldwin County
Population
Sworn
Officers
Civilian
Employees
Sworn Officers :
100 Residents
Bay Minette Police Department
7,879
24
8
0.30
Daphne Police Department
18,749
46
30
0.25
Elberta Police Department
588
6
1
1.02
Fairhope Police Department
15,530
30
22
0.19
Foley Police Department
11,522
33
25
0.29
Gulf Shores Police Department
7,329
36
13
0.49
Loxley Police Department
1,448
8
5
0.55
Orange Beach Police Department
5,101
40
22
0.78
Robertsdale Police Department
4,723
14
12
0.30
701
1
0
0.14
Agency
Silverhill Police Department
Summerdale Police Department
Baldwin County Sheriff
Baldwin County Total
Alabama
679
6
1
0.88
84,114
78
145
0.09
164,056
296
263
0.18
4,599,030
10,719
5,537
0.23
U.S.
~0.20
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Source: ACJIC 2007
15
Table 38. 2007 Fire Protection Resources
Fire protection services in Gulf Shores and Orange Beach are provided by municipal fire departments,
and are shown in Table 38. Both departments also provide Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) response,
high angle rescue, confined space rescue, and water rescue. Gulf Shores Fire Rescue maintains a
minimum on-duty staff of five personnel at all times, and their staff of firefighters includes twelve trained
paramedics. The Gulf Shores Fire Rescue fleet includes five pumpers, two ladder trucks, three emergency
medical services (EMS) vehicles, and one heavy rescue unit (GSFR 2007). Orange Beach Fire Rescue
maintains a minimum on-duty staff of ten personnel at all times, and their staff of firefighters includes
fifteen trained paramedics. Their fleet includes five ladder trucks, one fireboat, one HAZMAT response
trailer, one 4x4 off-road response vehicle, one beach rescue all-terrain vehicle, and eight EMS vehicles
(OBFR 2007).
Paid
Firefighters
Volunteer
Firefighters
Stations
Gulf Shores Fire Rescue
34
22
3 (1 unmanned)
Orange Beach Fire Rescue
38
9
4 (2 unmanned)
Agency
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Sources: GSFR 2007; OBFR 2007.
Table 39 shows reported crimes in 2006 in Baldwin County. Violent crimes include homicide, rape,
robbery, and assault, while property crimes are defined as burglary, theft or larceny, and motor vehicle
theft. Accounting for differences in population, the total violent and property crimes reported in Baldwin
County in 2006 were generally less than those reported in the State of Alabama. There were slightly less
February 2009
3-54
1
Table 39. 2006 Violent and Property Crimes in Baldwin County, Adjusted to Population
Violent and Property Crime Reports per 100 Residents
Bay Minette Police Department
Homicide
Rape
Robbery
Assault
Burglary
Theft
Motor Vehicle
Theft
0.00
0.01
0.18
0.52
0.86
2.91
0.29
0.15
Daphne Police Department
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.37
0.51
2.42
Elberta Police Department
0.00
0.00
0.34
1.36
3.74
11.39
1.19
Fairhope Police Department
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.48
2.28
0.16
Foley Police Department
0.01
0.04
0.37
0.47
1.64
6.98
0.81
Gulf Shores Police Department
0.00
0.05
0.15
0.45
1.42
4.45
0.26
Loxley Police Department
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.14
2.42
6.08
1.38
Orange Beach Police Department
0.02
0.08
0.12
0.31
1.08
5.92
0.29
Robertsdale Police Department
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.06
0.32
1.29
0.04
Silverhill Police Department
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.57
3.14
0.14
Summerdale Police Department
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.29
3.09
7.36
1.32
Baldwin County Total
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.35
0.64
0.03
Alabama
0.01
0.03
0.14
0.26
0.89
2.41
0.29
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Source: ACJIC 2006
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3.5.5.3 Health Care
reported rapes in Baldwin County than Alabama per 100 residents. Between 2005 and 2006, reports of
rape and robbery increased significantly in Orange Beach, doubling and tripling respectively (ACJIC
2006). In Gulf Shores, the number of thefts stayed relatively the same between 2005 and 2006, and
assaults dropped slightly. The number of reported rape and robbery incidences roughly doubled in Gulf
Shores between 2005 and 2006. General trends in the past five years indicated a decrease in property
crime in 2002 and 2003, followed by a sharp increase in 2004 and 2005, leading to the high number of
reports relative to the State. No violent crime trends in the last five years were evident (ACJIC 2006) in
Gulf Shores and Orange Beach.
Medical transportation is provided by Medstar, a private ambulance company. Gulf Shores and Orange
Beach each have one Medstar ambulance stationed in the city. Patients are usually transported to South
Baldwin Regional Medical Center in Foley but can also be transported to Thomas Hospital in Fairhope or
Baptist Hospital in Pensacola, Florida. Cases with serious trauma are normally transported by helicopter
to Baptist Hospital (via BaptistFlight, stationed in Evergreen, AL). Within the year, MedEvac has plans to
station one helicopter in Gulf Shores to provide medical transport to Mobile (GSFM 2007).
Five hospitals in Baldwin County and the surrounding area receive patients from Gulf Shores and Orange
Beach. Their locations, approximate distance from Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, and number of beds
and physicians are shown in Table 40. The closest hospital is the South Baldwin Regional Medical
Center in Foley, which provides 24-hour emergency room services and family practice in addition to a
range of medical and surgical services. Thomas Hospital in Fairhope also provides general medical
services and offers a Cancer Center and a renowned cardiovascular program. Baptist Hospital in
Pensacola is the closest full-service hospital to the area, providing a full-range of medical, obstetrical, and
surgical services and the Cancer Institute. The largest hospital in the region is Mobile Infirmary Medical
Center, which also offers a full-range of medical services with a renowned open heart surgery program.
February 2009
3-55
1
Table 40. Hospitals Serving Gulf Shores and Orange Beach
Facility
South Baldwin Regional Medical Center
Total Beds
Physicians
Foley, AL
15
112
62
Pensacola, FL
30
492
249
Thomas Hospital
Fairhope, AL
35
150
123
Bay Minette, AL
50
55
35
Mobile, AL
55
704
n/a
Mobile Infirmary Medical Center
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
Approximate
Distance (miles)
Baptist Hospital
North Baldwin Infirmary
2
Location
Sources: SBRMC 2007; BHC 2007; TH 2007; NBI, 2007; MIMC 2007.
3.5.6
Environmental Justice
On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations. This Executive Order is designed to
focus the attention of federal agencies on human health and environmental conditions in minority
communities and low-income communities. Environmental justice analyses are performed to identify
potential disproportionately high and adverse impacts from proposed actions and to identify alternatives
that might mitigate these impacts. Population and housing data from the 2000 Census were used for this
analysis.8 Minority populations included in the census are identified as Black or African American,
American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, and other.
Hispanic or Latino populations, which can be of any race, are also included. Poverty status, used in this
EIS to define low-income status, is reported as the number of persons with income below the poverty
level. The 2000 Census defines the poverty level as an annual income of $8,794 or less for an individual,
and an annual income of $17,603 or less for a family of four (USBC 2000c).
The ROI had a lower percentage of minority residents than Alabama and the United States, as shown in
Table 41. In 2000, 87.1 percent of the ROI population (Baldwin County) was white and 10.3 percent was
black or African American. All other racial groups combined totaled approximately 2.6 percent of the
population, while 1.8 percent of residents were of Hispanic origin. Tracts 115 and 114.01 had the largest
minority populations, greater than that for Baldwin County, with 9.5 percent black or African American
and 3.6 percent of Hispanic origin in Tract 115, and 15.4 percent black or African American and 4
percent of Hispanic origin in Tract 114.01. However, the proportion of minority populations in these
tracts was less than that for the State. Census Tract 114.04, which contains Gulf Shores and Ocean
Beach, is more than 96 percent white, and 1.8 percent of its residents are Hispanic (USBC 2000b).
The Census Bureau bases the poverty status of families and individuals on 48 threshold variables,
including income, family size, number of family members under the age of 18 and over the age of 65, and
amount spent on food. In 2000, 10 percent of Baldwin County residents were classified as living in
poverty, lower than both the State and Nation. By census tract, the greatest percentage of persons living
in poverty was in Tract 114.01 (13.1 percent), and the lowest was Tract 114.04 (9.3 percent).
8
Data from the 2000 Census are the latest reliable and consistent data regarding the ethnic composition and poverty status of the
population, especially for sub-county divisions such as towns or census tracts. Later estimates from various sources may use
different methodologies and do not provide accurate comparisons among areas.
February 2009
3-56
1
2
Table 41. 2000 Race, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status
Tract
114.01
Tract
114.03
Tract
114.04
Tract
115
Tract
116
Gulf
Shores
Orange
Beach
Baldwin
Co.
Alabama
United
States
White
87.0%
97.2%
96.3%
81.4%
95.8%
97.5%
94.8%
87.1%
71.1%
75.1%
Black/
African
American
9.5%
0.9%
0.2%
15.4%
1.6%
0.2%
0.4%
10.3%
26.0%
12.3%
American
Indian,
Alaska
Native
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.9%
Asian
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
0.6%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.4%
0.7%
3.6%
Native
Hawaiian,
Other
Pacific
Islander
0.1%
0.0%
<0.1%
<0.1%
<0.1%
<0.1%
0.0%
<0.1%
<0.1%
<0.1%
Other
1.0%
0.1%
1.0%
1.1%
0.5%
0.4%
2.0%
0.5%
0.7%
5.5%
Source: USBC 2000b
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
3.5.7
Protection of Children
23
3.6 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
With 32 miles of Gulf of Mexico coastline and 26 miles of bay waterfront, Baldwin County has many
recreational opportunities for residents and also is a popular tourist destination (BCEDA 2007). In 2006
an estimated 4.4 million people visited Baldwin County, spending $1.96 billion (ALBTT 2006).
Consequently, the tourism industry is a vital part of the Alabama Gulf Coast economy, where it supports
39,333 travel-related jobs county-wide (ALDTT 2006). Results of previous studies have shown that
approximately 73% of all municipal revenue in Gulf Shores, Orange Beach and Foley was directly
attributed to visitor spending (ALDTT 2007).
On April 21, 1997, the President issued Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This Executive Order directs each federal agency to ensure
that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children that result
from environmental health risks or safety risks. O 13045 recognizes that a growing body of scientific
knowledge demonstrates that children could suffer disproportionately from environmental health risks
and safety risks. These risks arise because children’s neurological, immunological, digestive, and other
bodily systems are still developing, children eat more food, drink more fluids, and breathe more air in
proportion to their body weight than adults, children’s size and weight could diminish their protection
from standard safety features, and children’s behavior patterns make them more susceptible to accidents
because they are less able to protect themselves. Therefore, to the extent permitted by law and
appropriate, and consistent with the agency’s mission, the President has directed each federal agency to
(1) make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that could
disproportionately affect children, and (2) ensure that the agency’s policies, programs, and standards
address disproportionate health risks to children that result from environmental health risks or safety
risks. Examples of risks to children include increased traffic volumes and industrial or productionoriented activities that could generate substances or pollutants that children could come into contact with
or ingest. Actions or alternatives indicating potential disproportionate risks to children will be identified
and addressed in Section 4 of this EIS.
February 2009
3-57
1
2
3
4
5
According to visitor profile and occupancy statistics compiled by the Alabama Gulf Coast Convention
and Visitors Bureau, the most cited reason for tourists choosing the Alabama Gulf Coast in 2005-2006
was the “nice” beaches. The top three area attractions also visited by tourists in 2005-2006 were the
Tanger Center (48.25% of respondents), Fort Morgan (23.12% of respondents), and the Alabama Gulf
State Park (21.3% of respondents) (ALBTT 2006).
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
3.6.1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
3.6.2
20
21
22
23
24
25
Boating Access
The FLC has one public boat ramp at Canal Park near the S.R. 59 Bridge. Other boating access points in
the vicinity of the FLC (i.e., in Bon Secour Bay, Wolf Bay, Bay La Launch, and Arnica Bay) include 5
private boat ramps at area marinas and 6 public boat ramps (Figure 37). One marina, the Homeport
Marina, is on the FLC just east of the S.R. 59 Bridge. The Homeport Marina has 76 wet slips (Homeport
Marina 2006). Boats using the FLC can originate at any of these access points or from more distant
locations.
FLC Recreational and Commercial Use
Information on existing recreational and commercial use of the FLC was taken from a vessel capacity
study completed by Dial Cordy and Associates (DCA) in 2001 in response to a permit application
received by the USACE for a 60-slip marina in association with a condominium and commercial complex
(DCA 2001). The study estimated the impact that a proposed marina (and future marina projects) might
have on commercial use in the waterway. The USACE’s main concern was to ensure that any marina
projects they permitted on the FLC would not interfere with the safe passage of commercial vessels.
3.6.2.1 Dial Cordy and Associates Vessel Survey
The FLC Vessel Survey provides data on recreational and commercial traffic on the waterway from 6
weekend days from June 2, 2001, through August 4, 2001. All surveys were conducted on non-holiday
weekends (i.e., non-peak usage periods), for which favorable boating weather was forecasted. The 6
survey days consisted of three Saturdays and three Sundays; only 2 survey days consisted of consecutive
weekend days. Vessel use data from the survey are summarized in Table 42.
26
27
Table 42. Number of vessels observed during the 6 survey days
Vessel
designation
Commercial
Recreational
Total
28
Total
observations
79 (9%)
803 (91%)
882 (100%)
Daily range
Daily average
4–26
104–163
108–177
13
134
147
Public boat ramp
use
5 (6%)
123 (15%)
128 (15%)
Source: DCA 2001
February 2009
3-58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Figure 37. Private and public boating access near the FLC
Source: ALDCNR 2006
Over the 6 survey days, 123 recreational vessels (15 percent; 0=20 per day) and 5 commercial vessels (6
percent; 0=1 per day) used the public boat ramp at Canal Park.
Commercial and recreational vessel use on Saturdays and Sundays was nearly equal, but recreational use
was higher during the middle of the day (10 a.m.–4 p.m.) than in the morning or late afternoon (Table 43).
One-third of recreational vessels were observed between 7 a.m.–10 a.m. and 4 p.m.–7 p.m. combined, and
two-thirds of recreational vehicles were observed between 10 a.m.–4 p.m. Commercial vessel use was
slightly higher in the morning (7 a.m.–10 a.m.) than during other periods but was generally evenly
distributed throughout the day.
Recreational vessel use of the waterway outweighed commercial vessel use. The busiest period of use of
the waterway corresponded to the busiest period of use by recreational vehicles, or midday. An average of
15 recreational vessels per hour was observed during the midday period, and commercial traffic was fairly
consistent at approximately 1 vessel per hour throughout the day.
Table 43. Time of vessel observations by vessel designation and time period
Vessel designation
Commercial
Recreational
Time period total
21
Time period of observation (number, percentage)
7 a.m.–10 a.m.
10 a.m.–4 p.m.
4 p.m.–7 p.m.
25 (32%)
38 (48%)
16 (20%)
92 (11%)
537 (67%)
174 (22%)
117 (13%)
575 (65%)
190 (22%)
Source: DCA 2001
February 2009
3-59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
The FLC is approximately 10 miles long, making it 52,800 LF. Commercial vessels using the FLC
average approximately 100 feet long, and an average of one commercial vessel per hour was observed
during the survey. So, commercial vessel use of the FLC during a 1-hour period would be 100 LF, and
during an average 1-hour period, this space would be occupied by a commercial vessel in only one
direction (e.g., east to west). Recreational vessels observed during the DCA survey averaged
approximately 20 feet long. A safe buffer between all vessels is 150 feet. Adding the 150-foot buffer to
the length of each vessel, a commercial vessel would occupy 250 LF of the waterway in one direction
only during a 1-hour period. Recreational vessels would occupy an average of 170 LF each. With 52,550
LF of the waterway available to recreational vessels in one direction (52,800-250 for the one commercial
vehicle passing in an hour) and the entire length of the waterway available to recreational vehicles in the
opposite direction (e.g., west to east), a maximum physical capacity of 619 recreational vessels could be
moving through the cut simultaneously. If recreational vessels travel an average of 20 mph, it would take
one half-hour for a recreational vessel to pass through the FLC. In a one-hour time span, therefore, 1,238
recreational vessels could hypothetically pass through the FLC. Add this to the one commercial vessel
that passes through the waterway per hour, and the maximum hourly traffic through the FLC is 1,239
commercial and recreational vessels.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
3.6.2.2 Taylor Engineering Vessel Survey
Although 1,239 vessels using the FLC per hour is not realistic, the number represents the number of
vessels that could physically be placed in the given space per hour while still providing reasonable vessel
safety. The current non-peak use of 11 recreational vessels and one commercial vessel per hour within the
FLC represents less than 1 percent of the physical capacity.
Taylor Engineering staff conducted a vessel traffic count over a holiday weekend with favorable weather
conditions on July 1 and 2, 2006, to evaluate recreational traffic quantity (Appendix R). The observers
recorded all marine traffic on the FLC between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. from locations at the S.R. 59 Bridge and
the Foley Beach Expressway Bridge. Observations also included the time, vessel travel direction into the
field of view, registration, make of vessel, type of vessel, speed, number of people aboard, and travel
direction out of the field of view. Comparison and correlation between the observed data at each station
allows insights into travel patterns and operator behavior such as speed through the waterway between
stations.
Vessel observations included commercial vessels (tug and barge combinations or commercial fishing),
recreational vessels (motor or sail), and personal watercrafts (PWC). The total number of vessel
observations for the S.R. 59 bridge site was 598 on July 1 and 633 on July 2. Maximum values include 87
vessels observed in an hour, between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. on July 2, 2006. These observations represent the
number of records in the daily data set and include many vessels with multiple observations.
The observation data indicates that boats under 25 feet represent 72 percent of the recreational vessel
traffic with four percent unclassified. Recreational motor boats represent about 90 percent of the
observations with five percent PWC, three percent sailboats, one percent commercial fishing boats, and
one percent tugs. Alabama registrations represented about 83 percent of the vessels with recorded
registrations. The size classification and state of registration data show similar values to those in the DCA
study.
Boat launches were also recorded at the observation sites. Over the two days, 110 vessels launched from
the Canal Park boat ramp under the S.R. 59 Bridge and 91 returned; 133 left Homeport Marina and 133
returned; 72 visited the fuel dock next to Homeport Marina, and 48 visited Lulu’s Restaurant. The daily
use of the public boat ramp in 2006 (55 per day) far exceeds the observations by DCA in 2002 (20 per
day). Notably, the Homeport Marina, fuel dock and, LuLu’s Restaurant did not exist in 2002.
February 2009
3-60
1
2
3
4
5
Vessel names and appearances, as well as registration numbers were used to correlate boat movement
between stations. Taylor Engineering staff assigned a distinct boat number to vessels correlated between
stations with reasonable certainty. Vessels with distinct boat numbers were then used to determine the
percentage of multiple vessel sightings and the approximate average speed. Approximately 84 percent of
the vessel observations over the two days correlate to a vessel later given a distinct boat number.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
3.6.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
3.6.4
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Boating Safety
In Alabama, all persons 12 years of age and older who operate a motorized vessel must be certified to
operate on state waters. In general, a state requirement for boater certification increases recreational
boaters’ awareness of safe vessel operation. The area of the GIWW near the S.R. 59 Bridge is a posted
no-wake zone. DCA reported that most recreational vessel operators voluntarily observed the restriction.
During the vessel survey, very few incidents of poor recreational vessel operation were observed.
Recreational vessels that did not reduce their speed at the S.R. 59 Bridge was the most commonly
observed safety issue.
Recreational Sanitary Services
Sanitary services for recreational boaters traveling through the FLC are limited. The Homeport Marina
has a pump-out station, and the Fort Morgan Marina, on Bon Secour Bay, has a portable pump-out unit.
The Alabama Clean Boating Act requires all marinas with boat customers that use MSDs with holding
tanks (MSD Type III) to install a boat sewage pump-out station (ALDCNR 2006). The law also restricts
where boats with sewage holding tanks can stay: they cannot be moored, docked, stored, or anchored at a
marina that does not have a pump-out facility (except in safety emergencies).
3.6.5
Gulf State Park
The Alabama Gulf State Park consists of 6,150 acres with five miles of sand beaches and three freshwater
lakes: Lake Shelby (700 acres), Middle Lake (350 acres), and Little Lake (100 acres). Gulf State Park has
modern and primitive camping, cottages, trails and fishing. There are also tennis courts, group pavilions,
an 18-hole golf course, fishing, swimming, and water skiing, nature programs and picnic areas. The
Alabama Gulf State Park attracts approximately one million people annually (Gulf State Park 2007).
Visitors to Gulf State Park can chose to stay in one of the parks’ cabins, cottages, or campsites. There are
a total of 20 cabins in Gulf State Park. There are one bed/one bath and two bed/one bath in-woods cabins,
and two bed/one bath and three bed/two bath lakeside cabins. There are 11 three bed/three bath cabins,
and 496 camping sites offering modern bathhouses and paved parking pads for RV’s.
Gulf State Park has a total of five miles of beach in Gulf Shores and Orange Beach. There is also a Beach
Pavilion area that offers a large concession stand open seasonally, air conditioned bathrooms with
showers open year-round, and multiple picnic tables. The main beach area in Gulf Shores can be accessed
from the Beach Pavilion, and there is a $5 fee for each car. Access to the Orange Beach areas is free to the
public.
Other recreational opportunities within Gulf State Park include an 18-hole golf course that is open seven
days a week and offers a full pro shop and snack bar. Fishing for freshwater fish is offered in the park’s
900 acre Lake Shelby. Permits to fish Lake Shelby are required for all fishermen who are not staying in
the park, and all fishermen must purchase an Alabama State Fishing License. Historically saltwater
fishing has been offered from the beach and an 825 ft. pier on the Gulf of Mexico. This pier was
destroyed by Hurricane Ivan, but construction is currently underway to replace it with a new, larger pier.
When this pier is completed, this will be the only public pier on the Gulf of Mexico. There are also 13
named nature trails throughout the park that are open to hikers and cyclers.
February 2009
3-61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
3.6.6
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
3.6.7
Water Recreation
Like other coastal communities, the area around the FLC is home to countless water related recreational
opportunities. The most abundant recreational opportunity is chartered fishing trips. In the Gulf Shores
and Orange Beach area there are over 51 listed chartered fishing services and 11 charter fishing booking
agencies. These charters offer a variety of fishing opportunities including offshore, inshore, bottom
fishing, trolling, fly fishing, and over night trips. Along with chartered fishing in the area, there is also an
abundance of fishing tournaments held throughout the year in and around the project area. Dolphin
cruises and party/luxury cruises are also widely available. Once a year, Orange Beach hosts the Thunder
on the Gulf powerboat races over a weekend in mid-August. Visitors can meet the racers and get
autographs, listen to live music, and watch multiple classes of powerboat races. In 2006, this event drew
$5.674 million in total spending; with a total tax impact of $524,066 (Foster 2007). Other water
recreation opportunities available in the area include dive shops and parasailing.
Other Recreational Resources
With a 12-month playing season, the area is also attractive to golfers. Gulf Shores and Orange Beach are
home to seven golf courses, and nine others are nearby, for a total of 288 holes (AGCCVB 2007). Arnold
Palmer designed the Cotton Creek and Cypress Bend courses (GCGA 2007). These golf courses offer full
service golf shops and club houses, link side condominiums, and upscale shopping.
Fort Morgan is also a popular tourist attraction, although visitation has been impacted by Hurricane Ivan
in 2004 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The Fort Morgan site was used as early as the 16th century by the
Spanish, and construction of what is now known as Fort Morgan began in 1819 and was completed in
1834. Best known for its role during the American Civil War, Fort Morgan was a central point in the
Battle of Mobile Bay in 1864. The numbers of visitors to Fort Morgan peaked in 2003 at 88,670; dropped
to 61,229 in 2005; and climbed to 66,283 in 2006 (Blakenship 2007).
Fort Morgan experiences a surge of visitors in April and October, which corresponds to the spring and fall
bird migrations (Blakenship 2007). Bird watchers take advantage of the Fort Morgan Loop birding trail,
which is part of the Alabama Coastal Birding Trail. Fort Morgan is an important stopover for spring and
fall neotropical migrants. The area is also considered a migrant trap, which results when adverse weather
forces birds down in a "fallout." Fallouts tend to occur in spring. In fall, hundreds of migrating hawks can
be seen moving west. There are also other area wide opportunities for birdwatching. The Alabama
Coastal Birding Trail also includes a South Baldwin County loop trail, Gulf Shores-Orange Beach loop
trail, and Eastern Shore, Mobile Bay Causeway and Blakeley Island loop. Common species of birds to
observe along the Gulf Shores-Orange Beach Loop include various loons, sparrows, gulls, wading birds,
and waterfowl.
The Gulf Shores and Orange Beach area hosts a wide range of family-oriented attractions, including the
Alabama Gulf Coast Zoo, water and amusement parks, and public beaches. The Alabama Gulf Coast Zoo
is home to more than 290 animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, monkeys and macaws. Other attractions
include a petting zoo, reptile house, aviary and daily animal shows in the summer. Some of the larger
water and amusement parks in the area include The Track Family Recreation Center, Waterville USA,
and Adventure Island. There are fifteen access points to the public beaches in Gulf Shores, although three
of those access points are temporarily closed following Hurricane Ivan. The annual shrimp festival in
mid-October attracts more than 300,000 visitors and features more than 300 vendors of arts, crafts, food,
and other items. The festival has been estimated to bring in 20 million dollars in revenue (GSCC 2007).
The area offers many other indoor and outdoor recreational activities. Advertised as a large Riviera
Centre, the Tanger Center has over 120 brand name outlet stores and is located on Hwy 59 in Foley. This
area attraction was cited as the most visited area attraction in 2005-2006 according to statistics compiled
February 2009
3-62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
by the Alabama Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau (ALDTT 2006). There are also at least six art
galleries in the Gulf Shores and Orange Beach area that exhibit and sell fine art and items of regional
interest. There are two multiplex cinemas and a community theater. Nearby, Pensacola hosts the National
Museum of Naval Aviation, while Mobile hosts the Exploreum Museum of Science and the U.S.S.
Alabama Battleship Memorial Park. The Gulf Shores Museum and Orange Beach Indian and Sea
Museum highlight the region’s history. Along with Fort Morgan, Fort Gaines on nearby Dauphin Island is
an historical Civil War site.
14
3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
3.7.1
Area Five, the largest area division in Baldwin County, consists of plateaus and ridge tops underlain by
the Citronelle formation, which rests on the Hattiesburg formation. Area Five was formed during the
Pliocene Age (5.3–1.6 million years ago) and sediment material is composed of sandy, thin layers of clay
that are red and cross bedded. Types of clay are gray and purple, red, or yellow. Colors of clay vary upon
the degree of weathering.
44
3.7.2
45
46
47
Baldwin County is divided into 10 soil associations. Three associations are found in the vicinity of the
FLC: Lakeland Plummer Association, Norfolk-Klej-Goldsboro Association, and Lakewood-St. Lucie-
Opportunities abound for observing nature. Visitors can enjoy the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge,
the Biophilia Nature Center, the Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, and the Minamac
Wildflower Bog, as well as numerous parks in the area. The world-famous Bellingrath Gardens and
Home are a short drive away.
Geology
Baldwin County, Alabama, is part of the Gulf Coastal Plain Geologic Region, known as the Lower
Coastal Plain. Five different types of geologic formations divide Baldwin County into five areas. Area
One is in the northeast/east section of the county. This physiographic area includes river flood plains and
terraces. This region was formed in the Recent (present–10,000 years ago) or Pleistocene Age (1.6
million–10,000 years ago) and consists mainly of silt and clay from sediments carried from areas farther
north by the Tombigbee and Alabama Rivers. Elevation in this area ranges from sea level to 20 feet above
sea level.
Area Two is in the southern region of the county and was formed during the Pleistocene Age. The
physiographic area of this region is marine terraces, which consist of marine sands and clays. Area Two
overlies the Citronelle formation, which stretches 15 miles wide along Baldwin County’s coastline.
Elevation in Area Two ranges from 10 to 100 feet above sea level. The FLC falls predominantly within
Area Two.
Area Three is south of Area Two and is composed of Baldwin County’s coastal beaches along the Gulf of
Mexico. Area Three was formed during the Recent Age and consists of white and yellow sands.
Elevations in this region range from sea level to 20 feet above sea level.
Area Four is directly east of the Tensaw River and is underlain by Hattiesburg clay. This region was
formed during the Miocene Age (23.7–5.3 million years ago) and is where the majority of hilly soils are
found. Hattiesburg clays in this region consist of white, pink, or purple clay and sand from the Miocene
Age. Elevation in this area ranges from 50 to 300 feet above sea level.
Soils
3.7.2.1 Soil Associations
February 2009
3-63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Leon Association (Figure 38). Lakeland Plummer Association is found along creeks and rivers in the
southern and eastern parts of the county. Norfolk-Klej-Goldsboro Association is found in the southern
and southeastern region of the county near Foley. Lakewood-St. Lucie-Leon Association is in the coastal
region on low sand dunes and in low, wet areas between the dunes.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
3.7.2.2 Soil Types
Lakeland-Plummer Association consists of nearly level, poorly drained to very poorly drained soils of
bottom lands and gently sloping to moderately steep, drained, loamy, fine sands of uplands. Lakeland
soils account for 34 percent of this association and are composed of deep and excessively drained, nearly
level to sloping soils with yellowish-brown, loamy, fine sand throughout the soil profile. Of this
association, 15 percent is Plummer soils consisting of poorly drained, gray, loamy sand that is almost
level to very gently sloping.
Norfolk-Klej-Goldsboro Association is nearly level or very gently sloping soils of uplands and bottom
lands. Norfolk soils occupy three percent of this association and have a dark, grayish-brown surface layer
of dark, grayish-brown, and the subsoil is yellowish-brown, heavy, fine, sandy loam. Klej soils occupy 17
percent of this association and have a surface layer of dark, grayish-brown, loamy, fine sand, and the
subsoil is mottled, light, yellowish-brown, loamy fine sand. Goldsboro soils occupy 15 percent of this
association, are moderately well-drained and have a surface layer of very dark, grayish-brown, fine sandy
loam. Goldsboro subsoil is olive-yellow to yellowish-brown.
In the Lakewood-St. Lucie-Leon Association, Lakewood sand occupies 13 percent and is deep and
excessively drained. St. Lucie-Leon-muck complex occupies 10 percent of this association. Water
occupies more than two-fifths of this association and coastal beaches also occupy a fairly large amount of
acreage.
