ALABAMA
MARINE
RESOU RCES
BULLET IN
NUMBER 11
%
Alabama Marine Resources Laboratory
Dauphin island, Alabama 36528
JUNE 1976
STATE OF ALABAMA
George C. Wallace, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
Claude D. Kelley, Commissioner
MARINE RESOURCES DIVISION
Wayne E. Swingle, Director
ALABAMA MARINE RESOURCES LABORATORY
Hugh A. Swingle, Chief Marine Biologist
ALABAMA MARINE
RESOURCES BULLETIN
EDITORIAL STAFF
Alabama Marine Resources Laboratory
HUGH A. SWINGLE, Editor
MADISON R. POWELL, Associate Editor
WAYNE E. SWINGLE, Associate Editor
WALTER M. TATUM, Associate 
Editor
Editorial Review Board
Christmas, J. Y ..................... Gulf Coast Research 
Laboratory, Ocean Springs,
Mississippi.
Demoran, William J ....... Gulf Coast 
Research Laboratory, Ocean Springs,
Mississiprpi.
Hoese, H. D............. ......... D.....Department 
of Biology, University of South-
western Louisiana, Lafayette, 
Louisiana.
Joyce, Edwin A .................. Florida 
Department of Natural Resources, 
Talla-
hassee, Florida
Leary, T. R ........................ Texas 
Parks and Wildlife Department, 
Coastal
Fisheries, Austin, Texas.
Ray, Sammy M .................... Texas A&M 
University, Marine Laboratory,
Galveston, Texas.
Rounsefell, George A......... Marine Sciences 
Institute, University of Alabama,
Dauphin Island, Alabama.
Shell, E. W .......... Department of Fisheries and Allied 
Aquacultures,
Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.
Shipp, Robert L.....................Department of 
Biological Sciences, University of
South Alabama, Mobile, 
Alabama.
St. Amant, Lyle S............... Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries 
Commission,
New Orleans, Louisiana.
Story, Albert H......................U. S. Public Health Service, 
Gulf Coast Technical
Service Unit, Dauphin 
Island, Alabama.
Sykes, James E. ............. National Marine Fisheries 
Service, Biological
Laboratory, Beaufort, North Carolina.
Alabama Marine Resources Bulletin is a publication 
of the Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural 
Resources, Marine Resources
Division, devoted to presenting results 
of research and management
activities dealing with fisheries, marine biology, 
oceanography and related
subjects in Alabama, the Gulf of Mexico and contiguous 
waters. Alabama
Marine Resources Bulletin is published occasionally and is distributed 
free
to libraries, scientific institutions and conservation agencies on request.
ALABAMA MARINE RESOURCES BULLETIN
JUNE 1976
CONTENTS
Holocene Sediments of
M ay ...................................
Mobile Bay, Alabama. Edwin B.
Analysis of Commercial Fisheries Catch Data for Ala-
bam a. W ayne E . Sw ingle ............................... ........................................ 26-50
SurVey of the 16-Foot Trawl Fishery of Alabama.
Hugh A. Swingle, Donald G. Bland and Walter M.
T atum .... ............. ......... ........................................................................ 51-57
A Review of the Oyster Fishery of Alabama. Hugh A.
Swingle and Edgar A. Hughes ................... .............................. 58-73
NUMBER 11
1-25
HOLOCENE SEDIMENTS OF MOBILE BAY, ALABAMA
EDWIN B. 
MAY
2
Alabama Marine Resources Laboratory
Dauphin Island, Alabama 36528
ABSTRACT
Mobile Bay was a deep river valley until rising sea level from 
melting of the last
major glaciation began to form the present estuary about 
10,000 years ago. Subbottom
borings, probes and radiocarbon dates show that Holocene 
sediment in Mobile Bay averages
about 20 meters in thickness and has been deposited at 
different rates during the past
10,000 years in response to changes in sea level 
and possibly runoff. The rate of sedimen-
tation at the present delta front was 70 centimeters 
per century between 10,000 and 9,500
years ago. Between 9,500 and 7,500 years 
B.P. the rise in sea level was interrupted by
the Cochrane glacial readvance and little sedimentation 
or erosion of the basin occurred.
During this period modern terrestrial plants 
were deposited between about -14 and -16
meters, after which the rise in sea level 
resumed and sediment was deposited at 43 
centi-
meters per century between 7,500 B.P. and 
6,500 B.P. About 6,500 years ago the 
average
rate of sedimentation at the present delta 
front slowed to 20 centimeters per 
century.
Throughout the open bay the rate varied 
from 3 to 12 centimeters per century.
The barrier islands began to effectively 
influence estuarine salinity between 
3,000 and
4,000 years ago but they likely 
began to form earlier in response 
to a slowdown in the
marine transgression. Dated archaelogical 
sites on Holocene sediment are about 
4,000
years old or less.
The concentration of natural trace 
metals increase with depth in response 
to variations
in particle size distribution associated 
with different depositional environments. 
Clay min-
eralogy is remarkedly uniform with 
depth. Surface lead and zinc concentrations 
in a
limited area near the city of Mobile 
may have been increased above natural 
levels anthro-
pogenically. Natural levels of trace 
metals in sediment are not known to 
pose a threat to
water quality or biota whether 
sediment is left undisturbed or resuspended 
by man or
nature.
INTRODUCTION
Recognition of the importance of
estuarine sedimentology has increased
since federal regulatory agencies have
recently considered sediment as 
an en-
vironmental quality standard 
in relation
to dredging and other activities. 
In de-
veloping criteria for determining 
wheth-
er sediment may be dredged safely there
has been a problem of recognizing 
what
is natural and what is polluted -by man.
Trace metals have been assumed 
to be
major pollutants in estuarine sediment
because of the potential toxicity of
some forms when dissolved in 
water
although there is little information 
on
their natural occurrence. Estuarine
biological cycles and water quality 
are
interrelated with the chemical 
and
physical properties of sediments 
but
little is known about biological 
uptake
of chemicals from sediment. 
The role
of many trace metals as essential 
nu-
trients and the degree of metal release
or dissolution into water by sediment
resuspension has been 
generally over-
1 This study was done in cooperation 
with the U. S. Department of Commerce, 
N.O.A.A.,
National Marine Fisheries Service P.L. 
88-309 (Project 2-216-R), U. S. Army 
Corps of
Engineers, Mobile District, and the 
Alabama Highway Department.
2 Present Address: May Environmental Engineering, 
Inc., Post Office Box 9092, Mobile,
Alabama 36609.
looked.
Failure to apply available knowledge
to this environmental problem has par-
tially resulted in a general assumption
that resuspended sediments are pollu-
tants. In contrast, the fact is plain
that sediment is exposed to water na-
turally. Estuarine areas which receive
the most fresh water and its alluvium,
rich in trace metals and organic mat-
ter, are the most productive biologi-
cally.
This paper partially describes the
properties of Holocene sediments in
Mobile Bay, particularly as related to
the past 10,000 years of glacial and eu-
static events. The sediment composi-
tion and history of deposition compli-
ment what is known from other areas
of the Gulf coast (Shepard and Moore,
1960; Rusnak, 1960; van Andel, 1960;
Curray, 1965). Consideration is given
to the stratification of trace metals
as a function of deposition rate and
mineralogy. The environmental signi-
ficance of sediment resuspension is
discussed.
Different -aspects of the geology of
the Alabama coastal area have been
described by Smith, Johnson and Lang-
don (1894) ; Richard (1939) ; Carlston
(1950) ; Marsh (1966) ; Copeland
(1968); Ryan (1969); Isphording and
Lamb (1971) ; Reed (1971 a;b) ; Ryan
and Goodell (1972); Isphording and
Riccio (1972); Riccio, Isphording and
Gazzier (1972); Otvos (1973); and
others.
METHODS AND AREA OF
INVESTIGATION
The Mobile River system 
drains ap-
proximately 114,000 square kilometers
and is second in discharge only to the
Mississippi River system along the
eastern and southern coasts of the
United States. The river terminus is
Mobile Bay which is about 50 kilometers
long and 14 to 18 kilometers wide in
the northern two-thirds and about 38
kilometers wide in the lower reaches.
The bay opens to the west into Missi-
ssippi Sound. Both water bodies are
bordered on their seaward margins by
barrier islands or spits. An extensive
delta merges with the flood plains of
the Alabama and Tombigbee rivers
about 48 kilometers north of the upper
end of the bay (Figure 1).
Extensive subsurface investigations
were done by Shelby tube borings in
conjunction with the proposed bridge
crossings of interstate highways 1-65
in the delta and 1-10 at the delta front
by the Alabama Highway Department.
Radiocarbon dates were obtained from
several stations near the proposed High-
way 90 and 1-10 interchange and from
the 1-65 right-of-way. A continuous
profile of dates was obtained at one
station near the centerline of the inter-
section of the two highways from the
surface to a depth of 20 meters and
were used to interpret sedimentation
rates. Samples of large oyster shells
were dated from a deposit in the Gulf
of Mexico in 38 meters at 29140' north
latitude and 88'23' west longitude.
Most mineralogical and engineering
analyses of core and surface samples
as done by the Alabama Highway
Department. Trace metal analyses were
done by the Alabama Highway Depart-
ment and the Corps of Engineers Water-
ways Experiment Station using atomic
absorption spectrophotometry (Envir-
onmental Protection Agency, 1969).
Clay mineralogy was done at Auburn
University using X-ray defraction and
differential thermal analysis.
Radiocarbon analyses were done by
Teledyne Isotopes, Westwood, New Jer-
sey under contract with the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama.
FIGURE 1. The Mobile Bay delta estuarine system showing locations 
of radiocarbon dates
and the distribution of buried oyster shell deposits in relation to depth of 
overburden.
SCALE
STATUTE MILES
o 4
o l USA BA-19r
KILOMETERS
HWY 90-NO
INTERCHANGE 
-4
25-30
20-25
WATER DE PTH -FEE T 10
OVERBURDEN DEPTH-FEET IS2\
U USA BA-2
BA-194 A
45-
uiY 90
110
@-C-14 SAMPLE 
SITE
30O'-
30015
ISLANDMOBILE
POI NT
G UL F OF MEXICO
5' 145'
l i J
14 S
Total organic carbon from 15-to 30-
centimeter long sediment cores was
analyzed after treatment for removal
of carbonates. Wood, charcoal, or shell
was present in most core segments.
Shell from a small section of the core
was used in most samples. All shell was
acid-washed before dating the remain-
der. Samples of buried shell from de-
posits in the bay were collected in 1969
by May (1971). Additional dates were
reported by Ryan (1969).
Much of the data in this study was
provided through the cooperation of
Edward Eiland and Don Horn with the
Alabama Highway Department and Don
Conlon with the Mobile District, Corps
of Engineers. Ben Hajek, Auburn Uni-
versity, did the clay mineralogy and R.
John Taylor, Southeastern State Uni-
versity, Durant, Oklahoma, identified
macrofossil plant material. Bobby Tay-
lor, Dauphin Island, collected oyster
shells in the Gulf.
LATE PLEISTOCENE AND
HOLOCENE HISTORY OF MOBILE
BAY
The formation of Mobile Bay and
the present coastline was a function of
a rise in sea level from the low of the
last glacial maximum to its present
height and associated meteorological
conditions which influenced runoff. The
late-Wisconsin glaciations achieved a
maximum extent about 18,000 years ago
and sea level is thought to have been as
low as -122 meters below its present
stand. After this last major glacial
advance the glaciers began a nonuni-
form retreat and sea level began to rise
in response to world-wide glacial melt-
ing.
The rise in sea level was interrupted
by two and possibly three temporary
regressions (Curray, 1965). The Val-
ders readvance occurred around 11,800
years B.P. (before present) and sea
level was again lowered. This glacial
readvance was followed by a rapid re-
treat about 11,500 B.P. and a resump-
tion in sea level rise (Broecker, 1965).
The most significant interruption in
the rise of sea level was between 9,500
and 7,500 B.P. and correlates with the
Cochrane readvance in Ontario, Canada
(Karlstrom and Rubin, 1955; Curray,
1960; Flint, 1963). The overall trend in
sea level was a rapid rise with tempo-
rary interruptions until a pronounced
slowing occurred around 7,000 B.P. It
is not known with certainty whether
the present stand was reached 3,000 to
5,000 years ago or only recently (Cur-
ray, 1965).
Knowledge of sea level height and
Holocene sedimentation in estuaries is
based on radiocarbon dates of coastal
deposits which have known relationship
to sea level such as mollusk shells and
peat deposits. Literature on sea level
fluctuation reflects the incomplete data
and the complexity of the events of this
period. Uncertainties in the actual re-
lationship of deposits to sea level, dif-
ferent subsidence and compaction of
sediments and other isources of error
have caused uncertainties among geol-
ogists as to the exact position of sea
level with time but the overall process
is fairly well known.
In addition to sea level position, cli-
matic changes have pronounced affects
on sedimentation. Very little is known
of the paleo-climatic conditions of the
Mobile Bay drainage system (Morris,
1965; Szabo, 1972). Nevertheless, the
variations in deposition of sediments in
Mobile Bay fit well into the time inter-
vals proposed for climatic changes in
other areas of the United States
(Brooks, 19419; Deevey, 1949; Parker,
1960; Broecker, 1965; Curray, 1960;
1961; Broecker and Kaufman, 1965;
5
FIGURE 2. Sedimentation rate curve for Mobile Bay at the proposed interchange of High.-
way 90 and I-10 (Figure 1) based on radiocarbon dates of wood, charcoal and shells.
Line connects dotted samples taken from same hole. Other dates are from nearby holes
except those circled are from 1-65. Vertical lines are depth range of sample. Horizontal
lines are statistical variability of dates.
0
DEPTH BELOW SEA LEVEL 
IN
In 
0
METERS
I I I I --- V
0
N'
T I - I T
24
41-1+
O+
?J
++00?
+
I.0
z
VI)
a.
L w
0
U-
ci
LL.
0
VI)
LO) 0 L 0Q LA 0 0 (1)
- - N N n I-r 'g r
133 4 N I 13A3 V3S M0139
o Lito
LO) L/) w (
H.ld3G
HI\ ~r\HIC r\AI~ ~T~~TT\~ ~~~n171r\~ ~~1~~~ TI T\IY~ C ~M~
1 1 1 I I I
ilLI I~
tot
d
I
Martin and Mehringer, 1965; Meier,
1965; Morrison, 1965; Schumn, 1965;
Smith, 1965; Whitehead, 1965 and
others).
Mobile Bay began to form when ris-
ing sea level drowned a deep river val-
ley which was eroded by the Pleisto-
cene river system. Since the beginning
of this process about 10,000 years ago
the eroded valley has become about 85
percent filled with sediment in refer-
ence to present sea level. The bathy-
metry on the continental shelf off Ala-
bama shows evidence of relic shorelines
such as mounds along the 18-meter con-
tour, submerged deltas or alluvial fans
and possibly river channels inside the
55-meter contour. Similar features also
occur off the coast of Texas (Curray,
1960; 1961).
SEDIMENTATION RATE
The sedimentary history of the pre-
sent bay and delta is mostly confined
to within the past 10,000 years. For a
practical discussion of sedimentation
in Mobile Bay, four periods of sea
level fluctuation need to be considered;
before 9,500 B.P.; from 9,500 to 7,500
B.P.; from 7,500 to 6,500 B.P.; and since
6,500 B.P. The position of sea level is
inferred and discussed from the sedi-
mentation rate curve (Figure 2) but the
data represent the bay bottom, not
height of sea level. Sea level was above
or near the curve shown in Figure 2
except between 9,500 and 7,500 B.P.
The line in Figure 2 connects samples
from the same hole which are represent-
ed by a dot in the center.
Before 9,500 B.P.
During lower sea level the Mobile
River became deeply entrenched in a
broad valley with the river mouth per-
haps 100 kilometers seaward of the
present mouth of the bay. Much of
the Pleistocene sediments previously
deposited in the valley were removed
by erosion and coarse sand and gravel
was deposited on stiff clays of predomi-
nantly Miocene age (Riccio et al., 1972).
The top of the extremely stiff clay
exposed during the Pleistocene occurs
at various depths at the delta front
from about -12 to-33 meters and
most frequently at about-24 meters
below present sea level. Although de-
tailed coring throughout all the bay and
delta has not been done, numerous
probes with a water jet hit an impene-
trable clay at about-18 meters or less
over most of the open bay. Within the
buried river channel the clay occurs at
-36 meters in the lower bay (K. R.
McLain, personal communication). The
river channels formed during lower
sea level are well defined in coring
profiles across the delta front at the
1-10 crossing (Figure 3 A&B) and
across the delta 27 kilometers north-
ward at the 1-65 crossing (Figure 4).
As rising sea level advanced into
what is now Mobile Bay, the deep river
channel and the adjoining valley be-
gan to flood and fill with sediment be-
fore about 10,000 B.P. The transgres-
sional erosion and alluvial sedimenta-
tion deposited silt-clay and very little
sand at a rate of around 70 centimeters
per century until about 9,500 B.P. when
sea level apparently regressed from a
position of about -16 meters. This in-
terruption in the rise of -sea level caused
much of the previously inundated basin
to become subaerially exposed until the
rise resumed. Oyster shells collected
in 38 meters from the Gulf of Mexico,
76 kilometers south-southwest of Mo-
bile Bay, had an average age of 9,585
years B.P. (9230 + 150; 9940 ?_ 150).
River channels formed during this re-
gression and deposition of sediment on
the Texas shelf suggested to Curray
FIGURE 3. Vertical cross-sectional
stations shown in Figure 6.
profile of sediments near the present 
delta front at
DEPTH IN METERS BELOW SEA LEVEL
u o u o u,.
0-0 .C
LI)N
V3S MO73 133- N I Hld3G]
DEPTH IN METERS BELOW SEA
1) 0 LI 
0
NQ
0
z
z
I-
(-
z
0
La-
0
w
0)
z
L)
F-
- N
VSM0138, 133A NI
uj
z
L)J
0
4j
LAW
4L
wm
(n
0>.
IM I
o >
H
0i*L
.
9
FIGURE 4. Vertical cross-sectional profile along proposed 
1-65 delta crossing 27 kilometers
north of the delta front. Location shown in Figure 1.
DEPTH IN METERS BELOW SEA LEVEL
_0 
LA 
Ul )
ui)
zI
La
Z
LL
z
LaJ
z
0
-J
L-)
0-
z
C,,
-J
U-
0
z
V)
LX
LaJ
LaJ
0
0- N'
LXJ
LaJ
LL
LL.
Hn
M01318
10
(1960) that sea level fell to-38 meters
and then rose to and remained at about
-17 meters until the transgression re-
sumed. Acoustic subsurface profiles of
Holocene sediment in South America
were interpreted by van Andel and
Sachs (1964) as showing the regression
was from about -20 meters to a low of
-37 meters.
The apparent lack of significant ero-
sion of the soft bay deposits and con-
tinued clay deposition during this in-
terval indicate a minor or very tem-
porary increase in gradient. Shepard
(1964) reported a salt marsh peat with
a C-14 age of 8,000 years at -21
meters in a submarine canyon in Cali-
fornia which he felt was a stable area.
Some additional dates from this period
are reported by Curray (1960)and
Shepard (1960a) but none exceed 30
meters in depth. Additional work in
lower Mobile Bay and on the Alabama
shelf could likely help establish this
sequence with certainty.
9,500 to 7,500 B.P.
This period is marked at the present
delta front by an absence of estuarine
sedimentation and aquatic mollusk
shells and the presence of a muddy,
woody peat-like deposit and soil-like
zone between about -14 and -16
meters. Sediments are sandy, silty
clay. In eroded channels, undated wood
is found to depths of -18 to -21 me-
ters but in most places the woody zone
overlies sediments which contain mol-
lusk shell. Evidence of this terrestrial
stage is found near this depth in cores
throughout much of the lower delta
and it is analogous with similar organic
layers of the same age found elsewhere
along the northern Gulf coast (Rehkem-
per, 1969). The muddy condition and
degree of preservation of the material
suggest its deposition in water, possi-
bly by inundation. The narrow age
range of the plant material suggests
there were times during this period,
especially after 8,500 B.P., which were
unfavorable for growth or preservation.
Plant macrofossils in the muddy
layer -14 ot -16 meters below present
sea level in the continuous profile con-
sisted of wood, seeds, leaves, stems,
roots and grass. Much of the material
was fairly well preserved and identi-
fiable. Radiocarbon dates of wood
from 11 samples of this deposit at dif-
ferent stations and depths ranged from
8,340 I
+ 
380 to 9,380 I 180 years B.P.
with most dates between 8,400 and
8,900 B.P. In Figure 2 the date Of
8,640 B.P. at a depth of -14.2 to -15.2
meters is an average of six dates within
that depth: 8480 350; 8665 365;
8500 ? 430; 8480 280; 8860 420
and 8860 ? 170. The date 8770 B.P.
at -15.8 to-16.5 meters is. an aver-
age of 8900 ? 450 and 8640 ? 145. A
thin soil-like zone overlying the deposit
occupied a period from 8,300 B.P. to
7,500 B.P.
In the bottom layers of the organic
zone a freshwater diatom Stephanodis-
cus and eastern red cedar were abun-.
dant. Cedar became less abundant and
disappeared in the upper layers.
Throughout the deposit, typical bottom-
land species were present; tupelo, syca-
more, river birch, American beech,
waxmyrtle, black haw, 'lichens and
grasses or sedges. These species are
identical to those found along streams
in the area today and whose common
range presently extend from the south-
eastern Gulf coast as far north as
southern Illinois and Indiana. Oaks
and pines common on the present up-
land are currently rare in the lower
delta just as in the period sampled.
7,500 to 6,500 B.P.
A resumption in the rise of sea level
covered the subaerial zone at -14 me-
ters '1,500 Years ago. Sedimentation
was rapid until about 6,500 B.P. (about
43 centimeters per century) after which
sedimentation rate slowed (Figure 2).
There is an inconsistancy between dates
from different stations within this pe
riod which may represent differences
in elevations of the bottom before depo-
sition. The two older dates at the same
depth tend to weight the slowing in the
sedimentation rate curve for the con-
tinubus profile to a point nearer 7,000
B.P. Unfortunately, the compositional
character of these two samples was not
observed.
The sediment from this zone (-10
to -14 meters) is silt-clay with almost
no sand. Cores have a lenticular, crum-
bly structure when broken and contain
very few mollusk shells and little or-
ganic .matter which may be a function
of rapid sedimentation. The structure
of the cores may be related to floccula-
tion in relatively high salinity. Sedi-
ment yield by the rivers during this
period may have been considerably
greater than since that time although
shore erosion due to rising sea level
may have been a significant source of
sediment.
Since 6,500 B.P.
After 6,500 B.P. sediments at the
present delta front were sandy with
lesser amounts of silt and clay and the
rate of sedimentation slowed to an aver-
age of 20 centimeters per century.
There is an indication from the con-
tinuous profile that sedimentation rate
may have been slightly less (14 centi-
meters) between 6,000 and 4,000 years
ago. Bedload from delta progradation
may have contributed to the apparent
increase since 4,000 B.P. and dates
from other stations tend to flatten the
curve (Figure 2) to a rate similar to
the 6,000 to 4,000 B.P. rate. Sediment
is mostly bypassing the center of the
11
bay now (Ryan, 1969) and a similar
situation may have existed earlier at
the present delta front causing the va-
riations in rate.
The pronounced slowing in sedimen.-
tation rate about 6,500 B.P. correlates
with a hypothesized slowing in rate of
sea level rise about that time (Curray,
1965). There is a lack of concensus
on sea level position or rate of rise but
most authors infer that since about
7,000 B.P. there has been a slow rise of
sea level to its present stand. In any
case, the last 6,500 years have been a
period of relative stability of the sedi-
mentation rate within the estuary.
Presently, the bulk of sediment de-
posited in the estuary is received dur-
ing seasonal high river discharge and
little is deposited during low or normal
flow. The river system entering Mo-
bile Bay delivers an average of 4.3 mil-
lion dry weight metric tons of sedi-
ment annually. During the large flood
of 1961, 4.7 million metric tons of the
total 7.5 million metric tons for that
year, entered the bay between January
and March (Ryan, 1969). During a
longer flood from 17 December 1972 to
24 June 1973, I estimated that 8.0 mil-
lion metric tons entered the bay. A
daily average of over 107,000 metric
tons of sediment is suspended naturally
in Mobile Bay, which has an area of
about 107,000 hectares. Over 569,000
metric tons of suspended solids have
been estimated from measurements tak-
en during a 25-knot wind and the
amount is higher during storms.
The rate of sedimentation is not uni-
form throughout the delta-bay system
and varies from the average determined
at the present delta front. Buried oys-
ter shell samples from the open bay
(average water depth 3 meters) show
deposition of overburden ranges from
3 to 21 centimeters per century (aver-
12
age 12) which is in agreement with the
rate reported ifor Mississippi Sound
(12) by Rainwater (1964). The high-
est rates are in Bon Secour Bay in the
lower estuary due to salinity floccu-
lation of clay in the upper bay (18 to
21 centimeters per century) due to delta
progradation (Figure 1 and Table 1).
TABLE 1. Radiocarbon dates of oyster shell deposits buried at various depths.
Sample
Location Below
MSL
Fig. 1 Lab No. (m)
1 FSU 192 9.5
2 top R-3857 7.6
2 bot R-3858 11.6
3 top R-4228 7.3
3 bot R-4227 11.3
4 FSU 167 7.6
5 1-7143 9.5
6 R-4225 6.1
8 top R-3855 4.0
8 bot R-3856 6.4
11 FSU 195 3.7
12 1-7166 4.0
13 1-7165 4.0
14 1-7161 4.9
10 1-7164 4.6
9 1-7160 5.5
15 1-7163 4.9
16 1-7162 3.7
7 1-7682 6.4
* Overburden
Carbon-14 dates and sediment pro-
files from the upper delta at the 1-65
crossing show that delta growth north
of the bay apparently kept pace with
sea level rise during the past 10,000
years and the bay probably never ex-
tended much farther up the valley than
now. The profile in Figure 4 shows
that mostly sandy clay or sand was de-
posited in the upper delta except above
-6 to -9 meters where organic clay
predominates. The' data do not indi-
cate that tectonic subsidence or compac-
tion is greater than in the lower delta.
The C-14 dates from 1-65 are circled
in Figure 2. The two older dates from
the upper delta are much shallower
than similar dates from the lower delta.
The oldest date was from wood and the
next oldest was from tree roots in
growth position. The four shallower
dates were at the same depth as sam-
ples from the lower delta and were of
marsh grass and wood. No mollusk
shells were found in the cores.
Lack of indication of differential
subsidence of the deeper sediment com-
pared to the lower delta and the pres-
ence of a marsh peat between about -4
and -7 meters suggests that sea level
and rate of rise may have been very
near the sedimentation rate curve in
Figure 2 since 7,500 B.P. and that sea
level did not reach its present height
until fairly recently. It may still be
rising (Hicks and Crosby, 1975). How-
ever, compaction of the upper sediment,
which does occur to some degree, pre-
cludes an absolute interpretation of 
sea
level position.