Six soil types are present in the vicinity of the proposed project locations: Hyde and Bayboro soils and
muck; made land; Plummer loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes; Scranton loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent
slopes; tidal marsh; and wet, loamy, alluvial land.
Hyde and Bayboro soils and muck are found in low areas or in depressions. They receive water as the
result of overflow or seepage from adjacent, higher-lying areas. These soils are extremely acidic, very
poorly drained, and nearly level. They are saturated with standing water much of the time. The natural
vegetation on these soils is cypress (Taxodium distichum), slash pine, sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), and bay (Laurus nobilis) trees. The understory is wax myrtle, titi (Cyrilla spp.), and gallberry
(Illex glabra).
Man-Made land consists mainly of a layer of gray sand that is 3 to 6 feet thick. The sand, pumped from
Mobile Bay and from the channels of streams, was spread over areas of tidal marsh or swamp. The areas
of made land are mainly along the causeway and are used as building sites.
February 2009
3-64
1
2
Figure 38. Soil Types
February 2009
3-65
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
Plummer loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes is a deep, poorly drained soil on uplands. This soil type is very
low in natural fertility and in organic matter content. Its capacity for storing available moisture is low, and
it has rapid permeability. In Plummer loamy sand, water infiltrates slowly, the soil has very slow runoff
and a high water table, and there is little or no hazard of erosion.
Scranton loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes are deep, somewhat poorly drained soils found on
uplands. This soil type is low in natural fertility, and its surface layer is medium to high in content of
organic matter. Its capacity for storing available moisture is low, and permeability is rapid. Water
infiltrates rapidly, and the water table is high.
The tidal marsh land type consists of both freshwater and saltwater marshes. It occurs along the Gulf
Coast and bayous in the southern and western parts of the county. At high tide, the areas are flooded by
saltwater from the Gulf of Mexico and backwater from streams. Tidal marsh generally has no trees, but
there are a few willows (Salix spp.) and a dense cover of marsh cane (Phragmites spp.), marsh grass
(Spartina spp.), and rushes (Juncaceae spp.). The areas are used mainly for wildlife and recreation, but
soil material has been pumped over some parts to form islands and building sites.
Wet loamy alluvial land is saturated by seepage water, and it is subject to frequent overflow. In places,
water stands on the surface, and, it consists of accumulations of muck and peat that overlie a compacted
mineral soil material. The vegetation consists of sweetgum, blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), bay, yellow
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and other low-quality hardwoods. There are also scattered slash pine and
cypress. The understory is gallberry, wax myrtle, and vines.
3.7.2.3 Hydric Soils
Hydric soils are found in association with wetlands and are defined as “soils formed under conditions of
saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions
in the upper part” (USACE 1987). There are isolated areas of hydric soils along the FLC, mostly
occurring between C.R. 4 and the western portion of the FLC near Oyster Bay.
3.7.2.4 Soil Erosion
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Soil erosion and associated sloughing of soil into the FLC has been observed along the northern shoreline
of the waterway. This erosion is a direct result of wave action due to barge and recreational boat traffic.
There is a limited amount of shoreline protection, in the form of rock revetment, along the FLC shoreline.
This protection is concentrated in the eastern portion of the waterway where the FLC curves towards the
northeast as it enters Wolf Bay. The unprotected northern shoreline consists of upland pine trees directly
along the waterway and offers limited vegetative buffer protection for soils. It has been observed that
barges tie-up to the trees along the northern shoreline, which often permanently damages the trees and
eventually leads to removal of the tree as a vegetative buffer. The southern shoreline is developed,
consisting of single-family homes with boat docks. These residences protect the shoreline with sheet
piling, which significantly reduces erosion rates.
40
3.8 ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
41
42
43
44
45
46
3.8.1
Overview
The FLC lies within Southeastern Plains ecoregion of Alabama. This region is also known as the Coastal
Plain or East Gulf Coastal Plain (ALDCNR 2005). This area of the Gulf Coast has a subtropical climate,
with little to no dry season, and has an average rainfall of 64 inches per year (USDA 1964). The climate
of this region offers a nearly continuous growing season and supports a diverse population of vegetative
species and upland and wetland habitats.
February 2009
3-66
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
The FLC is hydrologically connected to two bays—Wolf Bay to the east and Oyster Bay to the west.
Wolf Bay is hydrologically connected to Perdido Bay and has several tributaries, including Wolf, Sandy,
Miflin, and Hammock Creeks. Oyster Bay is hydrologically connected to Bon Secour Bay.
The FLC is in the vicinity of two Gulf Ecological Management Sites (GEMS), the Orange Beach
Maritime Forest to the south, and the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge to the west. GEMS are
defined as a geographic area that has special ecological significance to fish, wildlife, and other natural
resources or a geographic area that represents unique habitats (SARPC 2001). The Orange Beach
Maritime Forest is a 588-acre forest containing a diverse combination of habitats including maritime
forest with a sphagnum/cypress swamp, wetlands, and a large pitcher plant (Sarracenia spp.) bog. The
Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge contains 7,000 acres of wildlife habitat for migratory birds, nesting
sea turtles and the endangered Alabama beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates).
3.8.2
Vegetative Communities
Longleaf pine communities were historically dominant in the FLC vicinity before extensive clearing for
agriculture, conversion to loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) plantations, and fire suppression (ALDCNR 2005).
Most of the forested land loss in Alabama has occurred along the Gulf Coast, and many of the former
longleaf pine communities have succeeded to hardwoods as a result.
Though longleaf pine communities have declined in the area, the Gulf Coast region sustains a
combination of both forested and non-forested habitats. The ALDCNR has identified six ecological
vegetative habitats in the vicinity of the FLC: wet pine savanna and flatwoods, dry longleaf pine forest,
maritime forest and coastal scrub, bogs and seepage communities, beach and dune, and estuarine and
marine. Detailed descriptions of each of these habitats can be found in the 2005 ALDCNR’s
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy and are summarized below.
The vegetative communities within the proposed development locations include wet pine savanna and
flatwoods and dry longleaf pine forests. In addition, wetland areas, including isolated wetlands, can be
found on some of the proposed development locations.
3.8.2.1 Wet Pine Savanna and Flatwoods
This habitat is described as open pine woodlands occupying broad coastal flats and sloping plains,
principally in the Gulf Coast Flatwoods of the Southeastern Plains. Overstory vegetation is characterized
by longleaf pine and slash pine. The understory ranges from dense shrubs to open and herbaceous
dominated, and is heavily influenced by fire history. Understory vegetation found in this habitat often
includes beaksedge (Rhynchospora fascicularus), toothache grass (Ctenium aromaticum), switchgrass
(Panicum virgatum), goldenrod (Solidago virgaurea), pitcherplants, and sunflowers (Helianthus annuus).
Much of this habitat has been lost to clearing, draining, development, and agriculture. It is estimated that
less than five percent of the original acreage of wet pine savanna habitat remains in the Atlantic/Gulf
Coastal Plain (MDWFP 2005). The remaining habitat is highly fragmented, resulting in a decline of
habitat quality.
3.8.2.2 Dry Longleaf Pine Forest
Longleaf pine habitats range from moist to very well-drained sites, including mesic pine flatwoods,
pine/scrub oak, sandhill, and xeric sandhill scrub. Fire frequency and severity determine the types of
vegetation associated with longleaf pine. Grasses associated with longleaf pine in Gulf Coastal Plain
include bluestem (Andropogon spp.) and panicum (Panicum spp.). A reduction in fire frequency causes
hardwoods and other pines to encroach on longleaf pine. Hardwood and pine species associated with
longleaf pine on the Gulf Coastal Plain include slash pine, loblolly pine, shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata),
blackgum, sweetgum, persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and sassafras (Sassafras albidum). The
February 2009
3-67
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
common shrubs include gallberry, yaupon, southern bayberry (Morella caroliniensis), shining sumac
(Rhus copallina), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), huckleberry (Gaylussacia spp.), and blackberry (Rubus
spp.). Herbaceous bogs and isolated wetlands are often found in association with this habitat.
3.8.2.3 Maritime Forest and Coastal Scrub
This habitat is composed of woody vegetation, often dominated by live oak, and is present on barrier
islands and near-coastal strands. Vegetation structure and composition are influenced by salt spray,
coastal winds, and extreme weather events. Understory vegetation found in this habitat includes red bay
(Persea borbonia), American holly (Ilex opaca), sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboretum), wax myrtle, saw
palmetto (Serenoa repens), and muscadine vine (Vitis rotundifolia). Much of this habitat in coastal
Alabama has been lost to clearing and development, with the remaining forest highly fragmented.
3.8.2.4 Bogs and Seepage Communities
Fire-maintained herbaceous seepage bogs occur in the lower portions of the Southeastern Plains. This
habitat is generally found on gentle slopes, maintained by constant seepage zones or perched water tables.
Examples are typically grass- and sedge- (Cyperaceae spp.) dominated, and are often species-rich. The
habitat can vary between dense shrubs to open and herbaceous, depending on fire frequency. Dominant
vegetation includes bluestems, panic grass (Panicum amarum), beak rushes (Rhynchospora spp.), nut
rushes (Scleria spp.), sphagnum moss (Sphagnum andersonianum), and ferns (Osmunda spp.). Bog
habitats in Alabama have been degraded or lost because of drainage and succession.
3.8.2.5 Beach and Dune
Beach and dune complexes are dynamic systems of constantly changing habitats characterized by sandy
soils, sparse, saltwater-adapted grasses and shrubs, and interdunal pools and swales. Winds, tides, salt
spray, and tropical storms impact these habitats as the sands and the vegetation that they support
constantly ebb and flow in response. Vegetated coastal dunes consist largely of herbaceous and embedded
shrublands on barrier islands and other near-coastal areas where salt spray, saltwater overwash, and sand
movement are important ecological forces. A number of diagnostic and endemic plant species
characterize this habitat, including sandhill rosemary (Ceratiola ercoides), woody goldenrod (Chrysoma
pauciflosculosa), beach sand-squares (Paronychia erecta), and Gulf rockrose (Helianthemum arenicola).
The outermost zone of vegetation extending seaward from the foredunes is characterized by sea oats
(Uniola paniculata) and Gulf bluestem (Schizachyrium maritimum).
3.8.2.6 Estuarine and Marine
This habitat includes salt and brackish tidal marshes and adjacent shallow marine waters, including
seagrass beds. These habitats are typically associated with mud-bottomed bays behind barrier islands.
Wigeon grass (Ruppia maritime), American wild celery (Vallisneria americana), shoal grass (Halodule
wrightii), southern naiad (Najas guadalupenis), and slender pondweed (Potamogeton pusillus) are
typically found in this habitat. The environmental quality of this habitat has degraded with increased
turbidity and decreases in water quality from dredging, boating, and other development pressures.
3.8.3
Wildlife
Alabama surpasses all eastern states in plant and animal diversity, ranking fifth in the nation, and ranks
first in the nation in freshwater species diversity (ALDCNR 2005). The state also has the greatest number
of species at risk east of the Colorado River because of alteration of natural wildlife habitat.
Wildlife found in the vicinity of the FLC includes a diverse population of native and exotic species of
amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, and mammals (Table 44). The Gulf Shores-Orange Beach Loop of the
Alabama Coastal Birding Trail is in the vicinity of the FLC and offers the opportunity for birding and
February 2009
3-68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
other wildlife viewing in the area. Fishing is a popular recreational and commercial activity in the Gulf
Shores-Orange Beach area. Popular sport and commercial fish species include channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus), striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), and southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma).
Neotropical migratory birds are known to use scrub-shrub and pine woodlands in southern Baldwin
County as stopover habitat during migratory periods. Common species observed in the FLC area include
dickcissel (Spiza americana), buntings (Passerina spp.), bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), vireos (Vireo
spp.), and warblers (Dendroica spp.).
Table 44. List of Wildlife Species
Common name
Amphibians
Southern cricket frog
Bird-voiced Treefrog
Pine woods treefrog
Barking treefrog
Squirrel treefrog
Greenhouse frog
Spotted salamander
Spotted dusky salamander
Oak toad
Green treefrog
Pig frog
Southern leopard frog
Reptiles
Texas horned lizard
Common five-lined skink
Eastern coachwhip
Gulf saltmarsh snake
Mississippi green water
snake
Plain-bellied water snake
Florida green water snake
Black pine snake
Florida pine snake
Copperhead
Common snapping turtle
American alligator
Birds
Snowy plover
Common loon
Tri-colored Heron
Great egret
Red-breasted merganser
Northern gannet
Groove-bill ani
Scientific name
Acris gryllus gryllus
Hyla avivoca
Hyla femoralis
Hyla gratiosa
Hyla squirella
Eleutherodactylus planirostris
Ambystoma maculatum
Desmognathus conanti
Bufo quercus
Hyla cinerea
Rana grylio
Rana pipiens sphenocephala
Phrynosoma cornutum
Eumeces fasciatus
Masticophis flagellum flagellum
Nerodia clarkii clarkia
Nerodia cyclopion
Nerodia erythrogaster
Nerodia floridana
Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi
Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus
Agkistrodon piscivorus
Chelydra serpentina serpentine
Alligator mississippiensis
Charadrius alexandrinus
Gavia immer
Egretta tricolor
Casmerodius albus
Mergus serrator
Morus bassanus
Crotophaga sulcirostris
11
February 2009
3-69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Table 44. List of Wildlife Species (continued)
Common name
Sandhill crane
Canvasback duck
Brown pelican
Reddish egret
Great blue heron
Peregrin falcon
Tree swallow
Eastern kingbird
Common ground dove
Royal tern
American woodcock
Scientific name
Grus Canadensis
Aythya valisineria
Pelecanus occidentalis
Egretta rufescens
Ardea Herodias
Falco peregrinus
Tachycineta bicolor
Tyrannus tyrannus
Columbina passerine
Sterna maxima
Scolopax minor
Fish
Channel catfish
Southern flounder
Striped mullet
Alligator gar
Gulf sturgeon
Atlantic needlefish
Ictalurus punctatus
Paralichthys lethostigma
Mugil cephalus
Aractosteus spatula
Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi
Strongylura marina
Mammals
Seminole bat
Red fox
Northern yellow bat
Coyote
Raccoon
Bobcat
Eastern mole
Opossum
Marsh rabbit
Gray squirrel
Marsh rice rat
Cotton mouse
Nutria
White-tailed deer
Lasiurus seminolus
Vulpes vulpes
Lasiurus intermdius
Canis latrans
Procyon lotor
Felis rufus
Scalopus aquaticus
Didelphis marsupialais
Sylvialagus palustris
Sciurus carolinensis
Oryzomys palustris
Peromyscus gossypinus
Myocaster coypus
Odocoileus virginianus
3.8.4
Sensitive Species
3.8.4.1 Sensitive Species Overview
Sensitive species are unique plants and animals that have been observed to be declining toward extinction.
Using available scientific research, state, federal, and nongovernmental organizations have assigned
conservation priority to many rare or declining species. The most significant protection for sensitive
species is the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA was passed in 1973 to address concerns regarding
the decline in populations of many unique wildlife species. Supporters of the ESA argued that America’s
natural heritage was of aesthetic, ecological, educational, recreational, and scientific value to the nation
and, therefore, worthy of protection. The purpose of the ESA is to rebuild populations of protected
species and conserve “the ecosystems on which endangered and threatened species depend” (USFWS
2001). The law offers two classes of protection for rare species in decline—endangered and threatened.
February 2009
3-70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Endangered status means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. Threatened status indicates that a species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future. All species of plants and animals, except pest insects, are eligible for listing as endangered or
threatened (USFWS 2001). All federal agencies are required to protect TES while carrying out projects
and to preserve TES habitats on federal land.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3.8.4.2 Sensitive Plant Species
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Under the ESA, it is illegal to take TES. As defined in the ESA, “the term take means to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The
Secretary of the Interior, through regulations, defined the term harm in this passage as, “an act [that]
actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act could include significant habitat modification or degradation
where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including
breeding, feeding, or sheltering” (USFWS 2001). Because it is unlawful to hunt or collect TES, habitat
degradation is the primary reason for population declines in listed species.
Two sensitive plant species have been identified in the vicinity of the FLC—the white-topped pitcher
plant (Sarracenia leucophylla) and American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana). The white-topped
pitcher plant is found in bogs and wet pine savannas in coastal Alabama and has declined in population
and range because of alteration of natural habitat from development pressures. The closest population to
the FLC can be found in Wolf Bay, where it is listed as a species of concern. The white-topped pitcher
plant has not been observed on any of the proposed development sites.
American chaffseed is found in moist pine flatwoods and fire-maintained savannas. Similar to the whitetopped pitcher plant, populations have declined in recent decades because of alteration of natural habitat
from development pressures and suppression of periodic fire, which is critical for survival. During TES
surveys of several potential project sites, American chaffseed was not observed, though it has been noted
that the potential for a population does exist.
Exotic species, such as cogongrass (Imperata cylindrical) and tallow tree, threaten both sensitive plant
species and have contributed to the decline of sensitive plant species habitat.
3.8.4.3 Sensitive Animal Species
The ALDCNR has identified 314 aquatic and terrestrial wildlife species in Alabama as in greatest
conservation need (GCN). GCN species are those that are at risk or are declining because of habitat loss
and fragmentation, loss of natural community integrity, impacts from disturbance and exotic species, or
lack of adequate protection (ALDCNR 2005). They include TES, as well as many other species whose
populations are of concern. The GCN fauna in Alabama include 24 mammals, 26 reptiles, 14 amphibians,
28 birds, 57 fish, 93 mussels, 34 aquatic snails, and 28 crawfishes (ALDCNR 2005).
Federal and state listed TES known to occur in southern Baldwin County include the Alabama beach
mouse, loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), red cockaded
woodpecker (Pocoides borealis), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), Alabama red-bellied turtle (Pseudemys alabamensis), gulf sturgeon (Acipenser
oxyrinchus desotoi), and eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi).
3.8.4.3.1
Alabama beach mouse
The endangered Alabama beach mouse is found in the primary, secondary, and scrub dunes of coastal
Baldwin County. Habitat loss and fragmentation due to coastal development are the most significant
cause of population decline. The Alabama beach mouse has not been observed to occur along the FLC.
February 2009
3-71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3.8.4.3.2
8
9
10
11
12
13
3.8.4.3.3
Green sea turtle
The endangered green sea turtle nests primarily along the Atlantic Coast of Florida, although at least two
nests have been found along coastal Alabama in recent years (ALDCNR 2005). According to the
ALDCNR, no major feeding grounds exist along the coast of Alabama. The green sea turtle faces similar
challenges for survival as does the loggerhead sea turtle (i.e., loss/alteration of habitat, light pollution
impacts). Green sea turtles have not been observed within the FLC.
14
15
16
17
18
19
3.8.4.3.4
20
21
22
23
24
25
3.8.4.3.5
Piping plover
The piping plover is known to winter in coastal Alabama along beaches and barrier islands that have
mudflats and sandflats (ALDCNR 2005). This species is now listed as threatened because of habitat loss,
disturbance of life processes, and predation. There are no known populations of piping plover in the
vicinity of the FLC, though it is possible during winter that the piping plover uses the few small sandy
areas along the FLC.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
3.8.4.3.6
Bald eagle
The bald eagle is known to nest in Baldwin County near major waterbodies, mainly near the Bon Secour
National Wildlife Refuge, which is west of the FLC. This species is listed as threatened but has been
proposed to be removed from the TES list because of successful rehabilitation of the population in
Alabama and throughout the nation. During TES surveys of several potential project sites, bald eagles
were not observed, though it has been noted that the potential for a population in the vicinity of the FLC
does exist.
33
34
35
36
37
3.8.4.3.7
Alabama red-bellied turtle
The Alabama red-bellied turtle is the state’s official reptile and is listed as endangered. This species is
found in shallow, vegetated backwaters of freshwater streams, rivers, bays, or bayous throughout southern
Baldwin County. The turtle is threatened by a loss of habitat because of development pressures. During
TES surveys of several potential project locations, Alabama red-bellied turtles were not observed.
38
39
40
41
42
3.8.4.3.8
Loggerhead sea turtle
According to the ALDCNR, the threatened loggerhead sea turtle is the most abundant sea turtle occurring
along the coastal waters and nesting beaches of Alabama. Decline in loggerhead sea turtle population has
been attributed to commercial fishery interactions (i.e., shrimping industry) and loss or alteration of
nesting habitat. In addition, light pollution of nearby-coastal developments has the potential to disturb or
alter sea turtle behavior, including the selection of nesting sites and the movement off of the beach by
hatchlings and adults. Loggerhead sea turtles have not been observed within the FLC.
Red-cockaded woodpecker
The endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is known to occur in Baldwin County in old pine
timber of open stands. The decline of RCW can be attributed to loss of habitat, mainly mature longleaf
pine ecosystems. Because of anthropogenic influences, most of the forested areas along the FLC are
unsuitable RCW habitat. During TES surveys of several potential project sites, RCW was not observed,
though it has been noted that the potential for a population in the vicinity of the FLC does exist.
Gulf sturgeon
The gulf sturgeon is an anadromous fish and is listed as threatened. It has been found on the eastern side
of Mobile Bay and also in the Mobile Delta. This species is listed as threatened because of loss or
degradation of habitat and negative interactions with commercial fishery operations. Gulf sturgeon have
not been observed within the FLC.
February 2009
3-72
1
2
3
4
5
6
3.8.4.3.9
Eastern indigo snake
The eastern indigo snake is listed as a threatened species and is found throughout Baldwin County. Its
preferred habitat is wet lowlands, swamps, and cypress ponds, and it is often found along with the gopher
tortoise. According to the ALDCNR, the greatest threats to this species are loss or alteration of habitat,
rattlesnake hunters’ practice of putting gas down a burrow, and the pet trade. During TES surveys of
several potential project sites, eastern indigo snakes were not observed.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3.8.4.4 Habitat Conservation Plan
26
27
28
3.8.5
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
In 2005, Gulf Shores drafted a Habitat Conservation Plan to address the conservation needs of the
Alabama beach mouse and nesting sea turtles (Gulf Shores 2005). The overall objectives of the plan are
as follows:
• Provide a predictable and streamlined process that private entities could use, on a voluntary basis, to
achieve compliance with the ESA.
• Provide for the long-term conservation of the Alabama beach mouse and localized sea turtle
conservation through the avoidance and preservation of habitat areas.
• Ensure that impacts to Alabama beach mouse and sea turtles resulting from Covered Activities are
appropriately minimized and mitigated, consistent with the requirements of the ESA.
• Accommodate appropriate growth and development within Gulf Shores.
• Maximize opportunities for the restoration and enhancement of degraded Alabama beach mouse
habitat areas.
The plan focuses on the Fort Morgan Peninsula coastline, which is approximately two miles south of the
FLC, in southern Baldwin County. The Alabama beach mouse and nesting sea turtles are not known to
occur along the FLC. As a result of the location of the focus area and species of concern, the Habitat
Conservation Plan will provide minimal guidance to the proposed projects along the FLC.
Sensitive Habitats
Sensitive habitats are areas inhabited by federally listed species, as well as rare vegetative communities.
Two sensitive habitats have been identified in the FLC area—pitcher plant bog and longleaf pine savanna.
3.8.5.1 Pitcher Plant Bog
Pitcher plant bogs are found in association with longleaf pine ecosystems and are dependent on a frequent
fire regime. This habitat has decreased in area because of a decline in frequent fire events, drainage for
agriculture, or development pressures. The ALDCNR lists 15 GCN species that are dependent upon this
habitat during the species’ life cycle. The GCN species include crawfish (Fallicambarus burrisi), seepage
salamander (Desmognathus aeneus), pine barrens treefrog (Hyla andersonii), coal skink (Eumeces
anthracinus), southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces inexpectatus), mimic glass lizard (Ophisaurus
mimicus), Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), northern
harrier (Circus cyaneus), yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis), least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis),
american woodcock (Scolopax minor), northern yellow bat (Lasiurus intermedius), marsh rabbit
(Sylvialagus palustris), and meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Pitcher plant bog habitat
has not been observed along the FLC.
3.8.5.2 Longleaf Pine Savanna
Much of the longleaf pine savanna habitat has been lost to clearing, draining, development, and
agriculture. It is estimated that less than five percent of the original acreage of wet pine savanna habitat
remains in the Atlantic/Gulf Coastal Plain (MDWFP 2005). The remaining habitat is highly fragmented,
resulting in a decline of habitat quality. The ALDCNR lists 29 GCN species that are dependent upon this
February 2009
3-73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
habitat, including flatwoods salamander, gopher frog (Rana capito), dusky gopher frog (Rana sevosa),
eastern indigo snake, southern hognose snake (Heterondon simus), black pine snake (Pituophis
melonoleucus lodingi), eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus), coal skink, eastern
kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula), speckled kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulua holbrooki), eastern coral
snake (Micrurus fulvius fulvius), mimic glass lizard, Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus
mugitus), Henslow’s sparrow, red-cockaded woodpecker, Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis),
short-eared owl, northern harrier, yellow rail, swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus), american kestrel
(Falco sparverius), southeastern american kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus), american woodcock,
southeastern pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis), northern yellow bat, long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata),
southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius), eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius), and marsh rabbit.
Longleaf pine savanna habitat has been observed in small areas along the FLC.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
3.8.5.3 Essential Fish Habitat
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable
Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), established a new requirement to describe and identify
EFH in each fishery management plan. This act sets forth a new mandate for the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), regional fishery management councils, and other federal agencies to identify
and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. The EFH provisions of the act support
maintenance of sustainable fisheries, which is one of the overall management goals for the nation’s
marine resources.
As defined in the interim final rule (62 FR 66551), “Essential fish habitat means those waters and
substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. For the purpose of
interpreting the definition of EFH: ‘Waters’ include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical,
and biological properties that are used by fish, and could include aquatic areas historically used by fish
where appropriate; ‘substrate’ includes sediment, waterbottoms, structures underlying the waters, and
associated biological communities; ‘necessary’ means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery
and the managed species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and ‘spawning, breeding, feeding, or
growth to maturity’ covers a species’ full life cycle.”
For coastal Alabama, NMFS EFH data is characterized by relative abundance and is divided by calendar
seasons. Calendar seasons were used due to salinity seasons varying among estuaries. All seven species
listed in Table 45 are divided into adults and juveniles. Five categories were used to describe relative
abundance: highly abundant, abundant, common, rare, and not present. The relative abundance categories
were classified by NMFS using historical data on EFH, and using input from local agencies and local
fisherman. No quantitative value was determined for each of the categories. The most recent data for the
project area was collected in the fall of 1998 by the NMFS Galveston Laboratory.
Bon Secour Bay and Oyster Bay recorded adult and juvenile brown shrimp in the spring and summer as
“highly abundant.” Bon Secour Bay and Oyster Bay recorded “abundant” for juvenile brown shrimp in
the fall, juvenile pink shrimp in the spring and summer, adult white shrimp in the fall and summer, and
juvenile white shrimp in the fall, summer, and winter. Perdido Bay and Wolf Bay recorded adult brown
shrimp in the fall and summer, and juvenile brown shrimp in the fall, spring, and summer as “highly
abundant.” Perdido Bay and Wolf Bay had no species recorded as “abundant.” The FLC was not listed as
EFH for any species.
February 2009
3-74
1
Table 45. List of EFH Species
Brown Shrimp - Adult
Bon Secour Bay
Oyster Bay
Perdido Bay/Wolf Bay
Brown Shrimp - Juvenile
Bon Secour Bay
Oyster Bay
Gray Snapper - Adult
Bon Secour Bay
Oyster Bay
Gray Snapper - Juvenile
Bon Secour Bay
Oyster Bay
Gulf Stone Crab - Adult
Bon Secour Bay
Oyster Bay
Gulf Stone Crab - Juvenile
Bon Secour Bay
Oyster Bay
Pink Shrimp - Adult
Bon Secour Bay
Oyster Bay
Pink Shrimp - Juvenile
Bon Secour Bay
Oyster Bay
Red Drum - Adult
Bon Secour Bay
Oyster Bay
Fall
Spring
Summer
Winter
Common
Common
Highly Abundant
Highly Abundant
Highly Abundant
Not Present
Highly Abundant
Highly Abundant
Highly Abundant
Rare
Rare
Not Present
Abundant
Abundant
Highly Abundant
Highly Abundant
Highly Abundant
Highly Abundant
Highly Abundant
Highly Abundant
Highly Abundant
Common
Common
Not Present
Rare
Rare
Not Present
Rare
Rare
Not Present
Rare
Rare
Not Present
Rare
Rare
Not Present
Common
Common
Common
Rare
Rare
Not Present
Rare
Rare
Common
Rare
Rare
Not Present
Common
Common
Rare
Common
Common
Rare
Common
Common
Rare
Common
Common
Rare
Common
Common
Rare
Common
Common
Rare
Common
Common
Rare
Common
Common
Rare
Common
Common
Rare
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Rare
Rare
Rare
Rare
Common
Common
Common
Abundant
Abundant
Common
Abundant
Abundant
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Not Present
Common
Common
Not Present
Common
Common
Not Present
Rare
Rare
Not Present
2
February 2009
3-75
1
Table 45. List of EFH Species (continued)
Fall
Red Drum - Juvenile
Bon Secour Bay
Common
Oyster Bay
Common
Common
Spanish Mackerel - Adult
Bon Secour Bay
Not Present
Oyster Bay
Not Present
Common
Spanish Mackerel - Juvenile
Bon Secour Bay
Common
Oyster Bay
Common
Not Present
White Shrimp - Adult
Bon Secour Bay
Abundant
Oyster Bay
Abundant
Not Present
White Shrimp - Juvenile
Bon Secour Bay
Abundant
Oyster Bay
Abundant
Common
Spring
Summer
Winter
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Rare
Rare
Not Present
Common
Common
Common
Not Present
Not Present
Not Present
Common
Common
Not Present
Common
Common
Not Present
Rare
Rare
Not Present
Not present
Not present
Rare
Abundant
Abundant
Rare
Common
Common
Rare
Common
Common
Common
Abundant
Abundant
Common
Abundant
Abundant
Rare
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
3.8.6
Wetlands
Wetlands are the transitional zone between dry land and aquatic habitat. As defined by the USACE,
wetlands are, “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater 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” (USACE 1987). Three diagnostic characteristics are typically used to recognize
wetlands:
•
Hydrology. Wetlands are inundated with less than 6.6 feet of water on average; otherwise, they
are considered deepwater habitat. However, unless wetlands are saturated to the soil surface at
least some time during the growing season, they are considered upland or non-wetland habitat.