IH
2
0
Depth
(m)
0
3.7
3.7
3.4
3.4
3.1
3.4
4.3
3.4
3.4
0
1.8
2.1
2.7
2.4
3.4
2.7
2.1
3.4
OB*
Depth
(m)
9.2
4.0
4.0
4.3
4.3
0.6
0.6
3.7
0.3
0
0
0.6
0
0.3
0
2.1
OB Over
Sample
im)
9.5
3.9
7.9
3.9
7.9
4.5
6.1
1.8
0.6
3.0
3.7
2.2
1.9
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.2
1.6
3.0
C-14
Age
5680 ? 50
5550 ? 210
5710 ? 220
5260 ? 200
4820 ? 190
3910 ? 75
5330 ? 110
1430 ? 140
2200 ? 140
3120 ? 160
2245 ? 35
2410 ? 85
1400 ? 85
2750 ? 85
2330 ? 85
1100 ? 85
1070 ? 85
2050 + 85
1450 ? 85
Sed. Rate
of OB
cm/century
16.46
7.01
13.72
7.60
16.46
19.51
11.28
12.80
2.74
9.76
16.16
8.84
13.11
7.62
9.14
20.42
19.81
7.32
21.03
CLVUIiltl
13
Russell (1967) mentioned a regional
subsidence of 11 centimeters per cen-
tury based on a 3.3 meter subsidence of
Indian mounds in the delta duringthe
past 3,000 years although he gave no
supporting data. In order for the delta
to have remained subaerially exposed
in relation to sea level if subsiding at
that rate, a sediment accumulation of 37
centimeters per century would have
had to occur. This rate is similar to
Galveston Bay where 4.6 meters of sub-
sidence has been assumed (Rehkemper,
1969). Shephard and Moore (1960)
found subsidence increased northward
in the Guadalupe Delta, Texas indicat-
ing a faster deposition rate up the
river, HIowever, my data show a sedi-
mentation rate of only about 12 centi-
meters per century in the Mobile Delta.
It seems reasonable to assume that
sediment accumulation during the past
150 years could be greater than before
due to lumbering, agriculture and phy-
sical modifications within the bay and
this may be true in local areas of the
system. Ryan (1969) calculated a bay-
wide sedimentation rate of 56 centi-
meters during the past 100 years from
bathymetry changes in Mobile Bay.
Whether this estimate based on de-
creases in depths reflects a significant
increase in recent isedimentation rate
for the entire system is uncertain.
Ryan determined a dry weight den-
sity of 0.57 grams per cubic centimeter
for surface sediments in the Bay which
is about half the average density (1.1
grams per cubic centimeter) reported
from cores 0.5 to 1 meter deep (May,
1973). Deeper cores are still more
dense. After the surface sediments,
which contain a large amount of water,
consolidate further with time the den-
sity of the surface sediments will proba-
bly approach that of deeper sediments
on which the long term rates were
based. Likewise, the long-term rate
does not consider compaction and the
material deposited before 6,500 B.P.
must have had a much greater tempo-
rary shoaling rate than is reflected by
the long-term sedimentation rate.
In summary, Mobile Bay like other
bays, is a transient geological feature.
Ultimately it will be filled with sedi-
ment and the delta will prograde into
the Gulf if sea level does not fluctuate
significantly. At a rate of 20 centi-
meters per century the bay will be
filled with alluvial sediment in less
than 1,500 years. Bedload from delta
progradation will shorten this time to
about 10 centuries..
The delta is growing into the upper
bay at a rate in excess of 0.3 kilometer
per century. Progradation was esti-
mated by Ryan (1969) to be 0.6 kilome-
ter during the last century. The inter-
distributary bays in the lower Mobile
Delta are rapidly filling. Within about
two centuries or less these small bays
will be mostly filled and replaced by
new bays formed between new distribu-
tary terraces seaward of the present
river mouths. A detailed understand-
ing of these dynamic processes would
be highly beneficial when developing
plans for disposal of dredged sediment.
It has not been generally recognized
that material dredged to maintain the
Port of Mobile and other ports on major
rivers would enter the open water por-
tion of the upper bay naturally if
dredging was not done. A logical solu-
tion to problems of disposal of mainte-
nance spoil from both a practical and
environmental standpoint may be to put
the spoil in open water in a manner
that is compatible with what would
happen naturally. A detailed field study
of the biological, sedimentological and
hydrological characteristics of the delta
front and adjacent wetlands is a pre-
14
requisite to a solution of dredged mate-
rial disposal problems in upper Mobile
Bay.
BARRIER ISLAND FORMATION
The formation of the sand barriers,
Mobile Point Peninsula and Dauphin
Island, in their present position at the
mouth of the bay was a particularly sig-
nificant event in the sedimentary his-
tory of Mobile Bay. The sand base of
these barriers and other islands to the
west is generally separated from the
surface exposed during the Pleistocene
by several feet of Holocene mud. Depth
of the sand is variable because differ-
ent parts formed at different times and
the islands have migrated thus obscur-
ing some of the conditions of their
original formation.
Using acoustic-reflection, Curray and
Moore (1963) found the base of the
,sand between Cat, Ship and Horn is-
lands in Mississippi Sound to be 9 to
12 meters below sea level. This corre-
lated with borings which showed that
sand extended to not over 12 meters
overlying marine clay (Shephard,
1969b). Texas barrier sands lie on the
Pleistocene surface in some cases and
in other cases overlie bay deposits at
about -8 to -12 meters below sea
level. In most places the sand bodies
are bordered on both sides by muddy
sediments (Shephard, 1960b). Physi-
cal probes and acoustic profiles in Boil
Secour Bay proceeding toward the mid-
dle of Mobile Point Peninsula showed
barrier sand overlying mud at about
-9 to -11 meters below sea level
(May and McLain, 1970). Mobile
Point is, in part, a relic Pleistocene
ridge (Kwon, 1969; Otvos, 1973). Re-
cent borings in Dauphin Island by E. G.
Otvos (Gulf Coast Research Labora-
tory, Mississippi) found that eastern
Dauphin Island is a relic Pleistocene
ridge, veneered over by recent beach
and dune sediments.
The depth of the barrier sand in re-
lation to previous sea level indicates
that the barriers started forming near
their present position when the rate of
rise of sea level slowed and upbuilding
kept pace with the slower rise (Curray
and Moore, 1963). Otvos (1970a;b)
discussed the development and migra-
tion of barrier formation by aggrada-
tion of submerged shoals. He felt that
most present Gulf coast barrier islands
started to form about 5,000 to 3,500
years ago when the Holocene sea level
transgression had slowed down or
stopped altogether. Much of the litera-
ture on barrier formation is reviewed
by Kwon (1969).
In the present state of knowledge it
is not known whether these bars were
exposed above sea level when they first
began to form. Shephard and Moore
(1960) presented evidence for existence
of barrier islands seaward of their
present position during the early de-
velopment of San Antonio Bay. Reh-
kemper (1969) reported cemented
beachrock seaward of the present bar-
riers near Galveston Bay which indi-
cated emergence of earlier barriers.
The presence of two distinct buried oys-
ter reef developments in Galveston Bay
separated by a continuous mud layer
containing no shell material indicated
marine incursion by submersion of pre-
viously formed barriers about 6,000
B.P. He felt that the present barriers
formed between 2,000 and 4,000 years
ago. Deep multiple reef facies of un-
known significance are also present in
upper Mobile Bay but layered reefs are
more numerous at shallower depths at
a later time. Mobile Bay is a long,
narrow river estuary and oyster reef
development in the upper bay could
have occurred independent of barrier
15
formation. This could be true since
oysters began growing soon after the
rate of sedimentation and, presumably,
rate of sea level rise slowed. There
was a significant increase in Formani-
fera, clam shells (Mulinia and Rangia)
and the first appearance of oyster shells
(Crassostrea virginica) about 6,500
B.P. when the bay bottom in the area
of the present delta front was about 11
meters below present sea level.
For all practical purposes,. the oyster
C. virginica is restricted to estuaries
and is usually prolific only within the
15 to 25 ppt salinity range. It is most
abundant in areas where the salinity
averages 20 ppt. It is highly probable
that salinity averaged close to 20 ppt
at places in the bay or Gulf where large
accumulations of oyster shells were de-
pob-sited.
Oyster shell deposits have not been
found below about -11 meters MSL or
at ages older than 6,500 years in the
bay or delta. No old deposits have been
found by deep probing in the lower bay
indicating that extensive oyster reef
development did not migrate up the
present bay with advancing sea level.
Extensive oyster shell deposits have not
been found north of the present delta
front indicating that sufficient salt-
water penetration from increased water
depth has not occurred beyond that
point. When oysters first grew in the
upper bay, if a similar relationship ex-
isted between distance from the river
mouths, rainfall and abundant oyster
growth as exists now, the delta front
at that time would have been about 40
kilometers northward or the bay much
deeper. However, there is no evidence
that either condition existed. A near
surface C-14 date of the Little Lizzard
Creek Midden near 1-65 indicates that
the elevation of the delta in that area
has remained relatively stable for the
past 2,500 years. If the delta front was
not considerably farther north when
oysters first began growing or the bay
was not deep, then the winter and
spring climate would have had to been
much dryer or the barriers not emer-
gent, both of which are possibilities.
The distribution of buried oyster
shell deposits (May, 1971) indicates
that the process of oyster shell deposi-
tion has not been greatly interrupted
within the past 6,500 years. Progres-
sively younger shell deposits with less
overburden are found proceeding south-
ward from the delta (Figure 1 and
Table 1). The area of favorable sa-
linity and oyster shell deposition has
rather uniformly shifted southward by
a complex interaction of delta progra-
dation, sedimentation, sea level rise,
barrier formation and possibly an in-
crease in rainfall. Oysters did not
grow in the lower half of the bay until
about 3,000 years ago and many of
these reefs are still exposed with oys-
ters growing on them. No extensive
reefs formed in the upper half of the
bay since about 4,000 B.P. The period
between 4,000 and 3,000 B.P. when sa-
linity favorable for oyster growth
shifted from the upper half of the bay
to the lower half is marked in the mid-
bay by numerous multiple reef facets.
The tops of the lower deposits are at
about -6 meters MSL (ca. 4,000 B.P.)
and the bottoms of the upper deposits
are at about -4.6 (ca. 8,000 B.P.).
Since oysters could not have grown in
the lower bay if they had been exposed
to the open Gulf, the barriers were well
established and emergent by 3,000 B.P.
However, an increase in runoff since
4,000 years ago which is suggested
from the sedimentation rate could have
strongly influenced oyster distribution
and favored growth in the lower bay.
Carbon-14 dates and depths of oyster
16
shell deposits indicate that the salinity
system within Mobile Bay has been
fairly well balanced and somewhat simi-
lar to the present for the past 3,000
years with only a moderate reduction
in favorable salinity conditions (fresh-
ening) in the middle bay due to delta
progradation.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RELATIONSHIPS
Dated occupation sites of aboriginal
man are important indicators of the de-
position and stability of coastal and
deltic sediments. Knowledge of coastal
Indians in Alabama dates only to 4,000
B.P. Correlations based on pottery
sherds place several Alabama sites in
the late Archaic (ca. 4,000 B.P.) and
Early Woodland (ca. 3,000 B.P.) but
few have been radiocarbon dated. Re-
ports of C-14 dates from archaeological
excavations in coastal Alabama, Louisi-
ana, northwest Florida and Mississippi
are given by Wimberly (1960), Lazarus
(1965) and Otvos (1973). The earliest
dated occupations range from 4,000 to
3,000 B.P. in surrounding states with
3,000 years or less more common.
Trickey (1958) and Trickey and Holmes
(1971) established a ceramic chronoligi-
cal framework for the Mobile Bay area.
The river bottom sites tend to date late
in the chronology with the earlier
sites found on the periphery of the
flood plain.
The Bryants Landing site in the up-
per Mobile Delta (Figure 1) has con-
flicting reports of supposedly the same
C-14 date of 3,500 B. P. and 2,540 + 200
B. P. reported by Wimberly (1960) and
Lazarus (1965). More recent dates
from the site range from 1,080 + 150
to 4,100 ? 250 years (Trickey and
Holmes, 1974). They interpreted the
sites stratigraphy to indicate sea level
oscillations, but there is no substan-
tiative evidence in Alabama or else-
where for a recent stand of sea level
higher than its present position (Shep-
hard, 1964).
Radiocarbon dates of clam or oyster
shell from Dauphin Island middens and
three other Mississippian Period mid-
dens in the delta (Figure 1) are re-
ported in Table 2. Some of the sites
TABLE 2. Radiocarbon dates from Indian shell middens associated with Holocene sediments.
Location Age In
Sample No. Figure 1 Description Years B.P.
I-7656A USA Ba-2 Rangia 1 meter pit in midden 30 met-
ers NW of Temple Mound 1,440 t 85
I-7656B USA Ba-2 Rangia 1 meter pit in Midden, base
Temple Mound 1,440 ? 85
1-7141 USA Ba-2 Rangia 1 meter pit near Temple
Mound 1,090 ? 85
1-7655 USA Ba-195 Rangia 1 meter in midden, Little Liz-
zard Creek 2,520 ?85
1-7539 USA Ba-194A Rangla 1 meter pit in site, Maritime
Administration, Blakeley River 1,150 ? 80
1-7654 USA MB-72 Oyster 1 meter above ground level in
midden 360 ? 80
1-7658 USA MB-72 Oyster near ground level base of
midden 515 ?80
1-7657 USA MB-72 Oyster near ground level base of
midden 550 ? 80
1-7142 USA MB-72 Oyster 1 meter pit top midden 520 ? 80
17
are probably older than these dates.
The most significant to sedimentology
is the date of 2,520 ? 85 B.P. from 
1
meter deep in the Little Lizzard Creek
site about one-half mile north of the
1-65 crossing. The character of the
site which forms a small but noticeable
mound suggests little :change in 
sur-
roundings since the Early Woodland
Period and very little subsidence.
Commercially dredged buried 
shell
deposits in Mobile Bay only extend 
to
about -11 meters below sea level and
are not Indian middens since the basin
was inundated at the time of their
deposition. However it is possible that
there are buried sites in the delta or at
greater depths in the bay on the Pleis-
tocene surface. Man was present in
northern Alabama and other coastal
states in the Paleo-Indian and Archaic
periods over 8,000 years ago (Miller,
1957; Wormington, 1957; Williams and
Stoltman, 1965). The coastal area and
river valleys may very well have been
inhabited when sea level was lower and
evidence may lie buried in the sedi-
ments or seaward of the present coast-
line. Underwater sites over 5,000
IJ
LAj
w
0
-c
i
ul
ULJ
a.
w
0
-6 -
[9-
-17-
I-20-
ZINC
AVE RANGE N
31.4 16A-86.8 20
51A 11.0-72.1 24
77.0 30.2-10I. 56
58.5 26,0-69.0 IS
CADMIUM
years old have been located by diving
off the coast of California (Shephard,
1964) and in a coastal spring in Flor-
ida which dated 10,200 ? 145 B.P.
(W. A. Cockrell, personal communica-
tion).
TRACE METAL GEOCHEMISTRY
Subsurface trace metal concentra-
tions in the bay sediments are stratified
and increase with depth (Figure 5).
Lowest levels are found in the 
upper 6
meters (ca. 1,500-4,000 B.P.). Concen-
trations increase between -6 and -9
meters (ca. 4,000-6,000 B.P.) and are
at a higher level between -9 and -17
meters (ca. 6,000-9,500 B.P.). Concen-
tration between -17 and -20 meters
(ca. 9,500-10,000 B.P.) are similar to
the -6 to -9 meter levels.
The stratification 
corresponds 
to dif-
ferences in sediment particle size dis-
tribution and organic matter as a re-
sult of varying depositional environ-
ments of the sediments with depth. The
sediments at the 1-10 site are predomi-
nantly silty clay and sand-silt-clay. The
sand facet overlying the Miocene clay
CHROMIUM LEAD MERCURY
AVE RANGE N AVE RANGE N AVE RANGE N AVE RANGE N
8.7 2.0-241 20 .014 >.01-03 18
15.8 4.1-26.7 24 .014 >.01-.03 23
25.8 9.3-43.3 56
22.5 7.7-34.9 15
.019 >.01-.05 56
.019 >.01-.03 14
FIGURE 5. Subsurface trace metal 
concentrations with depth (ppm) from 
borings near the
proposed Highway 90 - 1-10 interchange (Figure 1).
.58 .2-1.6 20 13.4 5.8-41.5 20
1.09 .3 5.6 24 22.2 3.2-31.1 24
.42 .3-9.5 56 32.1 184-41.7 
6
.73 .2-2.1 15 25.4 16.5-34.315
18
was not analyzed. The clay minerals
are remarkedly uniform with depth
(Table 3). The upper 6 meters are
loose and contain over 60 percent sand
and about equal amounts of silt and
clay with some humus. From -6 to
-9 meters is a transition zone with the
sediment becoming more consolidated.
From -9 to about -14 meters the
sediments are silt-clay with almost no
sand. Between -14 and -17 meters
there is abundant organic matter and
about 40 percent sand. Below about
-17 meters the sediment is stiff silt-
clay with very little sand. The silt..
clay sediments overlie several meters of
river sand and pea gravel down to the
hard Pleistocene surface. The Miocene
clay consists of illite and kaolinite with
lesser amounts of montmorillonite and
chlorite (Riccio et al., 1972). Eleven
borings in the undated hard clay from
the west side of the Mobile River along
1-65 contained an average of 36.1 ppm
zinc, 0.25 ppm cadium, 10.4 ppm chrom-
ium, 17.7 ppm lead and 0.08 ppm mer-
cury.
The adsorption capacity of sediment
is well known. There is a definite re-
lation between the percentage and kind
of clay and the metallic concentrations.
The cation exchange capacity of dif-
ferent sediment minerals vary greatly.
The capacity of montmorillonite to ad-
sorb metallic cations is about five times
greater than illite and eighteen times
greater than kaolinite which in turn is
about five times greater than quartz
(Nelson, 1962). Surface sediment
types (Ryan, 1969) and trace metal con-
centrations vary areally within Mobile
Bay and between various bays through-
out the Gulf of Mexico (May, 1973).
The type of clay in sediments is a
function of the clay minerals in the
soils from which they were derived and
the manner in which they were de-
posited. The Mobile River basin is cur-
rently supplying a clay mineral suit in-
termediate between the predominantly
montmorillontic Mississippi River sedi.-
ments to the west and the kaolinitic
sediments of the eastward Apalachicola
River (Griffin, 1962; Ryan, 1969).
Montmorillonite composes about 47 per-
cent of the clay mineral fraction with
illite 22 percent and 29 percent kao.-
linite. Variable clay mineralogy with
depth has been reported for borings
from Mobile Bay (Ryan and Goodell,
1972) and in northwestern coastal Flor..
ida (Schnable and Goodell, 1968) but
was not found in this study.
In addition to physical manner of
TABLE 3. Particular size distribution and clay mineral composition of Mobile Bay sedi-
ments at I-10.
Particle Size Distributio
'  
Clay Mineralogy'
Depth. Sand Silt Clay Montmoril-
Sample (m) 2-.05 mm .05-.002 mm .002 mm Kaolinite lonite Illite
1 1.0 72.4 13.8 13.8 22 49 18
2 4.0 60.9 30.8 8.8 30 50 20
3 7.4 61.8 . 27.0 11.2 26 51 23
4 8.5 60.9 11.3 27.8 32 45 23
5 10.0 3.4 51.5 . 45.1 28 46 26
6 13.0 3.4 51.8 44.8 35 44 21
7 14.5 42.8 13.4 43.8 27 50 23
8 19.8 5.4 42.3 52.3 ' 31 41 28
' Percent of clay fraction based on X-ray diffraction, DTA, and TGA
2 Percent of total sediments
19
deposition, variations in pH, salinity,
organic matter, gases, and many other
factors influence the rate of uptake
or exchange of metallic cations by sedi-
ment (Smith and Bader, 1960; Nelson,
1962; and Lee, 1970). Furthermore
the chemical analyses may not repre-
sent the original composition of the sed-
iment when it was deposited since pore
water space is gradually replaced by
secondary mineral accumulation in the
dewatering' and compactdi process
(Ho and Coleman, 1969). Variations
in the degree of acid digestion in lab-
oratory analyses can also influence
values since some chemical forms are
more tightly bound in sediment than
others. Most of the trace metals in
sediment cannot be normally measured
by standard spectrophotometric tech-
niques without prior treatment with
acid (Cross, Duke and Willis, 1970)
which partially attests to why basic
estuarine sediments do not release sig-
nificant- amounts of cations when re-
suspended. In surface mud from Dela-
ware Bay where illite and chlorite are
the dominant clays, trace metals are re-
ported at much higher levels than in
Mobile Bay (Strom et al., 1973). This
may be due to their use of more rigor-
ous digestion procedures of sediment
samples.
A relatively major source of heavy
metal input by man near the delta front
has been lead from automobile emis-
sions but it has created no apparent
environmental hazard. The Highway
90 causeway Which crosses the- lower
delta near the 1-10 site was opened to
traffic, in 1927. Estimates from con-
tinuous toll records indicate that ap-
proximately 200 million motor vehicles
traveled the seven miles before 1974
and emitted about 93 tons of lead dur-
ing the time lead has been widely used
in gasoline. Like other metals, lead
is rapidly adsorbed by sediment. About
75 percent of the 2.1 to 1.5 grams of
lead per gallon of gasoline exits auto..
mobile exhaust mostly in the form of
relatively soluble halid salts which are
rapidly converted to less soluble forms
in soil (Zimdahl and Arvik, 1973).
Many studies cited by the above authors
have reported decreases of lead in soil
with distance from highways with the
marked effect being limited to very
near the highway and highest levels on
the lee side from prevailing winds.
Lead concentrations in surface sedi-
ments east of the Tensaw River may be
slightly higher near the causeway but
not significantly so (Figure 6). All
but one sample were below the 28.5
ppm average for surface sediment in
the bay (May, 1973). The average con-
centration of lead east of the Tensaw
River was slightly higher than the
average for deeper sediment. Surface
lead, zinc and mercury west of the Ten-.
saw nearer the city of Mobile were
higher than to the east. Mercury
values were within the natural range
but average lead and zinc concentra-
tions were higher than in the. open bay
(May, 1973) or in the sediments with
depth (Figure 5) which suggested that
there may be an anthropogenic source
for the higher levels. There is no evi-
dence that metals at their present levels
adversely affect the biota.
Very little of the lead in soils is in
a form available for uptake by plants,
and the highest levels found here are
below those commonly found in soil
(Zimdahl and Arvik, 1973). Lead in
fish may be higher near an atmospheric
pollution source (Alley, Brown and Ka-
wasaki, 1974) and lead may be accumu-
lated by mollusks when it is present in
water (Chipman, Rice and Price, 1958).
Sediment dominates the reversible
cycling of zinc and other metal s in
20
FIGURE 6. Surface trace metal concentrations along the centerline of proposed 1-10 mear
the present delta front and locations of boring stations shown in Figure 3.
31 160V
21
estuaries and smaller amounts of
metals are recycled by the biota de-
pending on the chemical form and
aquatic concentration of the element
(Wolf and Rice, 1972; Duke, Willis
and Price, 1966). No relationship was
found between sediment concentrations
of trace metals and levels in aquatic
animals (Cross, Duke and Willis, 1970).
The presence of sediment reduces metal
uptake by estuarine fishes (Hoss and
Baptist, 1973). Sediment acts as a
buffer on aquatic concentrations (Lee,
1970) and quickly removes excess ca-
tions from water (Duke, 1967). Biolo-
gical uptake of metals is affected by
the chemical state of the element in the
water (Duke and Rice, 1966). Most
metals in an oxidated state are insolu-
ble. Some are limiting nutrients in
estuaries (Fournier, 1966). The trans-
fer of metals from sediment back to
water is slight as shown by consistant-
ly lower dissolved concentrations com-
pared to levels in sediment (May,
1973').
Trace metals vary naturally depend-
ing on the watershed and the manner
of deposition which influences sediment
mineralogy. Aquatic and sediment con-
centrations can be increased by man's
activity and conceivably pose a threat
to biota at unusually high concentra-
tions if in a biologically 
available
form. However, it has not been dem-
onstrated that natural levels of metals
in estuarine sediment, even at high
levels, have any harmful effect whether
the sediment is left undisturbed or tem-
porarily suspended by currents or man.
Trace elements in sediment do not be-
come dissolved into the water at high
Ivels if 
at all as 
a result 
of resuspen-
sion of sediment by dredging regardless
of sediment concentrations (Windom,
1972; May, 1973; 1974; Lee and Plumb,
1974).
Natural trace metals and other sedi-
ment components are frequently lumped
with man-made pesticides as being sed-
iment pollutants even though there is
no evidence for their toxicity in sedi-
ment and several are biological essen-
tial nurtients. The assumption that
the presence of stable isotopes of trace
metals in sediment always represent
pollution is unfounded. Even high con-
centrations cannot be qualified without
knowledge of the composition of the
sediment and a comparison of possible
sources of contamination with other
parts of the estuary. The essential
role of many metals and organic mat-
ter in estuarine biological cycles leads
to the belief that it would be best to
develop a broader understanding of the
role of sediment constituents in aquatic
ecosystems and at least consider the
present knowledge before sediments
are declared by bureaucratical decree
to be grossly polluted and unfit for man
nor beast.
LITERATURE CITED
Alley, W. P., H. R. Brown and L. Y. Ka-
wasaki. 1974. Lead concentrations in
the wooly sculpin, Clinocottus analis,
collected from tidepools of California.
California Fish Game. 60(1) :50-51.
Broecker, W. S. 1965. Isotope geochemis-
try and the Pleistocene Record. p. 737-
753. In H. E. Wright, Jr. and D. E.
Frey (eds.). The Quaternary 
of the
United States. Princeton, New Jersey,
Princeton Univ. Press.
Broecker, W. S. and A. Kaufman. 1965.
Radiocarbon chronology of Lake Lahon-
tan and Lake Bonneville II, Great Basin.
Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 76(5):537-566.
Brooks, C. E. P. 1949. Climate through the
ages. Reprint 1970 Dover Publ., Inc.
N. Y. 395 p.
22
Carlston, C. W. 1950. Pleistocene history
of coastal Alabama. Bull. Geol. Soc.
Amer. 61(10):1119-1130.
Chipman, W. A., T. R. Rice and T. J. Price.
1958. Uptake and accumulation of
radioactive zinc by marine plankton,
fish and shellfish. U. S. Fish. Wildl.
Ser. Fish. Bull. 58:279-292.
Copeland, C. W. 1968. Geology of the Ala-
bama Coastal Plain a guidebook. Geol.
Survey of Alabama Circ. 47. 97 p.
Cross, F. A., T. W. Duke and J. N. Willis.
1970., Biogeochemistry of trace ele-
ments in a coastal plain estuary: Dis-
tribution of manganese, iron, and zinc
in sediments, water, and polychaetous
worms. Chesapeake Sci. 11(4):221-234.
Curray, J. R. 1960. Sediments and history
of Holocene transgression, continental
shelf, northwest Gulf of Mexico. p. 221-
266. In F. P. Shephard, F. B. Phleger
and T. H. van Andel (eds.) Recent sedi-
ments, northwest Gulf of Mexico.
Amer. Ass. Petroleum Geol., Tulsa, Ok-
lahoma.
Curray, J. R. 1961. Late Quaternary sea
level; a discussion. Geol. Soc. Amer.
Bull. 72(11):1707-1712.
Curray, J. R. and D. G. Moore. 1963.
Facies delineation by acoustic reflection:
northern Gulf of Mexico. Sedimentol-
ogy 2(2):130-148.
Curray, J. R. 1965. Late Quaternary his-
tory, continental shelves of the United
States. p. 723-735. In H. E. Wright,
Jr. and D. G. Frey (eds.) The Quater-
nary of the United States. Princeton,
New Jersey, Princeton, Univ. Press.
Deevey, E. S., Jr. 1949. Biogeography of
the Pleistocene. Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer.
60(9):1315-1416.
Duke, T. W. 1967. Possible routes of zinc
65 from an experimental estuarine en-
vironment to man. J. Water Pollution
Control Fed. 39(4):536-542.
Duke, T. W. and T. R. Rice. 1966. Cycling
of nutrients in estuaries. Proc. 19th
Gulf Carribean Fish. Inst. p. 59-67.
Duke, T. W., J. N. Willis and T. J. Price.
1966. Cycling of trace elements in the
estuarine environment. I. Movement
and distribution of zinc 65 and stable
zinc in experimental ponds. Chesapeake
Sci. 7(1):1-10.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1969.
Chemistry laboratory manual bottom
sediments, Great Lakes Region Commit-
tee on Analytical Methods. 101 p.
Flint, R. F. 1963. Status of the Pleistocene
Wisconsin stage in central North Ameri-
ca. Science 139(3553):402-404.
Fournier, R. O. 1966. Some implications of
nutrient enrichment on different tem-
poral stages of a phytoplankton com-
munity. Chesapeake Sci. 7(1):11-19.
Griffin, G. M. 1962. Regional clay-mineral
facies - products of weathering inten-
sity and current distribution in the
northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Geol. Soc.
Amer. Bull. 73(6):737-768.
Hicks, S. D. and J. E. Crosby. 1975. An
average, long-period, sea-level series
for the United States. Nat. Oceanic At-
mospheric Admin. Tech. Memo NOS
15:6 p.
Ho, C. and J. H. Coleman. 1969. Consoli-
dation and cementation of recent sedi-
ments in the Atchafalaya Basin. Geol.
Soc. Amer. Bull. 80 (2):183-191.
Hoss, D. E. and J. P. Baptist. 1973. Ac-
cumulation of soluble and particulate
radionuclides by estuarine fish Proc.
Third Nat. Symp. Radioecology, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee. 2:776-782.
Isphording, W. C. and G. M. Lamb. 1971.
Age and origin of the Citronelle For-
mation in Alabama. Geol. Soc. Amer.
Bull. 82:775-780.
Isphording, W. C. and J. F. Riccio. 1972.
Petrology and identification of the Cit-
ronelle Formation in Alabama. Geol.
Soc. Amer. Bull. 4(2):82-83.
Karlstrom, T. N. V. and M. Rubin. 1955.
Radiocarbon dating of the "Cochrane
Readvance" in Canada. Geol. Soc.
Amer. Bull. 66(12):1582.
Kwon, H. J. 1969. Barrier island of the
northern Gulf of Mexico: sediment
source and development. Louisiana St.
Univ. Coastal Studies Ser. 25. 51 p.
Lazarus, W. C. 1965. Alligator Lake, a
ceramic horizon site of the northwest
Florida coast. Florida Anthropologist
18(2):83-124.
Lee, G. F. 1970. Factors affecting the
transfer of materials between water and
sediments. Euthrophication Info. Prog.
Water Resour. Center, Univ. Wisconsin.
Lit. Rev. 1.35 p.
Lee, G. F. and R. H. Plumb. 1974. Litera-
ture review on research study for the
development of dredged material dis-
posal criteria. U. S. Army Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station. Vicks-
23
burg, Mississippi Rep. D-74-1:145 p.
Marsh, O. T. 1966. Geology of Escambia
and Santa Rosa counties, western Flor-
ida panhandle. Florida Geol. Surv. Bull.
46. 140 p.
Martin, P. S. and P. J. Mehringer, Jr. 1965.
Pleistocene pollen analysis and bio-
geography of the Southwest. p. 433-
451. In H. E. Wright, Jr. and D. G.
Frey (eds.) The Quaternary of the
United States. Princeton, New Jersey,
Princeton Univ. Press.
May, E. B. and K. R. McLain. 1970. Ad-
vantages of electronic positioning and
profiling in surveying buried oyster
shell deposits. Proc. Nat. Shellfisheries
Ass. 60:72-74.
May, E. B. 1971. A survey of the oyster
and the oyster shell resources of Ala-
bama. Dauphin Island, Alabama. Ala-
bama Mar. Resour. Bull. 4:1-53.
May, E. B. 1973. Environmental effects of
hydraulic dredging in estuaries. Dau-
phin Island, Alabama. Alabama Mar.
Resour. Bull. 9:1-85.
May, E. B. 1974. Effects on water quality
when dredging a polluted harbor using
confined spoil disposal. Dauphin Is-
land, Alabama. Alabama Mar. Resour.
Bull. 10:1-8.
Meier, M. F. 1965. Glaciers and climate.
p. 795-805. In H. E. Wright, Jr. and
D. G. Frey (eds.) The Quaternary of
the United States. Princeton, New Jer-
sey, Princeton Univ. Press.
Miller, C. F. 1957. Radiocarbon dates from
an early archaic deposit in Russell Cave,
Alabama. Amer. Antiquity 
23(1):84.
Morris, F. K. 1955. The ice age in Sahara
and Alabama. Alabama Acad. Sci. 27:99
(abstr.)
Morrison, R. B. 1965. Quaternary geology
of the Great Basin. p. 265-285. In
H. E. Wright, Jr. and D. G. Frey (eds.)
The Quaternary of the United States.
Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton Univ.
Press.
Nelson, B. W. 1962. Important aspects of
estuarine sediment chemistry for benthic
ecology. p. 27-41. In N. Marshall (ed.)
The environmental chemistry of marine
sediments. Univ. Rhode Island. Oc-
casional Pub. 1.
Otvos, E. G., Jr. 1970a. Development and
migration of barrier islands, northern
Gulf of Mexico. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull.
81(1) :241-246.
Otvos, E. G., Jr. 1970b. Development 
and
migration of barrier islands, northern
Gulf of Mexico: reply. Geol. Soc.
Amer. Bull. 81(12):3783-3788.
Otvos, E. G., Jr. 1973. Geology 
of the
Mississippi-Alabama coastal 
area and
near-shore zone. New Orleans Geol.
Soc. New Orleans, Louisiana. 67 p.
Parker, R. H. 1960. Ecology and distribu-
tional patterns of marine macroinverte-
brates northern Gulf of Mexico. p. 302-
337. In F. P. Shephard, F. B. Phleger
and T. H. van Andel (eds.). Recent
sediments, northwest Gulf of Mexico.
Amer. Ass. Petroleum Geol., Tulsa, Ok-
lahoma.
Rainwater, E. H. 1964. Late Pleistocene
and Recent history of Mississippi Sound
between Beauvior and Ship Island.
Mississippi Geol. Sur. Bull. 102:32-61.
Reed, P. C. 1971a. Geology of Mobile
County, Alabama. Alabama Geol. Surv.
Map 93. 8 p.
Reed, P. C. 1971b. Geology of Baldwin
County, Alabama. Alabama Geol. Surv.
Map 94. 5 p.
Rehkemper, L. J. 1969. Sedimentology of
Holocene estuarine deposits, Galveston
Bay, p. 12-52. In Holocene geology of
the Galveston Bay area. Houston Geol.
Soc.
Riccio, J. F., W. C. Isphording and C. A.
Gazzier. 1972. Neogene sediments of
Mobile County, Alabama. p. 46-79. In
W. L. Scarbrough (ed.), Recent sedi-
mentation along the Alabama coast.
Alabama Geol. Soc. Univ. Alabama.
Richards, H. G. 1939. Marine Pleistocene
of the Gulf Coastal Plain: Alabama,
Mississippi, and Louisiana. Bull. Geol.
Soc. Amer. 50:297-315.
Rusnak, G. A. 1960. Sediments of Laguna
Madre, Texas. p. 153-196 In F. P. Shbp-
hard, F. B. Phleger and T. H. van Andel
(eds..). Recent sediments, northwest
Gulf of Mexico. Amer. Ass. Petroleum
Geol., Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Russell, R. J. 1967. Origins of estuaries.
p. 93-99. In G. H. Lauff (ed.) Estau-
ries. Amer. Ass. Advance Sci, Publ. 83,
Washington, D. C.
Ryan, J. J. 1969. A sedimentologic study
of Mobile Bay, Alabama. Sedimentol-
ogical Res. Lab. Dep. Geol., Florida
State Univ., Tallahassee, Florida. Con-
trib. 30. 109 p.
Ryan, J. J. and H. G. Goodell. 1972. Ma-
24
rine geology-and estuarine history of Mo-
bile Bay, Alabama Part I. Contem-
porary sediments. Geol. Soc. Amer.
Memoir 133:517-554.
Schnable, J. E. and H. G. Goodell. 1968.
Pleistocene - Recent stratigraphy, evo.
lution and development of the Apalachi-
cola coast, Florida. Geol. Soc. Amer.
Spec. Paper 112. 72 p.
Schumm, S. A. 1965. Quaternary Paleo-
hydrology, p. 783-794. In H. E.Wright,
Jr. and D. G..Frey (eds.). The Qua-
ternary of the United States. Princeton,
New Jersey, Princeton Univ. Press.
Shephard, F. P. 1960a. Rise of sea level
along northwest Gulf of Mexico. p. 338-
344. In F. P. Shephard, F. B. Phleger
and T. H. van Andel (eds.). Recent
sediments, northwest Gulf of Me~cico.
Amer. Ass. Petroleum Geol., Tulsa, Ok-
lahoma.
Shephard, F. P. 1960b. Gulf Coast bar-
riers. p. 197-220. In F. P. Shephard,
F. B. Phleger and T. H. van Andel
(eds.). Recent sediments, northwest
Gulf of Mexico. Amer. Ass. Petroleum
Geol., Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Shephard, F. P. 1964. Sea level change in
the past 6,000 years: possible archae-
ological significance. Science 143(3606):
574-576.
Shephard, F. P. and D. G. Moore. 1960.
Bays of central Texas coast, p. 117-152.
In F. P. Shephard, F. B. Phleger and
T. H. van Andel (eds.). Recent sedi-
ments, northwest Gulf of Mexico.
Amer. Ass. Petroleum Geol., Tulsa, Ok-
lahoma.
Smith, E. A., L. C. Johnson and D. W.
Langdon, Jr. 1894. Report on the ge-
ology of the coastal plains of Alabama
with contributions to its Plaeontology
by T. H. Aldrich and K. M. Cunning-
ham. Alabama Geol. Surv. Spec. Rep.
6. 759 p
Smith, J. B. and R. G. Bader. 1960. Or-
ganic, metal-iron, and carbon dioxide
uptake by sedimentary minerals and its
significance in the marine environment.
Bull. Geo. Soc. Amer. 71(2):1980-1981.
Smith, P. W. 1965. Recent adjustments in
animal ranges. p. 633-642. In H. E.
Wright, Jr. and D. G. Frey (eds.). The
Quaternary of the United States. Prince-
ton, New Jersey, Princeton Univ. Press.
Strom, R. N., F. Bopp III, R. B. Biggs and
F. K. Lepple. 1973. Trace metal geo-
chemistry of estuarine sediments. Univ.
Delaware. Delaware Bay Rep. Ser.
3.96 p.
Szabo, M. W. 1972. Quaternary geology
of the Alabama river area, Alabama.
Alabama Acad. Sci. 43(3):188 (abstr.).
Trickey, E. B. 1958. A chronological frame-
work of the Mobile Bay region. Amer.
Antiquity 23(4) :388-396.
Trickey, E. B. and N. H. Holmes, Jr. 1971.
A chronological framework for the Mo-
bile Bay region, revised, 1970. J. Ala-
bama Archaeology. 17:115-128.
Trickey, E. B. and N. H. Holmes, Jr. 1974.
Late Holocene sea-level oscillations in
Mobile Bay. Amer. Antiquity. 39(1):
122-124.
van Andel, T. H. 1960. Sources and dispo-
sition of Holocene sediments, northern
Gulf of Mexico. p. 34-55. In F. P.
Shephard, F. B. Phleger and T. H. van
Andel (eds.). Recent sediments, north-
west Gulf of Mexico. Amer. Ass. Petro-
leum Geol., Tulsa, Oklahoma.
van Andel, T. H. and P. L. Sachs. 1964.
Sedimentation in the Gulf of Paria dur-
ing the Holocene transgression; a sub-
surface acoustic reflection study. J.
Mar. Res. 22(l):30-50.
Whitehead, D. R. 1965. Palynology and
Pleistocene phytogeography of ungla-
ciated eastern North America. p. 417-
432. In H. E. Wright, Jr. and D. G.
Frey (eds.). The Quaternary of the
United States. Princeton, New Jersey,
Princeton Univ. Press.
Williams, S. and J. B. Stoltman. 1965. An
outline of southeastern United States
prehistory with particular emphasis on
the Paleo-Indian era. p. 669-683. In
H. E. Wright, Jr. and D. G. Frey (eds.).
The Quaternary of the United States.
Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton Univ.
Press.
Wimberly, S. B. 1960. Indian pottery from
Clarke County and Mobile County,
southern Alabama. Alabama Mus.
Natur. Hist., Mus. Papers. 262 p.
Windom, H. L. 1972. Environmental 
re-
sponse of salt marshes to deposition of
dredged materials. Amer. Soc. Civil
Eng. Nat. Water Resour. Conf. 
1612:1-
26.
Wolfe, D. A. and T. R. Rice. 1972. Cy-
cling of elements in estuaries. U. S.
25
Fish. Wildl. Ser. Fish. Bull. 70 (3):959-
972.
Wormington, H. M. 1957. Ancient man in
North America. Denver Mus. Nat.
Hist., Denver, Colorado, Pop. Ser. 4.
322 p.
Zimdahl, R. L. and J. H. Arvik. 1973. Lead
in soils and plants: a literature review.
CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental
Control. p. 213-224.
26
ANALYSIS OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
CATCH DATA FOR ALABAMA'
WAYNE E. SWINGLE
Marine Resources Division
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Dauphin 
Island, Alabama 
36528
INTRODUCTION
The commercial marine fishing in-
dustry of Alabama is located in Mobile
and Baldwin counti6s. Most of the sea-
food is landed in Mobile County at
Bayou La Batre which ranked as the
tenth port in the nation in value of sea-
food landed during the last few years.
Other Alabama ports include Mobile,
Coden, Gulf Shores, Bon Secour, Ala-
bama Port, Heron Bay and Fairhope.
The number of processing and Whole-
sale seafood plants ranged between 56
and 71 during the period 1964 through
1971 (Table 1). The number of per-
sons employed by these plants during
this period doubled while the value 
of
processed products tripled reaching
$20.9 million in 1971.
The commercial landings have in-
creased from 8,458,000 pounds in 1961
to. 33,944,000 pounds in 1974, a four-
fold increase (Table 2). During this
period the. dockside. value of the 
sea-
food increased from $1,991,000 to
$16,579,000, an eight-fold increase.
The economic value of the seafood
industry to the local economy 
of south
Alabama is estimated in excess of $70
million while the economic 
value to the
state and nation exceeds $120 million.
The Alabama seafood industry 
is
characterized. by progress and 
expan-
sion and the fishing fleet 
is among the
most modern in the nation. The fish-
ing fleet based in the two counties land
seafood caught throughout the Gulf of
Mexico from Florida to Texas and from
as far away as the coast of Central
America. Most of the catch, however,
is from the offshore waters of Alabama
westward to the mouth of the Missis-
sippi River and from 
the estuarine
waters of Alabama.
The number of fishermen engaged
in the fishery between 1964 and 1971
ranged between 1,733 and 2,290 
(Table
3). Most. of the increase has been 
in
the shrimp fishery while declines 
oc-
curred in other fisheries.
The National Marine Fisheries 
Ser-
vice (NMFS) has been collecting 
data
which lists the catch by species 
from
each specific water body 
and off-shore
area. The following discussion 
is based
on these data for the period 
1964-1972
for Alabama waters and landings.
Catch of a species from 
any body of
water is a function of the 
size of the
harvestable annual crop and 
the fish-
ing effort directed toward 
harvest of
that species. The annual 
harvestable
crop of a species fluctuates from 
year
to year depending primarily 
on the en-
vironmental conditions, 
but is essen-
tially stable consistant 
with the fer-
tility of that body of 
water.
A total of 106 species of fish 
and
SThis study was done in cooperation with the U. S. Department of Commerce, N.O.A.A.,
National Marine Fisheries 
Service under P.L. 88-309 
(Project Number 2-238-R).
TABLE 1. Summary of wholeale and processing plants and employment in Alabama for the period 1964-1971.1
Processing Wholesale Total Value
Employment Avg. Employment Avg Employment Avg. Processed
Year Plants Season Year Plants Season Year Plants Season Year Products
1964 - - - - - - 57 1,135 650 $ 7,434
1965 - - - - - - 58 1,070 699 6,838
1966 - - -- - 66 1,343 820 9,613
1967 - - - - 68 1,643 999 13,390
1968 - 71 1,726 1,013 15,373
1969 - - - - - 67 1,673 1,009 17,616
1970 43 1,383 875 13 423 186 56 1,806 1,061 20,575
1971 48 1,590 1,018 14 592 229 62 2,182 1,247 20,908
1 From Fisheries Statistics of the United States
TABLE 2. A summary of commercial fishes landed in Alabama during the period 1961-1974.1
% Increase % Increase
Quantity - Thousands of Pounds2 
In Quantity In Value
From Thousands From
Red Total Previous of Previous
Year Shrimp Oysters Crabs Snapper Mullet Flounder Other Pounds Year Dollars
3  
Year
1961 3,525 509 838 1,784 897 98 807 8,458 - 1,991 -
1962 3,748 443 634 1,893 1,447 98 818 9,081 7.4 2,509 26.0
1963 7,760 995 1,297 2,315 1,390 107 1,024 14,888 63.9 3,714 48.0
1964 7,215 1,005 1,762 2,393 1,072 162 1,458 15,067 1.2 3,975 7.0
1965 9,624 492 1,812 2,495 1,508 301 1,556 17,789 18.1 4,986 25.4
1966 10,608 1,304 2,183 2,701 1,697 383 1,686 20,562 15.6 6,807 36.5
1967 14,456 2,088 2,353 2,288 3,169 480 1,578 26,412 28.4 8,300 21.9
1968 15,450 1,212 1,980 1,214 2,840 533 3,432 26,661 0.9 9,617 
15.9
1969 14,977 481 1,920 1,163 3,193 540 6,242 28,547 7.1 10,557 9.8
1970 15,031 279 1,407 983 3,111 780 8,030 29,601 3.7 9,925 -6.0
1971 16,709 249 1,997 939 2,361 951 11,028 34,234 15.7 13,810 
39.1
1972 17,548 1,069 1,612 1,051 1,513 1,169 12,080 36,042 5.3 17,728 
28.4
1973 12,019 590 2,098 960 2,786 708 17,583 36,744 0.8 
17,667 -0.3
1974 13,922 733 1,826 890 2,013 916 13,644 33,944 -7.6 
16,579 -6.1
1 From Alabama Landings
2 Shrimp weights are heads-on weight, oyster weights are reported in pounds of oyster meat (8.75 pounds per gallon)
3 Dockside wholesale value
ul
OL
TOO00
Cotn OCo0
.I a
CO t-
00 LO
LO 41
w-4
rg
b.o
0
PC
a)
0
z
0
o. o
C3 d
OZ 4-4
0 .v
28
11 species of invertebrates are classi-
fied as commercial species in Alabama
by Swingle (1971); however, only 36
species are consistantly landed for the
commercial market in Alabama. Many
of these, such as shrimp, flounders,
and groupers, are grouped in the land-
ing statistics of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. For simplicity, these
data are discussed under four major
categories as shrimp fishery, finfish
fishery, crab fishery and oyster fishery.
THE SHRIMP FISHERY
The shrimp fishery is the most im-
portant fishery economically. During
recent years shrimp have accounted for
one-half to one-third of the total pounds
landed and about 80 to 85% of the
dockside value of landings. In addition
to the shrimp, the major portion of the
finfish landings is taken by trawl.
Table 4 summarizes the shrimp catch
landed in Alabama from estuarine and
offshore areas. Nearly all the shrimp
taken in Mobile Bay are landed in Ala-
bama, whereas the majority of shrimp
taken from Perdido Bay are landed in
Florida. Alabama landings from Mis-
sissippi Sound (NMFS area from Mo-
bile Bay to Gulfport Ship Channel)
have declined from 45% of the total
catch in 1964 to 19% in 1972, whereas
Alabama's share of the offshore catch
from statistical zones 10 and 11 (Fig-
ure 1) increased from 46% to 73% dur-
ing the same period. Table 5 illustrates
why this has occurred. The number of
bay boats has substantially declined
while the number of large offshore
shrimp vessels has more than doubled.
This also accounts for the increased
catches from Louisiana and Florida
waters.
The decreased catch from Mobile Bay
appears to be related to changes in fish-
ing effort (Table 6). Because of the
c "
b-O Lor
t- Lr 0~4- e L)co C
eqC r( -4 t r- 4 -e
dbZ
0 (Co= 00CoCc o 0 co cc
aCI)
ZOr-4 CI 
-
4
0
wz(= t- L
toa)0eCoDC CO 9CoCo00
M LCO W CO CM -4
ct - -L-
ID--
~Lo C
TABLE 4. Pounds (heads on) of shrimp caught by Alabama fishermen from the coastal waters during the years 1964-1973. (Num-
ber in parenthesis is the percent of the total catch from the area taken by Alabama fishermen.)
Mobile
1  
Perdido Mississippi Little Total
Year Bay Bay Sound Lagoon Offshore
2  
Florida Louisiana Mexico Landings
1964 1,222,500 (100) - 904,000 (45) 2,800 4,560,800 (46) 26,700 497,200 700 7,214,700 (4)*
1965 1,085,600 (100) - 955,500 (39) 23,500 6,903,400 (50) 181,7004 473,800 - 9,623,500 (5)
1966 1,027,800 (100) - 1,007,700 (40) 6,400 7,094,500 (55) 13,300 1,458,000 500 10,608,200 (6)
1967 1,726,300 (100) 8,800 (100) 1,419,400 (30) - 9,566,900 (67) 900 1,413,200 320,0005 14,455,500 (6)
1968 1,394,300 (100) - 1,490,300 (30) 5,100 10,447,100 (62) 
37,500 1,689,600 380,700 15,444,600 (8)
1969 954,300 (95) - 930,800 (31) - 11,284,600 (63) - 1,622,700 178,300 14,970,700 (7)
1970 696,000 (96) 6,200 (31) 993,900 (28) - 10,338,400 (62) 129,500 2,842,000 25,000 15,031,000 (7)
1971 543,200 (97) 5,100 (38) 914,900 (28) - 12,938,900 (69) 78,500 2,229,700 2,500 16,712,800 (7)
1972 722,300 (98) 4,400 (10) 527,400 (20) - 9,497,300 (73) 250,000 6,526,900 20,500 17,548,800
1973 6 12,018,700 7
1 Includes Bon Secour Bay
2 Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 10 & 11 which adjoin the Alabama 
coast
3 From off Texas (Zone 
19)
4 Includes 164,300# from Pensacola 
Bay
5 From off Mexico
6 Data on catch from specific waters not presently available
7 Preliminary data subject to revision
* Percentage of total Gulf landings
PERDIDO
SOUND
STATISTICAL
ZONE
I I
LAGOON
STATISTICAL
ZONE
10
FIGURE 1
CI
dSSISSIPPI DELTA
A
31
TABLE 5. Number of Alabama shrimp fishermen and number of boats and vessels operat-
ing in Alabama during the period 1964-1971. (From Fisheries Statistics of the United States.)
Average Gross
Vessel Tonnage of
Shrimp Boats Fishermen Shrimp Vessels Fishermen Gross New Boats
Year Under 5 Tons On Boats Over 5 Tons On Vessels Tonnage Added to Fleet
1964 231 380 230 582 8,225 35.7
1965 206 335 295 706 9,547 20.3
1966 203 311 366 882 14,050 63.3
1967 174 279 397 961 17,413 108.5
1968 139 227 467 1,164 23,718 90.1
1969 129 188 506 1,283 27,487 96.6
1970 149 174 448 1,143 24j904 
-
1971 169 171 456 1,160 26,434
TABLE 6. Catch of shrimp and number of fishing trips by all fishermen in Mobile Bay
during the period 1964-1972. (From Gulf Coast Shrimp Data published by National Marine
Fisheries Service.)
Catch Percent Change Number of Percent Change Average Catch 
Percent Change
(Lbs. From Trips By From Per Trip From
Year Heads Off) Previous Year Shrimp Boats Previous Year (Lbs. Heads 
Off) Previous Year
1964 775,246 - 2,144.0 - 361.6 -
1965 683,913 -11.8% 2,158.8 +0.7% 316.9 -12.4%
1966 640,310 -6.4% 1,742.0 -19.4% 367.6 
+16.0%
1967 1,080,067 +68.7% 2,247.0 +29.0% 480.7 
+27.6%
1968 873,436 -19.1% 2,077.5 -7.5% 420.4 
-12.5%
1969 632,929 -27.5% 2,112.0 +1.7% 299.7 
-28.7%
1970 459,637 -27.4% 1,565.0 -25.9% 293.7 
-2.0%
1971 353,970 -22.9% 975.0 -37.7% 363.0 
+23.6%
1972 462,127 +30.6% 1,159.0 +18.9% 398.7 
-9.8%
Average Yearly
Percent Change -2.0% -6.0% 366.9 
+2.7%
reduction in the number of bay boats
the number of trips declined from 2,144
in 1964 to 1,159 in 1972. The catch de-
clined by a yearly average of 2.0%,
whereas the number of trips declined by
an average of 5.0% yearly. The catch
per trip increased by an average of
2.7% yearly. In addition, by the years
1972-74 sport trawlers were taking be-
tween 15 and 25% of the shrimp caught
from the inshore waters of. Alabama
(Swingle, Bland and Tatum, 1976).
Brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) con-
stituted by far the largest percentage
of Alabama landings followed by white
shrimp (Penaeus setiferus), pink
shrimp (Penaeus duorarum), royal red
shrimp (Hymenopenaeus robustus) and
seabob (Xiphopeneus kroyeri) in de-
creasing order. Table 7 summarizes
the pounds of each of these species
caught from statistical zone 11. By
comparing this table to Table 4 it is
obvious that only a small portion of
the offshore catch comes from statis-
tical zone 10. This is particularly true
of the more recent years. Mobile Bay
is about the eastern limit of the pro-
ductive shrimp grounds of the north-
ern Gulf. White 
shrimp production 
is
extremely variable ranging from about
1 million to 4 million pounds annually
from zone 11 (Table 7). The same va-
riability is characteristic of the catches
from Mississippi Sound
2  
(Table 8).
2 Unless stated otherwise Mississippi Sound
refers to the area of the sound between
Mobile Bay and Gulfport Ship Channel.
32
TABLE 7. Pounds of the various specieg of shrimp (heads on) 
caught from Statistical
Zone 11 by all fishermen and the catch and the percentage of the total catch landed
in Alabama as compiled from the statistical records of the National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
Alabama Landings
Percent
Royal Sea Total of Total
Year Brown Pink White Red Bob Catch Catch Catch
1964 6,327,686 84,073 2,124,851 4,244 468 8,541,324 
4,487,000 52.5%
1965 11,685,180 52,452 1,931,099 15,075 500 13,684,306 6,825,900 49.8%
1966 11,680,841 70,451 1,110,424 - - 12,861,716 
8,055,900 62.6%
1967 12,717,338 238,350 1,308,742 9,068 - 14,273,498 9,566,800 67.0%
1968 15,254,671 279,190 1,189,488 88,864 - 16,812,213 10,442,700 
62.1%
1969 13,322,054 595,416 3,788,367 58,642 - 17,764,479 11,281,900 
63.5%
1970 13,112,018 296,569 3,279,996 6,665 - 16,695,248 10,338,300 61.9%
1971 15,706,878 283,556 2,851,970 7,380 - 18,849,784 12,938,900 68.6%
1972 11,247,836 199,916 1,669,620 4,179 28,245 13,149,796 9,497,300 72.2%
TABLE 8. Pounds (heads on) of the various species of shrimp caught from Mississippi
Sound by all fishermen and the catch and the percentage of the total catch landed in
Alabama as compiled from the statistical records of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Alabama Landing
Percentage
Year Brown Pink White Total iCatch of Catch
1964 1,714,142 46,057 233,496 1,993,695 904,000 45.3
1965 2,166,958 2,124 299,870 2,468,952 955,500 38.7
1966 2,345,670 1,179 153,214 2,500,063 1,007,700 40.3
1967 4,338,694 27,731 363,152 4,729,577 1,419,400 30.0
1968 4,571,456 50,779 287,279 4,909,514 1,490,300 30.3
1969 2,453,234 46,416 549,923 3,049,573 930,800 30.5
1970 3,083,895 11,708 469,941 3,565,494 993,900 27.8
1971 3,039,535 13,955 216,502 3,269,992 914,900 27.9
1972 2,402,340 78,406 131,766 2,612,512 527,400 20.0
1 Mobile Bay to Gulfport Ship Channel
There is some speculation that offshore
trawling is hurting the spawning suc-
cess; of white shrimp in the near shore
waters.