•
Hydric Soils. Soils that have formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long
enough during the growing season develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. These soils are
defined as hydric soils and support hydrophytic vegetation.
•
Hydrophytic Vegetation. Wetlands feature hydrophytic plant species that are adapted to thrive in
wet soils with little or no oxygen. These species have specialized structural or reproductive
features that allow them to compete with other plants and persist in hydric soils.
Wetland environments are susceptible to a variety of anthropogenic and natural impacts because of their
transitional setting between the terrestrial and aquatic environments of a watershed. Inputs such as water,
sediment, nutrients, organic matter, and pollutants enter wetlands as part of natural flow or during storm
events. Animals use wetlands as sources of food, water, and habitat and transfer energy and chemicals
between the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. These inputs can be altered in energy or biochemical
February 2009
3-76
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
composition before exiting the wetland environment. These upstream and wetland inputs can have
significant impacts on the wetland ecosystem and the environment downstream of the wetland. As a
result, management activities in wetlands must take into account the impacts on the wetland ecosystem
and the downstream environment.
Wetlands in Baldwin County are regulated by USACE-Mobile District, per Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, and ADEM. The ADEM Coastal Programs Office defines areas within its jurisdiction as,
“waters and the adjacent shorelands lying seaward of the continuous 10-foot contour extending seaward
to the outer limit of the United States territorial sea” (ADEM 1995). The proposed project locations fall
within the 10-foot contour, and any wetlands on the properties will be considered to fall within the coastal
area designated by ADEM. Isolated wetlands that are hydrologically disconnected from state waters or
wetland ecosystems could be considered nonadjacent.
The Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Department developed the Baldwin County Wetland
Conservation Plan (BCWCP) in 2005 to address wetland resources and conservation in the county. The
300,000 acres of wetlands in Baldwin County function as commercial and recreational fishing habitat,
store floodwaters, offer recreational opportunities for tourists, and recharge groundwater (Baldwin
County 2005). The BCWCP was developed to be a guide for decision makers to make wise land use
decisions regarding wetland resources in the county.
According to the BCWCP, the wetland types found in the vicinity of the FLC include fringe, flat, and
riverine. Figure 39 identifies the wetlands in the vicinity of the FLC. Fringe wetlands are adjacent to
bodies of water, receiving frequent and regular two-way flow from astronomic tides or from wind-driven
water level fluctuations (Baldwin County 2005). Flat wetlands are seasonally saturated, receiving water
primarily from precipitation, and are often referred to as pine savannas. Riverine wetlands receive water
from rivers or streams and are often identified as swamps or bottomland hardwoods.
February 2009
3-77
1
2
Figure 39. Wetlands
February 2009
3-78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Wetland delineation studies have been performed on several of the proposed project sites and the wetland
types observed include pine savanna and fringe. Many of the wetlands identified are artificial depressions
or isolated wetlands created during FLC operation and maintenance activities performed by the USACE.
It has been suggested that these areas not be considered jurisdictional in reference to the U.S. Supreme
Court’s SWANCC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ruling. Additionally, these areas should be considered
nonadjacent wetlands and of low functional value, which would potentially permit the filling of these
areas for non-water dependent uses.
9
3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Cultural resources are aspects of the physical environment that relate communities to their culture and
history. They provide definition for communities and link them to their surroundings. Cultural resources
include tangible remains of past activities that show use or modification by people. This type of cultural
resource can include prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, buildings, structures, objects, or
districts. Cultural resources also include aspects of the natural environment, such as landscapes, specific
places, topographic features, or biota that are a part of the traditional way of life and practices and are
associated with community values and institutions.
17
3.9.1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
3.9.1.1 Prehistoric Period
Prehistoric and Historic Background of the Project Region
Prehistory in the United States refers to the time of Native Americans before Europeans arrived in a
region. For Alabama, it extends from as early as 12,000 B.C. to 1519 A.D.
Small, nomadic groups of people, known as PaleoIndians, were the first people to live in Alabama, as
early as 12,000 B.C. They hunted large game such as bison, mammoth, and mastodon, as well as smaller
game such as rabbit and deer. The people ate the meat and used the bones for tools such as awls, pins, and
fish hooks. They supplemented their diet by gathering berries, nuts, and other edible plants. These people
lived in small bands that set up open-air camps or used natural rock shelters and moved frequently. Most
of the PaleoIndian sites identified in Alabama are in the northern part of the state and along rivers. None
have been identified in Baldwin County (University of Alabama 2007; ALDAH 2007).
As the Ice Age ended, the environment changed as the weather warmed. Sea levels rose, river deltas
became flooded, vegetation changed, and the large animals hunted by the PaleoIndians disappeared. As
the people in Alabama adapted, a different stage of culture developed, called the Archaic, which lasted
from 7000 to 1000 B.C. They subsisted on smaller game and moved seasonally to take advantage of
different food sources in different places. During fall and winter, they lived in the hills where hunting was
better and they could gather nuts. Hunting was accomplished using an atlatl or spear thrower. In the
spring and summer they returned to the river valleys to fish and collect shellfish. Pottery was introduced
to Alabama in the Late Archaic and was used for storage and cooking. People also began to encourage
plants to grow, thinning weeds and sheltering certain plants so they would grow better (University of
Alabama 2007; ALDAH 2007). The Bayou La Batre culture emerged during this time period and is
marked by the appearance of the earliest, coiled, grit-tempered ceramics in the Alabama region. Several
shell-midden sites in the area of Mobile Bay have included this ceramic complex (Walthall 1980).
The Woodland Stage, lasting from 1000 B.C. to 1000 A.D., is characterized by increased plant cultivation
and a subsequent need for a more sedentary life. These people cultivated maize, sunflower, beans, and
squash. They also continued to hunt small game and forage for fruit and nuts, though they used a bow and
arrow. More permanent towns and villages were established and there arose a widespread emphasis on
ceremony. Round houses were built of timber and mud. Mound building first appeared during the Archaic
February 2009
3-79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Stage but flourished during the Woodland. The Alabama landscape is dotted with numerous conical
mounds (University of Alabama 2007; ALDAH 2007).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
3.9.1.2 Contact Period
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
The Mobile Bay area was of considerable economic importance in the Woodland Stage. The Porter Phase
manifested in the Mobile Bay and the Lower Tombigbee region during this period, following the decline
of the Bayou La Batre Culture. Two functional habitation sites are considered part of the Porter Phase.
Small shellmiddens along the coastal and bay areas indicate periods of brief occupation and also point to
littoral economic activity. Habitation sites north of Tensaw Lake contain burial mounds and are thought to
be evidence of major Porter settlements (Walthall 1980).
The Mississippian Stage (A.D. 1000 to 1300) is marked by the aggregation of large numbers of people to
live in communities. These communities were organized into chiefdoms with two groups of people, the
elite and the commoners. Houses were built of timber, mud, and thatch, but unlike the Woodland Stage
homes, these were square. Public architecture was expanded and was characterized by large, flat-topped
mounds with public buildings or elite residences built in top. These buildings were generally larger and
more ornate than their common buildings. The Mississippian Stage is also marked by increased
dependence on maize, though other crops continued to be harvested (University of Alabama 2007;
ALDAH 2007). One of the eight major recognized Mississippian sites in Alabama is in Bear Point
(Walthall 1980).
The Contact Period refers to the time during the first exploration of the southeast coastal region by
Europeans. In 1519 the first explorer to navigate into Mobile Bay was a Spaniard named Alonso Alvarez
de Pineda (ALDAH 2007; Alabama Genealogy 2007). Hernando de Soto explored along the Coosa,
Alabama, and Tombigbee rivers in 1539 and claimed the region as part of Florida (Duncan 1995).
The English claimed the region north of the Gulf of Mexico. The region of Alabama was included in the
province of Carolina, granted by Charles II of England by the charters of 1663 and 1665. English traders
were frequenting the Alabama River valley as early as 1687. But it was the French who colonized the
region. It was not until 1699 that the first permanent European settlers arrived in the Mobile Bay area,
with the arrival of the LeMoyne brothers from France. Until 1711, Fort Louis (on the present site of
Mobile) had been settled as the capital of the French colony known as Louisiana. It was surrendered to
flood waters and its replacement, Fort Conde, was built on higher ground. The French and English both
attempted to forge strong alliances with the regional Indian tribes, namely the Creek, Choctaw,
Chickasaw, and Cherokee, to strengthen their positions. Finally, in 1763, the Treaty of Paris ended the
French and Indian War and terminated French occupation of the region (Axelrod 2002). Baldwin County
was among the lands the British gained as a result of the Treaty (Baldwin County 2007).
3.9.1.3 Historic Period
Following the signing of the Treaty of Paris, ownership and occupation of the Alabama region was
contested between Great Britain, the United States, and Spain. Finally, in 1812, the United States
occupied the Mobile district, and the whole area of the present state of Alabama was under the
jurisdiction of the United States, although Indian tribes still owned most of the land by treaty and
occupation (Badger and Clayton, 1985). Squatters began to move into Alabama forcing various tribes off
their lands. The Great Indian War (Seminole War) continued skirmishes between the United States and
Spain and regional tribes. In 1816 important treaties were signed and three-fourths of Alabama was
available to AngloAmerican settlement (Alabama Genealogy 2007). In 1817 Alabama became a territory;
in December 1819, it became a state; and in 1835 the last of the native lands were ceded (Genealogy Inc.
2007). Baldwin County was originally organized as a county in 1809. Many of the county’s settlers, who
had migrated from Georgia, suggested naming the county after a prominent Georgian, Abraham Baldwin,
February 2009
3-80
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
to recognize his life and accomplishments (Baldwin County 2007). It was during the early 1800s that the
idea for a connected system of coastal waterways to promote national security and economic development
was first envisioned (USACE 1983). In 1826 the Army Engineers broached the idea for a protected
passage to provide inland navigation along the Gulf Coast between St. Marks, Florida, and Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiana. In 1832 a study was initiated to determine the best route to connect the bays of
Pensacola and Bon Secour.
Settlers flocked to the state, and it became a prosperous center of slave plantations growing cotton with
subsistence farmers eking out a living on the poorer lands (ALDAH 1850-1880). Alabama suffered
economic and agricultural problems in the 1840s and 1850s because of banking problems that caused
many to lose their savings, drought, and severe yellow fever epidemics (Genealogy Inc. 2007). Sparse
political backing of the proposed interior coastal waterways continued to result in no funding from
Congress (USACE 1983). Federal interest in the inland waterway lay dormant for more than 40 years
while attention was drawn in other directions.
On January 11, 1861, Alabama seceded from the Union and joined the Confederate States of America.
Aside from Mobile Bay, much of Alabama experienced relatively little military action. However the
economic, political, and social life of the state was devastated, and this devastation continued through the
Reconstruction. Much of this had to do with the difficulty of travel once the Union seized the Mississippi
and destroyed the railroad infrastructure (Gabel 2002). In the 1860s and 1870s, 15 percent of the white
population of Alabama migrated, with a third of these going to Texas (Genealogy Inc. 2007).
Railroads were rebuilt and completed across the state in the 1870s, leading to the industry of mining of
Alabama’s rich mineral deposits of coal, iron ore, and limestone. By 1880, steel, iron, lumber, and textile
industries were rapidly expanding (Genealogy Inc. 2007). During the 1800s, the railroad industry, through
various political and economic manipulations, had severely reduced the viability and use of waterways as
an economical way to transport goods. However, in the late 19th century, interest in waterways was
revived as the people of the Mississippi Valley complained that the railroads did not have sufficient
capability to meet their needs (USACE 1983). Commercial interest banded together and petitioned for a
comprehensive plan to improve and control navigable waterways with public funds.
With the United State’s entry into World War I, agricultural production increased and significant growth
in Mobile’s ship building industry led to increased foreign trade. During the Great Depression, the
Tennessee Valley Authority developed dams and power plants on the Tennessee River for inexpensive
electricity, boosting Alabama’s industrial growth (Genealogy Inc. 2007). However, a USACE study
conducted in 1929 could not find commercial justification for improving the inland waterway stretch
between Pensacola and Mobile bays (USACE 1983). However, the study did find that such a waterway
was logical in the development of the inland waterway system along the coast. In 1930 Congress
authorized the funding for a 9 x 100 foot channel. The channel was completed in 1934, and construction
was conducted under budget. During the early 1900s, the forebear of today’s Gulf Intracoastal Canal
Association (GICA) was formed. This organization, still viable today, was instrumental in promoting the
intracoastal canal and is credited with passage of legislation in 1942 authorizing a complete channel
extending from Florida west to the vicinity of the Mexican border (USACE 1983).
Agriculture and industry in Alabama again were boosted by World War II, and the installation of military
training sites provided further economic development. The need to transport personnel, troops, and
defense materials imposed by wartime conditions served to emphasize the need for protected inland
transportation and existing inadequacies. During the war, more than two dozen merchant ships were sunk
in the Gulf of Mexico. Authorization to enlarge and complete the intracoastal waterway followed the
outbreak of the war, and the waterway is credited with helping to transport more than 1.7 billion barrels of
petroleum products during the war (USACE 1983). War-related industries located production facilities
February 2009
3-81
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
along the GIWW and its tributaries, and this industrial development offered innumerable benefits to
adjacent communities well after the war ended. Recreational and tourist developments along the GIWW
also served to develop economies of inland communities.
3.9.2
Cultural Resources Compliance
A number of federal statutes address cultural resources and federal responsibilities regarding them. The
long history of legal jurisdiction over cultural resources, dating back to the 1906 passage of the
Antiquities Act (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 431-433), demonstrates a continuing concern on the part
of Americans for their cultural resources. Foremost among these statutes is the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470). Section 106 of the NHPA requires
federal agencies to take into account the impact of federal undertakings on historic properties. Historic
properties are cultural resources that are included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP). To be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, a cultural resource must demonstrate a
significant degree of physical integrity and meet one or more of the NRHP criteria for significance with
respect to historical associations, cultural characteristics, and future research potential. The regulations
that implement section 106 (Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800) describe the
process for identifying and evaluating cultural resources; assessing impacts of federal actions on historic
properties; and consulting to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse impacts. The NHPA does not require
preservation of historic properties, but it does ensure that federal agency decisions concerning the
treatment of these resources result from meaningful consideration of cultural and historic values and
identifying options available to protect the resources.
The federal government recognizes its unique relationship with Native American tribal governments and
respects tribal sovereignty and self-government. Various federal statutes that establish and define a trust
relationship with tribes have been enacted. These statutes, along with Executive Orders, include NEPA;
the NHPA; the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996); the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001); Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred
Sites (61 Federal Register [FR] 26771); Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249); and the Executive Memorandum on Government-toGovernment Relations with Native American Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951). They call on agencies
to consult with Native American tribal leaders and others knowledgeable about cultural resources
important to them. The USACE takes government-to-government consultation very seriously.
3.9.3
Cultural Resources in the Project Area
USACE, Mobile District consulted with the Alabama SHPO per section 106 of the NHPA regarding 14 of
the proposed developments. The SHPO responded that because 11 of the proposed developments along
the north shore of the FLC are in areas that have been extensively disturbed by USACE construction and
maintenance of the waterway, those areas are unlikely to contain intact archaeological resources, and
cultural resource surveys are not necessary (Neubauer 2006). Three of the developments are in areas that
are similar environmentally to areas that contain significant cultural resources and are near known
archaeological sites and, thus, are considered archaeologically sensitive. The SHPO requested that these
three areas undergo archaeological survey and that an architectural survey be conducted to identify any
structures at least 50 years old within one mile of the project areas.
Archeological and historical literature searches reveal that several cultural resource assessments have
been conducted in the vicinity of the proposed developments. These include the Bay John I, Bay John II,
Bon Secour (River Front) Survey, Green Ivy, Navy Cove Surveys, Brigadoon Survey, Water Dance
Cultural Resources Assessment, and Henderson Land project. The Alabama State Site Files indicate that
there are 12 previously recorded archaeological sites on Oyster Bay, which were recorded as oyster
February 2009
3-82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
shellmiddens and an aboriginal canal. An additional 10 sites are recorded at the mouth of the Bon Secour
River. None of these sites falls within the proposed developments.
17
Table 46. Cultural resource status of the 16 proposed developments
Cultural resource surveys were conducted on three developments that the SHPO requested to be
surveyed—the 501 Point West, Bayside Harbour, and Oyster Bay Marina developments (Stowe and
Stowe 2005a, 2006). The AHC performed the cultural resource survey on the Bayside Harbour property.
Each of the cultural resource surveys included a state site file search, historic literature search and an onsite survey. Subsurface testing was done for the Oyster Bay Marina. Subsurface testing methods for each
assessment included shovel tests at standard intervals (30 and 60 meters) and soil screening through onequarter-inch hardware cloth. Subsurface testing was not done on the 501 Point West site, “because of the
large amount of fill, the nearly 100 percent surface visibility and the jurisdictional wetlands.” No
archaeological or architectural resources were identified within or near the development boundaries for
these three developments. The reports have been submitted to the SHPO for consultation, and the SHPO
has concurred with the findings (Brown 2005a, 2005b, 2005c). The cultural resource status of all 15
proposed developments is shown in Table 46.
Development
47 Canal
Place
501 Point
West
Bayside
Harbour
Bon Secour
Village East
Bon Secour
Village West
Delfino Resort
1
Delfino Resort
2
Harbour Lights
KFPH
Properties
Lawrenz East
Lawrenz West
Oyster Bay
Marina
Summerdance
Walker Creek
Waterways
East
18
19
20
21
22
23
Initial
consultation
with SHPO
Survey
required
Survey
conducted
Resources in
project area
Survey
submitted to
SHPO
SHPO
concurrence
X
No
X
Yes
December
2006
None
December
2006
TBD
X
Yes
2005
None
2005
August 4,
2005
X
No
X
No
X
No
X
No
X
No
X
No
X
X
No
No
X
Yes
September
2005
None
September
21, 2005
October 17,
2005
X
X
No
No
X
No
SHPO = State Historic Preservation Officer
There are four types of designations within Baldwin County to recognize and protect significant historic
and prehistoric cultural properties. National Historic Landmarks and properties listed on the NRHP are
designated by the National Park Service. The Alabama Historical Commission (AHC) maintains the
Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage and the Alabama Historic Cemetery Register. Baldwin
February 2009
3-83
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
County has an Architecture Preservation Review Board and Historic Development Commission, but they
do not maintain a listing of important cultural properties.
A search of these four registers maintained by the National Park Service and the AHC was conducted to
identify significant cultural properties within one mile of the 15 proposed development areas (National
Park Service 2006, 2007; AHC 2007; Wofford 2007). Only one recorded significant resource is within
this search area. The Nicholson-Nelson House is one-half mile north of the Bayside Harbour
development. This property, which is part of the Gulf Coast and Creole Cottages Thematic Multiple
Property listing, was listed on the NRHP in 1988.
3.9.4
Native American Resources at Fort Lee
USACE has initiated consultation under NEPA and NHPA with potentially interested tribes by sending a
letter describing the Preferred Alternative and asking for comments or concerns that the tribes might have.
There are no known resources in the proposed development areas that are considered of traditional
importance to any tribe.
3.9.5
Pending Investigations and Compliance
USACE has consulted with the Alabama SHPO regarding the 15 proposed developments and conducted
cultural resource studies per SHPO request. If, however, any development activities were to occur in an
area that has not been the subject of SHPO consultation, before any activity begins in that area, USACE
would consult with the Alabama SHPO in compliance with section 106 of the NHPA.
Should artifacts or archaeological features be encountered during project activities, work would cease in
the vicinity of the discovery, and a qualified professional archaeologist would assess the discovery.
USACE would initiate a consultation with the Alabama SHPO as appropriate. This stipulation would be
placed in all relevant construction plans to ensure that construction contractors are aware of this
procedure.
3.10 AIR QUALITY
3.10.1 National Ambient Air-Quality Standards and Attainment Status
EPA Region 4 and ADEM regulate air quality in Alabama. The CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q), as
amended, gives EPA the responsibility to establish the primary and secondary National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR Part 50) that set acceptable concentration levels for seven criteria
pollutants: fine particulate matter (PM10 ), very fine particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), ozone (O3), and lead. Short-term standards (1-, 8-, and 24hour periods) have been established for pollutants contributing to acute health impacts, while long-term
standards (annual averages) have been established for pollutants contributing to chronic health impacts.
Each state has the authority to adopt standards stricter than those established under the federal program;
however, Alabama accepts the federal standards. Appendix U describes the NAAQS in detail, including a
summary of the criteria pollutants’ impacts on public health and welfare.
Federal regulations designate Air-Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) in violation of the NAAQS as
nonattainment areas. On the basis of the severity of the pollution problem, nonattainment areas are
categorized as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme. Federal regulations designate AQCRs
with levels below the NAAQS as attainment areas. Maintenance AQCRs are areas that have previously
been designated nonattainment, and have been redesignated to attainment for a probationary period
through implementation of maintenance plans. EPA has designated South Baldwin County as an
attainment area for all criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.301). Because South Baldwin County (therefore, all
February 2009
3-84
1
2
areas associated with the Proposed Action and Alternative) is in an attainment area, neither a
transportation nor general conformity analysis is required (USEPA 1993).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
3.10.2 State Implementation Plan
22
23
24
25
26
27
3.10.3 Local Ambient Air Quality
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The CAA, as amended in 1990, mandates that state agencies adopt State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that
target the elimination or reduction of the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS. SIPs set forth
policies to expeditiously achieve and maintain attainment of the NAAQS. Since 1990, Alabama has
developed a core of air quality regulations (Section 335 Chapters 3-1 through 3-20) that EPA has
approved. These approvals have signified the development of the general requirements of the Alabama
SIP. In addition, the state has developed SIP revisions for areas of nonattainment (Birmingham, Colbert
County, and Jefferson County) to use additional (nonregulatory) means of bringing those areas into
attainment. No areas associated with the proposed actions or alternatives are within a nonattainment area.
Therefore, only these regulatory elements outlined Alabama’s administrative code apply.
The Alabama program for regulating air emissions affects industrial sources (oil refineries, paper mills,
chemical plants, and all manufacturing processes), commercial facilities (batch concrete plants, asphalt
plants, and small commercial incinerators used by hospitals, department stores, and supermarkets), and
residential development activities. Regulation occurs primarily by reviewing engineering documents and
other technical information, the applying emission standards and regulations when issuing permits,
performing field inspections, and helping industries determine their compliance status with applicable
requirements. The regulations also outline additional general requirements such as restrictions on open
burning and fugitive particle emissions that might apply.
Existing ambient air quality conditions near the proposed development can be estimated from
measurements conducted at nearby air quality monitoring stations. The most recent available data (2005)
from nearby monitoring stations are used to describe the existing ambient air quality conditions in
southern Baldwin County (Table 47). As expected for an attainment area, these measurements are below
the NAAQS.
3.10.4 Ozone in the Gulf Coast Region
Ozone (O3) is a secondary pollutant that is not directly emitted into the atmosphere but instead is formed
in the lower atmosphere by a series of reactions involving ultra violet radiation, nitrogen oxides, and
volatile organic compounds (VOC). NOx consists of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which
are primarily emitted from man-made sources. VOC consist of thousands of individual hydrocarbon and
oxygenated hydrocarbon species emitted from both man-made and natural sources. Local weather
conditions such as wind and temperature also affect O3 formation and transport. The Gulf Coast has
land/sea breeze driven recirculation, stagnation, and convergence that concentrate and enhance reactivity
of local emissions along the coast. Ozone produced or transported over the Gulf of Mexico (driven by
land/sea breezes) is not depleted as quickly as it is over land. Higher concentrations occur along the coast
as this O3 is driven inland by the sea breeze (SAI 2005).
Although in attainment, these factors demonstrate a concern with respect to O3 in the Gulf Coast region.
As is the case in most of the eastern United States, there are natural, urban, inter-urban, and regional
components to observed O3 contributions. The southeastern United States has high natural VOC
emissions, high temperatures, and a high probability of stagnation. Because of the nature of weather
patterns in the region, the Gulf Coast area is subject to large-scale, low-level atmospheric recirculation.
This makes O3 a pollutant of concern for the region and was carried forward for detailed analysis in this
EIS.
February 2009
3-85
1
Table 47. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards and local ambient air quality
Primary
NAAQSa
Pollutant
Secondary
NAAQSa
Monitored
datab
Monitoring station near
proposed project area
CO
8-Hour Maximumc (ppm)
9
None
NA
35
None
NA
NA
NO2
Annual Arithmetic Mean (ppm)
0.053
0.053
NA
0.08
0.12
0.074
NA
O3
8-Hour Maximumd (ppm)
Fairhope
PM2.5
Annual Arithmetic Meane (µg/m3)
f
3
24-Hour Maximum (µg/m )
15
15
11.8
65
65
26
50
50
18
150
150
41
Fairhope
PM10
Annual Arithmetic Meang (µg/m3)
c
3
24-Hour Maximum (µg/m )
Bay Road, Mobile
SO2
Annual Arithmetic Mean (ppm)
0.03
None
0.002
0.14
None
0.010
0.5
0.019
c
3-Hour Maximum (ppm)
Bay Road, Mobile
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
a - Source: 40 CFR 50.1–50.12.
b - Source: USEPAa 2006
c - Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
d - The 3-year average of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average O3 concentrations over each year must not exceed 0.08
ppm.
3
e- The 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from must not exceed 15.0 µg/m .
f- The 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor must not exceed
3
65 µg/m .
3
g - The 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM10 concentration at each monitor within an area must not exceed 50 µg/m .
ppm = parts per million
3
µg/m = micrograms per cubic meter
NO2 = Nitrogen dioxide
NA = Not available – not measured in this area
17
3.11 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND POLLUTION
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
ADEM administers specific environmental statutes and regulations that govern hazardous material and
hazardous-waste management activities in Alabama. For the purpose of this analysis, the terms hazardous
waste, hazardous materials, and toxic substances include those substances defined as hazardous by
CERCLA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), or the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). In general, they include substances that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical,
chemical, or toxic characteristics, can present substantial danger to public health or welfare or the
environment when released into the environment.
To identify areas where possible storage, release, or disposal of hazardous substances or petroleum
products or their derivatives has occurred, InfoMap Technologies, Inc., conducted a computerized search
of standard federal and state environmental databases. The database search included the 15 proposed
development properties, adjacent properties, and other areas up to one mile from the proposed
development locations. The database search was conducted in November 2006 and revised in May 2008
per Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
February 2009
3-86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Process, E1527-05 (ASTM 2005). Copies of the database search reports are provided in Appendix V.
Table 48 lists the available environmental databases that were searched.
15
16
Table 48. Government environmental databases available for Orange Beach and Gulf
Shores, Alabama
A total of 43 sites were identified in two computerized database searches; however, of the 43, seven were
identified twice because of overlapping search radii. The actual number of sites identified in the database
search is 36. Of these, 25 were non-geocoded and 11 were located. The term non-geocoded indicates that
no verifiable address was provided in the report; however, the sites were listed within a common ZIP
Code.
The located sites included five UST sites, three Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites (two
require no further action), and three RCRA Generator sites. Using aerial photography and internet
resources, none of these sites were identified within the 15 proposed development areas.
Federal
NPL
NPL Delisted
CERCLIS
CERCLIS-NFRAP
RCRA-TSD
RCRA-COR ACT
RCRA-GEN
Federal IC/EC
ERNS
Tribal Lands
State
State/Tribal Sites
SWL
LUST
UST/AST
Brownfields
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
National Priorities List
National Priorities List Delisted
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System – No Further Remedial Action Planned
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System – Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System – Subject to Corrective
Action
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System – Large and Small
Quantity Generators
Brownfields Management System – Institutional or Engineering Controls
Emergency Response Notification System – emergency response actions
Indian Lands of the United States
Alabama Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund Annual Report
Solid Waste Management Facilities – Landfills List
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks – UST Release Incident List
Petroleum Storage Tanks (underground/aboveground)
Land Division Brownfields 128(A) Program Sheet – database of Brownfield
activities.
Source: InfoMap Technologies 2008
The non-geocoded sites include one Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information Service (CERCLIS) No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) site, one LUST
site, one RCRA Generator facility, two State sites, eight UST sites and 12 emergency response system
(spills) sites. Using available information, most of the non-geocoded sites were not identified within the
proposed development areas. The general location of the CERCLIS NFRAP site and one State site could
not be identified. The CERCLIS site was cleaned up in 1988 by the USCG and the site was classified as
requiring no further remedial action in 1990. The State site known as Caren Tanks Inc. was a former drydock and shipyard service company that went out of business in 1985. Four tanks and contents were
February 2009
3-87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
removed from the facility with oversight provided by the ADEM. No further action for the site is
anticipated. The ADEM Land Division did not have any additional information on these two sites.
19
20
21
22
23
24
3.11.1 Hazardous Waste Facilities in Southern Baldwin County
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
EPA’s EnviroMapper for Envirofacts Web tool was also used to identify regulated sites within or in the
vicinity of the proposed development areas. The Web tool search features include Superfund sites, toxic
releases, water dischargers, air emissions, and hazardous-waste sites. The search identified the
approximate location of several regulated sites that include eleven water dischargers, one air emission
site, and two hazardous waste generators. Of the regulated sites, six facilities were on or in close
proximity to the proposed development locations. These water discharge facilities include the Vulcan
Construction Materials - Gulf Shores Yard within the proposed 47 Canal Place development area, Bon
Secour Village and Younce Marina within the Bon Secour Village Eastern Marina location, the South
Alabama Sewer Services WWTP, which is within the proposed Oyster Bay Marina development, and
Jack Edwards Field adjacent to the proposed Lawrenz Eastern Marina site and Sunbelt Environmental
Inc., a waste management facility, which is adjacent to the proposed 501 Point West development. Each
of these regulated facilities is permitted to discharge water. No additional information concerning the
environmental condition of the South Alabama Sewer Services WWTP was reported. The hazardous
waste generators were located on property adjacent to Lawrenz Eastern Marina and Delfino Resorts, and
47 Canal Place.
The Hazardous Waste Branch of ADEM implements state and federal laws relating to recycling, pollution
prevention, and hazardous-waste management. This branch assists with remediation of sites contaminated
with hazardous wastes, hazardous substances, and hazardous constituents from current and historical
activities. The major areas of focus are hazardous-waste management, brownfield redevelopment, and
CERCLA remediation.