Alabama's percentage of the total
Gulf shrimp landings increased from
4% in 1964 to 8% in 1968 and have
remained at 7% since that time (Table
4). Since Alabama's landings more
than doubled during this period, it in-
dicates a substantial increase in the
total Gulf landings through 1968 and
then :a more or less stabilized catch
which probably approaches maximum
sustainable yield. With the possible ex-
ceptiqn of white shrimp, there is little
evidence to suggest that the stocks are
being overexploited. It appears that a
sufficient number of spawners from
the brown shrimp populations are es-
caping capture so that there is pres-
ently little danger of overexploitation,
particularly as the shrimp spawn with-
in the year they are vulnerable to cap-
ture. At some point before the spawn-
ing population is seriously reduced it
becomes uneconomical to harvest them.
However, there does exist the possi-
bility that if an extensive fishery de-
velops for the offshore groundfish the
incidental catch of brown shrimp could
substantially reduce the spawning pop-
ulation. In this case, the economic re-
straint against catching the scattered
brown shrimp spawners would be re-
moved because the economics would de-
pend on the success of the groundfish
fishery.
33
By 1972, only 7 of the commercial
shrimp landings were harvested from
Alabama inshore or estuarine waters
compared to 30% in 1964. The major
increase in landings has been from
the waters offshore of our coast and
that of Mississippi and Louisiana.
THE FINFISH FISHERY
The fishery for finfish consists of
three distinct major fisheries as classi-
fied by gear type. The trawl fishery
is the largest producer and one in which
many of the fish are caught incidental
to shrimp harvest operations. The
major exception is the croaker fishery
in which trawls are fished specifically
for this species with shrimp catches be-
ing incidental. The other two major
fisheries are the gill-trammel net fish-
ery and the handline fishery for snap-
per, grouper and jewfish.
The number of fishermen in the
trawl fishery increased by 30% from
1964 through 1971 (Table 3). The ma-
jor increases in finfish landings dur-
ing this period came primarily from the
offshore trawl fishery.
The number of participants in the
gill-trammel net fishery have remained
essentially stable over this period while
the number of fishermen in the hand-
line or snapper fishery have declined
by 44% (Table 3). This decrease is
primarily the result of the sale of the
Bayou La Batre snapper fleet to a
Mississippi firm in 1967.
Three other types of gear were used
to take fish (Table 3). Gigs or spears
were used to take flounder, haul seines
were used to take several species from
1964 to 1967, and long lines were used
to take swordfish in 1970.. The fish
from the latter operation were im-
pounded by the Food and Drug 
Admin-
istration because of high mercury con-
centrations and swordfishing has been
of minor importance in Alabama since
that time.
Table 9 summarizes the catch of all
fish from each of the estuarine areas
and offshore for the period 
1964
through 1972. The catches from Mo-
bile Bay have been cyclic varying from
1 to 3 million pounds, whereas 
the
catches from the Mobile Delta and Lit-
TABLE 9. Pounds of fish caught by Alabama fishermen from the coastal waters during
the years 1964-1973 as compiled from the statistical records of the Natural Marine Fish-
eries Service.
Mobile' Mobile 
Little Mississippi 
Total'
Year Bay Delta Lagoon Sound Offshore
2  
Louisiana Other Landings
1964 1,071,500 138,500 83,000 132,800 748,700 167,300 2,739,2003 5,081,000
1965 1,436,600 165,000 69,700 248,800 967,000 51,200 2,916,8004 5,855,100
1966 1,409,500 82,800 62,200 456,500 1,267,100 363,800 2,818,3004. 6,460,200
1967 2,965,200 81,400 47,300 368,700 1,314,900 377,000 2,356,8005 7,511,300
1968 2,837,700 53,600 3,900 297,300 2,900,200 555,200 1,272,7005 8,010,600
1969 2,984,200 48,800 2,500 432,700 5,483,700 790,300 1,300,9005 11,043,100
1970 2,930,300 19,000 500 518,800 6,667,200 1,637,200 1,120,4005 12,893,200
1971 2,178,300 - 100 534,700 8,592,300 3,110,700 730,1005 15,146,200
1972 1,326,700 400 400 375,000 8,687,700 4,390,200 1,009,8005 15,790,200
1973 6 
22,025,0007
1 Includes Bon Secour Bay
2 Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 10 & 11 which adjoin the Alabama coast
3 Primarily snapper and grouper from Mexico
4 Primarily snapper and groupe grouper from Mexico and Central America
5 Primarily snapper and grouper from Mexico, Texas and Central America
6 Data for catches from specific locations are not presently available
7 Preliminary data subject to 
revision
84
tie Lagoon have drastically declined as
a result of decreased effort by com-
mercial fishermen.
The delta was closed to commercial
fishing for several years because of a
"mercury scare" and commercial fish-
ermen were forced to seek other em-
ployment. Little Lagoon is only pe-
riodically open to the sea and restric-
tive netting regulations, instituted at
the request of sportfishermen and prop-
erty owners, contributed to reduced
fishing effort by commercial fisher-
men.
Catches of fish from offshore in-
creased more than eight-fold reaching
8.7 million pounds by 1972. Catches
from Louisiana waters increased from
167,300 pounds in 1964 to 4,390,200
pounds in 1972. Catches from both of
these areas reflect primarily the in-
creased landings of croaker.
The total landings of fish have in-
creased from 5 million pounds in 1964
to 22 million pounds in 1973. These
landings and areas of capture are 
dis-
cussed by species or species groups.
Atlantic croaker (Micropogon
undulatus)
Alabama's catch of croaker has in-
creased dramatically from 3,200 pounds
or 4% of the total Gulf landings in
1964 to 8,383,800 pounds 
or 82% of
the total Gulf landings in 1971 (Table
10). By 1973, the catch had reached
13.3 million pounds or about one-third
of the total Alabama landings. This
is a result of the development of a mar-
ket for the Gulf croaker on the East
Coast of the United States. The mar-
ket developed in or about 1968 for
croaker of one-half pound and larger
(Gutherz et al., 1975).
Croaker are caught primarily from
the offshore waters of Alabama, Mis-
sissippi and Louisiana. Some of Ala-
bama's fleet fish almost exclusively for
croaker, others fish for croaker when
shrimp catches are poor, and a large
number of croaker are caught while
shrimping. The majority of large
croaker caught in the inshore waters is
by gill and trammel net. During 1971,
51% of the inshore catch were taken
in entangling nets. The catch from
TABLE 10. Pounds of Atlantic croaker caught 
by Alabama fishermen from the coastal
waters during the years 1964-1973. 
(Number in parenthesis is the 
percent of the total
catch from the area taken by Alabama fishermen.)
Mobile Mississippi Little 
Total
Year Bay1 Sound 
Lagoon Offshore2 Louisiana 
Landings
1964 1,500 (100) - 1,200 
400 (100) 100 3,200 (4)*
1965 2,400 (100) 1,500 (100) 
- 11,200 (100) -
15,100 (23)
1966 6,600 (100) 1,500 (47) 10,500 
27,800 (29) 5,800 52,200 (17)
1967 4,200 (100) 10,800 (100) 
500 67,100 (71) 21,800 
104,400 (14)
1968 5,200 (100) 14,700 (100) 
- 1,322,500 (97) 223,800 
1,566,200 (46)
1969 13,900 (100) 2,300 (100) 
-. 3,236,400 (99) 434,700 3,687,300 
(70)
1970 15,000 (100) 26,300 (100) 
-- 4,502,400 (98) 1,147,100 
5,690,800 (77)
1971 23,200 (100) 24,800 (95) 
- 6,217,100 (99) 2,117,6005 
8,383,796 (82)
1972 12,000 (100) 6,200 (51) 
- 6,378,500 (99) 3,047,8006 
9,444,500
1973 3 
13,299,5004
1 Includes Bon 
Secour Bay
2 Includes NMFS Statistical 
Zones 10 & 11 which adjoin 
the Alabama coast
3 Data on catch from specific 
waters not presently available
4 Preliminary data 
subject to revision
5 Includes 500 pounds from Pensacola Bay
6 Includes 3,500 pounds from Mexico
* Percentage of total Gulf landings
35
the inshore. waters is negligible in com-
parison to the offshore catch; however,
it has increased significantly since the
market developed.
White seatrout (Cynoscion arenarius
and C. nothus)
Most of the white seatrout landed
in Alabama (Table 11) are C. arenarius
which is the predominant species off-
shore. Alabama catch of white sea-
trout has increased from 33% of the
total Gulf landings in 1964 to 63% in
1972. The catch was 1.5 million pounds
in 1973. Catches from the offshore
area and Louisiana have accounted for
the increase in production. Almost all
of the seatrout are taken by trawls dur-
ing shrimping operations. Less than
1% was taken by gill or trammel nets
during 1971. White seatrout ranks sec-
ond in pounds of fish landed by Ala-
bama fishermen.
Flounder (Paralichthys spp.)
The founders landed in Alabama are
mostly P. lethostigma and P. albigutta.
Alabama's landings of flounder in-
creased from 18% of the total Gulf
landings in 1964 to 43% in 1971 (Table
12). More than 95% of the flounder
are caught in shrimp trawls. A negli-
gible amount is caught in gill or tram-
mel nets and as much as 4 to 5% are
taken by fish gigs or spears at night.
Most of the flounders are caught off-
shore in zones 10 and 11. The second
largest catch was taken off Louisiana
west of the Mississippi River with
catches from the three areas totaling
as high as 1 million pounds. Catches
from the inshore waters ranged from
25 to 80 thousand pounds.
Whiting (Menticirrhus spp.)
The whiting, kingfish or ground mul-
let landed' in Alabama consist prima-
rily of M. littoralis and M. americanus.
Also included in the catch is M. focali-
ger.
Alabama's catch has ranged between
31 and 38% of the total Gulf landings
with no .significant changes in pounds
landed (Table 13). The catch from Mo..
TABLE 11. Pounds of white seatrout caught by Alabama fishermen from the coastal
waters during the years 1964-1973. (Number in parenthesis is the percent 
of the total
catch from the area taken by Alabama fishermen.)
Mobile Mississippi Little Total
Year Bay' Sound Lagoon Offshore
2  
Louisiana Landings
1964 300 (100) - - 43,000 (72) 21,8003 65,100 (33)*
1965 2,600 (100) 1,700 (60) - 81,300 (78) 22,400 108,000 (30)
1966 1,700 (100) 2,600 (40) 200 49,900 (30) 47,200 101,600 (19)
1967 2,600 (100) 7,900 (46) - 108,900 (74) 29,900 149,300 (24)
1968 3,300 (100) 7,400 (45) - 260,800 (92) 54,200 325,700 (37)
1969 3,800 (100) 6,900 (40) - 710,300 (96) 95,000 816,000 (69)
1970 12,900 (100) 10,500 (64) - 580,600 (92) 146,600 750,600 (60)
1971 14,600 (100) 17,400 (69) - 718,400 (95) 229,6006 980,000 (63)
1972 9,800 (100) 2,800 (14) - 624,900 (96) 298,7007 936,200
1973 4 1,522,46,05
Includes Bon Secour Bay
Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 10 & 11 which adjoin the Alabama coast
Includes 100 pounds from Florida waters
Data on catch from specific waters not presently available
Preliminary data subject to revision
Includes 100 pounds from Pensacola Bay
Includes 600 pounds from Mexico
Percentage of total Gulf landings
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
*
36
TABLE 12. Pounds of flounder caught by Alabama fishermen from the coastal waters
during the years 1964-1973. (Number in parenthesis the percent of the total catch from
the area taken by Alabama fishermen.)
Mobile Perdido Mississippi Little Total
Year Bay' Bay Sound Lagoon Offshore
2  
Louisiana Landings
1964 36,500 (100) - 5,300 (35) 1,300 107,400 (72) 11,6008 162,100 (18)*
1965 36,700 (100) - 15,500 (71) 5,500 237,400 (81) 5,7008 300,800 (25)
1966 20,800 (100) - 16,200 (73) 2,500 331,800 (80) 112,100 483,400 (33)
1967 16,300 (100) -- 17,700- (61) 1,800 355,600 (84) 88,100 479,500 (34)
1968 13,300 (100) - 11,700 (55) 3,800 428,500 (93) 75,700 533,000 (35)
1969 26,400 (100) - 11,000 (51) 2,500 446,000 (88) 53,900 539,800 (35)
1970 52,300 (100) 100 (3) 25,900 (76) 500 560,000 (86) 141,900 780,700 (39)
1971 42,200 (100) - 25,300 (62) 100 688,900 (94) 194,400 950,900 (43)
1972 30,300 (100) 700 (2)7 6,300 (30) 400 796,800 (94) 335,3006 1,169,800
1973 4 708,7005
1 Includes Bon Secour Bay
2 Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 10 & 
11 which adjoin the Alabama coast
3 Includes 100 pounds from Pensacola Bay
4 Data on catch from specific water not presently available
5 Preliminary data subject to revision
6 Includes 6,100 pounds from Mexico
7 Includes 600 pounds from Pensacola Bay
* Percentage of total Gulf 
landings
TABLE 13. Pounds of ground mullet or kingfish caught by Alabama fishermen from the
coastal waters during the years 1964-1973. (Number in parenthesis is the percent of the total
catch from the area taken by Alabama fishermen.)
Mobile Perdido Mississippi Little Total
Year Bay' Bay Sound Lagoon Offshore2 Other
3  
Landings
1964 76,400 (100) -. 38,100 (46) - 407,500 (61) 52,800 574,800 (31)
1965 38,100 (100) - 64,000 (66) 300 (100) 488,700 (70) 16,600 607,700 (32)
1966 32,100 (100) - 51,200 (61) - 433,000 (64) 152,200 668,500 (31)
1967 30,600 (100) - 66,800 (53) 21,800 (100) 398,000 (76) 95,900 613,100 (28)
1968 39,100 (100) - 59,700 (51) - 512,400 (86) 89,400 700,500 (36)
1969 12,700 (100) - 30,800 (42) - 543,400 (81) 73,800 660,700 (38)
1970 19,600 (100) 200 (7) 42,200 (57) - 412,000 (73) 90,900 564,900 (35)
1971 12,500 (100) - 36,100 (52) - 364,500 (78) 103,700 516,800 (33)
1972 15,700 (100) 100 (8) 22,900 (23) - 364,600 (68) 154,8006 558,100
1973 4 532,2005
1 Includes Bon Secour Bay
2 Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 10 & 11 which adjoin the Alabama coast
3 Over 99% from Louisiana waters
4 Data on catch from specific waters not presently available
5 Preliminary data subject to revision
6 Includes 200 pounds from Mexico
* Percentage of total Gulf landings
bile Bay has declined over the period of the offshore catch.
1964 through 1972. This is probably
due to decreased shrimping effort Sheepshead (Archosargus
(Table 6). Alabama boats take about probatocephalus)
50 to 60% of the whiting caught from Alabama landings of sheepshead in-
Mississippi Sound and about 70 to 80% creased from 5% of the total Gulf land-
37
ings in 1964 to 82% in 1971 (Table 14).
By 1973, the landings had exceeded
500 thousand pounds. Catches from
Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound have
remained essentially the same with the
major portion of the increase in catch
coming from the offshore area. Most
of the catch was taken by shrimp trawl
with less than 1,000 pounds taken by
gill or trammel nets in 1971.
Gafftopsail catfish (Bagre marinus)
Alabama catches of catfish increased
from 3% of the total Gulf landings in
1964 to 30% in 1971 (Table 15). The
maximum poundage landed was 119,400
which occurred in 1970. Between 80
and 90% of the catch were taken by
shrimp trawl with the remainder being
caught in gill and trammel nets. Most
of the catch was harvested offshore.
TABLE 14. Pounds of sheephephead caught from the coastal waters by Alabama fishermen
during the period 1964-1973. (Number in parenthesis is the percent of the total catch
from the area taken by Alabama fishermen.)
Mobile Mississippi Little Total
Year Bay' Sound Lagoon Offshore2 Louisiana Landings
1964 14,400 (100) 1,000 (6) 200 12,400 (54) 6,700 34,700 (5)*
1965 7,900 (100). 1,700 (30) - 4,800 (53) 1,000 15,400 (3)
1966 3,300 (100) 2,500 (22) - 4,900 (60) 900 11,600 (2)
1967 7,200 (100) 3,600 (9) 100 16,100 (86) 6,400 33,400 (5)
1968 13,300 (72) 7,400 (23) - 39,600 (100) 7,900 68,200 (8)
1969 9,400 (86) 6,400 (28) -.. 119,400 (94) 18,600 153,800 (13)
1970 9,800 (100) 3,500 (35) - 140,500 (82) 28,1003 181,900 (20)
1971 9,700 (100) 11,100 (77) - 207,200 (98) 92,600 320,600 (82)
1972 8,200 (100) 2,800 (41) - 85,700 (88) 47,800 144,500
1973 4 532,2005
1 Includes Bon Secour Bay
2 Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 
10 & 11 which adjoin the Alabama 
coast
3 Includes 700 pounds caught in Florida
4 Data on catch from. specific waters not presently available
5 Preliminary data subject to revision
* Percentage of total Gulf landings
TABLE 15. Pounds of gafftopsail catfish caught from the coastal waters by Alabama
fishermen during the period 1964-1973. (Number in parenthesis is the percent of the
total catch from the area taken by Alabama fishermen.)
Mobile Mississippi Little Total
Year Bay' Sound Lagoon Offshore
2  
Louisiana Florida Landings
1964 5,700 (100) - 400 3,600 (20) 400 2,700 12,800 (3)*
1965 3,300 (100) 800 (10) 900 13,500 (40) 100 900 19,500 (6)
1966 5,100 (100) 3,000 (100) - 15,600 (15) 4,400 300 28,400 (7)
1967 4,200 (100) 3,300 (46) - 25,000 .'(46) 4,000 - 36,500 (7)
1968 9,900 (100) 3,600 (78) - 30,400 (65) 6,900 - 50,800 (13)
1969 11,800 (100) 3,500 (70) - 84,900 (87) 17,800. - 118,000 (28)
1970 12,400 (100) 8,000 (96) - 81,300 (80) 17,600 100 119,400 (29)
1971 7,900 (100) 4,200 (84) - 60,000 (59) 18,800 2003 91,100 (30)
1972 8,700 (100) 4,000 (100) - 43,500 (50) 12,100 3003 68,600
1973 4 80,4005
1 Includes Bon Secour Bay
2 Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 10 & 11 which adjoin 
the Alabama coast
3 From Perdido Bay
4 Data on catch from specific waters not presently 
available
5 Preliminary data subject to revision
* Percentage of total Gulf landings
38
Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)
Alabama landings of spot increased
from 4% of the total Gulf landings in
1964 to 16% in 1971 (Table 16). By
1973, the landings had reached 191
thousand pounds. More than 60% were
caught in shrimp trawls with most of
the catch coming from offshore.
Cobia (Rachycentron canadus)
The cobia or ling is a choice game fish
taken off the Alabama coast. Commer-
cial landings of this species ranged
from 100 pounds in 1964 to 14,500
pounds in 1972 (Table 16). All of the
cobia landed from 1964 to 1971 were
caught by trawl incidental to shrimp-
ing operations. Since cobia often feed
on crabs this is not surprising.
Pompano (Trachinotus carolinus)
Few pompano are caught commer-
cially. During the period 1964 through
1973 landings of pompano ranged from
TABLE 16. Pounds of spot caught by Alabama fishermen from the coastal waters during
the years 1964-1973. (Number in parenthesis is the percent of the total catch from the
area taken by Alabama fishermen.)
Mobile Mississippi Little Total
Year Bay Sound Lagoon Offshore
2  
Other Landings
1964 9,400 (100) - 4,100 200 (6) - 13,700 (4)
1965 7,200 (100) 600 (50) 2,400 4,700 (78) - 14,900 (4)
1966 4,800 (100) 600 (20) 20,100 1,400 (26) 200 27,100 (7)
1967 6,500 (100) 1,200 (80) 1,100 4,100 (84) 3,300 16,200 (5)
1968 9,600 (100) 4,900- (100) 100 27,500 (96) 3,700 45,700 (12)
1969 18,400 (100) 6,100 (92) - 15,700 (94) 2,800 43,000 (12)
1970 14,100 (100) 4,200 (100) - 20,500 (92) 4,800 43,600 (13)
1971 13,200 (100) 6,700 (78) - 53,600 (98) 15,300 88,800 (16)
1972 11,000 (100) 4,600 (100) - 66,200 (99) 18,800 100,600
1973 3 191,2004
1 Includes-Bon Secour Bay
2 Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 
10 & 11 which adjoin 
the Alabama coast
3 Data on catch from specific waters not presently available
4 Preliminary data subject 
to revision
* Percentage of total Gulf landings
TABLE 17. Pounds of ling or cobia caught from the coastal waters by Alabama fisher-
men during the years 1964-1973. (Number in parenthesis is the percent of the total catch
from the area taken by Alabama fishermen.)
Total
Year Inshore Offshore' Louisiana Other Landings
1964 - 100 (8) - - 100
1965 - 300 (17) - - 300
1966 - 1,000 (5) 300 - 1,300 (3)*
1967 100 3,600 (81) 300 - 4,000 (10)
1968 - 11,200 (82) 1,100 - 12,300 (15)
1969 200 8,400 (82) 400 - 9,000 (13)
1970 - 11,000 (91) 1,900 1002 13,000 (12)
1971 - 7,100 (95) 800 - 7,900 (8)
1972 - 11,500 (95) 3,200 - 14,500
1973 3 14,0004
I Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 10 & 11 which adjoin the Alabama coast
2 From Mexico
3 Data on catch from specific waters not presently available
4 Preliminary data subject to revision
* Percentage of total Gulf landings
1,400 pounds to 13,300 pounds (Table
18). During 1971 about 80% of the
pompano were caught in shrimp trawls
with the remainder being caught in
gill and trammel nets.
TABLE 18. Pounds of pompano caught from
the coastal waters by Alabama fishermen
during the period 1964-1973 as compiled from
the statistical records of the National Ma-
rine Fisheries Service.
Year Inshore Offshore
1  
Louisiana Landings
1964 300 1,300 - 1,600
1965 100 1,700 - 1,800
1966 - 1,300 100 1,400
1967 200 1,700 100 2,000
1968 200 1,800 500 2,500
1969 100 3,300 200 3,600
1970 - 2,000 100 2,100
1971 100 4,700 400 5,200
1972 200 3,500 800 4,500
1973 2 13,300
1 Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 10 & 11
which adjoin the Alabama coast
2 Data on catch from specific 
waters not
presently available
3 Preliminary data subject 
to revision
Red snapper (Lutjanus spp.).
Alabama landings of red snapper
have declined from 18% of the total
Gulf landings in 1964 to about 11% in
4971 (Table 19). This resulted 
pri-
marily because the Bayou La Batre
snapper fleet was sold to a Mississippi
firm in 1967. In earlier years (1964-
67) nearly all the snapper were taken
from Mexico and Central America 
by
the snapper fleet. More recently 
(1967-
72) the fleet has shifted to fishing
grounds off Texas and Louisiana and
has continued with a more limited 
ef-
fort off Central America and 
Mexico.
Over the years a higher percentage
of the catch has been taken by shrimp
trawl. In 1964, 18,700 pounds of snap-
per were taken by trawls and by 1971
the poundage had increased to 181,600
pounds. An unknown amount is sold
by anglers.
Groupers (Epinephelus spp. and
Myeteroperca spp.)
Alabama landings of grouper have
remained about 3 to 4% of the total
Gulf landings (Table 20); however, the
pounds landed have declined indicating
an overall decline in Gulf landings.
Nearly all grouper are caught with
hand lines by the snapper fleet. In
1964, 600 pounds were taken by shrimp
TABLE 19. Po.nds of red snapper caught by Alabama fishermen during 
the years 1964-
1973. (Number in parenthesis is the percent of the total catch 
from the area taken by Ala-
bama fishermen.)
Central Total
Year Offshore' Inshore Louisiana Texas Mexico America 
Landings
1964 72,500 (15) - 1,800 - 2,318,600 
- 2,392,900 (18)*
1965 88,600 (18) - 5,600 - 2,269,500 131,300 2,495,000 (19)
1966 274,200 (46) 100 34,400 - 1,853,800 538,600 1,701,100 
(14)
1967 267,800 (44) 300 30,300 234,700 1,512,900 242,400 2,288,400 (19)
1968 283,000 (51) 200 58,200 490,400 382,000 - 1,213,800 (11)2
1969 204,900 (40) - 26,900 181,700 281,100 551,300 1,245,900 (13)
1970 204,900 (40) - 43,200 297,200 285,100 152,800 983,200 (12)
1971 167,100 (35) 900 206,600 348,200 24,000 192,400 939,200 (11)
1972 186,100 (30) - 153,100 393,800 305,500 12,000 1,050,500
1973 3 960,4004
1 Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 10 & 11 which adjoin the Alabama 
coast
2Bayou La Batre snapper 
fleet sold
3 Data on catches from specific waters not presently available
4 Preliminary data 
subject to revision
* Percentage of total Gulf landings
40
trawl and by 1971 the trawl catch had
increased to only 6,900 pounds.
Jewfish (Epinephelus itajara)
In the years 1964 through 1966
the Alabama snapper fleet landed be-
tween 60 and 70% of all the jewfish
caught from the Gulf of Mexico (Table
21). By 1971, the catch had declined to
22% of the Gulf landings. All of the
fish were caught by hand lines.
Mullet (Mugil cephalus)
M. curema does occur occasionally in
the catch. Mullet is the mainstay of
the trammel net fishery. The number
of fishermen has been essentially stable
at about 100 over the period 1964
through 1971 (Table 3).
Alabama landings of mullet increased
from 3% of the total Gulf landings in
1964 to 9% in 1971 (Table 22). Dur-
ing many years more mullet are avail-
TABLE 20. Pounds of grouper caught by Alabama fishermen during the years 1964-1973.
(Number in parenthesis is the percent ofthe the total catch from the area taken by Alabama
fishermen.)
Central Total
Year Offshore' Inshore Louisiana Texas Mexico America Landing
1964 4,100 (3) - 100 - 300,300 - 3
1965 4,000 (3) - 100 - 269,900 14,500 31
1966 39,300 (37) 400 500 - 321,200 21,400 31
1967 21,200 (25) - 300 33,700 253,200 9,800 3
1968 12,300 (25) - 1,000 160,800 131,900 - 3
1969 8,000 (10) - 300 67,300 62,000 111,200 24
1970 11,700 (14) - 900 152,700 71,700 28,500 2
1971 7,500 (8) -- 50,800 85,000 2,300 34,400 1
1972 7,100 (6) - 21,000 135,500 64,000 1,200 2
1973 3 11
1 Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 10 & 11 which adjoin the Alabama coast
2 Snapper fleet based in Bayou La Batre sold to Pascagoula, Mississippi firm
3 Data on catch from specific waters not presently available
4 Preliminary data subject to revision
* Percentage of total Gulf landings
04,500 (4)*
88,500 (4)
82,800 (5)
18,200 (5)
06,000 (4)2
47,400 (3)
65,500 (4)
80,000 (3)
28,800
97,7004
TABLE 21. Pounds of jewfish caught by Alabama fishermen from the coastal waters
during the period 1964-1973. (Number in parenthesis is the percent of the total catch
from the area taken by Alabama fishermen.)