3.11.2 Baldwin County Hazardous Waste Sites
The AHSCF was established in 1989 by the Alabama Legislature to provide a mechanism for ADEM to
investigate, remediate, and monitor hazardous-substance sites. These hazardous-waste sites can be an
endangerment to human health and the environment but might not qualify to be addressed by another
federal or state cleanup program.
Generally, sites addressed using AHSCF funds either are not qualified for, or are unlikely to receive
cleanup funding under CERCLA. Funding could also be used for long-term maintenance and monitoring
of sites that have historically been addressed under CERCLA. Since the inception of the AHSCF,
approximately 320 sites have been addressed, with almost 290 sites remediated to a point where no
further action is warranted. Funding for AHSCF activities is generated by legislative appropriations, fees
from hazardous waste disposal and reimbursements from potentially responsible parties. For fiscal year
2007, legislative appropriations and tax revenue were $135,626.
According to the AHSCF Annual Report, there were no clean up sites in Baldwin County for fiscal year
2007. Further research of ADEM documents show there were no clean up sites as far back as 2001.
42
3.12 NOISE
43
44
45
46
3.12.1 Noise Fundamentals
Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as
air, and are sensed by the human ear. Noise is defined as any sound that is undesirable because it
interferes with communication, is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise intrusive. Human
February 2009
3-88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
response to noise varies depending on the type and characteristics of the noise, distance between the noise
source and the receptor, receptor sensitivity, and time of day. Noise can interfere with communication,
produce awakenings from sleep or, in some cases, damage the ear. Noise is often generated by activities
essential to a community’s quality of life, such as construction or vehicular traffic.
Sources of noise that have the potential to affect wildlife include aircraft overflights; recreational
activities like motor boating and snowmobiling; domestic sources such as leaf blowers, lawnmowers, and
chainsaws; automobile traffic; and heavy machinery and equipment. Responses vary among species of
wildlife as well as among individuals of a particular species, although the problems are similar to those
found in humans. Increased noise levels mask sounds used by wildlife for communication; for example,
they mask the squeaking of babies that parents use to locate their young or calls used to locate a mate.
Behavioral and physiological responses have a potential to cause injury, energy loss (from movement
away from the noise source), decreased food intake, habitat avoidance and abandonment, and
reproductive losses.
Sound varies by both intensity and frequency. Sound pressure level (SPL), described in decibels (dB), is
used to quantify sound intensity. The dB is a logarithmic unit that expresses the ratio of an SPL to a
standard reference level. Hertz (Hz) are use to quantify sound frequency. The human ear responds
differently to different frequencies. A-weighing, described in a-weighted decibels (dBA), approximates
this frequency response to express accurately the perception of sound by humans. Sounds encountered in
daily life and their approximate level in dBA are provided in Table 49.
Table 49. Common sounds and their level
Outdoor
Snowmobile
Tractor
Noisy restaurant
Downtown (large city)
Freeway traffic
Normal conversation
Rainfall
Quiet residential area
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Sound
level
(dBA)
100
90
85
80
70
60
50
40
Indoor
Subway train
Garbage disposal
Blender
Ringing telephone
TV audio
Sewing machine
Refrigerator
Library
Source: Harris 1998
The ability to perceive changes in noise levels varies widely from person to person, as do individuals’
responses to perceived changes. In general, a 3-dBA change in noise level is barely perceptible to most
listeners. A 10-dBA change is normally perceived as a doubling (or halving) of noise levels and is
considered a substantial change. These thresholds make it possible to estimate a person’s probable
perception of changes in noise levels (Table 50).
February 2009
3-89
1
Table 50. Perception of changes in noise levels
Change in
dBA
Perception
3
Barely perceptible change
5
Readily perceptible change
10
Twice or half as loud
20
Four times or 1/4 as loud
40
Eight times or 1/8 as loud
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Source: FHWA 1995
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
3.12.2 Regulatory Overview
Many different metrics can be calculated to describe sound. In addition to A-weighted SPL, this EIS uses
the DNL to describe the noise environment. DNL is defined as the average sound energy in a 24-hour
period with a 10-dB penalty added to the nighttime levels (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). DNL is a useful descriptor
for noise because (1) it averages ongoing yet intermittent noise, such as aircraft overflights, and (2) it
describes total sound energy over a 24-hour period. Studies of community annoyance to numerous types
of environmental noise show that DNL correlates well with individual annoyance and community
reaction to noise (FICON 1992).
In 1974 EPA published Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health
and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (USEPA 1974). This publication evaluates the impacts of
environmental noise with respect to health and safety. The document provides information to help
agencies develop noise standards and regulations. EPA recommends that DNL should not exceed 55 dBA
to protect public welfare. However, this levels document also outlines other requirements that should be
balanced to achieve the outlined 55-dBA goal. These other requirements include cost, technological
feasibility, and other public safety issues.
In June 1980, a Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise published guidelines (FICUN 1980)
relating DNL to compatible (and incompatible) land uses. Since these guidelines were issued, federal
agencies have generally adopted the aircraft-related noise analyses. Although these guidelines are not
mandatory, they are the most accepted criteria used to assess the impacts of noise in areas surrounding
airports. In general, residential land uses are not compatible with an outdoor DNL above 65 dBA. The
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 established provisions for submitting noise exposure
maps and noise compatibility programs to carry out the purpose of the Act; i.e., to reduce existing
noncompatible lands uses, and prevent the introduction of additional noncompatible uses (FAA 2004).
Alabama does not regulate noise at the state level. Local ordinances have been established instead to
regulate noise. The zoning ordinance for Gulf Shores outlines noise guidelines for the development within
the Jack Edwards Airport Noise Overlay district (Article 8-22). The article requires minimum noise
attenuation construction standards for all structures in the boundaries of the Jack Edwards Airport Noise
Overlay District (Figure 40). The ordinance is primarily to ensure land use compatibility and the
continued prosperity of the Jack Edwards Airport. Gulf Shores also has a general noise nuisance
ordinance that restricts, generally, unwanted sound.
February 2009
3-90
1
2
Figure 40. 2005 Jack Edwards Airport noise contours
February 2009
3-91
1
2
3
4
5
Orange Beach has a local noise ordinance that identifies maximum permissible sound levels for different
land uses (Table 51). Construction, emergency signaling devices, motorboats, domestic power tools, and
the unamplified human voice are sources of noise that are specifically exempt from these limits.
However, construction, demolition and the use of pile drivers and hammers are limited to the hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays.
6
7
Table 51. Orange Beach maximum permissible sound levels (dBA) by receiving land use
Sound source
land use category
Receiving land use category
Residential
Commercial
Unzoned/other
Residential
Sunday–Thursday
7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.
Friday--Saturday
7:00 a.m.–11:00 p.m.
11:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.
Commercial
7:00 a.m.–11:00 p.m.
11:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.
Unzoned/Other
7:00 a.m.–11:00 p.m.
11:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
50
65
65
70
65
65
50
65
65
70
65
65
50
65
65
70
65
55
50
65
65
70
65
Source: Code of Ordinances—Orange Beach Article III Noise, Sec. 30-48
3.12.3 Aircraft Noise
Noise levels near Jack Edwards Airport are typical for a midsized, regional airport. The airport has two
runways handling approximately 95,000 air operations per year combined. One runway is approximately
7,000 feet long, is orientated east to west, and is the predominant access to the airport for regional jets.
The other runway is approximately 4,000 feet long, runs from north to south, and handles the bulk of the
propeller plane operations in and out of the airport. The aircraft operations are anticipated to increase
significantly over the short-term (next 10 years). Compatible noise contours for the airport have been
developed for the airport for the years 2005 and 2010 and are showed on Figures 40 and 41, respectively.
These contours outline the areas exposed to greater than 65 dBA DNL. The existing (2005) incompatible
land use contours are contained primarily on the airport grounds. However, the expected future (2015)
incompatible land use contours extend significantly beyond the airport’s east and west property
boundaries.
Several other airports and air installations were identified within 50 miles of the proposed sites. However
the proposed sites are not under the flight paths of or within the incomparable use zones of the Foley
Municipal Airport, Sonny Callahan Airport, Pensacola Naval Air Station (Forrest Sherman Field),
Pensacola Regional Airport, or Mobile Downtown Airport.
February 2009
3-92
1
2
Figure 41. 2015 Jack Edwards Airport noise contours
February 2009
3-93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3.12.4 Boating Noise
8
3.13 LIGHT POLLUTION
The proposed developments will include additional waterway traffic, which has the potential to contribute
to noise pollution in the Gulf Shores and Orange Beach area. No previous studies have been conducted
regarding boat traffic and its impacts on noise pollution on the GIWW. Gulf Shores has no regulations
regarding noise pollution from boating activities. Chapter 30, Article III of Orange Beach’s Code of
Ordinances addresses noise pollution but does not specifically address waterway activities.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
3.13.1 Overview
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
3.13.2 Marine Navigation
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Light pollution can be defined as excessive brightening of the night sky by artificial and anthropogenic
light sources. Light pollution has been further subdivided into astronomical light pollution, which
obscures the view of the night sky, and ecological light pollution, which alters natural light regimes in
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Longcore and Rich 2004). Sources of light pollution include lighted
buildings and towers, streetlights, security lights, vehicle lights, and offshore oil platforms. The 16
proposed developments could contribute to an increase in light pollution along the shoreline of the FLC in
the Gulf Shores and Orange Beach vicinity. This potential increase in light pollution might impact FLC
marine navigation or surrounding community ecology.
No information is available regarding existing light pollution impacts in the FLC vicinity.
Nighttime marine navigation, for both commercial and recreational vessels, can be impaired by shoreline
lighting systems by impeding the vessel operator’s view of night navigation aids, such as buoys. Buoys
are typically lowly illuminated or have reflective surfaces and are most impactive under low-light
conditions. Background glare from shoreline lights makes it difficult for boaters to maintain a visual fix
on the buoys because of a washing out impact or shadowing. This type of light pollution can cause unsafe
approaches to and under bridges where shadowing causes involuntary eye pupil adjustments, increasing
the risk of collision or grounding (Noles 2001). In addition, impaired boater vision contributes to fatigue
and disorientation, which can lead to an increase in boating accidents. During interviews with commercial
barge operators who use the FLC, light pollution was mentioned as a cause of navigational problems on
the waterway. Recreational users of the FLC did not list light pollution as a cause of navigational
problems on the waterway.
To mitigate shoreline light intrusion on waterway traffic, it is suggested that lights impeding waterway
visibility be retrofitted or shielded to reduce background glare and increase boater vision of navigation
aids. In addition, all unnecessary lighting should be discontinued or used only when needed. State and
local governments can introduce legislation that regulates intrusive shoreline lighting along waterways for
boating safety (Noles 2001). Presently, there are no shoreline lighting regulations for areas along the FLC
in Gulf Shores and Orange Beach.
3.13.3 Community Ecology
Of the seven marine turtle species that exist today, six are listed as endangered and one is listed as
threatened. Three of these species, Green, Kemp’s Ridley, and Loggerhead, nest in coastal Alabama.
Anthropogenic impacts are the main cause for marine turtle decline, including loss of habitat and habitat
alteration. One type of habitat alteration that has been found to affect marine turtles during the nesting
period is light pollution. Critical sea turtle behaviors affected by light pollution include the selection of
nesting sites by adult turtles and the movement off the beach by hatchlings and adults (FMRI 2000).
February 2009
3-94
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
The sea turtle nesting season in coastal Alabama occurs between May 1st and October 31st. Female turtles
deposit their eggs above the high-tide line on sand beaches, and nesting occurs almost exclusively at
night. One of the most clearly demonstrated impacts of artificial light on shorelines is to deter female
turtles from emerging to lay their eggs (Witherington and Martin 1996). Lighting can cause females to
choose less appropriate nesting sites, which, in turn, affects the number of hatchlings and the sex ratios.
Females turned away repeatedly from nesting also have the potential to drop their eggs in the ocean
(Witherington and Martin 1996).
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
3.13.4 Mitigation Measures
Marine turtles typically hatch at night, and the hatchlings rely on natural light to orient themselves toward
the sea. Typically, the horizon over the water is brighter than it is over the land. As such, turtles will
orient themselves toward the brightest light source to return to the sea. It has been documented that
hatchlings are generally attracted to light sources that are approximately 300 feet to 650 feet away from
the nest, and generally moved towards the ocean if lights were approximately 1600 feet to 2600 feet away
(Pendoley 2005). Because of development along coast lines and increasing light pollution, the brightest
light source can be inland, away from the water. This results in disorientation for turtles as they attempt to
return to the sea, instead, heading inland. Heading inland usually results in death for the turtle from
predators, exhaustion, or desiccation (Nicholas 2001). In addition to lights along coastlines, lights inland
for miles can emit a strong enough glow to disorient marine turtles (Nicholas 2001).
Factors, including color, brightness, proximity to the beach, and broadcast characteristics, combine to
determine the relative attractiveness of a light source to a hatchling. Turtles have a relatively high
sensitivity to short wavelengths, especially to light in the near-UV to yellow region of the visible
spectrum (360 to 600 nm) (Witherington and Martin 1996; Lohmann et al. 1997). Hatchlings also assess
light through a broad flat cone of acceptance,9 which implies that the light reaching the hatchling from all
sources combined is more important in influencing orientation than is the brightness of light emanating
from a particular source (Ecological Associates 2002). Thus, impactive management tactics include
selecting some lights to be turned off, controlling light so that the level reaching the beach is minimized,
and ensuring that the light that does reach the beach is the least disruptive color.10
The most readily accepted strategy for solving light-pollution problems is to manage light rather than
prohibit it (FMRI 2000). The proposed project sites are approximately two miles from the coast;
therefore, simple solutions will decrease light pollution impacts to navigation and nesting sea turtles.
Many alternatives exist that minimize lighting from outdoor sources and allow the function of the lighting
to be retained or even enhanced. Alternatives include the following:
• Reducing the wattage of the lighting reduces the amount of light emitted.
• Substituting luminaries that are better focused so that the light can be concentrated. For instance,
substituting higher wattage multidirectional luminaries with lower wattage directional luminaries.
• Install light shields. To be impactive, light shields should be completely opaque, sufficiently
large, and positioned so that light from the shielded source does not reach the beach. Light shields
can be fashioned from inexpensive materials such as aluminum, galvanized steel flashing, and
plywood.
• Recessed luminaries in roof soffits are more directional and, if directed downward, are less
visible than multidirectional lighting.
• Lower pole mounted luminaries provide a substitute for pole-mounted lighting.
• Position luminaries to take advantage of natural light screens.
9
For more on this, including diagrams, see Ecological Associates (2002).
For a more thorough review and assessment of lighting impacts on sea turtles and other nocturnal animals, see Witherington
and Martin (1996), Lohmann et al. (1997), and Witherington (1997).
10
February 2009
3-95
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
•
•
•
•
Install timers to switch off lighting when it is no longer needed in the evening.
Install motion detector switches.
Install visors or louvers to stadium lighting.
Plant native dune vegetation as a light screen.
Indoor lighting can also pose problems if it is visible. Strategies to mitigate this problem include the
following:
• Turn off lights in rooms that are not in use
• Tint or apply window treatments to windows visible from the beach
• Close opaque curtains or blinds after dark
If efforts to dim, redirect, or block light are not entirely impactive, using alternative, long-wavelength
(ultraviolet, violet, blue and green) light sources could help reduce errant light. Long-wavelength light is
not completely harmless, so it should be considered along with other light-management techniques. Lowpressure sodium vapor (LPS) lighting is the least disruptive to sea turtles among commonly used,
commercially available light sources. Bug lights, which are tinted yellow to reduce the emission of insectattracting short-wavelength light, are also minimally disruptive, but are poorer alternatives to LPS
lighting.
Enhancing the dune profile is another way to mitigate errant light. Alternatives include the following:
• Plant native vegetation on the dune
• Erect artificial light screens on the dune
• Fill in and replant dune cuts, pathways, and washout areas (misoriented hatchlings often exit the
beach through these lighted gaps in the dunes)
• Provide emerging hatchlings shielded pathways from nest to surf
There is no single criterion of light intensity that is applicable to every navigation and sea turtle nesting
situation under every set of lighting conditions. Given this, best available technology forms the basis of
light management methods that reduce the impacts of artificial lighting to the greatest extent possible.
February 2009
3-96
1
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
2
4.1 Introduction
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
This section presents the results of the analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental and
socioeconomic impacts that would likely occur upon implementation of the No Action Alternative,
Maximum Boat Slip Alternative, and Minimum Boat Slip Alternative (Preferred Alternative). In addition,
this section identifies any adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; the relationship between
short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and
any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would be involved in implementing the
proposed action.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
4.1.1
Direct versus Indirect Impacts
The terms impact and effect are synonymous as used in this EIS. Impacts could be beneficial or adverse
and could apply to the full range of natural, aesthetic, historic, cultural, and economic resources of the
FLC and the surrounding area. Definitions and examples of direct and indirect impacts as used in this
document are as follows:
• Direct Impact. A direct impact is one that would be caused directly by implementing one of the three
alternatives and that would occur at the same time and place.
• Indirect Impact. An indirect impact is one that would be caused by implementing one of the three
alternatives and that would occur later in time or farther removed in distance but would still be a
reasonably foreseeable outcome of the action. Indirect impacts could include induced changes in the
pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and indirect impacts to air, water, and other natural
resources and social systems.
• Relationship of Direct versus Indirect Impacts. For direct impacts to occur, a resource must be present.
For example, if highly erodible soils were disturbed as a direct result of the use of heavy equipment
during construction of a development, there could be a direct impact on soils due to erosion. This could
further indirectly affect water quality if storm water runoff containing sediment from the construction site
enters adjacent water bodies.
4.1.2
Short-term versus Long-term Impacts
Impacts are also expressed in terms of duration. The duration of short-term impacts is considered to be
one year or less. For example, the construction of a building would likely expose soil in the immediate
area of construction. However, this impact would be considered short-term because it would be expected
that vegetation would be reestablished on the disturbed area within a year of the disturbance. Long-term
impacts are described as lasting beyond one year. They can potentially continue into perpetuity, in which
case they would also be described as permanent.
4.1.3
Cumulative Impacts
Evidence is increasing that the most severe environmental consequences do not result from the direct
impacts of any particular action, but from the combination of impacts of multiple, independent actions
over time. As defined in 40 CFR 1508.7 (CEQ Regulations), a cumulative impact is the “impact on the
environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person
undertakes such other actions.” Some authorities contend that most environmental impacts can be seen as
cumulative because almost all systems have already been modified. Principles of cumulative impacts
analysis, as described in the CEQ guide Considering Cumulative Impacts under the National
Environmental Policy Act, are presented in Table 52.
February 2009
4-1
1
Table 52. Principles of Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Cumulative impacts are caused by the aggregate of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Cumulative impacts are the total impacts, including both direct and indirect impacts, on a given resource,
ecosystem, and human community of all actions taken, no matter who (federal, nonfederal, or private) has
taken the actions.
Cumulative impacts need to be analyzed in terms of the specific resource, ecosystem, and human community
being affected.
It is not practical to analyze the cumulative impacts of an action on the universe; the list of environmental
impacts must focus on those that are truly meaningful.
Cumulative impacts on a given resource, ecosystem, and human community are rarely aligned with political
or administrative boundaries.
Cumulative impacts could result from the accumulation of similar impacts or the synergistic interaction of
different impacts.
Cumulative impacts could last for many years beyond the life of the action that caused the impacts.
Each affected resource, ecosystem, and human community must be analyzed in terms of the capacity to
accommodate additional impacts, based on its own time and space parameters.
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
4.1.4
Intensity of Impacts
The following terms are used to describe the degree of direct and indirect impacts, whether they are
adverse or beneficial:
•
•
•
•
Negligible – the impact is at the lowest levels of detection.
Minor – the impact is slight but detectable.
Moderate – the impact is readily apparent.
Major – the impact is severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial.
The descriptor “major” does not imply a significant impact (see below) unless specifically stated. Refer to
the following section for a discussion of significance.
4.1.5
Significance
In accordance with CEQ regulations and implementing guidance, impacts are also evaluated in terms of
their being significant. The term significant, as defined in 40 CFR 1508.27, part of the CEQ regulations
for implementing NEPA, requires considerations of both context and intensity. Context means that the
significance of an action must be analyzed in several settings, such as society as a whole, the affected
region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action.
For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend on the impacts on the
locale rather than on the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term impacts are relevant to the
consideration of the significance of an impact.
Intensity refers to the severity of impact and includes the ratings described in Section 4.1.4 (i.e.,
negligible through major). Factors contributing to the evaluation of the intensity of an impact include, but
are not limited to, the following:
• The balance of beneficial and adverse impacts, in a situation where an activity has both.
• The degree to which the action affects public health or safety.
February 2009
4-2
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4.1.6
The unique characteristics of the geographic area where the action is proposed, such as proximity
to parklands, historic or cultural resources, wetlands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers, and
ecologically critical areas.
The degree to which the impacts on the quality of the human environment are likely to be
controversial.
The degree to which the impacts of the action on the quality of the human environment are likely
to be highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.
The degree to which the action might establish a precedent for future actions with significant
impacts or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.
Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively
significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant
impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by
breaking it down into small component parts.
The degree to which the action might adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or
objects listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP or might cause loss or destruction of
significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.
The degree to which the action might adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or
habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Whether the action threatens a violation of federal, state, or local law or requirements imposed for
the protection of the environment.
Rationale for Alternative Analysis
The USACE has identified the No Action Alternative, Maximum Boat Slip Alternative, and Minimum
Boat Slip Alternative as the principal alternatives for detailed analysis. The underlying rationale for each
of the alternatives developed for the analysis section is described here.
4.1.6.1 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the USACE would not issue any permits and would not allow any of
the proposed marinas to be constructed on the FLC (see Section 2.3.2.1). The number of wet boat slips on
the FLC, not including single-family residential boat slips, would remain at 610 and no slips would be
added. The proposed uplands developments could be constructed along the FLC and Oyster Bay, but
dredging of uplands, waterbottoms, or wetlands for marina construction would not be permitted. While
the proposed upland developments could be constructed, developers of the proposed communities
identified the proposed locations based on the market demand of the area and the motivational factors
associated with their targeted customer group, specifically that the number one amenity requested by the
group is waterfront location and access (see Section 1.2). Having marinas directly connected to the
fishing and recreational boating opportunities via Bon Secour Bay, Wolf Bay, Mobile Bay, Perdido Bay,
and the Gulf of Mexico is critical to developing the resort communities. The alternatives analysis
therefore, evaluates the No Action Alternative as an alternative under which construction of the proposed
upland developments could occur, however, recognizes that the decisions to proceed with upland
development are dependent on the decisions independently made by the developers, based on market
demands.
4.1.6.2 Maximum Boat Slip Alternative
Under the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative, the USACE would approve permits for up to 3,093 boat slips
on the FLC through the year 2025 (see Section 2.3.2.2). The alternatives analysis assumes a full build out
scenario for the proposed upland developments under this alternative.
February 2009
4-3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
4.1.6.3 Minimum Boat Slip Alternative (Preferred Alternative)
Under the Minimum Boat Slip Alternative, which has been selected as the Preferred Alternative, the
USACE would initially approve permits for 1,943 boat slips through the first year of construction, with
the option of phasing-in 1,150 additional boat slips until the maximum number of slips (3,093) is reached
(see Section 2.3.2.3). If during this evaluation period it is determined that increased recreational boat
traffic is having adverse impacts on commercial barge navigation or safety, the USACE has the authority
to deny permits for additional boat slips on the FLC. Due to the multiple different build out scenarios for
the proposed upland developments that could be employed by the developers under this alternative, it is
not possible to quantitatively evaluate the impacts of this alternative in the various time horizons. The
impacts analysis for the Minimum Boat Slip Alternative thus assumes that impacts would be similar to
the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative; however, the impacts would increase in proportion to the phased
upland development.
13
14
4.2 LAND USE AND LAND COVER
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4.2.1
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
No Action Alternative
Direct Impacts to Land Use and Land Cover
Direct impacts to land use and land cover could occur under the No Action Alternative. Although permits
for boat slips would not be issued under the No Action Alternative, the proposed upland developments
could be constructed. Whether or not the developments would occur would depend on the market demand
for waterfront property without direct water access. If the upland developments are constructed, the
impacts would be similar to the impacts described below for the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative.
Development under the No Action Alternative would be at a more modest scale because the boat slips
themselves would not be constructed, and because the lack of boat slips could affect the decision to
develop this area,, reducing the amount of development of the upland waterfront property. If the upland
development does occur, undeveloped, upland pine habitat would be converted to mixed use
developments. The developments would include parking lots, residential and commercial buildings, and
other associated infrastructure. The increase in infrastructure would result in an increase in impervious
land cover and a decrease in vegetative land cover within the proposed developments.
No conflicts with existing state, county, or local land use plans, policies, or controls would be anticipated
to occur if the No Action Alternative was implemented, and thus no impacts on land use controls would
be expected. Current land use plans would continue to provide guidance for development in the adjacent
areas, including the Gulf Shores Land Use Plan, Plash Island/Bon Secour River Land Use Study, Jack
Edwards Airport Master Plan, Fort Morgan Peninsula Study and the City of Orange Beach Preservation
and Growth Management Plan.
Indirect Impacts to Land Use and Land Cover
Short-term and long-term indirect moderate adverse impacts on land cover could be expected if the No
Action Alternative is implemented, as there could be an increase in impervious surface in the project area.
The impacts would be similar to the impacts described for the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative.
4.2.2
Maximum Boat Slip Alternative
Direct Impacts to Land Use and Land Cover
Under the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative, land use would be directly impacted. Undeveloped, upland
pine habitat and, in some areas, narrow marsh fringe along the northern shoreline of the FLC, would be
converted to mixed use developments, which could include approximately 19 acres retail, 11 acres
commercial, 6 acres restaurant, 727 acres greenspace and 52 acres of park space. The developments
would include parking lots, residential and commercial buildings, and other associated infrastructure. The
February 2009
4-4
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
increase in infrastructure would result in an increase in impervious land cover and a decrease in
vegetative land cover within the proposed developments.
No conflicts with existing state, county, or local land use plans, policies, or controls would be anticipated
if this alternative was implemented, and thus no impacts on land use controls would be expected,
although, land use would change from agriculture/forest to residential and retail/commercial. The current
land use plans described in Section 3.2.5 would continue to provide guidance for development in the
adjacent areas. Specifically, the land use plans for Gulf Shores and Orange Beach focus on development
patterns that would support the resort destination vision of the area. Transportation and mobility,
enhancing recreational activities, promoting commercial and economic development, protecting the
natural environment, and adopting zoning regulations to promote smart growth of the area are focal points
of the land use plans. Implementation of the land use plans is currently in the planning stage and would
continue to progress as the area experiences growth.
Indirect Impacts to Land Use and Land Cover
Short-term and long-term indirect moderate adverse impacts on land cover would be expected if the
Maximum Boat Slip Alternative is implemented, as there would be an increase in impervious surface in
the project area. Impervious surfaces are impenetrable surfaces, such as pavement and rooftops, through
which water cannot flow. Such surfaces cause channeling and increased flow of water at collections
points at down-gradient points on the surfaces. Although impervious surfaces do not generate pollution,
they (1) are a critical contributor to the hydrologic changes that impact waterways; (2) are a major
component of the intensive land uses that generate pollution; (3) prevent natural pollutant processing in
the soil by preventing percolation; and (4) serve as an efficient conveyance system transporting pollutants
into the waterways. The threshold value of imperviousness at which stream degradation first occurs is 10
percent impervious cover, which is indicative of an “impacted” stream or watershed (Arnold and Gibbons
1996).
The increase in impervious area could impact groundwater recharge, stormwater drainage, and water
pollution in the project area. Groundwater recharge could decrease as the surface area available for
infiltration is decreased. The volume of stormwater draining from the sites would increase as the
impervious area increases. This could result in more stormwater discharged into the FLC, which could
impact the pollutant load into the waterway. Construction BMPs and a SWPPP would be employed to
decrease erosion and stormwater runoff from disturbed soils and to prevent leakages and spills from
construction-related equipment and activities into the FLC and surrounding water bodies.
Requiring impervious areas greater than a specified area to be located farther back from the water’s edge
provides an opportunity to attenuate the runoff from these areas via infiltration and filtering through
vegetative buffers.
4.2.3
Minimum Boat Slip Alternative
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Land Use and Land Cover
The impacts under the Minimum Boat Slip Alternative would be similar to the impacts described in the
Maximum Boat Slip Alternative; however, the impacts under this alternative would be expected to
increase proportional to the phased development.
February 2009
4-5
1
4.3 WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY
2
4.3.1
Watershed Characterization
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
4.3.1.2
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Watershed Characterization
The No Action Alternative would have negligible impacts on the watershed hydrology and hydraulics if
the proposed upland developments are constructed. Stormwater runoff (hydrology) from impervious
surfaces of developed areas would be detained using construction BMPs. These could include retention
basins, infiltration basins, and first flush storage basins to mitigate the impact of the development on the
water quality of stormwater, flood control, and channel erosion. Though overland changes are expected,
the tidal volume and velocity (hydraulics) in the FLC would not be impacted by changes in the timing of
peak flows from surface water.
The Maximum Boat Slip Alternative would have negligible impacts on the watershed’s hydrology and
hydraulics. Construction BMPs would detain stormwater runoff from impervious areas and the timing of
surface water peak flows entering the FLC could be altered. However, tidal volume and velocity in the
FLC channel would not be impacted by additional inlets from new marinas.
4.3.1.3 Minimum Boat Slip Alternative
18
19
20
21
The Minimum Boat Slip Alternative would have negligible impacts on the watershed’s hydrology and
hydraulics, similar to the impacts described in the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative.
22
4.3.2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Hydrogeology/Groundwater
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Hydrogeology/Groundwater
The proposed upland developments would be connected to existing municipal water supplies and
wastewater treatment facilities. The increased potable water use described in Section 3.4.2 would serve
the upland development areas, and not the marinas proposed in this EIS. Therefore, any impacts resulting
from an increase in groundwater withdrawals to supply potable water to the upland developments would
likely be the same regardless of the number of marinas constructed. Drawdown impacts or saltwater
intrusion would remain unchanged by the addition of marinas.
Upland development would result in decreased pervious surface, decreasing the amount of rainfall
infiltrating to groundwater. The total developed area is less than one percent of the total drainage area.