Central Total
Year Offshore' Louisiana Texas Mexico America Landings
1964 1,900 (95) - - 116,500 - 118,400 (57)*
1965 3,800 (100) 200 - 125,800 4,400 134,200 (68)
1966 12,600 (95) 5,000 - 80,200 2,500 100,300 (70)
1967 6,700 (100) 200 2,100 67,500 - 76,500 (53)
1968 6,200 (94) 1,800 62,500 45,100 - 115,600 (54)
1969 3,300 (100) 300 39,400 - 6,900 49,900 (32)
1970 6,600 (100) 400 37,400 28,900 73,300 (35)
1971 2,700 (96) 13,100 21,500 3,000 1,200 41,500 (22)
1972 4,400 (100) 9,200 43,900 22,500 - 80,000
1973 2 59,2008
1 Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 10 & 11 which adjoin the Alabama coast
2 Data on catch from specific waters not presently available
3 Preliminary data subject to revision
* Percentage of total Gulf landings
41
able than can be sold locally and the
price paid to the fisherman has dropped
as low as $0.03 per pound. Because of
this it is difficult to evaluate whether
the fluctuations in catch are due to en-
vironmental conditions or economic
conditions.
Alabama fishermen caught nearly all
the mullet taken from Mobile Bay and
up to 85% of those landed from Mis-
sissippi Sound. Very few mullet were
caught from offshore. Total landings
have fluctuated between 1 and 3 million
pounds annually (Table 22). Mullet
were taken almost exclusively by tram-
rnel net with a small atnotut being tak-
en by gill net (700 pounds in 1971) and
even a smaller amount taken by trawl.
Spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus)
Spotted or speckled trout are con-
sidered the leading sport fish in the
inshore waters of Alabama. Some
sportsmen feel that commercial net
fishermen are taking ever increasing
numbers of speckled trout from Ala-
bama waters. However, Table 3 indi-
cates that the number of net fishermen
has remained relatively stable over the
period 1964 through 1971. Table 23
TABLE 22. Pounds of mullet caught by Alabama fishermen from the coastal waters
during the years 1964-1973. (Number in parenthesis is the percent of the total catch from
the area taken by Alabama fishermen.)
Mobile Mississippi Little Total
Year Bay' Sound Lagoon Offshore
2  
Louisiana Landings
1964 874,200 (100) 81,700 (32) 67,200 4,400 (3) 44,500 1,072,000 (3)*
1965 1,292,900 (100) 156,000 (55) 57,500 2,100 (1) - 1,508,500 (5)
1966 1,295,800 (100) 369,500 (49) 27,700 3,500 (1) 300 1,696,800 (6)
1967 2,861,900 (76) 231,600 (25) 21,600 9,300 (6) 45,200 3,169,600 (11)
1968 2,676,100 (84) 156,300 (30) - 2,500 (2) 5,000 2,839,900 (12)
1969 2,831,900 (97) 347,100 (69) - 8,400 (14) 1,100 3,188,500 (11)
1970 2,722,300 (99) 385,400 (85) - 2,500 (1) 1,300 3,111,500 (12)
1971 1,974,500 (100) 384,200 (83) - 1,200 (1) 1,200 2,361,100 (9)
1972 1,176,500 (100) 308,300 (76) 11,100 (5) 17,400 1,513,300
1973 3 
2,785,7034
1 Includes Bon Secour Bay
2 Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 10 & 11 which adjoin the 
Alabama coast
3 Data on catch from specific waters not presently avaiiable
4 Preliminary data subject to revision * Percentage of total Gulf landings
TABLE 23. Pounds of spotted seatrout caught by Alabama fishermen from the coastal
waters during the years 1964-1973. (Number in parenthesis is the 
percent of the total
catch from the area taken by Alabama fishermen.)
Mobile Perdido Mississippi Little 
Total
Year Bay' Bay Sound Lagoon Offshore
2  
Louisiana Landings
1964 33,200 (100) - 4,000 (7) 7,400 5,300 (56) 14,700 64,600 (1)*
1965 38,800 (100) -- 6,700 (33) 2,700 5,600 (36) - 53,800 (1)
1966 31,600 (100) - 7,000 (27) 700 8,200 (55) - 47,500 (1)
1967 20,500 (98) - 21,000 (24) 200 
4,600 (60) 44,600 90,900 (2)
1968 52,100 (90) - 25,700 (29) 100 
4,800 (53) 18,100 100,800 (2)
1969 48,800 (97) - 15,900 (38) -
2,900 (43) 30,800 98,400 (2)
1970 64,900 (100) - 11,400 (34) 
- 7,000 (72) 1,200 81,500 (2)
1971 59,400 (100) -- 22,300 (69) 
- 12,300 (28) 43,300 137,300 (3)
1972 34,200 (100) 200 (4) 14,300 (66) - 7,700 (75) 163,800 220,200
1973 3 
351,6004
1 Includes Bon Secour Bay
2 Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 10 & 11 which adjoin the Alabama coast
3 Data on catch from specific waters not presently available
4 Preliminary data subject to revision
* Percentage of total Gulf landings
42
shows that the catch did not increase
substantially until 1971 when the com-
mercial fishermen began to fish ex-
tensively in Louisiana waters. By
1972, 74% of Alabama's landings were
caught from Louisiana waters.
Alabama commercial landings in-
creased from 1% of the total Gulf land-
ings in 1964 to 3% in 1971 (Table 23).
Catches from Mobile Bay have ranged
from 20,500 pounds to 64,000 pounds.
Alabama's percentage of the catch from
Mississippi Sound increased from 7%
in 1964 to 66% in 1972. The offshore
catches have ranged from 2,900 pounds
to 12,300 pounds.
Table 24 summarizes the catch of
speckled trout by gear. Trammel nets
are responsible for the majority of the
catch, which ranged from 33,800 pounds
to 120,000 pounds. Trammel nets are
also used to catch mullet and many
speckled trout are caught incidental to
this fishery. Nets are fished specifi-
cally for speckled trout during certain
periods of the year.
TABLE 24. Catch of spotted seatrout
(pounds)by gear during the period 1964-
1974.1
Gill Trammel Hook & Haul
Year Trawl Net Net Line Seineq
1964 400 - 43,000 10,500 10,700
1965 - 100 44,000 9,700 -
1966 300 1,300 33,800 12,100 -
1967 200 1,000 85,200 4,400 100
1968 100 - 94,600 6,100 -
1969 300 16,100 81,600 400 -
1970 2,700 300 76,900 4,600 -
1971 2,900 9,000 120,000 5,400 -
1 From Fisheries Statistics of the United
States
Fish taken by anglers was second in
pounds harvested after trammel nets.
Angling catches ranged from 400
pounds to 12,100 pounds. Gill net
catches ranged from zero to 16,100
pounds. Catches by trawl increased
significantly in 1970 and 1971.
Data on the sport fishery catches of
speckled trout and other marine game
fish are being collected for Alabama
waters during 1975 (P.L. 88-309, Proj-
ect 2-251-R). These data will be avail-
able in 1976.
TABLE 25. Pounds of Spanish mackeral caught by Alabama fishermen from the coastal
waters during the years 1964-1973. (Number in parenthesis is the percent of the total
catch from the area taken by Alabama fishermen.)
Mobile Perdido Mississippi Little Total
Year Bay' Bay Sound Lagoon Offshore
2  
Other Landings
1964 1,00 (100) - - 100 73,000 (26) - 74,100 (2)*
1965 900 (100) - - 100 13,300 (7) - 14,300 (.3)
1966 700 (100) - 100 (100) - 52,900 (16) 300 54,000 (.8)
1967 3,000 (100) - - - 19,200 (6) 3,000 25,200 (.4)
1968 4,600 (100) - 2,000 (29) - 31,200 (11) 900 38,700 (.5)
1969 1,200 (100) - 500 (19) - 79,600 (30) 3,900 85,200 (1)
1970 1,000 (100) - 300 (100) - 56,400 (25) 68,2003 125,900 (1)
1971 1,000 (100) 100 (100) 200 (50) - 38,200 (36) 16,3004 55,800 (.7)
1972 1,600 (100) - - - 22,300 (20) 66,9004 90,800
1973 5 75,9006
1 Includes Bon Secour Bay
2 Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 10 & 11 which adjoin the Alabama coast
3 Mainly from Texas
4 From Louisiana 
waters
5 Data on catch from specific waters not presently available
6 Preliminary data subject to revision
* Percentage of total Gulf landings
43
Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus
maculatus)
Spanish mackerel are also considered
a choice game fish by the offshore
fishermen. Alabama's commercial land-
ings of spanish mackerel have de-
creased from 2 % of the total Gulf land-
ings in 1964 to 0.7% in 1971 (Table
25). The total landings increased from
74 thousand pounds in 1964 to 126
thousand pounds in 1970 and then de-
creased to 76 thousand pounds in 1973.
The catches were primarily from off-
shore.
Gill nets are the most effective gear
used in the mackerel fishery (Table
26). Catches with gill nets ranged
from 2,600 pounds to 54,600 pounds.
The catch of mackerel by trawls in-
creased from 200 pounds in 1964 to
28,600 pounds in 1971. The angling
and handline catch entering the com-
mercial landings ranged from 100
pounds to 64,800 pounds. The catches
by trammel nets were small and proba-
bly incidental to their use in other
fisheries.
TABLE 26. Pounds of spanish mackerel
caught by each type of gear during the
period 1964-1971.1
Gill Trammel Haul Hook &
Year Trawl Net Net Seine Line
1964 200 11,300 900 60,900 800
1965 2,500 2,600 800 6,900 1,500
1966 2,300 50,900 600 - 200
1967 11,200 7,100 3,200 3,600 100
1968 14,000 19,200 5,400 - 100
1969 29,500 54,600 1,000 - 100
1970 25,100 34,800 1,200 - 64,800
1971 28,600 25,200 1,500 - 500
1 From Fisheries Statistics of the United
States
Red drum (Sciaenops ocellata)
The commercial catches of red drum
or redfish have increased from 19,300
in 1964 to 172,200 pounds in 1973
(Table 27). The significant increases
in catch occurred in 1972 and 1973. The
catch from Alabama inshore waters
has declined or remained about stable
and increases have been from offshore
and Louisiana waters. Most of the red-
fish taken commercially are caught by
nets and the remainder by hook and
line.
TABLE 27. Pounds of redfish or red drum caught from the coastal waters by Alabama
fishermen during-the years 1964-1973. (Number in parenthesis is the percent of the total
catch from the area taken by Alabama fishermen.)
Mobile Mississippi Little Total
Year Bay1 Sound Lagoon Offshore
2  
Other Landings
1964 8,000 (100) 1,100 (6) 400 1,000 (30) 8,8003 19,300 (1)*
1965 2,700 (100) 300 (4) 100 600 (55) - 3,700 (.2)
1966 2,100 (100) 1,500 (12) 300 2,200 (67) -
6,100 (.3)
1967 2,600 (56) 2,400 (4) - 2,200 (76) 2,0004 9,200 (.4)
1968 4,100 (44) 2,100 (4) - 7,500 (100) 2,700
4  
16,400 (.6)
1969 2,200 (69) 900 (8) - 36,500 (88) 13,7004 53,300 (2)
1970 2,100 (100) 600 (7) - 27,000 (69) 5,5004 35,200 (1)
1971 2,500 (100) 1,500 (32) - 17,900 (92) 9,800.4 31,700 (.9)
1972 5,400 (100) 1,700 (33) - 43,100 (88) 26,8004 77,000
1973 5 172,2006
1 Includes Bon Secour Bay
2 NMFS Statistical Zones 10 & 11 which adj oin
3 From Louisiana and 
100 lbs. from Texas
4 From Louisiana
the Alabama coast
5 Data on catch from specific waters not presently available
, Preliminary data subject to revision
* Percentage 
of total Gulf 
landings
44
Black drum (Pogonias cromis)
Alabama landings of black drum in-
creased from 1% of the total Gulf
landings in 1964 to 2% in 1971 (Table
28). Inshore catches have been stable
to declining. Offshore catches have in-
creased significantly ranging from 700
to 29,100 pounds. While most of the
drum are taken by trammel nets, a
fairly high percentage have been taken
by trawl in recent years. In 1971, the
percentages were 54% by trammel nets
and 45% by trawls as compared to
73% by trammel nets and 9% by trawls
during 1964.
Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix)
Alabama landings of bluefish in-
creased from 11,000 pounds in 1964 to
27,100 pounds in 1973 (Table 29). Most
of the catch was taken by gill nets al-
though in recent years up to 25% of
the catch was from trawls.
TABLE 2& Pounds of black drum caught from the coastal waters by Alabama fishermen
during the period 1964-1973. (Number in parenthesis is the percent of the total catch
from the area taken by Alabama fishermen.)
Mobile Mississippi Little Total
Year Bay' Sound Lagoon Offshore
2  
Louisiana Landings
1964 10,000 (100) 1,100 (9) 400 700 (18) 5,100 17,300 (1)*
1965 2,300 (100) - 800 (53) - 3,100
1966 1,900 (100) 200 (2) 200 1,800 (78) 300 4,400
1967 3,300 (100) 1i,900 (8) 200 1,000 (40) 1,200 7,600
1968 -5,400 (47) 1,700 (7) - 5,600 (100) 3,800 16,500 (1)
1969 3,200 (56) 800 (13) - 29,100 (82) 9,400 42,500 (3)
1970 3,500 (100) 400 (7) - 16,900 (39) 3,200 24,000 (2)
1971 8,300 (100) 800 (80) - 11,700 (90) 10,400 31,200 (2)
1972 3,400 (100) 600 (100) - 16,100 (98) 23,800 43,900
1973 8 79,4004
1 Includes Bon Secour Bay
2 Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 10 
& 11 which adjoin the Alabama coast
3 Data on catch-from specific waters not presently available
4 Preliminary data subject to revision
* Percentage of total Gulf landings
TABLE 29. Pounds of bluefish caught from the coastal waters by Alabama fishermen
during the period 1964-1973. (Number in parenthesis is the percent of the total catch
from the area taken by Alabama fishermen.)
Mobile Mississippi Little Total
Year Bay' Sound Lagoon Offshore2 Louisiana Landings
1964 600 (100) 500 (10) 300 9,600 (20) - 11,000 (1)*
1965 700 (100) - 100 4,600 (4) - 5,400
1966 2,800 (100) 100 (0.6) - 5,700 (6) - 8,600 (1)
1967 100 (100) 500 (5) - 2,000 (3) 500 3,700
1968 1,000 (100) - - 2,400 (2) 500 3,900
1969 400 (100) 300 (5) - 22,500 (35) 8,400 31,600 (5)
1970 400 (100) 100 (100) - 20,800 (32) 600 21,900 (3)
1971 900 (100) - - 11,400 (32) 600 12,900 (2)
1972 1,700 (100) 500 (20) - 14,600 (20) 5,500 22,300
1973 3 27,1004
1 Includes Bon Secour Bay
2 Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 10 & 11 which adjoin the 
Alabama coast
3 Data on catch from specific waters not presently 
available
4 Preliminary data subject 
to revision
* Percentage of total Gulf landings
45
TIE OYSTER FISHERY
,May (1971) described the oyster
fishery, the oyster resources and
mapped the reefs. Oyster production
in Alabama is very cyclic because of
the unique environmental fluctuations
associated with Mobile Bay and the
drainage system (Table 2). Mobile Bay
receives the fourth largest river dis-
charge in the United States which dras-
tically alters the salinity levels on the
reefs (Crance, 1971) and periodically
results in mortalities (May, 1972).
During 1973, more than 44.8 million
oysters were killed by floodwaters.
Mobile Bay also has the "jubilee"
phenomenon that periodically results
in low dissolved oxygen in the bottom
waters affecting spawning success and
periodically killing the oysters on the
reefs in the middle of the bay (May,
1973). This is caused by large depres-
sions in the bottom which resulted
largely from submerged dikes created
by shoaling and spoil material left from
construction of navigation channels.
Water in these depressions stratify and
the dissolved oxygen becomes deficient
in large areas over the bottom. Peri-
odically this water mass with low dis-
solved oxygen moves over the upper
reefs killing oysters. This occurred in
1968 and 1971 on Klondike and Point
Clear Reefs.
The catch statistics from the reefs
(Table 30) are further complicated by
the extended closures of the reefs as
a result of high coliform bacteria levels.
In 1973, for example, the reefs were
closed from the first week in January
to the first week in June. The total
catch shown in Table 30 represents a
4-month fishing effort in September
through December.
During the period 1964 through 1972,
the catch from Mobile Bay was the low-
est in 1965 when only 20,900 pounds
were harvested (Table 30). The larg-
est harvest occurred in 1967 when the
previous administration of the Marine
Resources Division allowed undersized
oysters to be taken for the canning fac-
tories in Mississippi. In addition to
the 2 million pounds of meats landed
in Alabama that year, approximately
1.3 million pounds were landed in Mis-
sissippi which is the highest harvest
on record since statistics were first tak-
TABLE 30. Polands (meats) of oysters caught by Alabama fishermen from the coastal
waters during the years 1964-1973 as compiled from the statistical records of the Na
tional Marine Fisheries Service.
Mobile Bon Secour Mississippi Other Total
Year Bay Bay Sound Locations Landings
1964 349,400 129,800 526,100 - 1,005,300
1965 20,900 179,800 291,700 - 492,400
1966 236,700 232,700 831,700 3,4002 1,304,500
1967 663,600 266,200 1,157,600 - 2,087,4004
1968 275,200 214,100 722,500 - 1,211,800
1969 71,500 191,500 289,200 - 552,200
1970 42,300 56,100 181,000 - 279,400
1971 52,500 23,200 173,800 - 249,400
1972 239,200 10,000 820,300 - 1,069,500
1973 3 590,1185
1 Alabama waters
2 From Graveline Bay, Mississippi
3 Data on catch from specific waters not 
presently available
4 An dditional 1.3 million pounds were landed in Mississippi 
from Alabama reefs
5 Preliminary data subject to revision
46
en in 1880. Harvesting undergized
oysters was apparently a mistake as the
following annual harvests suffered as
a result. Whitehouse Reef has not
been productive since that time and
Buoy and Kings Bayou reefs have been
poor producers.
The catch trend was approximately
the same for Mississippi Sound and
Mobile Bay because the major produc-
tive reef, Cedar Point Reef, lies in both
bodies of water (Table 30). Bon Se-
cour Bay which is the southeast corner
of Mobile Bay has most of the private
oyster bottoms. Catches from these
bottoms have significantly declined be-
cause there has been almost no seed
oysters (small oysters transferred from
public reefs) available for private beds
since 1967-68 with the exception of
3,400 barrels in 1971. Table 31 lists
TABLE 31. Pounds and percentage of the
total landings of oysters caught from pri-
vate beds during the period 1964-1972.
Private Beds
Year Total Landings Pounds Percentage
1964 1,005,300 74,600 7.4
1965 492,400 62,000 12.6
1966 1,304,500 111,000 8.5
1967 2,087,400 117,600 5.6
1968 1,211,800 116,200 9.6
1969 552,200 82,800 14,9
1970 279,400 33,800 12.1
1971 249,400 13,600 5.5
1972 1,069,500 3,600 0.3
Average 916,877 68,356 7.4
the pounds and percentages of the total
landings caught from private beds dur-
ing 1964-72.
Freshwater flows and low oxygen in
some areas resulted 
in poor or no 
spat
set during 1968 through 1971 with the
exception of July 1970. This set was
responsible for producing the oysters
harvested in 1972 and 1973. The poor
spat sets and closure of the reefs for
171 days resulted in the harvest of 1971
being the smallest on record.
The spring and summer of 1972 were
very dry periods and thus the salinity
was higher in the estuarine areas which
resulted in the best spat set in
years. The 382,419 Alabama barrels
(69,531 yd
3
) of shell planted by the
state between 1968 and 1972 had good
spat set; however, extended flood-
waters during 1973 resulted in the mor-
tality of most of these young oysters.
Spat set in Bon Secour Bay has al-
ways been low, but in recent years it
has almost been nonexistant (Hoese,
Nelson and Beckert, 1972). Even in
1972 when good spat set occurred in
Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound, spat
set did not occur in Bon Secour Bay.
A history of Alabama's oyster indus-
try and management was compiled by
Swingle and Hughes (1976). Table 3
shows the number of participants in the
fishery which has declined in recent
years. The oyster harvest will con-
tinue to be cyclic due to environmental
conditions. However, production can
be increased by a continuing program
of shell planting and good management
and by efforts to develop better criteria
for closing shellfish harvesting areas to
protect the public health.
THE CRAB FISHERY
Alabama's catch of blue crabs
(Callinectes sapidus) has ranged be-
tween 4 and 8% of the total Gulf land-
ings (Table 32). Catches from Mobile
Bay have ranged between 534 thousand
pounds in 1970 and 991 thousand
pounds in 1968. Total state landings
ranged between 1.4 million pounds and
2.3 million pounds. Alabama fisher-
men take about one-half of all the crabs
harvested from Mississippi Sound. The
offshore catch increased significantly
in 1971 (Table 32) as did the inshore
and offshore catches by trawl al-
thotigh the Majority of catch was taken
by crab pot or trap (Table 33) Prior
to 1960, most of the catch was taken
by baited trotline; however, this meth-
od of harvest was discontinued in 1966.
The number of pot fishermen and num-
ber of pots have varied considerably
over the period 1964-1971; however,
despite recent declines both the num-
bers of pots and fishermen remained
significantly higher in 1971 than in
1964. The catch per unit effort
(pounds per pot) was highest in 1964
at 275 pounds per pot annually. By
1970, the annual catch per pot had de-
clined to about 1/3 this amount. These
47
data indicate that the fishery is near
or at the maximum sustainable yield;
however, the interpretation of the land-
ing.statistics are complicated by the
fact that occasionally in recent years
more crabs are caught than can be
processed. Mechanized crab processing
is needed in the industry.
Stone crabs (Menippe mercenaria)
are taken only occasionally and do not
enter the commercial crab fishery.
Squid (Lolliguncula brevis)
Occasionally, Loligo pealei is included
in the catch. All squid were caught by
trawl. Those 3-6 inches in length are
TABLE 32. Pounds (live weight) of blue crabs caught by Alabama fishermen from the
coastal waters during the years 1964-1973. (Number in parenthesis is 
the percent of the
total catch from the area taken by Alabama fishermen.)
Mobile Bon Secour Mississippi Other Total
Year Bay Bay Sound* Offshore' Locations Landings
1964 613,700 (100) 25,800 (100) 1,018,500 (48) 103,700 (100) - 1,701,700 (7)**
1965 674,700 (100) 36,800 (100) 1,093,300 (41) 7,300 (25) 1002 1,812,200 (5)
1966 728,300 (100) 105,000 (100) 1,344,000 (55) 5,100 (10) 2003 2,182,600 
(7)
1967 962,400 (100) 126,800 (100) 1,243,100 (60) 3,900 (100) 17,2004 2,353,400 (9)
1968 991,000 (97) 3,300 (100) 971,300 (53) 9,000 (100) - 1,979,600 (8)
1969 679,900 (100) 102,700 (100) 1,105,500 (41) 31,900 (80) - 1,920,000 (6)
1970 534,900 (100) 52,000 (100) 818,700 (30) 1,700 (7) - 1,407,300 (4)
1971 643,400 (100) 7,500 (100) 1,105,400 (51) 240,300 (90) - 1,996,600 (6)
1972 596,000 (100) 8,000 (100) 951,300 (50) 52,000 (100) 5,3005 1,612,600
1973 0 2,098,5007
1 Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 10 & 11 which adjoin the Alabama coast
2 From Little Lagoon, 
Alabama
8 From Pensacola Bay, Florida and Louisiana coast
4 From Perdido Bay (300#), Little Lagoon (15,000#) and Chandeleur 
Sound, Louisiana
5 From Perdido Bay
6 Data for catch from specific waters not presently available
7 Preliminary data subject 
to revision
* Includes all of Mississippi Sound
** Percentage of the total Gulf landings
TABLE 33. Catch of blue crabs by Alabama fishermen using various types of gear for
the years 1964-1971 (From Fisheries Statistics of the United States).
Catch
Shrimp Trawl
117,900
36,100
8,800
10,300
46,300
103,300
2,200
441,300
(Pounds) By:
Crab Pots
1,584,800
1,760,300
2,165,400
2,343,100
1,933,300
1,816,700
1,405,100
1,556,000
Year
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
Trotline
59,000
15,800
8,400
-.,,
Total
Landings
1,761,700
1,812,200
2,186,600
2,353,400
1,979,600
1,920,000
1,407,300
1,997,300
Number of
Fishermen
66
60
67
85
104
85
94
88
Number of
Pots
6,400
8,400
10,540
12,520
17,347
13,490
14,100
14,425
~YVV ~YV VVV ~~VVI ~V'U VVV \~VVI I C~~II VVV
r~AhI
121~ 3
48
sold for bait but most squid caught are
discarded by the shrimp fishermen as
the landings are never particularly high
(Table 34). Swingle (1971) found L.
brevis to be the tenth most abundant
species in trawl collections in Alabama
estuaries. Alabama's percentage of the
total Gulf landings increased from 9%
in 1964 to 17% in 1971 which indicates
stable landings for the Gulf of Mexico
as Alabama's landings doubled during
this period.
SUMMARY OF THE TOTAL CATCH
FROM ALABAMA'S COASTAL
WATERS
Table 35 summarizes the total catch
of all commercial species by all fisher-
men from the estuarine waters of Ala-
bama and the waters adjoining the Ala-
bama coast from 1964 through 1972.
Catches of seafood in Mobile Bay in-
creased from 3.4 million pounds in 1964
to 8 million pounds in 1967 and then
declined to 3.1 million pounds by 1972.
The decline in fishing effort by the
shrimp fleet (Table 6) and in oyster
production (Table 30) are believed to
be largely responsible for this decline
in the total catch from Mobile Bay.
The catch from Perdido Bay has in-
creased from 46 thousand pounds in
1967 to 265 thousand pounds in 1972.
Most of the catch is landed in Florida.
The reported ,seafood catch from Little
Lagoon declined from 94 thousand
pounds in 1965 to 100 pounds in 1971
and then increased to 110 thousand
pounds in 1972.
Catches from Mississippi Sound
ranged from 39 million pounds to 131
million pounds (Table 35). Most of
the catch consists of menhaden which is
landed in Mississippi. Menhaden fish-
ing is prohibited in all Alabama inside
waters except the western two-thirds
of Mississippi Sound and all offshore
waters east of a line at the approximate
center of Dauphin Island. The sea-
food catches from Mississippi Sound
ranged from 5 million pounds to 9.4
million pounds. Mississippi Sound sea-
food catches showed the same trend as
Mobile Bay catches, ie., increasing from
1964 to 1967 and then decreasing to
about the 1964 level by 1972. This was
TABLE 34. Pounds of squid caught from the coastal waters by Alabama fishermen dur-
ing the period 1964-1973. (Number in parenthesis is the percent of the total 
catch from
the area taken by Alabama fishermen.)
Mobile Mississippi Little Total
Year Bayl Sound Lagoon Offshore
2  
Louisiana Landings
1964 2,900 200 - 1,100 - 4,200 (9)*
1965 300 300 300 4,700 300P 
5,900 (11)
1966 1,000 1,600 - 4,100 800 7,500 (12)
1967 - 2,200 - 2,400 200 4,800 (10)
1968 200 1,500 - 7,100 100 8,900 (10)
1969 400 700 - 5,400 200 6,700 (12)
1970 300 700 - 6,600 100 7,700 (14)
1971 200 200 - 7,900 400 8,700 
(17
1972 200 1,400 - 2,100 
- 3,700
1973 4 
10,4005
1 Includes Bon Secour Bay
2 Includes NMFS Statistical Zones 10 &
8 From Florida
4 Data on catch from specific 
waters no
5 Preliminary data subject to revision
* Percentage of total Gulf landings
11 which adjoin the Alabama coast
t presently available
49
TABLE 35. Pounds of menhaden, industrial fish and seafood caught 
from Alabama's
coastal waters by all commercial fishermen 
during the years 1964-72.