Given the total watershed area of the drainage basin versus the developed area, any change in the resultant
recharge to groundwater would be negligible.
The addition of marinas in the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative does not add any notable impact on
groundwater or hydrogeology. The only long-term impacts expected in this alternative are due to
decreased infiltration adjacent to the FLC and would be negligible. As in the No Action Alternative,
upland development would change some pervious surfaces to impervious surfaces, such as parking lots
February 2009
4-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
and rooftops. Given the total watershed area of the drainage basin versus the developed area, the resultant
change in recharge to groundwater would be negligible.
Neither the potable water demand nor wastewater load to local municipalities would change from those
anticipated in the No Action Alternative. The only changes in recharge and groundwater withdrawals
would be due to the upland development. In the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative, the upland development
would continue, similar to the No Action Alternative. As a result, the addition of the maximum number of
marinas would not affect hydrogeology or groundwater.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
The only long-term impacts expected in this alternative would be due to decreased infiltration and would
be negligible. As described in the No Action Alternative, upland development would change some
pervious surfaces to impervious surfaces. Because the total developed area is less than one percent of the
total drainage area, the resultant change in recharge to groundwater would be negligible.
22
4.3.3
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
The Minimum Boat Slip Alternative would have negligible impacts on groundwater and hydrogeology.
Upland developments would be connected to local municipal water supplies. Neither the potable water
demand nor wastewater load to local municipalities would change from those anticipated in the No
Action Alternative. The only changes in recharge and groundwater withdrawals would be due to the
upland development. As a result, the impacts of hydrogeology or groundwater would be similar to the
impacts described in the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative.
Water Quality
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Water Quality
The No Action Alternative would have negligible impacts on water quality. Under the No Action
Alternative, sources contributing to pollutant loadings are from the surrounding watershed, upland
developments (of land use activities adjacent to the FLC), point sources, and boating activities. Loads
from the surrounding watershed would remain consistent with existing conditions. Assuming
development occurs in upland areas in the No Action Alternative, stormwater pollutant loads could be a
factor influencing water quality in the FLC. Upland development would also increase the number of
residents in the ROI and increase the demand on wastewater treatment facilities. Under the No Action
Alternative, the number of wet boat slips on the FLC, not including single-family residential boat slips,
would remain at 610 and no slips would be added, having no change on existing water quality conditions.
Development along the FLC in upland areas would increase the impervious area and pollutants, such as
sediment and nutrients. The increase in these pollutant loads would be negligible with implementation of
BMPs both during and after construction. These could include retention basins, infiltration basins, and
first flush storage basins to mitigate the impact of the development on the water quality of stormwater,
flood control, and erosion. BMPs would be managed to ensure their efficiency. Sedimentation in
waterbodies is often caused by improper installation and maintenance of BMPs during construction. After
construction, BMPs implemented to detain water, settle sediment, and decrease nutrients would be
maintained by marina land owners to ensure efficiency rates are maintained.
The upland developments would also be connected to existing municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
The increased wastewater would be created from the upland development areas, and not the marinas
proposed in this EIS. Therefore, an increase in the discharge from wastewater treatment facilities resulting
from upland development would likely be the same regardless of the number of marinas constructed.
February 2009
4-7
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
4.3.3.2
The Maximum Boat Slip Alternative would have negligible impacts on water quality in the FLC, based
on results obtained using the water quality model EFDC which simulated the impacts of the proposed
developments and the addition of new marinas (Appendix S). This modeling effort was conducted to
consider the impacts of loads from the surrounding watershed and loads from upland development on
water quality in the FLC. The model was first calibrated to existing conditions for the FLC, where the
land use activities were simulated as represented by the 2001 USGS National Land Cover Dataset. The
model was then updated to include the proposed marinas and land use activities were altered to represent
the presence of upland development, utilizing data from three stations monitored by ADEM in and around
the FLC (WO1A in Wolf Creek, IC1A in the Intracoastal Waterway in Gulf Shores, and at Bon Secour
River at Oyster Bay Canal). The modeled results for existing conditions and conditions after marina
development were compared. These results indicate little change in DO, total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
and fecal coliform. DO standards have historically posed a problem for water quality in the FLC,
specifically during the summer months; although since 2003 the FLC has met the Alabama state standard
(Section 3.3.3). Model results simulated the month of July and indicated an average DO of 5.1 mg/L
under the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative, meeting the Alabama state standard of <5.0 mg/L. Appendix S
presents the modeled results for both conditions.
The modeled results of the proposed developments evaluate the impact on the entire system. The results
indicate that by changing land use activities in less than one percent of the watershed area of this system,
little change would result. Results also assume that BMPs would be implemented in the project area.
BMPs could include retention basins, infiltration basins, and first flush storage basins to mitigate the
impact of the development on the water quality of stormwater, flood control, and erosion. Correct BMP
installation and maintenance is important to prevent sedimentation in waterbodies. After construction,
BMPs implemented to detain water, settle sediment, and decrease nutrients would be maintained by land
owners to ensure efficiency rates are maintained. There is also a need for residents to curb domestic pets,
pickup their waste, and dispose of waste in trash reciprocals.
Localized impacts at individual marinas were evaluated using equations provided in Environmental
Impacts: Assessment Techniques of Marinas by the EPA. These equations were used to determine the DO
remaining in each marina during a critical period. Since the development of this guidance, a number of
measures have been taken to improve water quality for marinas, including the Alabama Clean Boating
Act. This Act authorizes inspections of MSDs by the ALDCNR on all recreational and residence vessels
that carry an on-board sewage system. The law also requires all marinas with boat customers that use
MSDs with holding tanks to install a boat sewage pump-out system for handling boating wastes at their
facility. Marinas without pump-out or waste reception capability are prohibited from docking vessels with
on-board holding tanks containing untreated waste (Outdoor AL 2008).
The Alabama Clean Boating Act requires the proper management and disposal of pollutant loads that
would have historically contributed to water quality degradation. With current requirements, loads from
marinas would not impact water quality in the marinas or in the FLC. Historically, large loads of oxygen
consuming wastes were disposed of in marinas from onboard wastewater and through disposal of fish
waste. Under the Alabama Clean Boating Act, marinas must implement pump-out stations for wastewater
and fish cleaning stations. The DO represented by the EFDC model from the FLC are considered ambient
conditions entering and remaining in marinas. Therefore, water quality standards would be achieved
under this alternative in the FLC, as well as in the proposed marinas.
February 2009
4-8
1
2
3
4
5
4.3.3.3
6
4.4 INFRASTRUCTURE
7
4.4.1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
The Minimum Boat Slip Alternative would have negligible impacts on water quality in the FLC, similar
to the impacts described under the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative.
Traffic and Transportation
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Traffic and Transportation
Direct impacts to traffic and transportation could occur under the No Action Alternative. The results of a
travel demand model, commissioned by Baldwin County as part of the Countywide Comprehensive Plan
(Baldwin County Commission, 2008), show the projected growth of traffic to the year 2030. The travel
demand model assumed growth and historical trends, and utilized average daily traffic volumes to
indicate traffic growth on specific roadways, as well as anticipating new roadways. The projected traffic
volumes are shown in Figure 42. The percentage of traffic growth for the roadways and a comparison of
the current roadway capacities are shown in Table 53.
Figure 42. 2030 Projected Average Daily Traffic
20
February 2009
4-9
1
Table 53. Existing and Future Average Daily Traffic
Average Daily Traffic Counts
Location
2005
S.R. 180
West of S.R. 161
S.R. 180
East of S.R. 161
S.R. 182 West of S.R. 161
S.R. 182
East of S.R. 161
S.R. 161
S.R. 182 at Florida State Line
S.R. 59 south of Intracoastal Waterway
C.R. 4 West of S.R. 59
2005
LOS
2030
Projected
Existing
Roadway
Capacity
14,590
F
34,400
10,000
%
Change
20052030
135%
5,450
A
7,200
10,000
32%
18,680
18,740
A
B
43,200
36,200
31,100
31,100
131%
93%
17,060
12,750
31,380
1,100
A
A
D
41,100
36,200
62,300
22,000
26,600
31,100
31,100
10,000
141%
184%
99%
1900%
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Notes: Existing Counts: Alabama Department of Transportation Traffic Count Maps
2005 LOS: Orange Beach Community Preservation and Growth Management Plan (2006)
2030 Project ADT: Baldwin County Comprehensive Plan (2008)
Roadway Capacity: Mobile Area Transportation Study Model Capacities by Functional Class
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
The traffic projections illustrated above show that the average daily traffic counts in each location would
experience growth. According to Table 53, S.R. 180, West of S.R. 161, could experience the lowest
projected percentage change from 2005 to 2030, with 32 percent growth, while C.R. 4 West of S.R. 59
could experience 1900 percent growth. Growth over 100 percent could occur in 5 of the 8 listed locations.
Under the No Action Alternative, the roadway improvements proposed in the 2000 Alabama Statewide
Long Range Transportation Plan, the City of Orange Beach Community Preservation and Growth
Management Plan, and the South Alabama Regional Planning Organization would continue according to
funding allocations.
If the proposed upland developments are constructed, the impacts would be similar to those listed below
in the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative. If the market conditions do not necessitate the need for the
number of proposed units or amount of retail space, or these do not become constructed quickly, the
roadway infrastructure to be in place would accommodate the anticipated traffic under the No Action
Alternative.
Direct impacts to traffic and transportation could occur under the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative. The
proposed developments are anticipated to create approximately 16,585 additional condominium units and
an estimated 961,500 square feet of additional commercial/retail property. Table 54 illustrates that
development of this magnitude would amount to an expected increase of approximately 85,640
vehicles/day.
February 2009
4-10
1
Table 54. Summary of Transportation System Impacts
Development
47 Canal Place
Walker Creek/ Portage
Crossing
City
Orange Beach
Orange Beach
Commercial/
Retail Area
(sq-ft)
0
Avg. Daily
Traffic
Demand
from
Com/Retail
(vehicles)
0
516
0
2,580
0
0
7,500
7,450
730
0
473
Bayside Harbour
Bon Secour Village
Eastern Marina
Delfino Phase 1
Delfino Phase 2
Harbour Lights
KFPH Properties
Lawrenz Eastern Marina
Lawrenz Western Marina
Oyster Bay Marina
Summerdance
501 Point West
Gulf Shores
1,791
116
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
0
6,000
724
400
340
72
1,250
288
1,000
3,175
1,137
0
750,000
25,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
70,000
0
7,000
27,000
0
30
20,800
3,450
2,100
1,810
480
5,500
1,580
4,555
12,150
5,065
0
9,488
1,035
1,166
1,035
893
2,025
0
450
1,088
0
Waterways East
Gulf Shores
292
0
1,600
0
Gulf Shores Total
14,794
961,500
59,820
17,651
Total
16,585
961,500
67,990
17,651
Orange Beach Total
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total No. of
Condominium
Units
1,275
Avg. Daily
Traffic Demand
from
Condominium
(vehicles)
5,560
Notes: Source for projected average daily traffic: Institute of Transportation Engineers (2003)
Trips projected for Condominium Units
Land Use: 230 Residential Condominium/Townhouse, Pg. 366
Equation used: Ln(Trips)= 0.85 Ln(Units) + 2.55
Trips projected for Commercial/Retail Area
Land Use: 820 Shopping Center, Pg. 1448
Equation used: Ln(Trips)= 0.65 Ln(1000 Sq. feet gross leasable space) + 5.83 This is discounted by 50% for the internal
trips and by 25% for pass by trips.
February 2009
4-11
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
The average daily traffic demand that could be generated from the full build out scenario for the proposed
developments is shown in Table 53. These numbers were based on the calculations of average daily
traffic demand as outlined in the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual (2003).
The amount of projected traffic assumes that the all of the condominium units and retail space is fully
occupied, immediately. According to the Alabama Gulf Coast Convention & Visitors Bureau’s August
2008 Monthly Economic Update, the annual occupancy rate for condominium units in the area was 57.3%
for 2007 and 55.5% for 2008. These annual occupancy rates suggest that the transportation demand under
the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative could be less than described below; however, without the ability to
predict the occupancy rates in the future, the impacts of the full build out scenario with maximum
occupancy rates are analyzed.
Table 53 indicates that approximately 22,000 vehicles/day could be generated by the proposed
developments on C.R. 4, west of S.R. 59, under a full build out scenario with maximum occupancy rates.
For comparison purposes, the capacity of a four lane roadway is 31,100 vehicles/day as calculated by the
Mobile Area Transportation Study Model Capacities by Functional Class. The improvement of 5 lanes on
C.R. 4, west of S.R. 59, which have been recommended in the Baldwin County Comprehensive Plan
(2008), would have the capacity to accommodate an occupancy rate of 75% or less for the proposed
developments.
Table 53 also indicates that approximately 60,000-80,000 vehicles/day could be generated by the
proposed developments at the C.R. 4 and S.R. 59 intersection. A majority of this traffic would be turning
south onto S.R. 59 over the S.R. 59 Bridge. This could also increase the traffic on other roadways in the
area such as S.R. 180 and S.R. 182. Current and ongoing improvements to roadways in the project area
(See Section 3.4.1.4.3) have increased the capacity to accommodate an occupancy rate of 75% or less for
the proposed development.
This traffic study did not evaluate turning movement counts, seasonal adjustments, or peak hour factors.
With the amount of traffic that could be generated by the development, a more detailed study of the S.R. 4
and S.R. 59 intersection may be necessary.
Hurricane Evacuation Impact Analysis
A hurricane evacuation impact analysis has been prepared to evaluate the impacts the proposed
developments could have on the evacuation of southern Baldwin County during an approaching
hurricane. The full study can be found in Appendix T. Traffic congestion and clearance times were
predicted for various hurricane threat scenarios involving Baldwin and Mobile Counties, as well as the
western Florida panhandle. To update the existing hurricane evacuation transportation analysis, the
proposed developments’ dwelling unit figures and evacuation zone location were included in the analysis.
All the proposed developments fall within the Category 3 hurricane evacuation zone, with 14 of the 16
developments in the Gulf Shores north/Bon Secour evacuation subzone. Two developments, 47 Canal
Place and Walker Creek, fall within the Wolf Bay east evacuation subzone.
Previous hurricane evacuation assessments have shown that the majority of tourists will evacuate a
potential hurricane-impacted area before an official evacuation being ordered. Without the proposed
developments, up to 225,000 people, including permanent residents and a high tourist population, would
evacuate the southern Baldwin County area in a worst-case Category 5 hurricane scenario. Once the
proposed developments are constructed, the evacuating population increases to 283,000, and public
shelter demand would increase from 17,500 to 19,800 evacuees.
Evacuation behavioral parameters developed in the USACE Hurricane Evacuation Study and
socioeconomic data were used to estimate evacuating vehicle volumes for key roadway segments with
and without the proposed developments. Behavioral parameters include evacuation participation rates,
February 2009
4-12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
destination percentages, and vehicle usage rates. With the exception of 47 Canal Place and Walker Creek,
permanent residents and tourists at the proposed developments would use S.R. 59 as the primary
evacuation route (Figure 29). Residents and tourists at 47 Canal Place and Walker Creek would use the
Foley Beach Expressway or S.R. 180 as the primary evacuation route. The S.R. 59 evacuation route is
impacted to a greater degree by each increase in storm intensity because of more south Baldwin County
residents being asked to evacuate. The greatest impacts to evacuation routes and timing would be for
Category 3, 4, and 5 hurricanes.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
4.4.2
16
4.4.2.1 Water Supply
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
4.4.2.1.1
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Water Supply
If the proposed upland developments are constructed, the impacts would be similar to those listed below
number of proposed units or amount of retail space, or these do not become constructed quickly, the water
supply infrastructure to be in place could accommodate the anticipated demands under the No Action
Alternative.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
4.4.2.1.2
The impacts under the Minimum Boat Slip Alternative would be similar to the described in the Maximum
Boat Slip Alternative; however, the impacts experienced under this alternative would increase
proportional to the phased development. If the market conditions do not necessitate the need for the
roadway infrastructure to be in place would accommodate the increase in traffic.
Utilities
Direct and Indirect Impacts to the Gulf Shores Water Supply
Direct impacts to the Gulf Shores water supply could occur under the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative. A
total of 13 of the 15 proposed developments are located within the limits of the City of Gulf Shores.
These developments would create approximately 14,794 additional condominium units and an estimated
961,500 square feet of additional commercial/retail property. Table 55 illustrates that development of this
magnitude would amount to an expected increase of approximately 4.4 MGD (average daily
residential/commercial water demand not including fire flow) of potable water demand on the Gulf
Shores Water System. This increase in potable water demand is representative of maximum condominium
capacity and a full build out scenario of the upland developments, which would be considered peak
capacity. It is not reflective of seasonal variations of higher flows expected in summer months during the
peak tourist season versus lower flows in winter months. Given the current operating capacity of 5.4
MGD, which is 79% of the available capacity, the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative would require an
increase in water utilities during build-out to address the projected demands. Gulf Shores Utilities
currently does not have plans to expand existing water treatment plants in the near future, although the
utility continually evaluates proposed developments to determine if an expansion of the water system is
needed to accommodate growth.
February 2009
4-13
1
Table 55. Summary of Water System Impacts
Development
47 Canal Place
Crossing
City
Orange
Beach
Orange
Beach
Total No. of
Condominium
Units
Commercial/
Retail Area
(sq-ft)
Approx.
Equivalent
Residential
Unit (ERU)/
Equivalent
Residential
Connection
(ERC)
1,275
0
1,062
371,726
516
0
430
150,440
Approx.
Anticipated
Potable
Water
Demand
(gal)
1,791
0
1,492
522,166
Bayside Harbour
Bon Secour Village
Eastern Marina
Delfino Phase 1
Delfino Phase 2
Harbour Lights
KFPH Properties
Oyster Bay Marina
Summerdance
501 Point West
Gulf Shores
116
7,500
99
34,697
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
0
6,000
724
400
340
72
1,250
288
1,000
3,175
1,137
0
750,000
25,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
70,000
0
7,000
27,000
0
0
5,249
611
343
292
67
1,065
240
835
2,654
947
0
1,836,975
214,005
120,127
102,050
23,330
372,621
83,966
292,368
928,828
331,492
Waterways East
Gulf Shores
292
0
243
85,133
Gulf Shores Total
14,794
961,500
12,645
4,425,590
Overall Total
16,585
961,500
14,137
4,947,756
Orange Beach Total
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Notes: ERU/ERC Factor per Multifamily – 2 Bedroom Condo Unit: 0.833
ERU/ERC Factor per 1,000-sf Commercial Area: 0.334
Anticipated Demand calculated using 350-gallons per ERU/ERC
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
4.4.2.1.3
Direct and Indirect Impacts to the City of Orange Beach Water Supply
Direct impacts to the Orange Beach water supply could occur under the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative.
Two of the 15 proposed developments are located within the limits of the City of Orange Beach. These
developments would create approximately 1,791 additional condominium units. Table 55 illustrates that
development of this magnitude would amount to an expected increase of approximately 0.5 MGD of
potable water demand (average daily residential/commercial water demand not including fire flow) on the
Orange Beach Water System.
Minimum Boast Slip Alternative
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Water Supply
Maximum Boat Slip Alternative; however, the impacts experienced under this alternative would increase
number of proposed units or amount of retail space, or these do not become constructed quickly, the water
supply infrastructure in place would accommodate the demand.
February 2009
4-14
1
4.4.2.2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
4.4.2.2.1
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
34
35
36
37
38
4.4.2.2.2
Wastewater
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Wastewater
If the proposed upland developments are constructed, the impacts would be similar to the impacts listed
below in the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative. If the market conditions do not necessitate the need for the
wastewater infrastructure to be in place could accommodate the anticipated demands under the No Action
Alternative.
MAXIMUM BOAT SLIP ALTERNATIVE
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Gulf Shores Wastewater
Direct impacts to the Gulf Shores wastewater system could occur under the Maximum Boat Slip
Alternative. Under this alternative, the proposed upland developments are anticipated to create
approximately 14,794 additional condominium units and an estimated 961,500 square feet of additional
commercial/retail property. Development of this magnitude would amount to an expected increase of
approximately 4.3 MGD of wastewater demand, with an estimated 3.8 MGD within the City Limits of
Gulf Shores as shown in Table 56.11 Additional capacity separate from the residential units would be
necessary to accommodate the wastewater generated from facilities on board vessels at the marinas. The
amount of additional wastewater is directly dependent on the size of the vessels and their use.
The Gulf Shores Wastewater Reclamation Facility has a current system capacity of 4 MGD and is
operating at 50% capacity. Additional capacity is available and plans are in place to upgrade to 6 MGD.
The Gulf Shores wastewater treatment plant discharges treated effluent into the GIWW, and an increase
of the wastewater influent flows could potentially require modifications on the conditions of the plant’s
wastewater permits.
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Orange Beach Wastewater
Direct impacts to the Orange Beach wastewater system could occur under the Maximum Boat Slip
Alternative. Development of this magnitude would amount to an expected increase of approximately 4.3
MGD of wastewater demand, with an estimated 0.5 MGD within the City limits of Orange Beach as
shown above in Table 56. Additional capacity separate from the residential units would be necessary to
accommodate the wastewater generated from facilities on board vessels at the marinas. The amount of
additional wastewater is directly dependent on the size of the vessels and their use.
The City of Orange Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant has a capacity of 5 MGD and a new wastewater
treatment plant is expected to start operations by spring 2010. The wastewater treatment plant discharges
treated effluent into the FLC, and an increase of the wastewater influent flows could potentially require
modifications on the conditions of the plant’s wastewater permits.
11
Wastewater demands for the proposed developments are based on industry standards in southeast part of the Country. An
Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) is equivalent to 300 gallons of wastewater. A typical ERU for a 2 bedroom condominium is
0.833. The typical number of ERUs for commercial land use is 0.334.
February 2009
4-15
1
Table 56. Summary of Wastewater System Impacts
Total No. of
Condominium
Units
1,275
Commercial/
Retail Area
(sq-ft)
0
Approx.
ERU/ ERC
1,062
Approx.
Anticipated
Potable
Water
Demand
(gal)
318,623
Orange Beach
516
1,791
0
0
430
1.492
128,948
447,571
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
1,137
116
0
7,500
947
99
284,136
29,740
Gulf Shores
0
0
0
0
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
6,000
724
400
340
72
750,000
25,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
5,249
611
343
292
67
1,574,550
183,433
102,966
87,471
19,997
Gulf Shores
1,250
70,000
1,065
319,389
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
288
1,000
3,175
0
7,000
27,000
240
835
2,654
71,971
250,601
796,138
Gulf Shores
292
0
243
72,971
Gulf Shores Total
14,794
961,500
12,645
3,793,363
Overall Total
16,585
961,500
14,137
4,240,934
Development
47 Canal Place
Walker Creek/
Portage Crossing
City
Orange Beach
Orange Beach Total
501 Point West
Bayside Harbour
Bon Secour Village
Eastern Marina
Bon Secour Village
West
Delfino Phase 1
Delfino Phase 2
Harbour Lights
KFPH Properties
Lawrenz Eastern
Marina
Lawrenz Western
Marina
Oyster Bay Marina
Summerdance
Waterways East
2
3
4
5
Notes: ERU/ERC Factor per Multifamily – 2 Bedroom Condo Unit: 0.833
ERU/ERC Factor per 1,000-sf Commercial Area: 0.334
Anticipated Demand calculated using 300-gallons per ERU/ERC
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
4.4.2.2.3
13
4.4.2.3 Stormwater
14
15
16
17
18
4.4.2.3.1
wastewater infrastructure in place would accommodate the demand.
Negligible impacts from stormwater could be expected under the No Action Alternative. If the upland
developments are constructed, the impacts would be similar to the impacts listed below in the Maximum
Boat Slip Alternative. Development under the No Action Alternative would be at a more modest scale
because the boat slips themselves would not be constructed, and because the lack of boat slips could
February 2009
4-16
1
2
3
4
5
6
affect the decision to build out this area, reducing the amount of development of the upland waterfront
property. Each of the proposed upland developments would be required to meet the minimum treatment
volume of 0.5-inches over the project site as required by ADEM. Also, developments would have to
fulfill the current state standard for pollutant removal. The City of Orange Beach Stormwater regulations
are more stringent than ADEM regulation. Therefore, the proposed developments within this jurisdiction
would be less likely to discharge high concentrations of water soluble organics.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
4.4.2.3.2
16
17
18
19
20
4.4.2.3.3
21
4.4.2.4 Solid Waste
22
23
24
25
26
27
4.4.2.4.1
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
4.4.2.4.2
Negligible impacts from stormwater could be expected under the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative. Water
quality impacts are the primary concern for stormwater discharges into the FLC. Each of the
developments would be required to meet the minimum treatment volume of 0.5-inches over the project
site as required by ADEM. Also, developments would have to fulfill the current state standard for
pollutant removal. The City of Orange Beach Stormwater regulations are more stringent than ADEM.
Therefore, the proposed developments within this jurisdiction would be less likely to discharge high
concentrations of water soluble organics.
Maximum Boat Slip Alternative; however, the impacts under this alternative would increase proportional
to the phased development.
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Solid Waste
If the upland developments are constructed, the impacts would be similar to the impacts listed below in
the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative. If the market conditions do not necessitate the need for the number
of proposed units or amount of retail space, or these do not become constructed quickly, the capacity of
the landfill could accommodate the anticipated demands under the No Action Alternative.
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Solid Waste
Solid waste generated by the proposed developments would be disposed of in the Magnolia Landfill. An
average solid waste production per person per day of 6.3 pounds has been used to calculate the
approximate anticipated solid waste pounds/day for the proposed developments presented in Table 57.
Table 57 illustrates that development of this magnitude would amount to an expected increase of
approximately 261,214 lbs/day, or 130 tons/day. Magnolia Landfill is currently permitted for a volume of
350 tons per day but an application has been submitted to increase the permitted volume to 900 tons/day.
The increase of solid waste generated by the proposed developments would be within the expanded
capacity of the landfill.
February 2009
4-17
1
Table 57. Summary of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Impacts
Development
47 Canal Place
Crossing
Approx.
Anticipated
Solid
Waste
(lbs/day)
20,081
City
Orange Beach
Total No. of
Condominium
Units
1,275
Waste
Generation
Rate
(per person)
6.3
Orange Beach
516
6.3
8,127
28,208
Orange Beach Total
501 Point West
Bayside Harbour
Bon Secour Village Eastern
Marina
Delfino Phase 1
Delfino Phase 2
Harbour Lights
KFPH Properties
Oyster Bay Marina
Summerdance
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
1,137
116
6.3
6.3
17,908
1,827
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
Gulf Shores
0
6,000
724
400
340
72
1,250
288
1,000
3,175
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
0
94,500
11,403
6,300
5,355
1,134
19,688
4,536
15,750
50,006
Waterways East
Gulf Shores
292
6.3
4,599
Gulf Shores Total
233,006
Total
261,214
2
3
Notes: Waste Generation Rates based on actual for Orange Beach
Condominium units assumed to house an average of 2.5 people
4
5
6
7
8
4.4.2.4.3
9
4.4.2.5 Hazardous Waste
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Solid Waster
proportional to the phased development.
10
11
12
13
4.4.2.5.1
14
15
16
17
18
4.4.2.5.2
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Hazardous Waste
As discussed in Section 3.11, there are currently no hazardous waste facilities in the area. Therefore, there
are no anticipated impacts for hazardous materials.
Direct and indirect impacts to hazardous waste would be similar as the impacts discussed under the No
Action Alternative.
February 2009
4-18
1
2
3
4
4.4.2.5.3
5
4.4.2.6 Electrical Power
Direct and indirect impacts to hazardous waste would be similar as the impacts discussed under the No
Action Alternative.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
4.4.2.6.1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4.4.2.6.2
26
27
28
29
4.4.2.6.3
30
4.4.2.7 Natural Gas
31
32
33
34
35
4.4.2.7.1
36
37
38
39
40
4.4.2.7.2
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Electrical Power
If the upland developments are constructed, the impacts would be similar to the impacts discussed below
electrical power infrastructure to be in place could accommodate the anticipated demands under the No
Action Alternative.
Electrical power is available along most roads in the area of the proposed developments. All new
electrical facilities would need to be underground per city ordinances. Any line extensions (including
upgrades to the lines needed to provide power) would be installed at full cost to the developer, excluding
transformer and meter costs. The capacity impact is not anticipated to be a concern for the electric
provider, as a new substation is currently planned in the vicinity of the project area.
Power Source recently increased the price of the agreement with Baldwin EMC by six percent. This
translated, largely due to a restructuring of cost sharing with developers, to a rate increase of four percent
for the customers of Baldwin EMC. Another rate increase is expected in early 2009; however, the current
instability of the energy market could postpone the increase. The addition of the proposed developments
to the grid would not impact the rate of Power Source customers.
Direct and indirect impacts to electrical power would be similar as the impacts discussed under the
Maximum Boat Slip Alternative.
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Natural Gas
At this stage of the proposed developments it is difficult to define the impacts on the natural gas utilities.
If natural gas would be used in the proposed developments, the natural gas providers would have to
modify their current infrastructure to accommodate natural gas needs for the proposed developments.
Direct and indirect impacts to natural gas would be similar as the impacts discussed under the No Action
Alternative.
February 2009
4-19
1
2
3
4
5
4.4.2.7.3
6
4.5 SOCIEOECONOMICS
Direct and indirect impacts to natural gas would be similar as the impacts discussed under the No Action
Alternative.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
4.5.1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
4.5.2
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Socioeconomics
Short-term adverse and long-term beneficial indirect impacts could occur under the No Action
Alternative. If the upland development does occur, the impacts would be similar to the impacts listed
below in the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative. Growth under the No Action Alternative would be largely
beneficial to the economy; however, short-term labor and housing shortages could result if expansion
occurs in too short a time frame or if increases in infrastructure and investment lag behind employment
and population growth.
Direct Impacts to Socioeconomics
Direct impacts would not be expected. Under this alternative, the USACE would approve permits for up
to 3,093 boat slips on the FLC through the year 2025. The action of approving a permit would not impact
the regional economy. The subsequent, indirect action of the applicant receiving the permit to then build a
boat slip would affect the economy.
Indirect Impacts to Socioeconomics
Short-term adverse and long-term beneficial indirect impacts would be expected. With the receipt of the
permits, private developers would construct 15 developments along the FLC. The marina facilities would
complement proposed on-site mixed-use resort communities. The proposed communities would serve the
needs and desires of permanent residents and second-home buyers and vacationers looking for affordable
coastal communities.
The proposed alternative action is needed to meet market demand of residential property owners along the
FLC for wet and dry storage of watercraft and for convenient and safe waterway access for recreational
pursuits. The marinas and resorts would be constructed over a number of years. Under the Maximum Boat
Slip Alternative, the USACE would approve permits for up to 3,093 boat slips on the FLC through the
year 2025. The completed resorts would encompass the following components: marinas with wet boat
slips and dry boat storage spaces; residential development of more than 16,700 condominiums and some
single-family homes, apartments, and townhomes; various retail and commercial establishments; and
recreational amenities such as swimming pools, spas, tennis courts, parks, and boardwalks. Each of these
components would require significant capital and human resources to build and maintain over the lifetime
of the project, generating large socioeconomic impacts on the region.
The following sections describe the indirect impacts of the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative on the ROI
socioeconomic conditions. The socioeconomic analysis is done in a qualitative manner, as opposed to
quantitative, because preliminary project cost data, build out schedules, facility specific information, and
occupancy estimates for the proposed resorts are not available. Such data is subject to change on the basis
of market conditions and as architectural designs evolve, making preliminary data very speculative.
February 2009
4-20
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Population. Long-term beneficial impacts on population would be expected under this alternative. The
proposed developments would contribute to the projected strong population growth in Baldwin County,
especially along the county’s coastal area. Beneficial impacts would be realized through an enhanced tax
base and increased revenues for expansion of community infrastructure and public services. Population
would be affected by several factors: construction of the proposed facilities, operation of the proposed
facilities, and the occupation of the new residences. The build out of the 15 developments would attract
construction workers to the ROI. As the projects near completion, retail and service personnel would be in
demand to operate the resorts and associated businesses. Workers could commute to job sites from
surrounding towns and counties. However, given that build-out would occur through 2025, and that
operation of the marinas and resorts would provide part- and full-time permanent employment, workers
might choose to move to Baldwin County. Although some positions would be filled by current residents,
the job opportunities would attract permanent and seasonal residents (for example, the peak season
attracts college students looking for summer work).
The occupation of the resort condominiums would impact ROI population. Some of these residences
would be occupied by current Baldwin County residents, which would not affect population. Other
housing units would be filled by non-resident workers. However, the primary target market would be
current residents looking for waterfront property and non-residents from outside the region looking to
establish a new permanent residence or looking to purchase a second/investment home for seasonal use.
The ROI population has grown on average 3 percent per year between 2000 and 2007. The U.S. Census
Bureau, in cooperation with the University of Alabama’s Center for Business and Economic Research,
projected the ROI population to be about 248,400 by 2025, which would be a 45 percent increase from
2007 (USBC and UA 2001a). The majority of this population growth would occur in southern Baldwin
County and the county’s eastern shore region.
The ROI has a higher proportion of older residents, with a median age of 39. The ROI’s 65 and over
population represented 15 percent of the total population in 2000. Compared to other counties throughout
the nation, this represents a medium-high percent of the population. Baldwin County’s estimated median
age is projected to increase to 42 years of age by 2012 (EDIS 2007). By 2025, the senior population is
forecast to account for 24 percent of the county’s population (USBC and UA 2001b). This indicates that
the trend of in-migrating permanent-population retirees is expected to continue to this region of the Gulf
Coast.
Employment. Short-term adverse and long-term beneficial impacts to employment would be expected
under this alternative. The ROI has experienced strong growth in the construction, retail, and services
industry sectors (see Section 3.5.2), and the proposed marinas and large-scale resort development project
would continue to support that growth. As of 2006, there were about 9,200 people in the ROI employed in
the construction industry. The retail and service sectors employed more than 40,000 people. However,
assuming there would be overlap of the build out of the 15 development projects, it is possible there could
be short-term labor supply shortages. Construction and operation of the facilities would require skilled
and unskilled labor. The types of construction jobs that would be created include construction site
managers, carpenters, heavy equipment operators, electricians, painters, plumbers, masons, and a variety
of other trades. Resort operation jobs would include property managers, reservation clerks, housekeeping,
building engineers, restaurant managers, cooks, wait staff, retail management and sales staff, bankers,
administrative professionals, and other such retail and commercial occupations. Short-term labor
shortages could result if infrastructure investment, such as housing, lagged behind employment demand
and population growth. Workers would be attracted from the surrounding region, either migrating in to
Baldwin County and becoming permanent residents, or commuting from their home outside of the
county. With the exception of Mobile County, all other counties bordering Baldwin County (Clarke,
Escambia, Monroe, and Washington) had unemployment rates higher than the national average and could
provide a source for a commuting labor pool. In addition, the Gulf Coast typically sees an influx of
February 2009
4-21
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
college students during the peak summer season. The new resorts would provide additional jobs for
students.
In the long-term, the proposed marina and resort developments would contribute to the continuation of the
region’s strong employment growth and low unemployment. New jobs indirectly created by this
alternative would be in the construction, retail, and services industries, where Baldwin County has already
experienced accelerated growth, in large part due to resort development along the Gulf Coast. This trend
would be expected to continue. The jobs directly created by construction and operation of the resorts
would create indirect jobs through the purchase of materials and supplies from other businesses, and
induced jobs through the expenditure of the salaries of these personnel for goods and services. As of
2007, Baldwin County accounted for a quarter of the state’s travel-generated employment. The Alabama
Tourism Department calculated that for every $80,872 of expenditures in the travel industry, one direct
job is created; for every two direct jobs created, the Alabama economy indirectly creates one additional
job (Alabama Tourism Department 2008).
Income. Long-term beneficial impacts to income would be expected. Construction and operation of the
marinas and resorts would increase earnings in the ROI through expenditures by businesses for materials
and supplies, and through employees spending their salaries on goods and services. Construction and
operation of the marinas and resorts would also generate tax revenues. During the construction phase, the
majority of taxes would be payroll taxes, which would be transferred to the federal government and
would not affect local government revenues. However, revenues from sales taxes, property taxes, lodging
taxes, and other fees such as marina mooring fees, would accrue to the state and local governments,
providing revenues for public services. The Alabama Tourism Department calculated that for every $1 in
travel-related spending, workers in Alabama earn 40 cents, state government collects 5 cents, and local
governments collect 2 cents. In 2007, Baldwin County earned $908 million from travel related
expenditures, a 12 percent increase over 2006. The county collected $11.2 million from state lodging tax,
an almost $1.6 million (16 percent) increase from 2006 (Alabama Tourism Department 2008). It is
anticipated that the 15 proposed resort developments would increase these earnings.
Housing. Short-term adverse and long-term beneficial impacts would be expected. Long-term beneficial
impacts would occur because of the construction of the new housing. The proposed alternative action is
needed to meet market demand of residential property owners along the FLC for wet and dry storage of
watercraft and for convenient and safe waterway access for recreational pursuits. The resorts would
provide a supply of housing and boat slips to meet the market demand for resort locations to serve the
needs and desires of non-residents looking for a waterfront location (such as retirees), second-home
buyers, and vacationers looking for affordable coastal communities. Market conditions would dictate the
type and price of housing units built in the resorts by developers.
Short-term adverse impacts could occur in terms of lack of housing supply and housing cost. Baldwin
County identified a lack of affordable housing for the area’s workforce. Increases in housing cost, land
cost, and increase in demand for housing due to population growth contribute to an affordable housing
problem. Over time, this problem would be attenuated, as the housing market would likely adjust by
increasing supply to meet the additional demand. The county has already taken action to address this
issue. The Baldwin Housing Authority was established in February 2008, with a mission to fast track
permitting to help developers of affordable housing and to look at the overlay of districts and help with
planning and zoning ideas. The Baldwin Housing Authority would partner with other interested
organizations to increase affordable housing opportunities and promote affordable housing resources to
existing businesses (Ferniany 2008; BCEDA 2008).
Quality of Life. Overall, beneficial impacts would be expected on quality of life. As noted earlier,
because expansion of the industry base would confer economic benefits on the region, the primary social
February 2009
4-22
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
concerns would materialize in the form of labor, housing, and public services shortages if expansion
occurs in a short time frame, or if other aspects of the economy also undergo a rapid expansion during the
development period. By having a development plan in place, regional planners would be better able to
assess public service impacts in the context of the overall economic status of the region. Forecasted
population growth would provide data for planners to estimate the need for public services such as
schools, emergency responders, and healthcare facilities to maintain acceptable service levels to the
public. Government revenues would increase through various tax sources, including property and sales
taxes. The region’s ability to absorb the expanded population and maintain levels of service would depend
on how additional revenues are allocated and the cooperation among the developers, the local economic
development authority, and local government to plan for continued increase in residential and tourist
population over the build-out period. The following paragraphs identify the anticipated impacts for each
of the key components of quality of life.
Schools. Short-term adverse impacts could occur. The majority (58 percent) of the proposed housing
units would be seasonal units for tourists and temporary residents (“snow birds”) and the remaining units
(42 percent) would be for permanent residents. It is anticipated that a portion of the permanent residences
would be filled by persons already residing in the region, which would not change local population or
school enrollment. It is also anticipated that, following recent demographic trends, a portion of the
permanent residences would be occupied by retirees. These factors indicate that many of the housing units
would not be occupied by school-age children of permanent residence. However, in-migrating workforce
would contribute to school enrollments. Short-term adverse impacts could occur in terms of inadequate
school facilities and personnel if the school system is overburdened by population increases. On the basis
of forecasted population growth, the county’s annual enrollment projections indicate an increase in public
school enrollment. The resort developers anticipate the possible need for additional schools and
incorporate that need into the development plans. To meet anticipated overall county population growth,
Baldwin County is developing an infrastructure assessment for public services, including schools
(Baldwin County 2006). Anticipating and planning for future demand on school facilities would minimize
the impact on public schools, giving the county time to prepare for future enrollment by increasing the
number of schools and the number of teachers. The increased population would provide an enhanced tax
base and increased revenues for expansion of public school services.
Public Safety and Healthcare. Short-term adverse impacts could occur. To accommodate future
population levels, police, fire, and medical services would need to expand to meet expected demand.
Population growth would create the need for additional police, fire, and emergency paramedic staff and
equipment and healthcare facilities. Short-term adverse impacts could occur if expansion of public
services does not keep pace with population. The resort developers and Baldwin County have anticipated
the need for these services. Developers have incorporated that need into their development plans for
additional police and fire precincts. These precincts would need to be located in close proximity to the
FLC to maintain required emergency response times to the new developments. To keep pace with
population growth and plan for future public safety needs, Baldwin County is developing an infrastructure
assessment for police, fire, and healthcare services (Baldwin County 2006). The increased population
would provide an enhanced tax base and increased revenues for expansion of public services.
Environmental Justice. No impacts would be expected. Implementing this alternative would not result in
disproportionate adverse environmental or health impacts on low-income or minority populations.
Minority populations would be identified where either the minority population of the affected area
exceeds 50 percent or the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than
the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic
analysis (CEQ 1997). Poverty thresholds as established by the Census Bureau were used to identify lowincome populations (see Section 3.5.6). The ROI does not exceed these thresholds; therefore, no impacts
February 2009
4-23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
would be expected. Construction of housing and retail and commercial facilities would not adversely
affect such populations, and could benefit persons by providing jobs.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
4.5.3
Protection of Children. Short-term minor adverse impacts on the protection of children would be
expected. Because construction sites can be enticing to children, construction activity could pose an
increased safety risk. During construction, the safety measures stated in 29 CFR Part 1926, Safety and
Health Regulations for Construction, would be followed to protect the health and safety of nearby
residents and construction workers. It is recommended that barriers and “No Trespassing” signs be placed
around construction sites to deter children from playing in these areas and that construction vehicles and
equipment be secured when not in use.
No impacts would be expected from hazardous or toxic substances, such as lead-based paint or asbestos
containing material. Such materials were widely used in the building products industry and for housing
maintenance for many years. New construction would not use building products containing hazardous
materials. To protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens in Baldwin County, the county requires
all construction (new construction, additions to existing structures, and remodeling) to meet specific
building codes, including the International Building Code, International Residential Code, and the
Baldwin County Supplemental Code for Residential Building (Baldwin County Commission 2008).
Direct Impacts to Socioeconomics
Direct impacts would not be expected. Under this alternative, the USACE would initially approve permits
for 1,943 boat slips, with the option of phasing-in 1,150 additional boat slips until the maximum number
of slips (3,093) is reached. The action of approving a permit would not impact the regional economy. The
subsequent, indirect action of the person receiving the permit to then build a boat slip would affect the
economy.
Indirect Impacts to Socioeconomics
Similar impacts as those listed under the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative would be expected, though
possibly at a more modest scale. Because the USACE would initially only permit a portion of the boat
slips through 2011, growth would be limited in the initial years. Subsequent growth in the outlying years
would depend on whether the USACE phases in the additional boat slip permits. Whether the permits
would be held at 1,943 or maximized out to 3,093, the development would result in long-term
socioeconomic beneficial impacts, with possible short-term adverse impacts. Growth would be largely
beneficial to the economy; however, short-term labor and housing shortages could result if expansion
occurs in too short a time frame or if increases in infrastructure and investment lag behind employment
and population growth. These problems would be less likely under this growth alternative, where
development along the FLC would be limited.
39
4.6 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
4.6.1
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Recreational Resources
Recreational resources would experience direct and indirect long-term impacts by implementing the No
Action Alternative. The number of people in the area seeking to participate in recreational activities
would be expected to increase proportionally with changes in population. The WCS predicts that the
number of summer visitors per month in Baldwin County would exceed 500,000 by the year 2025 (Taylor
Engineering 2006). The types of recreational opportunities in the area would be similar as described in
Section 3.6, but it could be expected that the number of recreational opportunities would increase in order
February 2009
4-24
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
to meet the demand of an increase in tourists and permanent residents. As an example, additional golf
courses could be constructed in the area to meet the increase in golfing demand.
It is anticipated that the projected increase in volume of recreational waterway traffic would be similar to
those outlined in Section 4.0 of the WCS (Projected Waterway Conditions). The WCS estimates that there
would be a 114 percent increase in volume by the year 2025. The increase in number of vessels was
calculated as 54, an increase from 47 in 2006 to 101 in 2025. This equals an increase of approximately 4
percent per year. The increase in commercial traffic was estimated as one half percent to one percent per
year. With the increase in recreational and commercial boat traffic on the FLC, there could be an increase
in the potential for accidents as the waterway becomes more congested. The mitigation measures
currently proposed by the cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, to initiate the presence of marine
police and expand boater safety courses, could help mitigate any significant adverse impacts.
4.6.2
Direct Impacts to Recreational Resources
Construction of additional boat slips on the FLC would result in a long-term direct impact to boating
access. Currently there is one public boat ramp, four marinas and boat storage facilities, and
approximately 35 private docks and piers on the FLC. Under this alternative, the developments would add
3,093 wet and dry boat slips and 17 marinas with access points to the FLC. This would result in a
significant long-term increase in the number of boats that have direct access to the FLC and the number of
boaters on the waterway. It is assumed that the marinas and boat slips at each development would be
available only to those who are residents or guests of that development, and not to the general public.
Along with increased boater access, the number of recreational facilities in the area would be expected to
increase due to construction of the proposed developments. Many of the developments include green
space to provide parks, lakes and ponds, boardwalks, and walking paths to their guests. Other recreational
facilities and opportunities associated with the developments include swimming pools, tennis courts,
clubhouses, retail centers, spas, restaurants, and yacht clubs.
A long-term direct impact to the overall safety of boaters in the area could result from the increase in
boater access points on the FLC. The newly constructed boat slips, and associated increase in traffic,
would require developers to find mitigating measures to allow for the increase in boat traffic without
reducing boater safety on the FLC. The “Draft Mitigating Plan for Water Capacity Study Foley Land Cut
of the GIWW between Mobile and Wolf Bay” is a plan developed in response to the WCS. This plan has
been developed on behalf of the 17 proposed marinas located on the FLC and proposes Management
Options that mitigate the reduction factors and increase the future waterway capacity along the FLC.
Reduction factor values were assigned to various safety issues, and the values given are a numerical
representation of reduction in safety on the FLC for reach issue. Safety issues include: Commercial
Vessels, Uneducated Boaters, Non-Local Operators, Waterway Access Locations, Excessive Vessel
Speed, Traffic Levels, and Personal Watercraft. Management options were developed for each of the
issues in order to decrease the impact that safety concerns could pose on the FLC. Application of these
management options, in turn, decreased the reduction factor values for each safety issue. The
Management Options for each safety issue is discussed in Appendix R. Table 58 (also Table 10.2 in the
Appendix R) presents calculated impacts of the Management Options in relation to reduction factors.
Along with the reduction factors, the Alabama Marine Resources would construct additional boat slips on
the FLC to patrol the waterway daily, and have jurisdictional capability to enforce local and state laws on
the water.
February 2009
4-25
1
2
Table 58. Calculations of Recommended Capacity with Construction of 16 Proposed
Marinas and Implementation of Management Plan
Navigation Concern
Commercial Vessels
Uneducated Boaters
Non-Local Operators
Waterway Access Locations
Excessive Vessel Speed
Traffic levels
Personal Watercraft
Sum of Factors
Reduction
Factor
Potential Decrease
in Reduction Factor
Updated
Reduction
Factor
0.125
0.150
0.100
0.178
0.125
0.125
0.050
0.853
0.0050
0.0155
0.0075
0.0040
0.0120
------0.0050
0.0490
0.1200
0.1345
0.0925
0.1740
0.1130
0.1250
0.0450
0.8040
Waterway Capacity Considerations
Hypothetical Maximum Capacity
Recommended Capacity for Commercial
Navigation Concerns
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
Vessels at one time on the FLC
1,296
191
1,296
----
1,296
254
Source: Taylor Engineering 2006
Indirect Impacts to Recreational Resources
Other recreational opportunities associated with water resources would also experience long-term indirect
impacts from the increased numbers of tourists and permanent residents brought to the area by the
developments. The charter fishing industry would see an increase in business resulting from the
developments bringing more tourists to the area. The many charter services around the FLC and
surrounding areas offer a variety of fishing opportunities to the newly arriving customers of the
developments. The guests could book fishing trips offering offshore, inshore, bottom fishing, trolling, fly
fishing, and overnight trips. Fishing tournaments held in the area could see indirect impacts as well. The
number of people actively participating in the tournaments, and the number of people attending various
tournament events, such as award ceremonies, could increase from implementing this alternative. The
annual Thunder on the Gulf powerboat races, held in Orange Beach, could experience an increase in the
amount of people in the area. Guests to the FLC could increase the numbers of people attending the races.
Guests of the developments could also present an indirect impact to other types of charter cruises by
booking a trip with one of the many dolphin, party, and luxury cruises offered in the area.
Long-term indirect impacts to Gulf State Park could occur under the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative.
This alternative would not have a direct impact on the number of people staying at the park, but the added
number of tourists to the area could result in an indirect impact by increasing the number of people
participating in the recreational opportunities offered by the park. There could be more daytime visitors
taking advantage of the golf course, lake activities, and nature programs. The amount of overnight visitors
would remain at current levels, unless the park added additional camping areas.
The Gulf Shores-Orange Beach Loop of the Alabama Gulf Coastal Birding Trail could experience an
increase in the amount of birders following the loop enjoying various loons, sparrows, gulls, wading
birds, and waterfowl. It would be expected that more visitors would take advantage of the trail during the
migratory bird season as waterfowl are passing through the area.
The area golf courses and country clubs would experience an indirect impact from an increase in
customers attracted by the full service golf shops and club houses, link side condominiums, and upscale
February 2009
4-26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
shopping offered by these golf courses. It is anticipated that more rounds would be played at the area golf
courses, and new golf courses could be constructed to meet the increase in demand.
An indirect impact to the Gulf Shores and Orange Beach area restaurants, retail centers, and various spas
and health centers could result from an increase in customers. Increased number of people staying in the
area as guests of the developments could translate to an increase in the number of customers frequenting
area restaurants, retail centers, and spas.
8
9
10
11
12
13
4.6.3
14
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
4.7.1
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Recreational Resources
proportional to the phased development.
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Geology and Soils
Short-term direct minor adverse impacts and long-term indirect negligible impacts on geology and soils
would be expected from implementation of the No Action Alternative. Development of the project area
and lands adjacent to USACE property would have minor adverse impacts. Some increase in soil
disturbance would be expected in previously undisturbed areas. Soil disturbance and sediment runoff
would occur during construction activities. After construction, exposed soils would either be paved or
revegetated. An increase in impervious surfaces would increase surface runoff. The implementation of
sediment control BMPs, including the installation of linear sediment barriers or gravel bag berms could
help slow or detain the flow of stormwater to allow sediment to settle and be trapped.
Minor adverse impacts on soils would be expected for landowners with property adjacent to government
property continuing to clear vegetative buffers. The reduction in vegetative cover could increase soil
erosion. If grassy cover was to remain in modified areas and bare soil was not exposed, the amount of soil
erosion would be limited. An increase in boating traffic could increase shoreline erosion due to wave
action caused by boat wakes.
Negligible adverse impacts on soils would be temporarily expected from the installation of private boat
docks in the ROI. Installation of docks could temporarily increase soil erosion when docks are anchored
to the shoreline. Docks could also reduce shoreline erosion by attenuating waves and boat wakes. In
addition, the small potential increase in boating activity under this alternative could increase wave action
and thus cause some shoreline erosion.
4.7.2
Short-term minor adverse impacts on soils would be expected under this alternative from disturbance
during construction, but construction would not permanently alter the geology or soils of the FLC. After
construction, exposed soils would be either paved or revegetated, and n increase in impervious surfaces
would increase surface runoff. The implementation of sediment control BMPs, including the installation
of linear sediment barriers or gravel bag berms, could help slow or detain the flow of stormwater to allow
sediment to settle and be trapped. Excavation of soil and sediment to create the proposed marinas and
marina access to the FLC would increase the amount of shoreline exposed to bank erosion. Measures that
February 2009
4-27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
have the potential to help control bank erosion would include the installation of native vegetation or rip
rap.
Long-term minor adverse impacts would be the result of increasing both boating activity and the number
of boat slips. Increasing the number of boat slips could cause an increase in the number of boats on the
FLC. Expanding boating activity could increase the amount of wave action in the FLC, causing additional
shoreline erosion.
8
9
10
11
12
4.7.3
13
4.8 ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
14
15
16
17
18
19
4.8.1
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Impacts for the Minimum Boat Slip Alternative would be similar to the impacts discussed in the
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Ecological Systems
If the upland developments are constructed, the impacts would be similar to that listed below in the
Maximum Boat Slip Alternative. Vegetative and wildlife resources, as well as sensitive species and
habitats, would have no changes to diversity or function under the No Action Alternative. There would
also be no net loss of wetlands under the No Action Alternative.
4.8.2
Direct Impacts to Ecological Systems
There would be direct impacts to ecological communities under the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative.
Construction of the mix-use developments and the dredging and filling for the associated marina would
have adverse impacts to upland pine communities located in the area. Upland pine communities along the
FLC would be cleared to allow for the proposed developments, as well as for safety purposes regarding
line of sight for boats entering and exiting the FLC through new marinas. Upland areas would also be
dredged to create marinas, and used as disposal sites for the resulting dredged sediments.
Sensitive animal species in the vicinity of the project area could experience direct impacts as a result of
the proposed developments. TES surveys were conducted in the vicinity of the FLC to ensure no sensitive
species would be impacted by the developments. TES species were not observed within the vicinity of the
FLC. It should be noted that although not observed during the surveys, there does exist the potential for
some TES to occur in the vicinity of the FLC. These species include the red-cockaded woodpecker, Bald
Eagle, Alabama red-bellied turtle, Gulf sturgeon, and Eastern indigo snake.
There are two sensitive habitats, pitcher plant bog and longleaf pine savanna, that have been identified in
the FLC area, but these habitats would experience no direct impacts as a result of the proposed
developments. Pitcher plant bog habitats have not been observed along the FLC. Although longleaf pine
savanna habitat has been observed in small areas along the FLC, there are no longleaf pine habitats within
any of the proposed developments.
There would be no impacts to EFH in the vicinity of the FLC. An oyster reef is located 2.5 miles
northwest of the Bayside Harbour project area that would not be impacted by the development, and a
survey of the Oyster Bay Marina project area concluded that there are no known oyster beds or
submerged aquatic vegetation in the area.
February 2009
4-28
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
34
A total of 2.06 acres of jurisdictional wetlands would be adversely impacted by three of the proposed
developments. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands would result from dredging and filling of the wetlands
to construct marinas and are associated with the following three developments: 501 Point West would
impact 0.8 acres, Summerdance East would impact 0.29 acres, and Walker Creek/Portage Crossing would
impact 0.97 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. The Summerdance East and 501 Point West applicants have
proposed to mitigate for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with mitigation
plans developed during the permit evaluation process, or by purchasing credits at approved mitigation
banks. A mitigation plan for Walker Creek/Portage Crossing has not been prepared.
Other possible wetland impacts would be avoided during construction, and certain mitigation measures
have also been proposed by the developers. An access bridge to 501 Point West from C.R. 4 would be
built spanning wetlands, and would be located to minimize the distance to cross the wetlands. Hydrology
of the area would be maintained using a system of culverts. The Bayside Harbour development would
construct boardwalks with no net loss of wetlands; one would run north-south along the Oyster Bay
shoreline and tidal fringe wetlands, and one would run east-west across another section of wetlands. A
proposed road for the Bon Secour Village West development in the western edge of the development
would maintain hydrologic connectivity to wetlands on either side of the road through the use of culverts.
The Bon Secour Village West development would maintain five-foot setbacks from jurisdictional
wetlands throughout the remainder of the development. The Oyster Bay Marina Development would
construct a boardwalk over tidally influenced wetlands to connect the upland development to the
associated marina. The boardwalk would be constructed to ADEM regulations, and would contain ¾ inch
spacing between planks to allow sufficient light to pass down to wetland vegetation below the boardwalk.
No net loss of wetlands would result from the construction of this boardwalk.
Indirect Impacts to Ecological Systems
Indirect impacts could be experienced by estuarine and marine habitats, aquatic wildlife, aquatic sensitive
plants and animals, and EFH from actions associated with the developments. A decrease to the overall
environmental quality of the aquatic habitat could result from the possible increases in turbidity and
decreases in water quality from dredging, increased boat traffic, and other stressors associated with the
proposed developments. Also, increased boater traffic on the FLC, as a result from new boat slips and
marinas, could cause indirect adverse impacts to aquatic species traveling the FLC. The Federally
protected Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) is known to be susceptible to harm from boat
traffic associated with similar developments. It should be noted that the manatee has never been observed
in the FLC, although its presence is possible.
4.8.3
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Ecological Systems
Impacts experienced under this alternative would be similar to the impacts discussed under the Maximum
Boat Slip Alternative. Only those impacts associated with increased boat traffic along the FLC would
differ because this alternative provides for the total number of boat slips to be permitted over a longer
period of time.
42
4.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES
43
44
45
46
4.9.1
No action alternative
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Cultural Resources
There would be no direct or indirect impacts to cultural resources under the No Action Alternative. Under
this alternative, the Corps would continue to review permits using the same procedures and analytical
February 2009
4-29
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
tools used in the past and would continue to identify and mitigate adverse impacts on cultural resources.
Federal and state regulations would continue to provide guidance on the protection of cultural resources.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
4.9.2
To protect cultural resources, the state of Alabama has a Strategic Plan & Comprehensive Statewide
Preservation Plan that was revised in 2003 (AHC, 2008). Alabama also has a set of guidelines for section
106 of the NHPA of 1966. The section 106 Program is in place to help identify historic and prehistoric
properties eligible for or listed in the National Register, assess the impacts of the undertaking on those
properties, and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse impacts on historic properties in the
state of Alabama (AHC, 2008). Aboriginal mounds and burials are covered in Aboriginal Mounds,
Earthworks and Other Antiquities (Alabama Code 41-3-1 to 41-3-6); Alabama Cemetery and Human
Remains Protection Act (93-905); and Burials (AHC Chapter 460-x-10). The purpose of these regulations
is to provide for the lawful excavation, relocation, and/or restoration of cemeteries and human remains as
described in Alabama Act 93-905. The AHC oversees the provisions of this Act relating permitting
activities, and has developed the Policy for Archaeological Survey and Testing in Alabama for Phase I
and II projects (AHC, 2008). Alabama underwater cultural resources are covered by AHC Chapter
460-x-12-.01. The purpose of this regulation is to provide for the lawful protection, exploration,
identification, excavation, preservation, and enjoyment of non-renewable underwater cultural resources as
defined in the Code of Alabama 1975 Section 41-9-290 through 299.2.
In addition, private organizations also work to protect cultural resources. These organizations include the
Alabama Trust for Historic Preservation, Alabama Archaeological Society, the Alabama Association of
Professional Archaeologists, the Alabama Poarch Band of Creek Indians, the Alabama Cemetery
Preservation Alliance, the AHC Black Heritage Council, and, locally, the Baldwin County Architectural
Preservation Review Board.
Local government and private associations can protect historic buildings, archaeological sites, and other
historic resources through these government mechanisms by requiring review of new construction and
adherence to federal and state laws protecting historic resources. Under the No Action Alternative, these
regulations, guidelines and private organizations would also continue to protect cultural resources in the
project area.
Direct Impacts to Cultural Resources
Under this alternative, cultural resources would not be directly impacted. The AHC has determined that
the proposed upland developments and marinas would have no impact on any known cultural resources
listed on or eligible for the NRHP (AHC, 2006). The three Phase I surveys required by the Alabama
SHPO, for the proposed Oyster Bay Marina, 501 Point West, and Bayside Harbour developments, found
no archeological resources or standing structures listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Resources within the project boundaries.
Should any archaeological cultural resources be encountered during project activities, work shall cease
and the AHC office consulted immediately.
Indirect Impacts to Cultural Resources
Minor long-term adverse indirect impacts to cultural resources located in the vicinity of the proposed
Oyster Bay Marina development. The Phase I Cultural Resource Survey conducted for this development
notes that the site file and literature search reveal that “Indian Canals and Mounds” (sites 1Ba122 to
1Ba128) are adjacent to the project area. However, the Phase I Cultural Resource Survey states that the
“Indian Mounds” are in an unlikely location and are most likely spoil piles associated with the dug canal.