Mobile Perdido Little Mississippi Statistical 
Statistical
Year Type Bay' Bay Lagoon Sound2 
Zone 10 Zone 11
1964 Menhaden
Industrial Fish
Seafood
Total
1965 Menhaden
Industrial Fish
Seafood
Total
1966 Menhadenr
Industrial Fish
Seafood
'total
1967 Menhaden
Industrial Fish
Seafood
Total
1968 Menhaden
Industrial Fish
Seafood
Total
1969 Menhaden
Industrial Fish
Seafood
Total
1970 Menhaden
Industrial Fish
Seafood
Total
1971 Menhaden
Industrial Fish
Seafood
Total
1972 Menhaden
Industrial Fish
Seafood
Total
_- - - 95,199,700 - -
- - -
- 200 50,000,000
3,415,600 - 85,800 4,945,600 1,036,700 11,197,200
3,415,600 - 85,800 100,145,300 1,036,900 61,197,200
- - - 102,890,500 
- 2,318,500
- - - - 15,545,200 
26,647,500
3,434,800 - 93,600 5,149,500 1,015,600 15,191,000
3,434,800 - 93,600 108,040,000 16,560,800 44,157,000
- - - 63,109,500 -
-
- - - - 4,000,100 
31,054,900
3,741,000 - 68,600 6,950,400 1,085,400 14,949,700
3,741,000 - 68,600 70,059,900 5,085,500 46,004,600
- - - 66,500,000 100 -
- - - - 10,000,000 34,494,100
8,082,600 46,300 62,300 9,453,000 975,700 16,064,700
8,082,600 46,300 62,300 75,953,000 10,975,800 50,558,800
-- - -- 31,073,900 - -
- - - - 11,000,100 31,000,000
6,238,200 68,600 42,400 7,925,600 676,100 20,250,200
6;238,200 68,600 42,400 38,999,500 11,676;200 51,250,200
- - - 83,393,300 1,700 -
- - -- - 64,015,700 -
5,044,700 104,300 2,500 5,906,267 866,600 23,754,500
5,044,700 104,300 2,500 89,299,600 64,884,0003 23,754,500
- - - 76,316,000 - -
4,351,200 210,000 500 6,046,700 1,069,000 24,179,300
4,351,200 210,000 500 82,362,700 1,069,000 24,179,300
- - - 126,080,400 - -
- 4,007,200 30,000,000
3,459,200 196,900 100 5,680,500 784,500 28,098,900
131,760,900 4,791,700 58,098,900
- - - 88,048,300 - --
- - - - 7,000,000 25,741,000
3,099,000 264,600 110,600 5,651,800 901,700 22,360,900
3,099,000 264,600 110,600 93,700,100 7,901,700 48,101,900
1 Includes Bon Secour Bay
2 From Mobile Bay to Gulfport Ship Channel
3 Data for industrial fish is probably an error in NMFS data and represents the 
catch from
zones 10 and 11
50
largely in response to changes in fish-
ing effort by the Alabama shrimp fleet.
Catches from statistical zone 10 have
ranged from 1 million pounds to 16.6
million pounds. Most of the catch was
industrial fish which was landed in
Mississippi for pet food processing.
The catch consists primarily of mixed
groundfish such as croaker, spot, cat-
fish, etc. Seafood catches from this
zone: have remained fairly consistant
ranging from 0.7 to 1 million pounds.
The majority of the seafood is landed
in Florida.
Catches from statistical zone 11 have
ranged from 24 million pounds to 61
million pounds. The highest percent-
age was industrial fish landed in Mis-
sissippi. Catches of seafood from this
zone have increased from 11 million
pounds in 1964 to 22 million pounds in
1972. Alabama boats landed most of
the seafood.,
LITERATURE CITED
Crance, J. H. 1971. Description of Alabama
estuarine areas-Cooperative Gulf of
Mexico estuarine inventory. Alabama
Mar. Resourc. Bull. 9:1-88.
Gutherz, E. J., G. M. Russell, A. F. Serra
and B. A. Rohr. 1975. Synopsis of the
northern Gulf of Mexico industrial and
foodfish industries Mar. Fish Review
37(7):1-11.
Hoese, H. D., W. R. Nelson and H. Beckert,
.1972. Seasonal and spatial setting of
fouling organisms in Mobile Bay and
eastern Mississippi Sound, Alabama.
Alabama Mar. Resourc. Bull. 8:9-18.
May, E. B. 1971. A survey of the oyster
and oyster shell resources of Alabama.
Alabama Mar. Resourc. Bull. 4:1-53.
May, E. B. 1972. The effect of floodwater
on oysters in Mobile Bay. National
Shellfish Assoc. 62:6771.
May, E. B. 
1973. Extensive 
oxygen deple-
tion in Mobile Bay. Limnology and
Oceanography 18(3):353-366.
Swingle, H. A. 1971. Biology of Alabama
estuarine areas-Cooperative Gulf of
Mexico estuarine inventory. Alabama
Mar. Resourc. Bull. 5:1-123.
Swingle, H. A., D. G. Bland and W. M.
Tatum. 1976. Survey of the 16-foot
trawl fishery of Alabama. Alabama
Mar. Recourc. Bull. 11:51-57.
Swingle, H. A. and E. A. Hughes. 1976. A
review of the oyster fishery of Alabama.
Alabama Mar. Resoure. Bull. 11:58-73.
51
SURVEY OF THE 16-FOOT TRAWL FISHERY OF ALABAMAI
HUGH A. SWINGLE, DONALD G. BLAND AND WALTER M. TATUM
2
Marine Resources Division
Dauphin Island, Alabama 3652&
ABSTRACT
Of the 19,120 owners of Class I and II boats registered in Mobile and Baldwin coun-
ties in 1972, 5,727 or 30% owned a 16-foot shrimp trawl. During 1972, 1973 and 1974
the estimated shrimp catch by these 16-foot trawls was 277,051, 204,577 and 290,541 pounds
(heads-on), respectively, which ranged between 15 and 25 percent of the total catch from
the inside waters of Alabama
INTRODUCTION
Shrimp is the most widely accepted
seafood nationwide and the demand has
not been satisfied by the domestic fish-
ing fleet for many years.Historically, all
coastal states made provisions under
state laws whereby citizens could har-
vest shrimp for personal consumption.
Some states require licenses and all
have restrictions on method and time
of harvest, quantity taken or seasons.
Under Alabama law citizens can take
shrimp for bait throughout the year
although restrictions are slightly dif-
ferent during the closed and open com-
mercial seasons. During the closed
commercial season 5 pounds per person
is allowed (15 pounds per boat con-
taining three or more persons) with
no size count restrictions. During the
open commercial season 25 pounds per
person is allowed but shrimp must be at
least 68 (heads-on) per pound. A li-
cense is not required for nets 16 feet
or less in width provided the shrimp
are not sold.
Swingle (1972) estimated that the
24 bona fide live bait shrimp dealers
operating in Alabama in 1968 sold ap-
proximately 50,000 pounds of live and
dead bait shrimp during that year. The
catch by bait dealers during a brief
trial period in the permanently closed
waters of the Mobile Delta was re-
ported by Loesch (1957). The noncom-
mercial catch by 16-foot trawls has not
been documented previously.
METHODS
Nonpersonal Contacts
Cards were mailed to 10% of the
owners of Class I and II boats (boats
26 ft. or less in length) registered in
Mobile and Baldwin counties. Names
were randomly selected by taking every
fifth name from boatowner registration
records at the courthouse in each coun-
ty. The postage-paid returnable por-
tion of the card requested information
on whether the boatowner owned a 16-
foot shrimp trawl, the number of trips
made during 1972, the estimated catch
per trip, months trips were made and
the area most frequented during the
shrimping trips. The returnable por-
tion of the card was numbered to cor-
respond with the addressee in order to
determine the names and addresses of
trawl owners in the two counties for
follow-up contacts to provide data for
1 This study was made in cooperation with the U. S. Department of Commerce, NOAA,
NMFS, Under P. L. 88-309 (Proj. 2-208-R).
2 Marine Resources Division, Gulf Shores, Alabama 36542
52
1973 and 1974. We assumed that all
sport shrimp trawls were 
owned by
boatowners and that all sport shrimp-
ing was done from boats 26 feet or less
in length. A total of 1,384 cards were
mailed to boatowners in Mobile County
and 504 were mailed to Baldwin County
boatowners on 6 June 1973. A second
mailing was made on 23 July to persons
not responding to the first mailing 
and
a follow-up nighttime telephone inter-
view was made later with a random
sample of 10% of the remaining 
non-
respondents in each county 
(Table 1).
In January 1974, cards were mailed
to the 247 boatowners in Mobile Coun-
ty and 130 boatowners in Baldwin
County known to have 
owned trawls
in 1972 to determine 
shrimping effort
during 1973. Cards were mailed 
60%
of these boatowners in December 
1974
to determine effort during 1974. 
Only
a single mailing was made 
in each of
these two years.
Personal Contacts
A creel census of 16-foot trawl users
was started in June 1973 to collect
completed trip data 
on total catch and
species composition, trawling 
time, dis-
position of catch, number 
of persons
per boat and trip expenses. 
A creel
census clerk was 
stationed at selected
marinas and boat ramps 
5 days per
week (2/5 effort on 
weekends and
holidays) from 16 
June through 31
August 1973, 2 days per 
week (1/2
effort on weekends and 
holidays) from
1 September to 31 October, 
1 day per
week (1/ effort on weekends 
and holi-
days) from 1 November 
1973 to 31
April 1974, 2 days 
per week (1/3
effort on weekends and 
holidays) from
1 May to 31 August and 
1 day per
week (all on weekends 
and holidays)
from 1 September to 31 
October 1974.
The marina or boat 
ramp was selected
based upon estimated 
relative utiliza-
C)
0 0
u)
b0
ro -1-
o
V4
or
0
4
~
0
Cd
Cd
o W C)
i 
23 
0
e 
firsU
ne 
t-C)
er~ 
-i
;he'-4 
;
to 
.- 
I
cards
rs 
into
tiler-
tave 
4
e 
shri
I 
~Nep4
-n 
D.
duriII
,s 
mad
eo I
10
co;
Co 0l
1"4
Co -4
0
- q C4
1(hon 
i-C.
coCD T- -4
h- 
C.-On
bIR 
tg er
y 
;CT 
,-e
r-4 -4 oC
r-4
--
r-4 0l
04
J4~
so~
0 0 En 0c
13 
o P5o
0 
0 p -1:4
Lo
V 0
11-
Coi
cileq
,tuM
cqCD
L979
I0
04
CP
4
Cd
0
F,
PE r
tot
0  
.4cot
8 ) ist )~
Co 10CIt t. LO
-
m Im
53
tion. Shrimping effort is not uniform-
ly distributed in Alabama due to 
sea-
sonal variation in shrimp distribution.
From late spring through late summer
greater effort is expended in the 
lower
portion of the estuaries when brown
shrimp is the principal species taken.
During fall and early witer more
effort is expended in the upper estuary
where white shrimp makes up the
largest portion of the catch. Our
sampling sites were selected with fore-
hand knowledge of this in an attempt
to interview as many persons as pos-
sible. The creel clerk arrived at the
selected area at approximately 8 a.m.
and left about 5 p.m. Only during the
peak of the shrimping season (June-
August) was this procedure efficient
enough to be recommended. During
most of the year the clerk's time 
would
have been better utilized by cruising
the area by boat and passing out re-
urnable postage-paid data 
cards to
persons shrimping, although this meth-
od likely would have provided less re-
liable data on total catch and species
composition than actual measurements
by the clerk. Collection of creel data
was terminated after October 1974.
DISCUSSION
All 1972 data were derived from two
mailings and a follow-up telephone in-
terview. A total of 47.7% of the 1,384
boatowners contacted in Mobile County
and 54.2% of the 504 in Baldwin Coun-
ty responded to the first and second
mailings (Table 1.) A greater percent-
age of trawl owners responded to the
first mailing than to the second mailing
and the response from both mailings
was significantly different from the
telephone interview. The estimated
total number of trawls owned in 1972
in each county was obtained by com-
bining separate estimates from the
three contacts (Table 1) as shown in
the following for the 13,850 boatown-
ers in Mobile County:
1st maiing:
2nd mailing:
477
0.382 x 1384 x
215
0.356 x 1384 x
692
13,850 = 1,799
13,850 = 789
Telephone: 0.160 x 1384 x 13,850 = 1,108
trawls owned 3,696
The estimated number of 16-foot
trawls actually used in Mobile Coun-
ty was calculated 
as shown below:
1st mailing:
2nd mailing:
477
0.301 x 1384 x 13,850 = 1,417
215
0.252 x 1384 x 13,850 = 558
692
Telephone: 0.160 x 1384 x 13,850 = 1,108
trawls used 3,083
The estimated number of 16-foot
trawls owned and used in Baldwin
County in 1972 (Table 2) was calcu-
lated by the same method. An esti-
mated 26.5% of the Mobile County and
35.3% of the Baldwin County owners
of Class I and II boats owned 16-foot
shrimp trawls in 1972. An estimated
4,961 of the 5,727 trawls were used in
1972 to catch 277,051 pounds of shrimp
(heads on) during 45,930 trips in Ala-
bama coastal waters.
The total number of trips made dur-
ing 1973 was estimated from returns
of cards mailed in January 1974 to
the 247 persons in Mobile County and
the 130 persons in Baldwin County
who reported that they owned trawls
during 1972. Forty-nine percent of
the Mobile County and 48% of the
Baldwin County cards were returned.
We did not resample the population ol
boatowners to determine the change in
trawls owned from 1972 to 1973, but
based our catch estimate on the 5,727
trawls owned in 1972. The commercial
shrimp, harvest during 1973 was the
54
TABLE 2. Surhmary of card survey fbr 1972, 1973 and 1974 and creel data* for 1973 and
1974 in Mobile (M) and Baldwin (B) counties, Alabama.
Trawls owned 1972 1973 1974
Mobile County 3,696 Data are based on 5,727
Baldwin County 2,031 trawls owned in 1972
5,727
Trawls used
Mobile County
Baldwin County
Average trips/year
Mobile County
Baldwin County
Total trips/year
Mobile County
Baldwin County
Catch/trip (lbs. heads-on)
Mobile County
Baldwin County
Card total catch estimate
Mobile County
Baldwin County
*Creel data total catch estimate
Mobile County
Baldwin County
*Trawling time (hr./trip)
*Catch (lbs. heads-on /hr)
*Number persons/boat
*Expenditures/trip
*Roundtrip mileage
*Disposition of catch
Bait
Food
*Oph lion on closed season
For
Against
No opinion
*Opinion of license
For
Against
No opinion
*Man-hours expended shrimping
Mobile County
Baldwin County
*Total trip expenditures
Mobile County
Baldwin County
3,083
1,878
4,961
9.6
8.7
29,5206
16,410
45,930
5.8 lbs.
6.5
171,160 lbs.
105,891
277,051 lbs.
2,983
1,801
4,784
9.1
9.5
27,145
17,110
44,255
3.9 (4.7*)
4.7 (4.5*)
127,582 lbs.
76,995
204,577 lbs.
M-2.6 B-2.9
M-1.8 B-1.6
M-2.7 B-2.4
M-$11.72 B-$7.72
M-48.0 B-55.1
M-50.3% B-11.3%
M-49.7% B-88.7%
M-79.3%
M- 4.7%
M-16.0%
M-41.6%
M-50.6%
M- 7.8%
B-82.4%
B-10.2%
B- 7.4%
B-68.2%
B-28.9%
B- 2.9%
190,557.9
119,085.6
309,643.5
4,751
9.9
8.8
30,185
14,978
45,163
6.8 (6.4*)
6.3 (6.5*)
193,184 lbs.
97,357
290,541 lbs.
M-1.8 B-1.3
M-3.6 B-5.0
M-2.6 B-2.5
M-$12.50 B-$9.67
M-48.6 B-48.6
M-66.3% B-24.0%
M-33.7% B-76.0%
M-43.5%
M-30.4%
M-26.1%
M-34.8%
M-43.5%
M-21.7%
141,265.8
48,678.5
189,944.3
B-73.0%
B-27.0%
B-
B-27.0%
B-70.3%
B- 2.7%
$318,139 $377,312
132,089 144,837
$450,228 $522,149
*Based on creel data
55
lowest in several years due to flooding
of the river systems of the northern
Gulf of Mexico. The lower catch per
trip during 1973 (Table 2) was shown
in response to the card survey, as well
as catch data collected by the creel
census which began in June 1973. Even
though the catch was down, almost as
many trips were made during 1973 as
during 1972.
The 1972-trawl owners were con-
tacted again in November 1974 to de-
termine the number of trawls used and
the number of trips made during 1974
(Table 2.) The estimated total catch
increased to slightly above that of 1972.
Considerably less man-hours were ex-
pended in 1974 as the catch per hour
more than doubled that of 1973. The
creel census was terminated in October
1974 as only about 2% of the annual
trawling effort is expended after Octo-
ber (Table 3).
TABLE 3. Monthly distribution of 16-foot
trawl effort.
Jan 0.2% Jul 27.4%
Feb 0.3 Aug 26.3
Mar 0.6 Sep 12.9
Apr 0.8 Oct 5.7
May 4.4 Nov 1.4
Jun 19.2 Dec 0.8
During early spring trawling is con-
centrated in the lower estuaries and
during late fall most of the effort is
in upper Mobile Bay. During the peak
of the season (late June through Au-
gust) effort is fairly well distributed
over all coastal water although certain
areas (Table 4) are preferred.
Many Mobile County residents trawl
in Baldwin County but few Baldwin
County residents trawl in Mobile Couin-
ty. More than 34%. of the Mobile
County residents indicated that they
trawled one or more times in Baldwin
County but only 3% of the Baldwin
County residents trawled in Mobile
TABLE 4. Percent of respondents report-
ing launching boats "most often" in 
loca-
lized areas during 1972-1974.
Area
Weeks Bay-Mullet Point
Orange Beach-Terry Cove-
Cotton Bayou
Dog River-Deer River
Dauphin Island-Heron Bay
Wolf Bay---Bay La Launch-
Arnica Bay
Bon Secour-Oyster Bay-
Gulf Shores
Battleship Parkway
Daphne-Fairhope-Pt. Clear
East Fowl River
Little Lagoon
Ft. Morgan Peninsula
Bayou La Batre
Percent
16.9
16.1
14.7
13.2
9.2
7.2
6.7
6.2
3.9
2.7
1.7
1.4
County during 1973. Of the 181 par-
ties interviewed by the census clerk in
Baldwin County during 1973, 62.9%
were Baldwin County residents, 24.9%
were from Mobile County, 5.5% from
Escambia County, 0.6% were from Co-
necuh County, 0.6% from Monroe
County and 5.5% were from Escambia
County, Florida. All persons inter-
viewed at Mobile County ramps and
Marinas during 1973 were Mobile
County residents. Creel data showed
no difference in the catch per hour
between the two counties during 1973,
but the hourly catch was considerably
higher in Baldwin County during 1974
(Table 2).
The commercial catch from Mobile
Bay during 1973 was composed of 54%
brown, 45% white and 11% pink shrimp
(U. S. Dep. Comm., 1974b). The 1973
catch by 16-foot trawls in Mobile Bay
was 71% brown, 28% white and 1%
pink. The difference in composition
of the commercial and the sport catch
is due to the fact that little sport trawl-
ing is done in the early spring and
late fall when white shrimp are most
abundant. Pink shrimp are of little
consequence to the sport fishery except
56
in Perdido Bay where they make up
about 5% of the catch. There is a con-
siderable difference in the species com-
position of the catch in the lower and
upper parts of Mobile Bay. Brown
shrimp made up approximately 80% of
the catch near Dauphin Island but only
about 31% in the upper bay near Dog
River.
A point of friction between the com-
mercial and sport shrimper is the 
size
and amount of shrimp taken by the un-
licensed sport shrimper prior 
to open-
ing of the commercial. season. 
- Our
creel data were all obtained from com-
pleted-trip interviews and in many in-
stances shrimp had been used up during
fishing when the party returned to dock.
We were also unable to determine the
amount of culling or discards of 
shrimp
by the party so our data are not quanti-
tative for the percent of shrimp taken
that are under the legal commercial
size. Under the bait shrimping law,
however, shrimp do not have to 
be of
commercial count (68 heads-on/lb.)
until !the commercial season is opened.
We did: interview some parties which
returned with shrimp smaller than 
68
count but they usually had only a few
pounds. The true bait fisherman 
cer-
tainly catches a considerable amount 
of
small shrimp but in most instances
these are utilized solely for bait which
is the intent of the bait shrimping 
law.
Persons catching shrimp for food 
in
most instances are not interested 
in
catching shrimp smalled than 68 count.
A greater percentage of parties 
shrimp-
ing in! Baldwin County utilized 
their
shrihp for food and also. favored 
a
closed season restricting use of 
16-foot
trawls to the commercial shrimping
season (Table 2). Persons catching
shrimp, as well as croakers and other
small fish, solely for bait were largely
against a closed season as the closed
commercial shrimp season (usually mid-
May through the middle of June) coin-
cides with the peak of the spotted sea-
trout fishing in the lower bays and
around the Gulf beaches.
The commercial shrimp catch from
the inside waters of Alabama is not
known precisely because the statistical
areas used by the National Marine Fish-
eries Service in reporting shrimp catch
(Gulf Coast Shrimp Data) include 
por-
tions of Florida and Mississippi with
Alabama. Alabama waters make up
about one-third of statistical area 011.1
which extends from Mobile Bay to Gulf
Port, Mississippi and about one-half of
statistical area 010.3 (Perdido Bay).
Assuming shrimp are equally distribut-
ed within areas, one-third of the catch
from area 011.1 and one-half of the
catch from areas 010.3 is here consid-
ered as taken from Alabama waters.
Estimated catch (pounds heads-on) dur-
ing 1972, 1973 
and 1974 is presented
below
.
1972 1973 1974
commercial
catch
16-foot trawl
catch
1,621,073 855,012 1,009,300
277,051 204,577 290,541
Sales by the live bait shrimp dealers
was approximately 50,000 
pounds dur-
ing 1968 (Swingle, 1972). The catch has
likely increased by 5-10% since 1968
although the demand for bait shrimp
is dependent largely upon spotted sea-
trout fishing success. We estimate that
the catch by 16-foot trawls is between
15% and 25% of the total shrimp catch
from the inside waters of Alabama.
LITERATURE CITED
Loesch, H. 1957. Observations on bait
shrimping activities in rivers north of
Mobile Bay Causeway. Alabama Acad.
Sci. 29:36-43.
57
Swingle, W. E. 1972. Survey of the live
bait shrimp industry of Alabama. 
Ala-
bama Mar. Resour. Bull. 8:1-8.
U. S. Department of Commerce. 1974a.
Fisheries Statistics of the United States.
Statistical Digest No. 65. 424 p.
U. S. Department of Commerce. 1974b.
Gulf Coast Shrimp Data, Annual Sum-
mary 1973. C.F.S. No. 6425. 31 p.
1a ViEW 
OF THE 
OYSTER 
FISHERY 
OF ALABAMA
HUGH A. SWINGLE 
AND EDGAR A. HUGHES
2A HUH 
Marine Resources Division
A Dauphin Iskxnd, Alabama 36528
Da 
ABSTRACT
data on the Alabama 
oyster f ishery are 
presented. Legislation 
affecting
jrjv50"-wce1852 and 
management anld research 
activities during the 
1900's are
991 go0 Slob 
j 
e
,%I$TRODUCTION
X0,uoIT4aL ~ ve been 
a significant part,
ed VJfe '.Wt along 
the Alabama coast 
c
oillogl 0 
. Indians 
visited the areaI
OZ~rGS [I I 'S 1601"
OMA 9 
1
'plball
1
8 ' 
years ago 
but were 
a localI
1 ,I g
001ONwtil 
improvements in trans-
ll 
#rrJdystems 
and construction 
of t
k ~ ~ 
tFX'_ V th1 
aeW80san al
08%Z1 o 9 fbaa edf ax rj rly management of state
eo,:o 0lo 90 9108Is asconsisted 
solely of re-
0J 9 Jo ot 
009 
harvest methods. 
The first i
198 
bIgsl oLSb
rjcvjc 5yster Commission 
(1
1110 A11 lFtbe 
second Alabama Oyster
j ~11~jf1~J
1 
~ ffJ~(1935-1939) 
established
i g.%eo do 
Aboo," rrc' 
Legislature were the 
first
la gJ 91 9z.lo 
' Cies concerned 
solely with
0 oi , 9,, 
e.Bothcommissions
- W.- .0 0 
boo 
0 
59
j
9  
l
J8 19,8 eg irvest methods, 
established
__ #W4 
1
Jff g#r tate bottoms and had ex-
800 lag 811Od e 
1ting programs. Both 
corn-
0- W~ere apparently 
-unpopular
L9 oq %were 
abolished by the 
legis-
41oo drO J fO J- .pgqlq 
Zsb- 4 a ter-their 
creation.Te
--V q90 bjaimmo3 ds 9'19W 
:1 s
~ qj IOl d Jd81 od
19 
EfC, vartment 
odf Conservation
011$99 C ]Resources 
assumed author-
90 1 a~ 'Sters in 1919, but activities
00ijllogO 10 
10 ro98Le
a" Jorlwb{ova 
gl ,,qS.%WM111 
r1iy regulatory 
in function
~lo .40 el -IiIJ312 late 
1940's. Oyster manage-
89iiI ga olgJ 1, een a major activity of the
OE 01J90 108%0 'otote 
d 4 rine Resources 
Division since
L ~ ~ 1 '-zVi o .89010089
Was made in cooperation with ti
I 'Jcder P.L. 88-309(?roject 
2-216-R)
91OO9 
iP J q b(l0 
1
~ 
-i
jjO1lrs~a a)gOC88 j~q
1
mb
HISTORY OF THE 
FISHERY
Prehistoric Indian cultures 
harvested
)ysters from the coastal 
waters of Ala-
bama over 3,500 years ago 
(May, 1971).
Numerous middens 
consisting almost
entirely of oyster shells 
located along
the shores of Bon Secour 
Bay, Missi-
ssippi Sound and Dauphin 
Island ndi-
cate the importance of 
oysters in the
diet of these early cultures. 
Early Span-
ish and French explorers 
and settlers
made use of the abundant 
oysters along
our coast as early as 
the 16th century.
By 1732, what is now known 
as Cedar
Point had been named Oyster 
Point be-
cause of the large reef 
there. It is the
major reef fished today. 
Oysters have
had a significant influence 
on inhabi-
tants of coastal Alabama, 
having pro-
vided a readily accesible 
and stable
source of food and income 
since man
first settled in the area.
Methods of Harvest
Throughout the history of 
the oyster
fishery hand tongs have been 
the only
legal method of taking oysters 
from
the public reefs with the 
exception of
a period between 1909 and 
1915 when
dredging was allowed on White House,
Point Clear and Klondike Reef in 
the
ha U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA,
Ei
1e0
tk'-
59
tlid-region 
of Mobile 
Bay, from 
1933
to 1939 and a brief 
period during the
1950's. Legislation permitting 
dredging
was established 
by the first 
Alabama
Oyster Commission (1909-1915), 
the
9epartment of Game and Fisheries, and
the second Alabama 
Oyster Commission
(1935-1939) and was apparently very
unpopular with the 
majority of fisher-
men as the acts were repealed 
when the
Commissions were abolished by the
State Legislature. Dredging 
is now al-
lowed only for taking 
seed oysters for
replanting under supervision 
of the De-
partment of Conservation and Natural
Resources and for harvest on private
beds.
lHarvest Statistics
Statistics on the Alabama oyster fish-
ery have been collected by federal
agencies since 1880 but are complete
only from 1948 (Table 1). Annual
fluctuation in harvest is common to
the fishery due to both natural and man-
made reasons. The average harvest per
decade since 1.880 based on available
records has been about 1 million pounds
of meats annually (May, 1971). During
the early 1880's records indicate that
harvest was only about 300 thousand
pounds of meats annually, most of which
was presumably consumed locally al-
though oyster canneries were in opera-
tion in Mississippi at this time. Only
Alabama citizens could engage in the
fishery from 1882 until legislation was
passed in 1901 allowing nonresidents
fishing privileges but only if they sold
to Alabama canneries. Legislation in
1915 repealed this, allowing only citi-
zens fishing rights. In 1919, nonresi-
dents were again given fishing rights
after paying a double license fee.