February 2009
4-30
1
2
3
The canal is probably a historic site that served as a route between the settlement at Bon Secour and Little
Lagoon. Increased waterway traffic and recreational activities in Oyster Bay could cause erosion in the
canal.
4
5
6
7
8
4.9.3
9
4.10 AIR QUALITY
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Cultural Resources
4.10.1 No Action Alternative
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Air Quality
If the upland development would occur, the impacts would be similar to the impacts listed below in the
Maximum Boat Slip Alternative. Without construction of the upland developments, no activities with new
sources of air emissions would be established including construction, landscaping, boating, dredging, and
heating and cooling of houses and commercial properties. The permitting of stationary sources would not
be required. However, under the No Action Alternative, contemporaneous actions including other
regional growth would continue and have some level of impact to air quality.
4.10.2 Maximum Boat Slip Alternative
Implementing this alternative would have both short-term and long-term moderate adverse impacts to air
quality. Short-term impacts would be due to air emissions generated during the construction of the
proposed developments and marinas. Long-term impacts would be due to additional vehicle use, marine
watercraft emissions, landscaping activities, heating of houses, and the use of consumer products. These
increases would be greater than 100 tons per year (tpy) for NOx, VOCs, and CO. However, increases in
emissions would not be regionally significant, or contribute to a violation of any federal, state, or local air
regulations.
4.10.2.1 Emissions overview
The total direct and indirect emissions associated with the implementation of this alternative were
estimated (Table 59). Emissions from heavy construction activities, transportation of materials,
automobile trips, boating activities, landscaping, heating of houses, and the use of consumer products
were assessed. Pre-sales activities, planning, and scheduling would vary for each development. It was
assumed construction would begin in the fall of 2009, and total build-out of all developments and marinas
would occur within seven years. It was assumed that the operational emissions (such as automobiles and
recreational watercraft) would build-up evenly over a seven year period beginning in 2010.
Total NOx and VOC emissions due to the proposed development activities would exceed 100 tpy for all
years beyond 2011. Because the region is an attainment area, there is no existing emission budget.
However, it is not anticipated that the estimated emission would make up 10 percent or more of regional
emissions for any criteria pollutant, and not be regionally significant.
February 2009
4-31
1
Table 59. Estimated Total Annual Emissions
Total Emissions
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018+
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
NOx
3.7
27.3
173.8
308.1
374.1
480.1
586.4
693.4
796.4
774.1
VOC
0.4
9.1
88.0
137.7
175.2
219.7
264.3
309.0
347.6
316.5
Greater than
100 tpy
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Level of Impact
Moderate
Source: SCAQMD 2007, USEPA 2004
4.10.2.2 Mobile Sources and Recreational Watercraft
Mobile sources of concern primarily include automobiles and vehicular traffic. Watercraft are normally
considered non-road area sources of emissions. However, since O3 is a pollutant of concern for the region,
and peak watercraft use coincides with the ozone season, watercraft have been included in this discussion
for comparative purposes.
The primary air pollutants from automobiles and watercraft are CO, NOx, and VOCs. Lead emissions
from these sources have declined in recent years through the increased use of unleaded gasoline. Potential
SO2 and particulate emissions from mobile sources are small compared to emissions from point sources,
such as power plants and industrial facilities. Emissions from automobiles and watercraft associated with
this alternative have been estimated for an average summer weekday (Table 60).
Table 60. Estimated Automobile and Watercraft Emissions
Estimated Automobile and Watercraft Emissions
(Tons / Summer Weekday)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
VOC
NOx
0.67
0.84
Automobiles
Recreational
Watercraft
0.19
1.16
Total Emissions
0.86
2.00
Source: SCAQMD 2007, USEPA 2004
Although not regionally significant, these levels of emissions are substantial, and would constitute a
moderate impact to regional air quality.
Automobiles. Specific air quality impacts from roadway traffic are generally evaluated on two scales:
meso-scale and microscale.
Meso-scale—Meso-scale analysis would be performed for the entire AQCR by ADEM. Potential
emission increases from additional vehicle miles traveled resulting from an action could affect
regional O3 levels. However, because these are problems of regional concern and subject to air
February 2009
4-32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
transport phenomena under different weather conditions, regional impacts are generally evaluated
using airshed model(s). Meso-scale analysis is generally not conducted on a project-specific basis
and is not necessary for this EIS. ADEM would incorporate the development activities into their
regional planning assumption, and if necessary, implement regional controls in order to maintain
the AQCR’s attainment status.
Microscale— Microscale analysis is performed to identify localized hot spots of criteria
pollutants. CO is a site-specific pollutant with higher concentrations found adjacent to roadways
and signalized intersections. Microscale analysis is often conducted on a project-specific basis in
regions where CO is of particular concern. Because South Baldwin County is neither a
nonattainment, nor a maintenance area for CO, micro-scale analysis is not necessary for this EIS.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the CAA. The MSATs
are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some toxic compounds are
present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned.
Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products.
Traffic from these intersections would not be an air quality concern for MSAT because the intersections
affected are primarily secondary arterial roads. Quantitative procedures to conduct MSAT analysis have
not yet been standardized and are not standard practice for non-transportation projects on secondary
arterials; therefore such analysis is not included in this EIS (FHWA 2006). In addition, quantitative
procedures to address PM2.5 hot spot analysis have not yet been standardized and it is not standard
practice to conduct such analysis for non-transportation projects; therefore, such analysis is not included
in this EIS (USEPA 2008).
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Watercraft. Before 1990, personal watercraft emissions were unregulated in the United States. Many
were powered by two-stroke cycle engines, which are smaller and lighter than four-stroke cycle engines
but much more polluting. In 1996, and again in 2006, the USEPA implemented a control program to
reduce emissions from small spark-ignition engines. The newest exhaust emissions standards would begin
in 2011, and would be phased in over several years (USEPA 2004). The majority of the watercraft
associated with the action would meet the new emission control standards. In general, they would have
increased prevalence of four-stroke engines, direct injection for two-strokes, and catalytic converters. As
with automobiles, ADEM would incorporate these activities into their regional planning assumptions, and
if necessary, implement regional controls in order to maintain the region’s attainment status.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
4.10.2.3 Regulatory Review
No new significant stationary sources of air emissions are expected. The proposed housing and
commercial properties would be equipped with individual furnaces for heating. These stationary sources
of air emissions would not likely be subject to federal and state air permitting regulations, including New
Source Review, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, or New Source Performance Standards. Although
heating units above 10 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) are not planned at this time, a
construction permit application for any such units would be submitted to ADEM at least 90 days prior to
construction.
The housing and commercial properties would be owned, operated, and maintained initially by the
developers and ultimately by the owners of the property. Developers would need to perform an air quality
regulatory analysis to determine whether any CAA permitting is required for the operation of any sources
of air emissions associated with the proposed action. Given the variety and complexity of activities at the
new developments, case-by-case determinations would be necessary to determine whether the existing
sources would require air permits. If boilers or other equipment capable of producing emissions are
installed as a result of this project, individual developers would obtain a permit to construct from
ADEM’s Air Division.
February 2009
4-33
1
2
3
4
There would be no development-wide limitations on construction-phase emissions of criteria pollutants.
However, the construction projects would be accomplished in full compliance with Alabama regulatory
requirements, through the use of compliant practices and/or products. These requirements appear in
ADEM Administrative Code 335 – Air Quality. They include:
5
•
Control of Open Burning and Incineration (ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-3-3)
6
•
Control of Particulate Emissions (ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-3-4)
7
•
Control of Organic Emissions (ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-3-6)
8
•
Control of Fuels (ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-3-20)
9
10
11
12
13
14
Developers, contractors, and their subcontractors would comply with all applicable Alabama air pollution
control regulations. In addition, developers would take reasonable precautions to prevent dust from
becoming airborne. These precautions would include, but not be limited to:
•
Where possible, using water to control dust from the demolition of existing buildings or
structures and from road grading or land clearing.
15
16
•
Applying asphalt or water on dirt roads, materials, stockpiles, and other surfaces that can give rise
to airborne dust.
17
18
•
Covering, when in motion, open-bodied trucks transporting materials likely to give rise to
airborne dust.
19
20
•
Promptly removing earth or other material from paved streets onto which the earth or other
material has been deposited.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Greenhouse gasses and global warming. Greenhouse gases (GHG) are components of the atmosphere
that contribute to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in
the atmosphere, while others result from human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. According to
the Kyoto Protocol, there are six GHGs: carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (UNFCC 2007).
Under the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative, construction equipment, automobiles, and watercraft would
burn fossil fuels and release small amounts of both H2O and CO2. The amounts would be negligible when
compared to annual anthropogenic emissions of these materials released on a global scale (USEPA 2007).
These are the only GHGs that would be emitted. Because of the limited amount of emissions and rapid
dispersion by stratospheric winds, the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative would not contribute significantly
to either GHGs or global warming.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
4.10.3 Minimum Boat Slip Alternative
Implementing this alternative would have both short-term and long-term moderate adverse impacts to air
quality. Short-term impacts would be due to air emissions generated during the construction of the
proposed developments and marinas. Long-term impacts would be due to additional vehicle use, marine
watercraft emissions, landscaping activities, heating of houses, and the use of consumer products. These
increases would be greater than 100 tpy for NOx, VOCs, and CO. However, increases in emissions would
not be regionally significant, or contribute to a violation of any federal, state, or local air regulations.
The phasing in of recreational watercraft and marina construction could have small and subtle changes on
emissions during any given year. However, using the existing planning assumptions, estimated emissions
ultimately would be similar to those outlined under the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative. Emissions due to
construction, area sources, automobiles, and personal watercraft would not differ appreciably. Therefore,
similar to the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative, and for the same reasons, both short-term and long-term
impacts would be moderate.
February 2009
4-34
1
4.11 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND POLLUTION
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Hazardous and Toxic Substances and Pollution
If the upland development would occur, the impacts would be similar to the impacts listed below in the
Maximum Boat Slip Alternative. Without construction of the upland developments, no adverse impacts
would be expected from the No Action Alternative.
Direct Impacts to Hazardous and Toxic Substances and Pollution
Short-term minor adverse impacts would be expected from the limited amounts of HAZMAT used and
wastes generated during marina construction. The use of these materials and generated waste could create
a minor potential for hazardous spills. Construction contractors would be required to comply with all
local, state and federal regulations pertaining to the handling and management of HAZMAT and waste.
Once the marinas are operational, long-term minor adverse impacts would be expected from petroleum
product storage/dispensing and from waste generated from marina and boat maintenance activities.
Permitting and enforcement mechanisms for these activities would provide assurance against
contamination of environmental media and would be protective of human health and environment.
Permitting requirements for marinas are found in the Gulf Shores, Alabama Code of Ordinances, Article
XIII Marinas. The ordinance requires marinas to submit an Operation and Maintenance plan (including
BMPs) to the city for approval before any city permits would be issued. Requirements found in Article
XIII include:
•
•
•
Sewage management
Fuel management (where applicable):
o Fueling systems must comply with all state, federal and National Fire Prevention
Association (NFPA) petroleum handling and storage requirements and adhere to the2003
Gas and Fuel Code and 2003 International Fire Code.
o Fueling tanks must have engineering approval and tank specifications which shall be
provided to the city.
o Tanks shall have hurricane anchoring system approved by a design professional.
o Tanks shall have an anti-floatation system approved by a design professional if the
marina is located with a flood zone as set fourth in Federal Emergency Management
Association (FEMA).
o Must conduct annual inspections to ensure fueling systems are kept in compliance with
all regulations.
o Must have a spill prevention, control and countermeasure plan (SPCC) in place. These
plans outline procedures designed to contain spills such as fuel or oil. The plan must be
in place and ready to implement at all times in the event of a spill due to storm events,
human error, or machinery malfunction.
o Marina supervisors shall regularly inspect, maintain, repair, and replace fueling
components as needed.
Waste management:
o All waste disposals shall be in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations.
o No person shall discharge or deposit or cause to be discharged or deposited from any
vessel or from the shore, dock, float or gangway, or otherwise, any refuse matter of any
kind whatsoever into or upon the waters or lands of the marina.
February 2009
4-35
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
No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged oil (including emulsified oils and
excessive, unburned fuels from engine exhaust), spirits, and flammable liquids or
contaminated bilge water onto the waters or lands of the marina, or into any drains in the
marina.
Vessel cleaning and repair:
o Cleaning of vessels should be done in designated areas and toxic or HAZMAT shall not
be used or allowed to enter marina waters and repairs to vessels shall be done in
designated areas where no fuels and/or oils enter the marina waters.
Dry storage facilities:
o Must adhere to the 2003 International Building Code, 2003 International Fire Code and
2003 Gas and Fuel Code.
o Must have an emergency storm preparedness plan.
o Must comply with all state, federal and National Fire Prevention Association petroleum
handling and storage requirements.
o
•
•
Additionally, the marinas must adhere to the Clean Marina Initiative from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the city strongly encourages all marinas to participate in the
voluntary Alabama-Mississippi Clean Marina Program. The program promotes environmentally
responsible marinas and boating practices.
Indirect Impacts to Hazardous Waste and Toxic Substances and Pollution
Long-term minor adverse impacts would be expected from the increased operation of recreational and
commercial watercraft on the FLC. Local, state, and federal regulations prohibits the disposal of waste,
trash, oil, and other liquid pollutants in federally-controlled and state waters. Federal law states that
discharging oil or hazardous substances into the water is not allowed. The boating laws of Alabama are
enforced by Marine Police officers, county sheriffs, and USCG officers.
27
28
29
30
31
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Hazardous Waste and Toxic Substances and Pollution
The impacts under the Minimum Boat Slip Alternative would be similar to the impacts described under
32
4.12 NOISE
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Noise
If the upland developments are constructed, the impacts would be similar to those listed below in the
Maximum Boat Slip Alternative. Without construction of the upland development, no activities with new
sources of noise would be established including construction and boating activities. However, under the
No Action Alternative, contemporaneous actions including other regional growth would continue and
have some level of noise impact.
Implementing the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative would have both short-term and long-term moderate
adverse impacts to the noise environment. Short-term impacts would be due to noise generated during the
construction of the proposed developments and marinas. Long-term impacts would be due to additional
marine watercraft activities within the waterway. These increases would not result in long-term DNL
February 2009
4-36
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
greater than 65 for nearby noise sensitive areas (NSAs), nor would they contribute to a violation of any
federal, state, or local noise regulation.
4.12.2.1 Construction Noise
Each of the proposed developments would have some form of heavy construction. Sources of
construction noise would be the operation of heavy equipment, dredging, and pile driving activities. The
level of impact on a noise sensitive area (NSA) would vary depending on the type, number, and loudness
of equipment in use at any given time. Individual pieces of heavy construction equipment typically
generate noise levels of 80 to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. With multiple items of equipment operating
concurrently, noise levels would be relatively high during daytime periods at locations within several
hundred feet of active construction sites. Pile driving for the marinas would generate the most intense
noise associated with construction. Noise associated with pile driving activities is an impact type noise.
Impact type noises are those of high intensity and a very short duration, and can be particularly intrusive.
Noise attributable to the dredging activities would be comparable to that of heavy construction activities
outlined above. However, it would propagate more readily up and down the waterway. Figure 43 presents
maximum noise levels vs. distance for heavy construction and pile driving activities.
Figure 43. Maximum Noise Levels vs. Distance for Construction Related Activities
Source: ADOT 2006
The zone of relatively high construction noise levels typically extends to distances of 400 to 800 feet from
the site of heavy equipment operations. Locations more than 1,000 feet from construction sites seldom
experience substantial levels (greater than 62 dBA) of construction noise. For NSAs closer than 5000 feet
(1525 meters) (approximately 1 mile) to the site, construction noise would be audible, but distant. Table
61 outlines the distance to the closest NSA, and the level of short-term impact due to construction noise at
each site.
The majority of the proposed developments would be within 1000 feet of a NSA. Noise at nearby NSAs
would be appreciable at these sites. These impacts would be cumulative at many locations; particularly
those along the FLC portion of the waterway directly across from existing housing. Both 47 Canal Place
and Walker Creek/Portage Crossing would need to comply with the Orange Beach Noise ordinance, and
February 2009
4-37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
restrictions on nighttime construction activities would be required. Due to the extended period of
construction, and the collective nature of the impacts, the overall short-term impacts would be considered
moderate.
During construction, BMPs with respect to noise would be observed. Developers would:
• Limit construction primarily to normal weekday daylight or business hours, specifically in areas
adjacent to noise sensitive land uses such as residential areas.
• Ensure construction equipment mufflers were properly maintained and in good working order.
• Coordinate with residence owners and/or tenants prior to unavoidable construction activities
directly adjacent to established residential areas.
11
12
Table 61. Estimated Level of Short-term Impact Due to Construction Noise
NSA Closer than
5000 feet
(1525 meters)
Development
47 Canal Place
501 Point West
Bayside Harbour
Bon Secour Village
Delfino Resorts
Harbour Lights
KFPH Properties
Lawrenz
Oyster Bay Marina
Portage Crossing
Summerdance
(West)
Summerdance
(Central)
Summerdance (East)
Waterways East
NSA Closer than
1000 feet
(305 meters)
Closest Noise Sensitive
Area (NSA)
1638 feet (500 meters)
50 feet (15 meters)
Audible but
Distant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Clearly Audible
Construction
Noise
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Level of
Impact
Negligible
Negligible
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Negligible
Yes
Yes
Minor
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Negligible
Negligible
Minor
13
14
4.12.2.2 Aircraft Noise
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Noise from aircraft operations originating from the Jack Edwards Airport would be clearly audible, and
frequent for residents of the proposed developments. However, all the proposed developments, except
Summerdance, would be outside the projected (2015) 65 dBA DNL noise contour for the Jack Edwards
Airport. They would not create any new incompatible land use areas with respect to noise. Those areas at
the Summerdance development within the contours are not currently slated for construction of residential
housing. However, the proposed location of the Summerdance development could become a limiting
factor in the future growth of air operations at the airport. Any structures within the Jack Edwards Airport
Noise Overlay district would need to meet required minimum noise attenuation construction standards, as
outlined in the Gulf Shores zoning ordinance.
February 2009
4-38
1
4.12.2.3 Boating Noise
2
3
4
5
A description of the impacts of boating activities on the overall (annual) noise environment, and during
the peak summer period are described herein. The level of impact was determined by comparing the
estimated overall noise environment (DNL) to the 65 dBA standard. A description of noise during peak
summer periods are included to help better describe the specific impacts due to boating activities.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Overall Boating Noise. For the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative, DNL of 59.2 dBA was estimated for
proposed boating conditions at the nearest residential property boundary (i.e., the edge of the waterway).
Below 65 dBA, these levels would not create any areas of incompatible land use due to noise. However,
at this level, approximately 20 percent of individuals would be highly annoyed, and sporadic complaints
would be expected (USEPA 1974). Throughout the year, boats would be audible from any location along
the waterway 19 percent of the time; more so in the summer than in the winter. This estimate assumes that
there would be approximately 151,000 pass bys in a given year and on average the boat would traverse
the center of the waterway (Table 62). In general, there would be four times as many boats, and it would
be four times (x4) as loud when compared to existing conditions. This would be a clearly perceptible
change in the noise environment. These impacts are moderate.
16
17
Table 62. Annual Noise Conditions from Proposed Boating Activity
DNL from Boating Activity (dBA)
Percent Highly Annoyed (%)
General Community Reaction
18
Existing
Conditions
53.7
9%
Negligible
Maximum
Boat Slip
Alternative
59.2
20%
Sporadic
Complaints
Minimum Boat
Slip
Alternative
57.4
18%
Sporadic
Complaints
Source: USEPA 1974, PWIA 2008
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Peak Days. Estimated sound levels from boating activities on a peak weekday and weekend day are
outlined in Figure 44. For the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative, the majority of pass bys would be
individual acoustical events. However, between the hours of 11 A.M. and 4 P.M on peak weekend days
boating noise could be continuous and it would be difficult to differentiate one pass by from another. On
the weekend, during the most active hour (2 to 3 P.M.), the average hourly SPL would be approximately
70 dBA (Table 63). During this period, boats would be audible from any location along the waterway 100
percent of the time. On the weekdays, during the most active hour the average SPL would be
approximately 64 dBA. During this period, boats would be audible from any location along the waterway
approximately 69 percent of the time.
February 2009
4-39
1
2
3
Figure 44. Maximum Boat Slip Alternative - Hourly Sound Levels from Boating Activity on
a Peak Summer Day
4
5
6
Table 63. Peak Noise Conditions from Proposed Boating Activity
Period
Peak Weekend Day
Maximum 1-Hour Equivalent Sound Level
(dBA)
Continuous Boating Sound (Hours/Day)
Peak Weekday
Maximum 1-Hour Equivalent Sound Level
(dBA)
Continuous Boating Sound (Hours/Day)
7
8
Existing
Conditions
Maximum Boat Slip
Alternative
Minimum Boat Slip
Alternative
63
70
67
0
5
2
57
64
58
0
0
0
Source: PWIA 2008
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Implementing the Minimum Boat Slip Alternative would have both short-term and long-term moderate
adverse impacts to the noise environment. In general, noise from the construction, aircraft, and boating
activities for the Minimum Boat Slip Alternative would be the same as that outlined under the Maximum
Boat Slip Alternative. Short-term impacts would be due to noise generated during the construction of the
proposed developments and marinas. Long-term impacts would be due to additional marine watercraft
activities within the waterway. These increases would not result in long-term DNL greater than 65 dBA
for nearby NSAs, nor contribute to a violation of any federal, state, or local noise regulation.
18
19
Construction of the marinas could take somewhat longer under this alternative. However the overall
levels of noise would be less intense during the construction phase. The overall impacts due to
February 2009
4-40
1
2
construction noise would be moderate, and would be similar to those outlined under the Maximum Boat
Slip Alternative.
3
4
The impacts on land use compatibility from the Jack Edwards Airport would be identical to that outlined
under the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative.
5
6
7
8
If all boat slips were permitted, the impacts due to boating noise would ultimately be the same as those
impacts outlined under the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative. However, a description of the impacts of
boating activities on the overall noise environment, and during peak period for the minimum number of
slips has been included in this EIS for comparative purposes.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Overall Boating Noise. If the Minimum Boat Slip Alternative was implemented, DNL of 57.4 dBA was
estimated for proposed boating conditions at the nearest residential property boundary (i.e., the edge of
the waterway). Below 65 dBA, these levels would not create any areas of incompatible land use due to
noise. However, at this level, approximately 18 percent of individuals would be highly annoyed, and
sporadic complains would be expected (USEPA 1974). Throughout the year, boats would be audible from
any location along the waterway 13 percent of the time; more so in the summer than in the winter. This
estimate assumes that there would be approximately 99,500 pass bys in a given year and on average the
boat would traverse the center of the waterway (Table 62). In general, there would be greater than twice
as many boats, and it would be more than twice as loud when compared to existing conditions. This
would be a clearly perceptible change in the noise environment. These impacts would be moderate.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Peak Days. Estimated sound levels from boating activities on a peak weekday and weekend day is
outlined in Figure 45. For Minimum Boat Slip Alternative, the majority of pass bys would be individual
acoustical events. However, between the hours of 2 P.M and 4 P.M on peak weekend days boating noise
would be continuous, and it would be difficult to differentiate one pass by from another. On the weekend,
during the most active hour, the average hourly SPL would be approximately 67 dBA (Table 63). During
this period, boats would be audible from any location along the waterway 100 percent of the time. On the
weekdays, during the most active hour the average SPL would be approximately 58 dBA.
26
27
28
29
30
Figure 45. Minimum Boat Slip Alternative - Hourly Sound Levels from Boating Activity on
a Peak Summer Day
February 2009
4-41
1
4.13 LIGHT POLLUTION
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
34
35
36
37
38
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Light Pollution
Under the No Action Alternative, existing light pollution would continue to impact marine navigation and
sea turtle ecology as described in Sections 3.13.2 and 3.13.3. Commercial barge operators have identified
light pollution as a cause of navigation problems on the FLC. In addition, impacts to sea turtle nesting and
hatching have been documented. Currently, the “Share the Beach” program monitors sea turtle nesting on
Alabama’s coastal beaches and implements measures to decrease the risk to sea turtles during the nesting
season. Measures implemented include installing tarps around three sides of a nest to block artificial light
and digging trenches between a nest and the water to guide sea turtle hatchlings. Under the No Action
Alternative, no mitigation measures would take place to decrease the amount of light pollution on the
waterway and the associated risks to marine traffic and sea turtles would continue.
Direct Impacts to Light Pollution
Under this alternative, there would be long-term direct impacts to light pollution as the proposed
developments would significantly contribute to the light environment in the ROI. This would result in an
increase in light pollution in the area due to the additional residential, commercial, and marina lighting.
Indirect Impacts to Light Pollution
The increase in light pollution due to the proposed developments would have long-term indirect impacts
on navigational traffic on the FLC due to boater vision impairment. Impaired vision can result in unsafe
approaches to and under bridges, contribute to vision fatigue and disorientation, and increase the risk of
accidents. There are currently no shoreline lighting regulations for the FLC, but measures could be taken
to mitigate the navigation risk associated with increased light pollution. These measures could include
lights impeding waterway visibility to be retrofitted or shielded to reduce background glare and increase
boater vision of navigation aids, and all unnecessary lighting to be discontinued or used only when
necessary.
It has been documented that turtle hatchlings are generally attracted to light sources that are
approximately 300 feet to 650 feet away from the nest, and generally moved towards the ocean if lights
were approximately 1600 feet to 2600 feet away (Pendoley 2005). The proposed developments would be
located more than 1.5 miles (7900 feet) from the shoreline. Due to this distance between the proposed
developments and shoreline, light pollution impacts to sea turtle nesting and hatchlings would not be
expected under this alternative.
Direct and Indirect Impacts to Light Pollution
Direct and indirect impacts under the Minimum Boat Slip Alternative would be similar as the impacts
described in the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative.
39
February 2009
4-42
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
4.14 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQ regulations define a cumulative impact as “the impact on the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40
CFR 1508.7).
The USACE considers a reasonably foreseeable action to be a future action for which there is a realistic
expectation that the action should occur. Actions that pose the potential for cumulative impacts, that is,
environmental or socioeconomic impacts when considered in combination with implementation of the
preferred alternative, include:
• Development along the local Gulf coastline, including West Beach, East Beach, and Perdido
Beach Boulevard.
• City of Orange Beach annexation of land north of Bay La Launch, Amica Bay, and land in close
proximity to the Foley Beach Expressway.
• The addition of the designation of the ICW-Intracoastal Waterway District and Intracoastal
Waterway District-East to the city of Gulf Shores Use Regulations for Business and Industrial
districts.
• The construction and expansion of the Foley Beach Expressway to provide direct access to
Orange Beach from S.R. 59, and proposed roadway improvements to provide enhanced service to
and from the Expressway, including the construction of new access roads and expansions of some
existing roads.
The activities or initiatives listed above are relevant to this EIS in that they result in, or support, the
continued development of southern Baldwin County. Further, these actions indicate that there is a realistic
expectation for development to continue (1) along the Gulf coastline, (2) along the FLC, and (3) those
locations served by the Foley Beach Expressway and areas that benefit from proposed road
improvements.
The strategic growth guidelines developed by the cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach each seek to
continue the economic growth of the region while still maintaining the integrity of the communities and
rural areas. Following Hurricane Ivan in 2004, the city of Gulf Shores conducted the Envision Gulf Shores
process which has focused redevelopment and future development in two major centers; “Gulf Place,”
located on the Gulf coastline where S.R. 59 intersects with S.R. 180 (East Beach Boulevard), and along
the FLC. The construction of the Foley Beach Expressway in Orange Beach also facilitates continued
development along the FLC, while the annexation of land north of Bay La Launch and Amica Bay
provides area for the city to expand.
When considered alongside the direct and indirect impacts analyzed in this EIS, the continued
development of southern Baldwin County could have environmental and socioeconomic cumulative
impacts for the area. In this section, cumulative impacts are discussed primarily on a qualitative basis as
many of the environmental and socioeconomic parameters of future development are unknown, but their
aspects are estimated and quantified where sufficient data is available.
4.14.1 Socioeconomic Impacts of Development
Long-term beneficial and short-term adverse cumulative impacts would be expected. The establishment
and operation of resort communities in Gulf Shores and Orange Beach continue to have positive impacts
on the local economy. The proposed action of development along the FLC would be expected to add to
February 2009
4-43
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
these beneficial economic impacts by increasing population, employment, income, and business sales in
the ROI and providing additional recreational, retail, and commercial facilities and services.
40
41
42
43
44
45
4.14.2 Environmental Impacts of Development
In addition to the 15 developments along the FLC under the proposed action, development could be
expected to occur along the Gulf coastline, the FLC, and those locations served by the Foley Beach
Expressway, predominately in the form of new commercial and residential construction. There are also
market indications that consumer preference has shifted from a demand to be located on the Gulf, to a
demand to be near the Gulf, thus avoiding the stress associated with renovating and rebuilding after
hurricanes as well as the increased insurance rates for locations on the beach. The recent annexation by
the city of by Orange Beach of land north of Bay La Launch, Amica Bay, and land in close proximity to
the Foley Beach Expressway supports a model of growth for more inland developments. The city of
Orange Beach has also proposed the Wolf Bay Bridge to link the city with the annexed area. The bridge is
proposed north of the S.R. 161/180 intersection and would connect Orange Beach with the Josephine and
Lillian communities to the north, with the future goal of extending the expressway to Interstates 10 and
65.
There are a number of other economic development projects (in progress or proposed) in the ROI that
would have short- and long-term impacts on the local economy and sociological conditions. A number of
new companies recently established themselves in the ROI. The Baldwin County Economic Development
Alliance reported that between 2001 and 2005, there were 125 company relocations, expansions, or
startups in Baldwin County, creating 3,300 new jobs and $157 million in capital investment (BCEDA
2008). One of the county’s goals is to continue to expand the manufacturing, distribution, and
professional sectors (such as the aerospace industry) to diversify the economy and balance the growth of
the service (including tourism) and retail industries.
These actions, combined with the expected impacts from the proposed alternatives, would have beneficial
and adverse cumulative impacts on the ROI. These actions would benefit the ROI by contributing to the
projected growth in regional employment, income, and sales. The adverse impacts could result from the
sustained demand of the increased population on the region’s infrastructure and the local economy’s
ability to expand to meet the demand. The strategic growth plans of Baldwin County, Gulf Shores, and
Orange Beach each anticipate continued development and have management goals in place to counter
strains on public resources.