Legislation regulating out-of-state
shipment of oysters in the shell was
passed 1891. This act allowed out-of-
state shipment only from the middle of
December to the middle of January,
which coincided with the start of the
oyster canning season in Mississippi. In
1909, legislation prohibited all out-of-
state sale of raw oysters unless Alabama
canneries paid less than the price paid
in neighboring states. Legislation in
1919 allowed out-of-state shipment only
to states allowing Alabama fishermen to
take and transport oysters from that
state.
TABLE 1. Alabama
Pounds
Year of Meats
1880 327,085
1888 238,271
1889 1,372,270
1890 1,505,749
1897 798,316
1902 1,087,550
1908 1,677,680
1911 1,162,592
1918 376,360
1923 729,559,
1927 520,804
1928 1,886,104
1929 178,823
1930 286,794
1931 768,721
1932 859,217
1934 391,800
1936 991,800
1937 1,235,200
1938 1,358,70,0
1939 1,357,700
1940 936,00
1945 1,605,700
1948 1,531,200
1949 1,585,800
Oyster Landings.
Pounds
Year of Meats
1950 2,070,300
1951 2,191,400
1952 1,842,000
1953 1,449,700
1954 739,300
1955 1,580,600
1956 769,900
1957 1,291,200
1958 457,600
1959 894,800
1960 1,169,300
1961 508,500
1962 442,700
1963 995,400
1964 1,005,300
1965 492,400
1966 1,304,500
1967 2,087,900
1968 1,211,800
1969 480,700
1970 279,000
1971 250,000
1972 1,069,515
1973 590,118
1974 732,776
In 1891, legislation set the oyster sea-
son from 1 September to 30 April, 
the
"r-months" common 
elsewhere. This
was in effect for many years. The 
De-
partment of Conservation and Natural
Resources presently sets the season by
regulation.
In 1901, catchers were restricted to
3,500 barrels of oysters per week which
had to be at least 2 1/ inches in length.
Legal size was changed to 3 inches and
C
I
sin~ce
61
Company, Grahams Seafood Company,
Hidenheim Company, McPhillips Pack-
ing Company, Marco Skremetti, Coffee
Island, and others operated at Bayou La
Batre or Coden. In 1926, there were
five companies in Bayou La Batre pack-
ing shrimp and oysters (Ann. Rep. 1922-
1926) but by 1938 only two were in
operation in Alabama (U. S. Dep. In-
terior, 1941). According to Fisheries
Statistics of the U. S., there were three
canneries in operation in the 1950's and
two in 1960. One operated through
1967 with the exception of 1965 and
1966. Some companies canned vege-
tables as well as seafood. A typical
operation would can oysters from Jan-
uary until May, vegetables (beans and
potatoes) during the late spring and
summer and shrimp from August
through late fall or early winter de-
pending upon their availability. Crab
meat was canned also by some canner-
ies.
In 1923, a survey made of raw oyster
consumption in Birmingham, Mont-
gomery and Mobile stated that 100%,
97% and 90% of the raw oysters con-
sumed in the respective cities came from
out of state (Dep. Game and Fisheries,
1930). The canneries were apparently
consuming the bulk of the Alabama
harvest. The decline of the canneries
from their peak years of the 1920's was
largely due to loss of productive oyster
bottoms in Portersville Bay. Periodic
closure of the reefs by the Alabama De-
partment of Health since 1952 and re-
strictions on harvesting. oysters from
leased and riparian beds also 
contri-
buted to their demise.
HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT
Responsibility for management of
Alabama's oyster fishery and enforce-
ment of laws and regulations has been
under various agencies since the 1800's
when the first legislation concerning
oysters was enacted by the State Legis-
lature. The agencies and periods of
responsibilities follow:
18? ?-1891 County Law Enforcement
Agents
1891-1909 Oyster Inspector appoint-
ed by Governor
1909-1915 First Alabama Oyster
Commission
1915-1919 Secretary of S t a t e
through the Chief In-
spector
1919-1923 Department of Conserva-
tion through the Chief
Oyster Inspector
1923-1935 Department of Game and
Fisheries through the
Chief Oyster Inspector
1935-1939 Department of Conserva-
tion of Game, Fish and
Seafoods through the
Second Alabama Oyster
Commission
1939-1951 Department of Conserva-
tion through the Division
of Game, Fish and Sea-
foods
1951-1971 Department of Conserva-
tion through the Sea-
foods Division
1971- Department of Conserva-
tion and Natural Re-
sources through the Ma-
rine Resources Division
'The Department of Game and Fish
was established by the State Legislature
on 27 February 1907 but did not assume
responsibility over the oyster fishery
and other seafoods until 1919 when the
name of the department was changed.
State management during the 1800's
consisted solely of laws passed by the
legislature. There was no state agency
in any way concerned with oyster
management, and enforcement of the
few laws concerning oysters was by the
62
courrty sheriff. The earliest law at
hand concerning oysters, dated 1.852,
made it unlawful to take oysters from
any waters of the state by any methods
other than hand tongs and authorized
the sheriff of any county "bordering the
waters of this state" to confiscate boats
and equipment of persons violating this
law. Legislation in 1872, amended in
1879, granted riparian owners the right
to plant and harvest oysters for a maxi-
mum distance of 600 yards offshore as
long as it did not interfere with naviga-
tion. In 1882, the State Legislature
passed a law regulating buying and sell-
ing oysters in the shell in measurements
other than described by law. This one-
third barrel was described as being 16
inches across the bottom, 18 inches
across the top and 91/2 inches high. In
1887, a culling law was passed by the
State Legislature. All oysters "that
are too small or unfit for market" were
required to be returned to the reef from
which they were taken.
The first oyster management legisla-
tion was passed in February 1891. An
Oyster Inspector and Deputy Inspector
appointed by the Governor for a two-
year term were authorized to enforce
a new culling law (21/ inches), seasons
for taking oysters from public and pri-
vate reefs (September - May) and re-
strictions on out-of-state shipment of
oysters in the shell (restricted to the
middle of December to the middle of
January). Oystering on private beds
was excluded from the season restriction
only if oysters were taken for the own-
ers'use. Sheriffs, constables and other
police officers were also authorized en-
forcement agents under this legislation.
The Oyster Inspector and Probate Judge
of Mobile County were authorized to col-
lect oyster boat licenses based on $0.10
per barrel capacity and a tax of $0.10
per barrel of oysters taken from both
public and private beds. All receipts
were deposited with the State Treasur-
er. Only citizens of Alabama were al-
lowed fishing privileges. The Oyster
Inspector was required to live either on
Dauphin Island or at Cedar Point and
the Deputy Inspector was required to
live in Mobile, unless filling the duties
of the inspector. The two officials were
actually under the control of the Mobile
County Grand Jury which was given
authority by the Governor for their dis-
missal.
Legislation in 1892 and amended in
1894 provided that the Oyster Inspector
live in Mobile and that one deputy live
in Mobile County and an additional
deputy live in Baldwin County. The
inspectors enforced the culling laws,
collected taxes and patrolled the reefs
during the closed season. In 1902, a
law was passed limiting weekly catch
to 3,500 barrels.
Although the Department of Game
and Fish was established by the legis-
lature in 1907, the oyster fishery was
still controlled by the Oyster Inspector.
The first oyster and shell planting
in Alabama by other than private in-
dividuals was done by the first Ala-
bama Oyster Commission about 191.0.
This commission was established by the
State Legislature in August 1909 and
was the first attempt at management of
the public reefs. The commission re-
ceived no appropriations from the state
and expenses prior to collection of an-
nual oyster taxes, licenses, lease fees and
other revenue were advanced by mem-
bers of the commission. Between 1909
and February 1915, when the commis-
sion was abolished by the State Legis-
lature, the commission planted 35,000
barrels of shell at a cost of $1,559.56
and transported an unreported number
of seed oysters at a cost of $1,147.50
to ani experimental plot in Portersville
63
tay to demonstrate oyster management.
When the federal government dredged
Pass aux Herons channel, ca. 1912, the
commission persuaded the government
to change the course of the channel and
to deposit the spoil some distance away
to minimize damage to Cedar Point
Reef. The present 1/-barrel measure
was established in 1909. In 1910, the
commission obtained the services of Dr.
H. F. Moore (1913), U. S. Bureau of
Fisheries to survey the oyster reefs and
the potential oyster bottoms and to make
recommendations on oyster manage-
ment. The shell and seed oysters plant-
ed by the commission were not success-
ful and the commission obtained the
services of T. C. Nelson in 1914 to de-
termine the cause of mortality on plant-
ed areas in Portersville Bay. Nelson
(1914) found that many of the planted
areas were on soft mud or on unstable
bottoms. The Alabama Oyster Commis-
sion was attempting a scientific ap-
proach to oyster management but was
abolished by the State Legislature in
February 1915 before it became truly
effective. The Secretary of State as-
sumed control of the oyster fishery
from 1915 to 1919.
in1919, the Department of Game and
Fish was changed to the Department
of Conservation and assumed jurisdic-
tion over the oyster fishery and other
saltwater species. This legislative act
also established the Game and Fish Pro-
tection Fund and the Oyster Fund. A
one dollar oyster license was estab-
lished. The Oyster Fund consisting of
licenses and taxes on both oysters and
shrimp paid the salaries and expenses
of the Chief Oyster Inspector and two
Assistant Inspectors. Receipts of the
Oyster Fund during FY 1920 totaled
$5,662.00 of which $2,880.42 was spent
on salaries and expenses. The Chief
Oyster Inspector was under the direct
supervision of the Commissioner of the
Department of Conservation. Oyster
management consisted solely of law en-
forcement.
In 1923, the Department of Conserva-
tion was renamed the Department of
Game and Fisheries. During 1925, the
Department planted 35,000 barrels of
seed oysters on public reefs which was
the first plantings on public reefs since
the planting by the first Alabama Oys-,
ter Commission in 1910. During 1926,
10,000 barrels of seed oysters were
planted. During 1923, legislation was
passed allowing dredging of oysters by
the Department north of a line from
Alabama Port in Mobile County east-
ward to Mullet Point in Baldwin Coun-
ty. This provided a more readily avail-
able supply of seed oysters to the state.
The legislation was very unpopular
among most fishermen. During the pe-
riod 1923-1926 receipts of the Oyster
Fund varied annually from $6,658.51
(1924) to $9,466.26 (1925), about two-
thirds of which was spent on salaries
and expenses of the Chief Oyster In-
spector and three assistants. During
1933 and 1934, federal funds under
Civil Works Administration and Fed-
eral Emergency Relief Administration
programs were used to plant 41,000
barrels of seed oysters and shells in
Isle of Dames, Portersville and Dau-
phin Island bays. Approximately 350
acres were planted with 26,795 barrels
of seed oysters obtained from Missis-
sippi Sound, Bayou La Batre and
Bayou Coden (Dep. Game and Fish-
eries, 1934). Legislation in 1933 al-
lowed dredging on Cedar Point Reef,
King's Bayou Reef, Buoy Reef, White
House Reef and Fowl River Reef and
gave riparian owners broader privi-
leges in developing private beds.
In August 1935, the Department of
Game and Fisheries was reorganized.
64
The SWift Act created the Department
of Conservation of Game, Fish and Sea-
foods; created a State Conservation
Board advising the Commissioner; and
made the office of Commissioner an
appointee by the Governor rather than
an elected official as it had been since
1907. The McPhaul Act (July 1935)
created the second Alabama Oyster
Commission. The Alabama Oyster
Commission obtained a federal grant
of $92,365 and $17,635 state funds and
equipment for oyster reef rehabilita-
tion. The members of the commission
were N. J. Gonzales of Mobile, A. B.
McPhaul of Seminole, C. H. Wakefield
of Bon Secour, and A. L. Staples of
Mobile. Mr. I. T. Quinn the Conserva-
tion Commissioner was Chairman of
the Oyster Commission. The state,
through the Oyster Commission was
empowered to buy and sell property,
conduct economic surveys of the sea-
food industry, lease oyster bottoms,
plant and remove seed oysters and
shells and purchase seed oysters and
shell for planting. The Chief Enforce-
ment Officer and ssistants enforced
the regulations of the Oyster Commis-
sion. The annual report of 1936 was
the first to mention a "Seafoods Di-
vision", which consisted of the Chief
Enforcement Officer, the Chief Oyster
Inspector and two Assistant Inspectors.
The 1938 annual report listed the fol-
lowing divisions of the Department of
Conservation of Game, Fish and Sea-
foods: Division of Fish Culture, Di-
vision of Law Enforcement, Division
of Research and Statistics, Division of
Game Propagation, Division of Game
Management, and Division of Seafoods.
The Division of Seafoods consisted of
the Chief Enforcement Officer and
four assistants which enforced regula-
tions of the Alabama Oyster Commis-
sion. Oyster planting was done by the
federal Works Progress Administration
(WPA) and by the Alabama Oyster
Commission. Total receipts of the
Oyster Fund during FY 1.937 was
$11,262.02.
In March 1939, the Department of
Conservation of Game, Fish and Sea-
foods was reorganized into the Depart-
ment of Conservation which consisted
of the Game, Fish and Seafoods Di-
vision; Forestry Division;Parks, Monu-
ments and Historical Sites Division;
and Statistical Division. The legisla-
tion abolished the Alabama Oyster
Commission, Forestry Commission, Ala-.
bama Conservation Board, Office of
State Forester, and the Alabama Monu-
ment Commission. It established the
present Conservation Advisory Board
and changed the title of department
head to Director, replacing Commis-
sioner used since 1907. The seafoods
branch of the Division of Game, Fish
and Seafoods consists of Chief Enforce-
ment Officer and five assistants who
were responsible for enforcement of
seafood laws and collecting license and
taxes on seafoods. No shell planting
was done by the Division during its
first year of existance. Revenue from
the oyster fishery during FY 1938 was
$140.25 from oyster leases and $455.31
from oyster taxes. Seafoods ranked
such low importance that it was
omitted in two instances from the Di-
vision of Game, Fish and Seafoods in
the Department of Conservation an-
nual report of FY 1939; being referred
to on page 64 of the report as "The
seafoods unit of the Game and Fish Di-
vision" and on page 7 being omitted
completely from the Division title.
Through the effort of WPA, Alabama
oyster canneries and local oyster fish-
ermen a total of 60,000 barrels of shell
were planted on public reefs. The re-
ceipts from seafood industry totaled
65
$12,583.34 during FY 1940 or slightly
more than twice that received during
FY 1910. Little oyster management
was done by the Division of Game,
Fish and Seafoods until FY 1943 when
general fund appropriations allowed
planting of 92,426 barrels of shell on
the public reefs. The Division-of Game,
Fish and Seafoods had separate ac-
counts for receipts from seafoods and
receipts from fishing and hunting un-
til FY 1945 and receipts fromseafoods
was always insufficient for enforce-
ment and much needed management
and research.
Legislation in FY 1944 allowed oys-
ters of any size to be dredged from
private oyster reefs for the first time.
The Mobile Bay Seafood Union di-
rected seed oyster planting of 6,000
barrels in FY .1944. The union was
composed of members of the crew of
the vessel that dredged seed oysters
from Buoy Reef for the state and was
apparently the first unofficial advisory
committee. During FY 1945 the Di-
vision of Game, Fish and Seafoods had
a budget carry-over to FY 1946 of more
than $216 thousand. Even with this
surplus no shell was reported planted
in the annual report of that year.
The FY 1946 annual report separated
the Division of Game and Fish and the
Division of Seafoods into staff divi-
sions although the two divisions were
not separated by legislature until 1951.
The Division of Game, Fish and Sea-
foods contracted with McPhillips Pack-
ing Company of Bayou La Batre for
planting 40,000 barrels of seed oysters
in Mobile Bay and Bon Secour Bay.
Land was purchased in Bayou La Batre
for construction of a seafood office,
dock, boathouse and warehouse. Ar-
rangements were made with the Uni-
versity of Alabama to provide biologi-
cal services in matters dealing with sea-
foods. Attempts were made to obtain
reciprocal fishing agreements with
Mississippi and Louisiana similar to
the one obtained with Florida in 1946.
The revenue from the new shell dredg-
ing contract ($5,443.26) was used for
seafoods management.
During FY 1.947 biological studies of
the oyster reefs were made by the Geo-
logical Survey of Alabama and the Ala-
bama Museum. of Natural History at
the request of the Department of Con-
servation. The "Seafoods Division"
became self-sustaining for the first
time in history with revenues of $135
thousand composed of $47 thousand
from shell dredging, $45 thousand from
a legislative appropriation and the re-
maining $43 thousand from seafood
revenue. The State Ecologist with
the Alabama Museum of Natural His-
tory made recommendations for man-
agement of seafoods and the enforce-
ment personnel were increased to
eleven. Air patrols were made to check
shrimp and oyster fishermen for vio-
lations. The activities of the "Sea.
foods Division" covered eight pages
in the annual report of FY 1947, or
more than the total coverage for the
past decade or more. Recommenda-
tions for more research, hiring a full
time marine biologist, construction of
a seafoods laboratory and installation
of laboratory equipment and a larger
patrol force were made by the Chief
Oyster Inspector. Legislation was
passed in 1947 authorizing formation
of the Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commission. The organization meet-
ing was held in Mobile on 16 July 1949
and Governor Folsom of Alabama was
the first to sign the compact and Mr.
Bert Thomas, Director, Alabama De-
partment of Conservation, became the
first Chairman.
In January 1950, the Marine Labora-
66
tory at Heron.r Bay Cutoff was officially
opened. Thelaboratory provided office
and laboratory space for Senior Bio-
logist F. X. Leuth and some enforce-
ment personnel. Studies of oyster spat
set, oyster growth and survival were
initiated on planted areas and hydro-
logical data were collected to improve
management techniques. The receipts
of the Game, Fish ad Seafoods Fund
during FY 1949 was slightly over $900
thousand.
On 1 October 1951, upon recommen-
dation of the Director of Conservation,
legislation was signed separating the
Division of Seafoods from the Division
of Game, Fish and Seafoods. The
Game, Fish and Seafoods Fund was
separated with seafood revenues and
revenue from dredging buried reef
shells going to the new Seafoods Di-
vision. Receipts from 1 October 1951
to 30 September 1952 totaled $256
thousand. The Division moved to a
new office building in Bayou La Batre
on 15 May 1952. Enforcement con-
sisted of six officers, three boats, and
one amphibian airplane. Shell and
seed oysters were planted by the Di-
vision and by packers and dealers
which were required to return 30%
of the shells back to the reefs under
the supervision of the Seafoods Di-
vision. The Division dredged a 9-foot
channel into Bon Secour to aid the sea-
food industry of that area.
During the early 1950's, injunctions
were placed against the Division pro-
hibiting the opening of public reefs for
seed oysters. One such decision went
as far as the Alabama Supreme Court
where it was reversed in 1955. After
this ruling seed oysters were made
available from reefs located in water
too deep for tonging. During the early
1950's the biological staff consisted of
one division biologist and consultant
biologists from Texas A & M, Missis-
sippi and the federal laboratory at Gulf
Breeze, Florida. The Department of
Conservation Annual Report for FY
1959 stated that "The Seafoods Division
was completely re-organized during the
past year. A new division director was
appointed, together with new enforce-
ment men". Biological work was now
contracted to the Biology Department,
University of Alabama, and Dr. Gordon
Gunter of Mississippi. The Division
had apparently become ineffective dur-
ing the late 1950's as the report stated
that "there was very little activity in
the form of constructive development,
enforcement, research or administra-
tion". The oyster shell dredge was shut
down during 1959 causing financial dis-
tress within the Division which re-
ceived as much as 89% of its revenue
from this single source. After the re-
organization the Division renewed shell
and seed oyster planting efforts.
Financing through the Mobile Area
Public Higher Education Foundation,
Inc. permitted construction of the
present Alabama Marine Resources
Laboratory on Dauphin Island which
was completed in 1963. The facility
originally provided office space for the
Division Chief and enforcement per-
sonnel of the Seafoods Division and of-
fice and laboratory space for biological
and teaching staff of the University of
Alabama which did research under con-
tract for the Seafoods Division. The
Division of Seafoods began to obtain
its own biological staff in 1966, hiring
a laboratory director and a biologist to
work on oyster management. The con-
tract with the University of Alabama
was terminated in 1967 and university
personnel moved into facilities at Point
aux Pins. When the 1971 State Legis-
lature changed the name of Department
of Conservation to Department of Con-
67
servation and Natural Resources 
and
the Seafoods Division to Marine 
Re-
sources Division, the Division staff con-
sisted of Division Director, Chief Biolo-
gist, 5 biologists, 14 enforcement offi-
cers, 3 biologist aides, 4 laborers and
5 clerk typists. Offices were main-
tained at Dauphin Island, Bayou La
Batre and Gulf Shores. From 1967
oyster management has consisted of
intensified oyster research and shell
planting. Approximately 40 % of the
1,899,351 barrels of shell planted be-
tween 1910 and 1975 (Table 2) were
TABLE 2. Barrels
1 
of oyster shells and
seed oysters planted on public reefs in Ala-
bama since 1910.
Oyster Seed Oyster Seed
Year Shells Oysters Year Shells Oysters
1910-
1914 35,000 -0- 1955 97,707 -0-
1925 --0-- 35,000 1956 -0-. 40,000
1926 -0- 10,000 1957 ---0- 50,000
1928 -0-- .30,000 1958 --- 59,860
1929 -0- 10,000 1959 -0- -0-
1932 33,382 -0- 1960 23,534 15,000
1936 189,554 2 1961 70,000 -0-
1937 20,045 2 1962 115,000 39,839
1940 60,000 -0- 1963 60,000 30,000
1942 25,000 -0- 1964 65,000 36,000
1944 92,426. -0- 1965 60,000 65,698
1945 -0- 6,000 1966 50,000 60,000
1946 12,743 19,040 1967 11,400 8,660
1947 15,000 18,950 1968 46,470 -0-
1948 25,000 40,000 1969 105,325 .- 0---
1949 63,215 33,409 1970 51,2963 
-0-..
1950 -0- 40,713 1971 61,982 -0-
1951 40,000 -0- 1972 117,3463 -0-
1952 17,749 54,000 1973 3,1573 
-0--.
1953 2,431 -0- 1974 167,3303 5,451
1954 -0--- 7,500 1975 162,259 -0-
TOTAL - Oyster Shells - 1,899,351
TOTAL - Seed Oysters - 715,120
1 An Alabama barrel = 4.9 ft.8 or 3.9 U. S.
Standard bushels
2 Figure for seed oysters combined with
that for oyster shells this year
3 Combined figure for oyster shells and
clam shells
planted from 1967 to 1975. Revenue
is presently obtained from the seafood
industry, oyster shell dredging (since
1946), marine gas tax (1962), Com-
mercial Fisheries Research and De-
velopment Act, P.L. 88-309 (1966),
Anadromous Fish Act P.L. 89-304
(1967) and, rarely, appropriations from
the State General Fund. Revenue has
not increased significantly since the
mid 1960's and the greatest source of
revenue (shell dredging) is a nonre-
newable resource which will eventually
become depleted.
HISTORY OF RESEARCH
The prehistoric Indian cultures were
aware of the locations of Alabama oys-
ter reefs more than 3,500 years ago
as evidenced by the numerous shell
middens in coastal Alabama. The
Spanish expedition of 1519 led by Pi-
neda possibly explored the Alabama
coastal area and recorded the position
of some oyster reefs. The first U.S.
Coast Survey map of coastal Alabama
published in 1851 showed locations of
certain reefs although the first specific
effort to map the oyster reef was done
by Boudouquie in 1883 (May, 1971).
In 1894, Homer P. Ritter (1896),
Assistant, U. S. Coast and Geodetic
Survey, made a survey of the oyster
reefs from Cedar Point eastward to
Bon Secour Bay and northward
throughout Mobile Bay. Besides map-
ping the oyster reefs he described the
general areas and recorded water tem-
peratures, densities, depths, bottom
types and the quality of oysters. Hav-
ing begun the survey on February 10
during a period of freshets, he returned
in December to take additional water
densities under low flow conditions.
Ritter obtained the approximate loca-
tions of reefs from oystermen but used
triangulation points established by the
Coast Survey records during mapping.
The extent of the reefs were deter-
mined by dragging a chain over the
68
reefs. He found the northern limits, of
oyster growth in Mobile Bay to be
along a east-west line from Great Point
Clear to East Fowl River. The oyster
reefs along the eastern shore were few
in number and Ritter concluded that
depletion of these reefs was probably
due to excessive fishing. He mapped
3,105 acres of oyster bottoms in Mo-
bile Bay, Bon Secour Bay and extreme
eastern portion of Mississippi Sound.
He did not map the reefs in Mississippi
Sound but stated "oysters were growing
in all parts" of the northern portion
of the sound west to the Mississippi
line.
During 1910-1911, Dr. H. F. Moore
(1913) of the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries
examined the oyster bottoms of Mobile
Bay and Mississippi Sound. His study
was done at the request of the newly
appointed Alabama Oyster Commission
created by the Alabama Legislature on
August 27, 1909. Moore used chains
dragged behind a boat to locate the
reefs. A launch tonged oysters for
counting and measurement. Grabs were
also taken to determine the density of
oysters. The survey covered 93,000
acres including 4,000 acres of oyster
beds. A general summary of all the
beds were made in terms of relative
productivity. More than 24,000 acres
surveyed were considered suitable for
oyster culture and Moore recommended
removal of small oysters from crowded
bottoms to other suitable areas.
In July 1914, Thurlow C. Nelson
(1914) of the University of Wisconsin
came to Alabama at the request of Mr.
Joullian, Secretary of the Alabama Oys-
ter Commission, to study mortality of
planted seed oysters in Alabama wa-
ters, principally those in Portersville
Bay. He examined both private leases
and public reefs recording dates and
amounts planted, condition of oysters
and other data. He concluded that in
every area where oysters died the bot-
tom was either too soft or that the
bottom was unstable or shifting in na-
ture and that oysters planted on suit-
able bottoms were not affected by the
mortality observed during February
and March 1914. He completely dis-
missed the oyster drill as playing any
part in the mortality.
In May 1929, Dr. Paul Galtsoff
(1930) of the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries
made a study of the oyster reefs of
Alabama following the 1929 flood. He
used oyster dredges to sample the reefs
to determine mortality. His study
showed that between 55% and 100%
of the oysters on the reefs in Mobile
Bay and Mississippi Sound were de-
stroyed by the flood. He concluded
that all commercially important oyster
bottoms in Mobile Bay were destroyed
and that the reefs could be rehabilitated
only by establishing "spawning beds",
planting shell near the spawning beds
and planting seed oysters. He recom-
mended that state law prohibit leasing
of public oyster bottoms and that de-
velopment of public reefs should be a
state responsibility.