Continued development would compound impacts to recreation and recreational facilities. Development
along the GIWW, Bay La Launch, and Amica Bay could result in an increase of boating activities in the
Back Bay area12. The FLC and Perdido Pass could be especially affected, as narrower bodies of water
with maintained channel widths of 125 and 150 feet, respectively. The mitigation measures currently
proposed by the cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, to initiate the presence of marine police and
expand boater safety courses, could help mitigate any significant adverse impacts.
In combination with the proposed action evaluated in this EIS, future development could create
cumulative impacts to the land cover, water quality of the Back Bay area, and groundwater resources.
As development continues to affect inland areas, the land cover would change from upland pine habitat to
commercial or residential development. The acreage recently annexed by the city of Orange Beach is
12
The term “Back Bay area” is used to denote the bay areas linked from the Mobile Bay in the West, through the FLC and to the
Gulf of Mexico via Perdido Pass, including but not limited to: Oyster Bay, Wolf Bay, Bay La Launch, Amica Bay, and Bayou St.
John.
February 2009
4-44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
almost exclusively undeveloped, upland pine habitat, and it is reasonable to assume that this area would
change in the foreseeable future. Depending on whether socioeconomic trends continue, agricultural and
pastoral lands in southern Baldwin County could also be developed.
23
24
25
26
4.14.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The alternatives evaluated in the EIS would result in some adverse environmental impacts beyond that
which could be reduced through mitigation. The principle unavoidable adverse impacts on the
environment are summarized below.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Some loss of scenic attractiveness and scenic integrity would be associated with the implementation of
either the Preferred Alternative or Maximum Boat Slip Alternative. Implementing the Maximum Boat
Slip Alternative, under which 3,093 boat slips could be permitted, would initially have more visual and
aesthetic impact than implementing the Preferred Alternative, under which only 1,943 boat slips could be
initially permitted, or the No Action Alternative, under which the upland development of the proposed
locations could occur without the proposed marinas.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Developing previously undeveloped areas would increase the impervious land cover, which could also
result in an increase in nonpoint source pollution of the Back Bay and impact water quality as a result.
Potential impacts associated with an increase in nonpoint source pollution (i.e., landscaping activities)
include higher concentrations of total phosphorous and total nitrogen, and a decrease in DO. A decrease
in the amount of agricultural and pastoral land cover however, could decrease the current runoff amounts
of nitrogen and phosphorous into the adjacent water bodies. Thus, it is difficult to determine cumulative
impacts on water quality for the foreseeable future. Mitigation measures implemented during and postconstruction, such as the creation of vegetative buffer areas between new developments and water bodies,
could help alleviate nonpoint source pollution from newly developed areas.
The consumption of groundwater in Baldwin County is currently very high, because of a high irrigation
demand for agricultural use near Gulf Shores and Orange Beach. In recent years, the abundant supply of
groundwater in this area of the state has slightly declined because of increasing population and economic
development in or near Baldwin County. Cumulative impacts of future development and population
growth coupled with continued agricultural production could reduce the available groundwater. Lowering
the groundwater levels could result in saltwater intrusion, which would further compromise available
resources. It could become necessary for Baldwin County to prepare a water resource assessment to
adequately plan for the future of this resource.
4.14.3.1 Visual and Aesthetic Resources
4.14.3.2 Recreation
The potential density of boats on the FLC – which is related to the number of private and community
docks, marina slips, and boat launch ramps on the lake – would be expected to increase under either of the
alternatives considered in the EIS. Conflicts between recreational and commercial boaters, navigation
difficulties associated with additional docks, and boating accidents could increase in the future. The
mitigation measures currently proposed by the cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, to initiate the
presence of marine police and expand boater safety courses, could help mitigate any significant adverse
impacts.
4.14.3.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
Irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments are related to the use of nonrenewable resources and
the impacts that use of these resources would have on future generations. Irreversible impacts primarily
result from use or destruction of a specific resource (i.e., energy and minerals) that cannot be replaced
within a reasonable time frame. Irretrievable resource commitments involve the loss in value of an
February 2009
4-45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
affected resource that cannot be restored as a result of a proposed action (i.e., extinction of a threatened or
endangered species).
No irreversible commitment of resources would be expected to result directly from implementing the
Preferred Alternative evaluated in this EIS. Land and natural resources (flora, fauna, water) within the
area would be managed with sound stewardship, minimal damage, and a long-term goal of sustainability
and the avoidance of irreversibility. A direct action governed by the alternatives, shoreline use permitting,
would result in changes to the aesthetics of the FLC. Once private boat docks are permitted and installed
along the shoreline, it is practical to assume that they will remain installed indefinitely even with changes
in ownership of adjoining private property. This loss of aesthetic value, therefore, would be irretrievable.
The loss would be most evident under the Maximum Boat Slip Alternative with the potential permitting
of 3,093 boat slips.
February 2009
4-46
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
5.0 LIST OF REVIEWERS AND PREPARERS
LIST OF REVIEWERS
Eric Dohner
M.S., Marine Science, University of South Florida
B.S., Marine Biology, Millersville State College
Years of Experience: 25
Paul Wilbur
J.D., Wayne State University Law School
B.A., English, University of Michigan
LIST OF PREPARERS
Michelle Cannella
Graduate Studies, Mineral Economics, Pennsylvania State University
B.S., Mineral Economics, Pennsylvania University
Marcus Colligan
B.S., Environmental Management, Louisiana State University
Dean Goodin, Ph.D.
Ph.D., Natural Resources, Louisiana State University
Hope Herron
M.NRS, Master of Natural Resource Studies, University of Queensland
M.A., International Communication, American University
B.A., English
Greg Hippert
B.S., Earth Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Timothy Lavallee, P.E.
President/Senior Engineer LPES, Inc.
MS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University
BS, Mechanical Engineering, Northeastern University
Katie Magoun
February 2009
5-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Jamie Miller
B.S. Watershed Science, Colorado State University
Sam Pett
M.S., Environmental Science, University of Massachusetts-Boston
B.S., Wildlife Biology/Zoology, Michigan State University
Benjamin Richard
B.S., Wildlife Management, Louisiana State University
Katherine Roxlau
M.A., Anthropology, Northern Arizona University
B.A., Anthropology, Colorado College
Matt Selhorst
M.S., Civil Engineering, Ohio State University
M.C.R.P, City and Regional Planning, Ohio State University
B.A, Urban Planning, Miami University
February 2009
5-2
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
6.0 REFERENCES
ALBTT (Alabama Bureau of Tourism and Travel). 2006. Economic Impact Alabama Travel Industry.
<http://800alabama.com/about-alabama/news/press/Tourism2006Report.pdf>. Accessed July 2007.
ACJIC (Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center). 2005. 2005 Crime in Alabama.
<http://acjic.state.al.us/SAC/2005_cia.pdf>. Accessed March 2007.
ACJIC (Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center). 2006. 2006 Crime in Alabama.
<http://www.acjic.alabama.gov/cia/2006_cia.pdf>. Accessed April 2008.
ALDAH (Alabama Department of Archives and History). 2007. Alabama History Timeline.
<http://www.archives.state.al.us/timeline/al1000.html>. Accessed March 2007.
ALDCNR (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources). 2005. Alabama
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 322 pp.
ALDCNR (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources). 2006. Boating.
<http://www.outdooralabama.com/boating>. Accessed November 2006.
ALDCNR (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources). 2007. Fishing.
<http://www.outdooralabama.com/fishing>. Accessed March 2007.
ADEM (Alabama Department of Environmental Management). 1995. Administrative Code R. 335-8-1.02. Coastal Area Management Program, Mobile, Alabama. ADEM – Coastal Program.
ADEM (Alabama Department of Environmental Management). 2000. Administrative Code R. 335-6-10.
Water Quality Criteria, Montgomery, Alabama. ADEM – Water Division.
ALDIR (Alabama Department of Industrial Relations). 2007. Personal communication with Delia
Clenney, 2007 (for 1990 data). <http://www2.dir.state.al.us/LAUS/LAUS.asp>. Accessed February 2007.
ADOT (Alabama Department of Transportation). 2008. Alabama Statewide Long Range Transportation
Plan. < http://www.dot.state.al.us/NR/rdonlyres/B5802971-FE12-4CDE-BB482682CA453AF4/0/ALDOTSWTPFINAL.pdf>
Alabama Genealogy. 2007. Alabama History. <http://www.alabamagenealogy.org/alabama_history.htm>.
Accessed on March 2007.
AGCCVB (Alabama Gulf Coast Convention & Visitors Bureau). 2007. Area attractions and amenities.
<http://www.gulfshores.com>. Accessed March 2007.
AGCACC (Alabama Gulf Coast Area Chamber of Commerce). 2006. Demographic Information for the
Gulf Coast Area. < http://www.alagulfcoastchamber.com>. Accessed March 2007.
AHC (Alabama Historical Commission). 2006. Comment letter regarding the FLC proposed
development. Received August 23, 2006.
February 2009
6-1
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
AHC (Alabama Historical Commission). 2007. Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage.
<http://www.preserveala.org/alabamaregister.aspx>. Accessed March 2007. Alabama Historical
Commission, Alabama Department of Archives and History, Montgomery, Alabama.
AHC (Alabama Historical Commission). 2008. Alabama Historical Commission Administrative Code.
<http://www.alabamaadministrativecode.state.al.us/docs/hist/index.html?sm=b_d>. Accessed April 2008.
AREREC (Alabama Real Estate Research and Education Center). 2007. <http://arerec.cba.ua.edu/>.
Accessed April 2008.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2005. Standard Practice for Conducting
Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Designation E1527-05.
Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Committee. 2003. Alabama Handbook for Erosion
Control, Sediment Control, and Stormwater Management an Construction Sites and Urban Areas.
Montgomery, AL: SWCC.
Alabama Tourism Department. 2008. Economic Impact Alabama Travel Industry 2007. Alabama
Tourism Department, Montgomery, AL.
Arnold, C.L., and C.J. Gibbons. 1996. Impervious Surface Coverage: The Emergence of a Key
Environmental Indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association. 62(2):243–259.
Axelrod, Alan. 2002. America’s Wars. New York: J. Wiley.
Badger, R. Reid and Lawrence A. Clayton, ed. 1985. Alabama and The Borderlands: From Prehistory to
Statehood. University of Alabama Press.
Baldwin County. 2007. Various Historical Compilations about Baldwin County, Alabama.
<http://www.co.baldwin.al.us/PageView.asp?PageType=R&edit_id=156>. Accessed March 2006.
Baldwin County Commission. 2008. Baldwin County Comprehensive Plan.
<http://www.co.baldwin.al.us/PageView.asp?PageType=R&edit_id=708>. Accessed July 2008.
Baldwin County Commission. 2006. Baldwin County Strategic Plan for 2006-2016.
<http://www.co.baldwin.al.us/uploads/BaldwinSTPDraft122006.pdf>. Accessed April 2008.
Baldwin County Commission. 2008. Baldwin County Commission.
<http://www.co.baldwin.al.us/Pageview.asp?edit_id=365>. Accessed May 2008.
Baldwin County, Alabama. 2005. The Baldwin County Wetland Conservation Plan. Baldwin County
Planning and Zoning Department and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
BCEDA (Baldwin County Economic Development Alliance). 2007.
<http://www.baldwineda.com/news/Nov2006newsletter.htm>. Accessed March 2007.
BCEDA (Baldwin County Economic Development Alliance). 2008. <http://www.baldwineda.com/>.
Accessed May 2008.
BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2007. State and county economic employment and income data.
http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/. Accessed March 2007.
February 2009
6-2
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2008. State and county economic employment and income data.
<http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/>. Accessed May 2008.
BHC (Baptist Health Care). 2007. <http://www.bhcpns.org/BaptistHospital/>. Accessed March 2007.
Baumhauer, Charlie. 2008. Email to Carmen Cadenas regarding Baldwin County Sewer Service Capacity.
July, 2008.
Blankenship, Blanton. 2007. Cultural Resource Manager, Fort Morgan, Gulf Shores, Alabama. Personal
communication regarding visitor statistics. July 2007.
Brown, Elizabeth Ann. 2005a. Letter to Ms. Louis Oyen of Ecosolutions, Montrose, Alabama. RE: AHC
05-1558, Silver Sands, Baldwin County, AL. Alabama Historical Commission, Alabama Department of
Archives and History, Montgomery, Alabama. October 17, 2005.
Brown, Elizabeth Ann. 2005b. Letter to Ms. Leslie Turney, Coastal/Facility Section, USACE Mobile
District, Mobile, Alabama. RE: AHC 05-0752, MSC-05-12, Waterdance at Oyster Bay, Baldwin County,
AL. Alabama Historical Commission, Alabama Department of Archives and History, Montgomery,
Alabama. July 21, 2005.
Brown, Elizabeth Ann. 2005c. Letter to Mr. Brett Gaar, Volkert & Associates, Mobile, Alabama. RE:
AHC 05-1185, Brigham Williams Development, Baldwin County, AL. Alabama Historical Commission,
Alabama Department of Archives and History, Montgomery, Alabama. August 4, 2005.
BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2007. <http://www.bls.gov/>. Accessed March 2007.
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National
Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President,
Washington, DC.
City of Gulf Shores, Alabama. 2004. Envision Gulf Shores Plan. City of Gulf Shores, AL.
City of Gulf Shores, Alabama. 2005. Habitat Conservation Plan. 51 pp.
City of Orange Beach, Alabama. 2006. Orange Beach Community Preservation and Growth Management
Plan.
Counts, Mark. 2008. E-mail and Power Point to Hope Herron, Tetra Tech Inc., Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Jack Edwards Airport Master Plan Presentation. September 11, 2008.
DCA (Dial Cordy and Associates). 2001. Foley Cut Vessel Capacity Study, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
(GIWW), Baldwin County, Alabama. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District,
Mobile, Alabama. Prepared by Dial Cordy and Associates Inc., Jacksonville Beach, Florida. September.
Duncan, David Ewing. 1995. Hernando de Soto: A Savage Quest in the Americas. New York: Crown
Publishers.
Ecological Associates. 2002. Coastal Roadway Lighting Manual: A Handbook of Practical Guidelines for
Managing Street Lighting to Minimize Impacts to Sea Turtles.
<http://myfwc.com/seaturtle/Lighting/Coastal%20Roadway%20Light%20Manual.pdf>. Accessed April
2007.
February 2009
6-3
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). 2004. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing
Instructions for Airport Projects. Draft Order 5050.4B
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2006. Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA
Documents. February 3, 2006.USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Determining
Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans.
FICON (Federal Interagency Committee on Noise). 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport
Noise Analysis Issues.
FICUN (Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise). 1980. Guidelines for Considering Noise in
Land Use Planning and Control.
FMRI (Florida Marine Research Institute). 2000. Understanding, Assessing, and Resolving LightPollution Problems on Sea Turtle Nesting Beaches. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
FMRI Technical Report TR-2.
Foster, Mike. 2007. Personal Communication on Offshore Powerboat Races in Orange Beach, VP
Marketing, Alabama Gulf Coast CVB. July 2007.
Gabel, Christopher R., 2002. Rails to Oblivion: The Battle of Confederate Railroads in the Civil War.
Fort Leavenworth, Kan.: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Press.
Genealogy Inc. 2007. Alabama State History.
<http://www.myalabamagenealogy.com/al_state/history.htm>. Accessed March 2007.
Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Lawrence, S., Martin, G., Goddard, A., Hulcher, V.J., and
Foster, T., 2001. Ecoregions of Alabama and Georgia (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary
tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,700,000).
GSFM (Gulf Shores Fire and Rescue) 2007. Personal Communication with Fire Marshall. February 2007.
Gulf Shores Chamber of Commerce. 2007. Personal Communication with Special Events Coordinator.
Economic Impacts of Shrimp Festival. July 2007.
Gulf Shores Fire Rescue (GSFR), 2007. Information and data.
<http://www.ci.gulf-shores.al.us/FD/FD%20Staff.htm>. Accessed March 2007.
GSGA (Gulf Shores Golf Association). 2007. Information regarding area golfing and courses.
<http://www.golfgulfshores.com/>. Accessed March 2007.
GSPD (Gulf Shores, Alabama, Police Department), 2007. Information and data.
<http://www.cityofgulfshores.org/pages_2006/police_dept/policedepartment.htm>. Accessed March
2007.
Harris, Cecil M. 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurement and Noise Control.
Homeport Marina. 2006. Homeport Marina’s Amenities. http://homeportmarina.net/. Accessed November
2006.
InfoMap (InfoMap Technologies, Inc.). 2006. Environmental FirstSearch Report. Job nos. 36542 and
36561. InfoMap Technologies, Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania. November 2006.
February 2009
6-4
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2003. Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition.
Jordan, Jones, & Goulding. 2005. Plash Island/Bon Secour River land Use Study.
<http://www.cityofgulfshores.org/pages_2006/projects/Final%20Plash%20Island_Bon%20Secour%20Ri
ver%20Study%2004%2012%202005.pdf>. Accessed April 2008.
KPS Group. 2008. Gulf Shores, Alabama Land Use Plan.
<http://www.cityofgulfshores.org/pages_2006/CDD/Land%20Use%20Plan%20Hearing%20Draft%2008
0107.pdf>. Accessed April 2008.
Lohmann, K.L., B.E. Witherington, C.M.F. Lohmannn, and M. Salmon. 1997. Orientation, navigation
and natal beach homing in sea turtles. Pages 107-136 in Lutz, P.L., and J.A. Musick (eds.), The Biology
of Sea Turtles. CRC Press.
Longcore, T. and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological Light Pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.
2(4): 191-198.
MIMC (Mobile Infirmary Medical Center). 2007. <http://www.mimc.com>. Accessed March 2007.
Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. 2005. Mississippi Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy. 418 pp.
National Park Service. 2006. National Historic Landmarks Survey, List of National Historic Landmarks
by State. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. December 2006.
National Park Service. 2007. National Register Information System, Index by State County.
<http://www.nr.nps.gov/iwisapi/explorer.dll/x2_3anr4_3aNRIS1/script/report.iws>. Accessed March
2007. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
Neubauer, John A. Colonel (Ret.). 2006. Letter to District Engineer, USACE Mobile District, Mobile,
Alabama. RE: AHC 2006-1335; Foley Land Cut Proposed Developments, EIS for 13 Developments along
GIWW, Baldwin County. Alabama Historical Commission, Alabama Department of Archives and History,
Montgomery, Alabama. October 24, 2006.
Nicholas, M. 2001. Light Pollution and Marine Turtle Hatchlings: The Straw that Breaks the Camel’s
Back? The George Wright Forum. 18(4): 77-82.
Noles, J. 2001. Light Pollution and Boating Safety. <http://www.darkskies4ni.co.uk/LP_Boating.ppt>.
Accessed October 2006.
NBI (North Baldwin Infirmary). 2007. <http://www.nbinfirmary.com>. Accessed March 2007.
OBFR (Orange Beach Fire Rescue). 2007.
<http://www.obfd.org/pages/index.htm?source=velvetillusion>. Accessed March 2007.
Pendoley, K.L. 2005. Sea turtles and the environmental management of industrial activities in north-west
Western Australia. Ph.D. Thesis, Murdoch University: Perth, Australia.
February 2009
6-5
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
PWIA (Personal Watercraft Industry Association). 2008. Personal Watercraft vs. Open Exhaust Boat Passby Sound Level Measurement for Various Types of Boats Website. URL:
<http://www.pwia.org/studies/sound/comparisons.aspx> Accessed July 24, 2008.
SARPC (South Alabama Regional Planning Commission). 1993. Baldwin County Long Range
Development and Management Plan, Situation Analysis. April 1993.
SARPC (South Alabama Regional Planning Commission). 2001. South Alabama Gulf Ecological
Management Sites (GEMS). <http://www.sarpc.org/gems/index.html>. Accessed July 2006.
SARPC (South Alabama Regional Planning Commission). 2006. City of Gulf Shores Zoning Map.
SBRMC (South Baldwin Regional Medical Center). 2007. <http://www.southbaldwinrmc.com>.
Accessed March 2007.
Stowe, Noel R., and Rebecca Stowe. 2005a.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of the
Proposed Silver Sands Development in Southern Baldwin County, Alabama. Archaeological Services
Inc., Lucedale, Mississippi. September 2005.
Stowe, Noel R., and Rebecca Stowe. 2005b. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed
Waterdance (Areas 4 and 5) Development, Baldwin County, Alabama, COE Application AL-05-00586-J.
Archaeological Services Inc., Lucedale, Mississippi. April 2005.
Stowe, Noel R., and Rebecca Stowe. 2006. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed
Coastal Resort Properties, Inc. Development in Baldwin County, Alabama. Archaeological Services Inc.,
Lucedale, Mississippi. December 2006.
27
28
SAI (Systems Applications International, LLC). 2005. Gulf Coast Ozone Study (GCOS) Modeling
Analysis Phase III: Additional Future-Year Assessments - Final Report
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Taylor Engineering. 2006. Waterway Capacity Study for the Foley Land Cut Section of the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) between Mobile Bay and Wolf Bay. Prepared for Tetra Tech, Inc.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1984. Water Quality Modeling Study, Intracoastal Waterway, Baldwin County, Alabama:
Arlington, Virginia.
Thomas Hospital. 2007. <http://www.thomashospital.com/>. Accessed March 2007.
University of Alabama. 2007. Alabama Archaeology: Prehistoric Alabama.
<http://bama.ua.edu/~alaarch/prehistoricalabama/index.htm>. Accessed March 2007. University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1983. History of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. National
Waterways Study 83-9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water Resources Support Center, Institute for
Water Resources, Alexandria, Virginia. January 1983.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
USBC (U.S. Bureau of the Census). 1990. Census of Population and Housing, 1990.
<http://www.census.gov/>. Accessed March 2007.
February 2009
6-6
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
USBC (U.S. Bureau of the Census). 1995. Alabama Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900
to 1990, compiled and edited by Richard L. Forstall.
<http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/al190090.txt>. Accessed March 2007.
USBC (U.S. Bureau of the Census). 2000a. County and City Data Book, 2000. Table B1, Area and
Population. <http://www.census.gov/prod/www/ccdb.html>. Accessed March 2007.
USBC (U.S. Bureau of the Census). 2000b. Census of Population and Housing, 2000.
<http://www.census.gov/>. Accessed March 2007.
USBC (U.S. Bureau of the Census). 2000c. <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld.html>.
Accessed March 2007.
USBC (U.S. Bureau of the Census). 2005. Historical data.
<http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/county/county3.html>. Accessed March 2007.
USBC and UA (U.S. Bureau of the Census and Center for Business and Economic Research, The
University of Alabama). 2001a. Alabama County Population 2000 and Projections 2005-2025.
<http://cber.cba.ua.edu/edata/est_prj/alpop20002025.xls>. Accessed March 2007.
USBC and UA (U.S. Bureau of the Census and Center for Business and Economic Research, The
University of Alabama). 2001b. Alabama County Population 65 and Over in 2000 and Projections 20052025. <http://cber.cba.ua.edu/edata/est_prj/alpop65+0025.xls>. Accessed March 2007.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1964. Baldwin
County, Alabama Soil Survey.
USDOE (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics). 2007. Public School
Data. <http://nces.ed.gov/>. Accessed March 2007.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985. Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook. EPA
90416-85/132.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993a. Determining Conformity of General Federal
Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993b. Managing Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Source Pollution in Coastal Waters. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
<http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/MMGI/Chapter5/index.html>. Accessed July 2008
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. National Management Measures Guidance to
Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Marinas and Recreational Boating. Nonpoint Source Control
Branch, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Office of Water. EPA 841-B-01-005.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Draft Delisting Decision for Intracoastal
Waterway Waterbody ID# AL/03160205-070_01 and AL/03140107-040_01 Organic
Enrichment/Dissolved Oxygen.
February 2009
6-7
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Overview of EPA’s Emission Standards for
Marine Engines. EPA420-F-04-03. August 2004.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006a. AirData Website.
<http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html>. Accessed October 2006.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006b. Criteria Air Pollutants Website.
<http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/6poll.html>. Accessed October 2006.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990–2005. EPA 430-R-07-002. April 15.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Transportation Conformity Final Rule: PM2.5
and PM10 Hot-Spot Analyses in Project-Level Transportation Conformity Determinations for the PM2.5
and PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards. February 2008.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. ESA Basics: Over 25 Years of Protecting Endangered
Species. <http://endangered.fws.gov/pubs/esa%20basics.pdf>. Accessed April 2007.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1990. GROUND WATER ATLAS of the UNITED STATES. Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. Chapter HA 730-G
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1994. Ground Water Atlas of the United States.
<http://capp.water.usgs.gov/gwa/>. Accessed June 2006.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). National Elevation Dataset for Baldwin County Alabama.
<http://seamless.usgs.gov>. Accessed June 2006.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2001. 2001 National Land Cover Dataset for Baldwin County Alabama.
<http://seamless.usgs.gov>. Accessed June 2006.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2005. USGS Programs in Alabama.
<http://water.usgs.gov/wid/html/al.html#2.3>. Accessed October 2008.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2008. South Baldwin County Aquifer.
<http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=302416087505501&agency_cd=USGS>. Accessed
October 2008.
Urban Land Institute. 2007. Proceedings of the Developing Resort, Second Home, and Golf Course
Communities Annual Conference, Tampa, Florida. March 14-15, 2007.
Walthall, J.A. 1980. Prehistoric Indians of the Southeast: Archaeology of Alabama and the Middle South.
University of Alabama Press, University, Alabama.
Weaver, Michael E., and Connie K. Williams, 2006. A Report Regarding an Independent School District
for the Cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, Alabama. Prepared by Michael E. Weaver, Financial
Consultant, and Dr. Connie K. Williams, Educational Consultant. Prepared for Mayors, City Councils,
and School Boards of the Cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach. Dec 2006.
February 2009
6-8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Witherington, B.E., and R.E. Martin. 1996. Understanding, assessing, and resolving light-pollution
problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. FMRI Technical Report TR-2, Florida Marine Research Institute,
St. Petersburg, Florida.
Witherington, B.E. 1997. The problem of photopollution for sea turtles and other nocturnal animals. In
Clemmons, J.R., and R. Buchholz (eds.), Behavioral Approaches to Conservation in the Wild. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge England.
Wofford, Lee Anne. 2007. Email to Ms. Hope Herron, Tetra Tech Inc., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. RE: Info
Request. Alabama Historical Commission, Alabama Department of the Archives and History,
Montgomery, Alabama. March 12, 2007.
February 2009
6-9
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
7.0 PERSONS CONSULTED
Baumhauer, Charlie. Baldwin County Sewer Service. July 2008.
Blankenship, Blanton. Fort Morgan State Historic Site. July 2007.
Campbell, Ryan. Baldwin Electric Membership Cooperative (Baldwin EMC). July 2008.
Clarke-Mobile Counties Gas District (CMC Gas). October 2008.
Clenney, Delia. Alabama Department of Industrial Relations (ALDIR). February 2007.
City of Gulf Shores, Chamber of Commerce. July 2007.
Counts, Mark. BWSC. September 2008.
Davis, Lee. Alabama Department of Environmental Management. July 2008.
Former, Tim. BFI Allied. July 2008.
Foster, Mike. Alabama Gulf Coast CVB. July 2007.
Fire Marshall, GSFM (Gulf Shores Fire and Rescue). February 2007.
Gulf State Park Administration. July 2007.
Harrison, Dennis. Drinking Water Branch Public Water Supply Branch. October 2008.
Johnson, Clifford. City of Gulf Shores Water & Wastewater Systems. July 2008.
Jones, Azura. Alabama Department of Environmental Management. July 2008.
Lee, Debra. BFI Allied. July 2008.
McMelan, Gary. City of Orange Beach Wastewater System. October 2008.
Natural Gas Utility. October 2008.
Peterson, David. City of Gulf Shores Water & Wastewater Systems. July 2008.
Shejan, Allen. Alabama Department of Environmental Management. July 2008.
Sullivan, Judy. Orange Beach Water Authority. July 2008.
Wade, John. City of Gulf Shores Water & Wastewater Systems. July 2008.
Waste Management. July 2008.
February 2009
7-1
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
8.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST
COOPERATING AGENCIES
Mr. Duncan Powell
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
404-562-9626
Mr. Sam Hamilton
Regional Director
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1875 Century Boulevard
Atlanta, GA 30345
cc: Ms. Elaine Snyder-Conn
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1208-B Main Street
Daphne, AL 36526
251-441-5181
251-441-6222 FAX
Mr. Roy E. Crabtree
National Marine Fisheries Service
Protected Resources Division
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
cc: Mr. Mark Thompson
National Marine Fisheries Service
3500 Delwood Beach Rd.
Panama City, FL 32408
850-234-5061
Mr. Bruce Baughman
Alabama Emergency Management Agency
P.O. Drawer 2160
5898 County Road 41
Clanton, AL 35046-2160
U.S. Coast Guard
Commanding Officer
Sector Mobile
Brookley Complex, Building 102
South Broad Street
Mobile, AL 36615-1309
February 2009
8-1
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
LT John Mangum
U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Mobile
Brookley Complex, Building 102
South Broad Street
Mobile, AL 36615-1309
Ms. Alfedo Acoff
Alabama Department of Transportation
1409 Coliseum Blvd.
Montgomery, AL 36130-3050
Mr. Scott Brown
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Coastal Facilities Section – Mobile Branch
4171 Commanders Drive
Mobile, AL 36615
Ms. Elizabeth Ann Brown
State Historic Preservation Officer
Alabama Historical Commission
468 South Perry Street
Montgomery, AL 36130-0900
Mr. Phillip Hinesley
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Coastal Programs
23210 U.S. Highway 98
Stonebrook Executive Complex
Suite B-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Mr. M. Barnett Lawley
Commissioner
64 N. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
Mr. Vernon Menton
Marine Resources Division
P.O. Box 189
Dauphin Island, AL 3652
February 2009
8-2

file

Transcription

Similar documents

11_goodin_Smart Rivers presentation

Oil Spill Research @ AU (the tiger land)

what`s for sale? - Alabama Butterbean Festival

Mincom New Choice Realty Ltd. Brokerage Brochure - 161

“WALKIN` TO NEW ORLEANS” Veterans` and Survivors` March for

5 Marina Terra - Seaside Realty

DAYBROOK FISHERIES, INC.

Coltons Point Marina

First Amendment suspended in the Gulf of Mexico as spill cover