During November and December
1943, James B. Engle (1945) of the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service made
*a survey of the oyster bottoms of Ala-
bama to determine the conditions of
the reefs to improve rehabilitation of
depleted reefs and improve cultivation
methods. This survey followed an
examination of the reefs by the De-
partment of Conservation in 1941-1942
which revealed heavy mortality. Engle
recommended planting shell and seed
oysters and enforcement of the culling
law. During December 1947 iEngie
(1948) made another survey following
the hurricane of 1947. He found dam-
age restricted mostly to the northern
69
area of Mississippi Sound where oys-
ters had been covered by soft mud to
depths up to 1 foot. Most of the pro-
ducing bottoms in Mobile Bay were un-
affected. He recommended that bot-
toms in much of the Mississippi Sound
area were too soft to support oysters or
shell and that plantings should be done
only on suitable bottoms. He also ob-
served that considerable damage to
oysters was caused by oyster drills
along the northern shores of Missis-
sippi Sound. Ritter (1896) had com-
mented upon the freshness of the wa-
ters of the northern portion of the
Sound. In an addendum to Ritter's
paper, a note by Mr. John J. Delchamps
stated that "whelks" have become a
problem and that "This is the first year
(1894?) that I have heard complaints
of their destructiveness". Increased
salinity and oyster drill activity appar-
ently became prevalent between the
early 1900's and the 1940's presumably
due to migration and widening of the
pass between Dauphin and Petit Bois
islands.
Bell (1952) 
surveyed 
the oyster 
reefs
Sduring the summer of 1951 in fulfilling
requirements of a M.S. thesis for Texas
A & M University. He surveyed 5,912
acres of public oyster beds of which
3,284 acres were considered to contain
a fishable density. The oyster beds
were found generally to be in good con-
dition with good spat set. He encour-
aged increasing the area under private
lease.
May (1971) surveyed both the pub-
lic oyster reefs and the buried shell de-
posits during 1968 and 1969. He sur-
veyed 3,064 acres of natural oyster bot-
toms. He stated that there were 924
acres of leased bottoms and 1,050 acres
of riparian bottoms which ocassionally
produced oysters. He did extensive
sampling on the reefs using scuba to de-
termine the density of oysters, spat,
boxes, mud crabs and oyster drills and
presented data on the commercial fish-
ery and factor. affecting oyster pro-
duction. Oyster density was considera-
bly lower in 1969 than during earlier
surveys and he concluded that there
were about 60 thousand acres of bot-
toms in Alabama which are firm-enough
to support oysters. The buried shell
deposits totaled more than 93 million
cubic yards of which approximately 46
million were recoverable. He con.
tributed significantly to the knowledge
of the Alabama oyster fishery in papers
dealing with summer oyster mortalities
(May, 1968), oyster culture (May,
1969), oyster survival (May and Bland,
1970), surveying oyster deposits (May
and McLain, 1970), effect of floodwat-
ers (May, 1972a), oyster fishery (May,
1972b), diseases (Beckert, Bland and
May, 1972), dredging (May, 1973a),
oxygen depletion (May, 1973b) and
mud crab abundance on oyster reefs
(May, 1974).
Other research concerning oysters in
Alabama include Casper et al. (1969),
Engle (1936), Gallagher et al. (1969),
Hoese, Nelson and Beckert (1972), and
McClellan (1965).
PROBLEMS IN OYSTER
MANAGEMENT
Biological and socioeconomic prob-
lems have plagued the oyster fishery
during historical times. Spring floods,
pollution, low dissolved oxygen, oyster
predators and diseases together with in-
sufficient funding, indifferent fisher-
men and administration, and bi-county
bickering have all had effects on the
fishery.
A total of 73,584 acres of Alabama
waters are permanently closed to shell-
fish harvest (May, 1971) and almost all
of the remainder is temporarily closed
70
due to bacterial contamination during
winter and spring flood periods. While
there are only two small reefs within
the permanently closed areas, the tem-
porary closures of the major reefs
caused an estimated loss to the fisher-
men of $2,000 per day or an estimated
total of $282 thousand during 1968 and
1969 (May, 1971). Closures last from
a few weeks to 4 months or longer de-
pending upon the magnitude of the win-
ter and spring flooding. Winter floods
have also caused extensive oyster mor-
talities in Alabama. During the 1929
flood, mortalities ranged from 100%
in upper Mobile Bay and from 54%
to 84% in the lower bay (Galtsoff,
1930). Other extensive mortalities
were recorded in 1912, 1953, 1961 and
in 1973 when 42% of all oysters in the
state were killed (Hughes and May,
1975).
Within limits decreased salinity is
beneficial in that the oyster drill, Thais
haemostoima, is salinophilic. In the
spring and summer of 1967, 80 to 95%
of the oysters less than 2 inches were
killed on some Alabama reefs by drills
(May, 1971). Spat set in Alabama is
highest in the saline waters of Mis-
sissippi Sound but survival is negli-
gible due to oyster drills (Hoese, Nel-
son and Beckert, 1972). The number
of drills on some Alabama reefs out-
number oysters and spat combined
(May, 1971). Mud crabs are also
predators on small oysters and spat
and may transmit oyster diseases. May
(1974) found that the number of mud
crabs ranged from none per acre on
some of the more northern reefs to
62,000 per acre in the lower bay. Low
salinities also inhibit development of
Labyrinthomyxa marina, a parasitic
fungus affecting oysters (Ray, 1954).
The effects of small amounts of pes-
ticides upon oysters is not fully under-
stood. Levels of certain pesticides as
low as 10 parts per billion (ppb) may
inhibit growth of oysters (Butler,
1969) and oysters can concentrate pes-
ticides within the tissues to levels much
higher than found in surrounding wa-
ters (Butler, 1966). The levels of DDT
residues in mollusks, however, has de-
clined markedly in most estuaries (But-
ler, 1973) and residues in Alabama oys-
ters are far below levels considered
harmful from a public health stand-
point (Casper et al., 1969).
Low dissolved oxygen in certain areas
of Mobile Bay has caused oyster mor-
talities as high as 100% and is re-
sponsible for poor spat set (May,
1973b). During 1967, approximately
1,000 acres of oysters valued at $500
thousand were lost due to low dissolved
oxygen and during 1971 more than 2.6
million oysters were lost due to the
same cause (May, 1973b). Reefs in the
middle portion of Mobile Bay and Bon
Secour Bay have a long history of poor
spat set (Ritter, 1896; Bell, 1952)
which is likely due in part to low dis-
solved oxygen (May, 1973b). This low
dissolved oxygen phenomenon has been
known locally for more than a century
as "jubilees" (Loesch, 1960; May,
1973b). Other contributing factors to
poor spat set are thought to be spring
freshets (May, 1972a) and existing cur-
rent patterns (Hoese, Nelson and Beck-
ert, 1972).
Current patterns have changed some-
what due to spoil deposition adjacent to
the Mobile Ship Channel. The channel
has also caused saltwater penetration
inland from the Gulf (Ryan, 1969).
May (1971) considered changes in sa-
linity and current patterns more detri-
mental to oyster resources than silta-
tion or physical destruction due to
channel construction. Physical destruc-
tion of oysters has occurred during con-
71
struction of Grants Pass in 1838, Pass
aux Herons (ca. 1912) and the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway in the late
1930's. Spoil from these channels was
placed in some instances on nearby oys-
ter reefs. Increased salinity in Por-
tersville Bay resulting from the natu-
ral westward migration of Dauphin and
Petit Bois islands has destroyed the
oyster resources in Portersville Bay.
The width of the pass between the two
islands has increased from 1.5 nautical
miles in 1851 to about 5 nautical miles
(May, 1971) increasing the salinity
throughout Mississippi Sound.
Socioeconomic problems also affect
the industry. Overfishing was men-
tioned by Ritter (1896) as the cause of
depletion of certain reefs in Alabama.
Nelson (1914), Gatsoff (1930) and
Engle (1936) also considered overfish-
ing of the more accessible reefs, fail-
ure to return shells to the reefs, and
use of oyster dredges as major factors
in depletion of the reefs. These conclu-
sions must be considered; however,
many biological factors affecting oys-
ters were unknown at those times.
While the effects of high fishing pres-
sure is not fully understood, continued
fishing of the more accessible reefs and
little or no utilization of less accessible
reefs is a poor method of exploiting a
resource. At least 90% of the fishing
pressure is expended on Cedar Point
Reef even though less accessible reefs
such as Sand Reef, Buoy Reef, King's
Bayou and others periodically have oys-
ter densities equally as high. One valid
example of overfishing was during the
1966-1967 steam oyster season. The
size of legal oysters was reduced and
thousands of barrels of small oysters
were taken to the canneries in Missis-
sippi. The oyster harvest was consid-
erably reduced for several years fol-
lowing the steam season (May, 1971).
Bickering between oyster fishermen
of Baldwin and Mobile counties and
among fishermen within each county
sometimes has hampered effective man-
agement and improvement of the fish-
ery. The eastern shore historically has
had a poor oyster set (Ritter, 1896;
Hoese, Nelson and Beckert, 1972) and
production there is sporatic. The Mo-
bile County fishermen greatly resent
attempts by Baldwin County fishermen
to obtain seed oysters from reefs in
Mobile County. This led to an armed
confrontation between the two groups
in the 1960's., Also, most shell plant-
ing by the state has historically been
on the better producing reefs of Mo-
bile County which has caused resent-
ment among the Baldwin County fish-
ermen. During 1975, seed oysters in
two locations in Mobile County were
made available to a small group of Mo-
bile County fishermen for planting on
their leased bottoms. Both areas were
in polluted, permanently closed areas
and considerable effort was made by
the Marine Resources Division to ob-
tain authorization from the Department
of Health to move these oysters. The
lessees were indifferent to obtaining
oysters from one location and permis-
sion to obtain oysters from the other
was withdrawn after a petition was cir-
culated by other Mobile County fisher-
men objecting to removal of oysters
from public bottoms (even though per-
manently closed) to a private lease.
The oyster fishery itself contributes
almost nothing to reef improvement
and, as in all coastal states, is heavily
subsidized by the state. During the
period from 1960 to 1968 the Marine
Resources Division planted 454,934 bar-
rels of shell and 254,499 barrels of seed
oysters on the public reefs of Alabama.
During this same time revenue received
from the oyster fishery amounted to
72
about $9,000 per year, or 2% of the
dockside value of the fishery (May,
1971). During 1968, 1970, 1972, 1974
and 1.975 a total of $396 thousand was
spent by the Marine Resources Division
to plant shell following extremely high
mortalities on the oyster reefs. These
funds were made available by the U. S.
Department of Commerce under Public
Law 88-309, Section 4(b) for fisheries
disaster relief. Were these funds not
available, it would have been impossible
for the state to fund shell planting pro-
grams of this scope. Lack of funds his-
torically has been a cause of little de-
velopment of suitable bottoms, but it
is. questionable whether governmental
subsidies except following natural dis-
asters are the solution. Lack of seed
oysters has reduced interest in de-
veloping leases and riparian bottoms
but the recent development in produc-
ing cultchless seed oysters in hatcheries
may provide needed stimulation to pri-
vate development of the fishery. How-
ever, closures due to pollution have be-
come more frequent and of longer dura-
tion since the 1950's and have certainly
decreased interest in extensive develop-
ment of the fishery by either private
enterprise or governmental agencies.
LITERATURE CITED
Alabama Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources. Annual Reports for
1908 through 1971. Montgomery, Ala-
bama.
Alabama Oyster Commission. 1914. Report
to the Governor and General Assembly.
24 p.
Beckert, H., D. G. Bland and E. B. May. 1972.
The incidence of Labyrinthomyxa ma-
rina in Alabama. Alabama Mar. Resour.
Bull. 8:18-24.
Bell, J. O. 1952. A study of oyster pro-
duction in Alabama waters. M.S. 
Thesis,
Texas A & M College. 81 p.
Butler, P. A. 1966. The problem 
of pes-
ticides in estuaries. Amer. Fish. 
Soc.
Spec. Rep. 3:110-115.
Butler, P. A. 1969. Bureau of 
Commercial
Fisheries pesticide monitoring 
program.
U. S. Public Health Service, Dauphin
Island, Alabama.
Butler, P. A. 1973. Residues in fish, 
wild-
life and estuaries. Part I. 
General
Summary and Conclusions. Pesticides
Monitoring J. 6(4):238..246.
Casper, V. L., R. J. Hammerstrom, E. A.
Robertson, J. C. Bugg and J. 
L. Gaines.
1969 Study of chlorinated pesticides 
in
oysters and estuarine environment of
the Mobile Bay area. U. S. 
Public
Health Service, Dauphin 
Island, Ala-
bama. 47 p.
Engle, J. B. 1936. Effects 
of dredging on
natural oyster reefs and 
planted bot-
toms in Alabama. A report to 
the U. S.
Bureau of Fisheries. 6 p.
Engle, J. B. 1945. The condition 
of the
natural oyster reefs and other 
oyster
bottoms in Alabama in 1943 
with sug-
gestions for their improvement. 
U. S.
Fish. Wildl. Ser., Spec. Sci. 
Rep. 29.
42 p.
Engle, J. B. 1948. Investigations 
of the
oyster reefs of Mississippi, Louisiana,
and Alabama following the 
hurricane of
September 19, 1947. U. S. Dep. 
Interior,
Fish. Wildl. Ser., Spec. 
Rep. 59. 70 p.
Gallagher, T. P., F. 
J. Silva, L. W. Olinger
and R. A. Whatley. 1969. 
Pollution af-
fecting shellfish harvesting 
in Mobile
Bay, Alabama. Fed. Water Pollution
Control Admin., Athens, 
Georgia. 46 p.
Galtsoff, P. S. 1930. Destruction 
of oyster
bottoms in Mobile Bay by 
the flood of
1929. U. S. Bureau 
Fisheries, Rep. of
the Comm. of Fisheries 
for fiscal year
1929, append. 11 (Doc. 1069). 
741-758.
Hoese, H. D., W. R. Nelson 
and H. Beckert.
1972. Seasonal and spatial 
setting of
fouling organisms in 
Mobile Bay and
eastern Mississippi 
Sound, Alabama.
Alabama Mar. Resour. 
Bull. 8:9-18.
Hoese, H. D. 1964. Studies 
on oyster sca-
vengers and their relation 
to the fun-
gus Dermocystidium marinum. 
Proc.
Nat. Shellfisheries Ass. 
53:161-174.
Hughes, E. A. and E. B. May. 
1975. Factors
affecting the life of the Alabama 
oyster.
Alabama Conserv. 45(2):6-7.
Loesch, H. 1960. Sporadic 
mass shoreward
migrations of demersal fish and 
crusta-
ceans in Mobile Bay, Alabama. 
Ecology
41(2):292-298.
73
May, E. B. 1968. Summer oyster mortali-
ties in Alabama. Progressive Fish-
Culturist. 30 (2):99.
May, E. B. 1969. Feasibility of off bottom
culture in Alabama. Alabama Dep.
Conserv., bauphin Island, Alabama.
Alabama Mar. Resour. Bull. 3:1-14.
May, E. B. 1971. A survey of the oyster
shell resources of Alabama. Alabama
Mar. Resour. Bull. 4:1-53.
May, E. B. 1972a. The effect of floodwater
on oysters in Mobile Bay. Proc. Nat.
Shellfish. Ass. 62:67-71.
May, E. B. 1972b. Alabama oyster fishery.
Proc. Symposium of the Oyster Fishery
of the Gulf States. Gulf Coast Re-
search Lab., Ocean Springs, Mississippi.
p. 12-13.
May, E. B. 1973a. Environmental effects
of hydraulic dredging in estuaries. Ala-
bama Mar. Resour. Bull. 9:1-85.
May, E. B. 1973b. Extensive oxygen deple-
tion in Mobile Bay, Alabama. Limnol.
Oceanogr. 18(3):353-366.
May, E. B. 1974. The distribution of mud
crabs (Xanthidae) in Alabama estuaries.
Proc. Nat. Shellfisheries Ass. 64:33-37.
May, E. B. and D. G. Bland. 1970. Survival
of young oysters in areas of different
salinity in Mobile Bay. Proc. South-
eastern Ass. Game and Fish. Comm.
23. 519-521.
May. E. B. and K. R. McLain. 1970. Advan-
tages of electronic positioning and pro-
filing in surveying buried oyster shell
deposits. Proc. Nat. Shellfisheries Ass.
60:72-74.
McDermott, J. J. 1960. The predation of
oysters and barnacles by crabs of the
family Xanthidae. Proc. Pennsylvania
Acad. Sci. 34:199-211.
Moore, H. F. 1913. Condition and extent
of the natural oyster beds and barren
bottoms of Mississippi Sound, Alabama.
Dept. Com. and Labor, Bur. Fisheries
Doc. 769.60 p.
Nelson, T. C. 1914. Report on an inves-
tigation of the causes of mortality
among planted oysters in Portersville
Bay and other Alabama waters. Univ.
Wisconsin. 59 p.
Ray, S. M. 1966. A review of the culture
method for detecting Dermocystidium
marinum, with suggested modifications
and precautions. Proc. Nat. Shellfish-
eries Ass. 54:55-69.
Ritter, H. P. 1896. Report on a reconnais-
sance of the oyster beds of Mobile Bay
and Mississippi Sound, Alabama. Bull.
U. S. Fish. Comr*. for 1895. 325-339.
_W,, , , I . , . . . r .7" ,, " - -',. .' " 1 1. . ,q ! U , .i'i, ! 4 _', ':-2 , t:lll.. 101114 ,t'-i,_,. , - - 14111 - W ;,Vf,-,t;jTW '_l7U
. I - ":, 
ull7 iWt,.P- ,. 
-I' I
_ " r 
- -,
, 
1,0 .i 
,ov 
I.
I I . I I -, , , 
;, - 4 o
_ , -, -f - , , -( _; -_ N, 
, - V I " QW l' m
I I -
--- 
'o , , . ;11 40 
1'1"P_ -_" "I'M - -, -1
, , .. 
, , - 3 --4 , q 
1, 
A
;N 
lll Nlqll
, I - , T _9 11- _ l , 1 _ -- I 1 I " , , " ", , 
W -: , 
, R
,,, i. , I : I - . _ i t ; 
.4, v , Ar-s"','. . , __ I 4 J7 I Ir- ,, y l,_'!A -Q -1,, X, C,
, - , 
" 'la :"', U i i'vlw ,
- , I , , , " .- ;4 -, -
; 43 T -, I., , ,. ., "
l , , , . A X 0_ 
_ 
- "!, , . li% 4 ,
, 14, ill? 11 . ", _ , -,
v 7 , 5 W 
-1
- -,, H; 1 9,5 w t,. p - ,, ;' '___ _ . , _ , f ft " "! , , , . - - X - - -- A e, - % , tLt , 1-,, -'l . 11 , ', , , mu- 1% ,.i , 'i , ,,, ;' ; l - ,,- ,,-, "'V- 
irk7.' t A , 4, ,ill ,w N O FT, " .
-- ", , W 7 ,g x, x I I_-;,__"- %, I , , - 171-- - ,- . -_ :-,. 
, l - ,- . " . ,k f, Z' 11W 
UN " - ', 17, 
, - -
,--":.:"",_Z-: 
" 
, 
k5
c, , -i 7 ,-,"", - I j ,'I IT " 
r- N, J , - " , -.. t"t " k . " t t 1, - - - ,,, -, - --- !. - l4t 
,.,, r, -'T',_ !,
.. , . 1 11,15 '. - --, , " ". , '' "! "-, - , , , % IR , , , ".1- 0, 11 j , iN ., 
-,
11 .1 I . I I", " , 11 , -, I' "', , , ', 1 ""'' 7 ,,, is -; 12, -, , , . R 1 
, . - , -- -' , ,_ , A - - I
11, i i .- 
, , I - J,.& .k5l"R."', i . ,I 
_., -'_' ; -' e; 0- -t -T'; ,- , " ,, /',, ,, N l__l ,, ,:. I',, t, 
, 1W , ljf . , -,' -',' , "Ill"',' ._ "; _t, , . _- L A j& , W, , _-,_ I11 ,I , '' ,3R ,1 , 
, 
,3, 
, 
t 
:! ,' 
' 
", 
,- 
' f!' 
, 
, , , 
'*" 
" 
"' 
l
:'.;, ,'- , - . I - _.: ,! . " 
, , , , W vj-, ,",",". , V 4,; , - , I 
o. "a.. S. .--., % " t , I , , , , -.,:, ;l-,-,-, ' 'i " - ,6, -', -." i , J--1; , I I 11 " '0 . , _ - 5 ', , - :,-1 1 'L - ,,, A ,-- "- _'", l -_ ' ,- c - f",*,4 .',2 ,, WN _,- , ;-,,' T ' ,, , -, , q, Y, -c- -- , , 5. I q-
11 1- 
1 , -, , 
I' ll- 
, 
-, ,_ -_ 
, 
_i l':jl"'flfl
v,' ' ' -,: I I - - 11 . -
. " ".. , _ ,,,,, tJ , 
X. ,
I 1 
" , 
1 1. 'I ' lpr, 
. ,
. * -1 , , , - ;, -, ;:,. -,', 7".." ,,, -- -, --;, -,." .-, ., , " 
, , . - ., 1 - , ''y " , , 
?k_,,,,, " , , _ 
-
,, , " T 
- , 
. _ ' 
-,
- - , , 
, t!n ,-7%-,,,,,T -0 , 
._-, , ,
. , 'A - , , 
, "' ,, , ,," ,. , '-N , ,17, - -1 i , 1' -''T ,:3" _., _ ,.,:! , -, ---'
, 
", , , , - - . , - -, - " , , , ".
.'' .', ,- -' - , ,. 
- ,,N .,,, ., -:
-! t - ,:r: , " _, 13 1 ,C; : ! "7 , --.,',, t, ':,: .-
, , ,, -J , i , ,;. -, ,: .'-,- " , , , , '1 , -
-_ - , 'l - i I I " - - -, I .
, -1 ", ,. _ w-:: 'i 'l 
I - -, '
-& , I I 
- ; , ,, -[ l . .i, ' ,, , ,,,, 
,,, - , ''
.1. _ .__., - 1. , :- .:, ,,, , "',- ,v ", , , 41., I - jF4, ,.,41' ---,7"-, ,, _V,,5 "0 1; ___, 
,- ., - ,:, *,I a,,;'N-' ",-V_ , - -, , , -'!,i,,,Y-. , ,- - ,;,_.,i- ',',-',.
.1 I - , ., , " , , - , I _, ,, " ). , .
. , , , , , 1)
, -, _ 'l -, ,,, v , !,. "" _'l,,zlll'l "" - -, - _.,4.il, _ - '! i ', , ,-',
11 , , - , 
, i 'I , ::" , - .,', 
-" " ;' 1.1:t, ',-,'-,',, i.".- 
,, ",, -' - " _- 
, __" ' . "', 
. -
--
,:r, .. 11 - - _ ? , " _ ,_ - - - I -;, ,' ,, -'., ,, ' ; ,',] , ',',,. ? :" , ,', - 1_1;, 
I -
, I , 
, I 1 1 
, _ , 
, 
_ , -
"',
-% - '. 11 I . I . I 'l "' ,. ,- . ; ,, !, - 7 , : - ; , , , ,i 1 1 - -1 _t - ,,,, -- - %- l . , , . , - _ , 't', . "') - I . 'i, ' ,_ - ', , , P-1, t l 11
- I 4 , , - - , - . 1, :il . ,, ; , ; ,' - . I , ... , A I JI I -, 
- -1. - i e , - I , ,--, ", - " 4' , , 
, ; , 
, - "I, "'
-1 '. I - I . I _ I -- i, I 11, I .. 1 
- , , i __,i .":,, - - , 
-- - ,
, " : - 11. , 11 I , _ , -
,-, I '' j , - , " , ,; : ' '' !:, , il , - , . , , ., -, _;Z _ - ,
J ' - I I , , , t - - , , I - - , " '_ I , , I I '. l 'i ,l - _ , I lllll , , -"';',T -,, , , 
- " i_ , - I ,
K ,I 11 
, I I - .
- . , .
I", I I " 
I , , ,I 11 
- - ; " , -_ 
-
" '' ,I I , l , "I , , I 
: , : - '. " , :'.,,,', ,,, , , N . . . , , ,i , 
_ 1. 1, I '-
V, _ll_ ,1,_ , , I " .1, . __ . , '': I" , 1, , " I ; " - I _ I 
- - ': " :, . , lj - I ,, , , , t i -, " , . , , ., : ,-, , ", " - ), , , * " , -
, , - . I - , 'T I t,_ " , I
I- . 1, , r 1, , " , ". '. , * ' - -
, ,. , - , -',',;" ! : ; 4 _ -. , . , 
, , '- " ,-
,;, 
, 
I 
, 
- ., 
, 
-, ', 
, 
, " 
t. 
" .. 
-
f 
. _', 
, , , 
- , 
-
- " : ,4 
", , 
I ,,
--ll . - ,_ - ll, I 11 I ,: 
I I , *_ :' 11 , . ,; , , ",, " , , l -, , "'.. , .:,, , , " , , , : , 1, ", 
, '"', - - . -
,;"", : 1, , , I I I - , , 
_ - : , -, . ,v , , , "' ,c , -, , , , , ' , ,, - -, - -, -.'-' "_ 
,,' , , ,"', , I - I ."
1-1 .
i, _ . :, ,,, 
i ', ,_ --i ,
,-- -,ll _ . ;. I 1, I , - ., " 
I -, I - 11 I . , 
, ,;- _, - 1 ,- ,"', 1 .7 1
1 1. I . I . I I I, 
I , -1 , I I 11 1: - I , 
, . I I , , , , -, V I_ , , . ., ': 
,11
. , '' 
:., , I " ,,f , _ 
I ; I _- -, , A _ , , ", .
, 11
': " _ ,_ 11, I -1 l z I '- _ _ I . 1 - ., , ; _ , I . t I.' , 
: , - "I , - , 
'. - - I , , '' -
_1 , 
I 1 1 
: " 
I- ,- 
" -
I ,.' 
' :' ll 
1 .
, ' ' 
. ,
I , , . . " , 
11, I
,,;i, -
I 
, , 
I I 
I -
- el _;; 
, ' ! " 
-'i. , I 
- 1_ 
, . I 
I , 
, ,* 
. ': 
- _
.. , , ,., , ., - , 1 1 - - l- I 
, ,',,, .. "' . -, . 1; . I., , , - , I I * - , At". .' 'm I " I I 
-
I , .
1. I I 
, , , -
, l
_ _. , , ." . , I - . 11 , ., , , , , , , , , , , , I ,v;;, I 11 - I 1-1 , .: , , , I - , "4 , ' " . , " ,:t
:T -__.; , 
A -1 I- I 
, 1. 1. .I " 
"' _ -,l I 
, 
-
. .
I- , 
, , , , _: :;''._ - . __,c'l 11
" ' !'I 
I , ., 
I ,.I 
1, I 
...' '. 
: ., 1 
, -
-
- 1 , 
I -
, 1 .
. .
I I 
; 
I 
-
I 
.
, 
- d 
.. , 
-t _; 
!
"I I . , - , -1 I I I .: i , I 
;, , - ;" _ 't t, I'l .", ,
I'll -,,, ." 1, I 
. . " , 
t' ' -1,f : 
1, .l : o , , " 
" I '? I , '' ,- - , 
- ' -, , - I 
, , , '' -, ' 
I I 
I - , ,
-- '.%,,i', . .: , -
(, Tzt ., ., . . , - ,, ; _ : , 
; , - , ! :_ , '', _ ,
'j,:', , 
-; f, * , ' 'I .
I _ " -. , :, I . ; ) - " ll ' ". -, - .
-
.
- , 
, -
, 
I 
I 
, 
-
, 
, 
I I 
I 
1 ; , 
', : 
,,, , 
-
" 
, 
,
1, I I I - I . , , 
q I I., - _ . 11- I , 
,r,, 
, -- ,: " I '' -1 i , , . , - , -
, - I I
: 2, 1 " " 
-
I - _ _ 1 
',:, ", , " ,
llt I'll, I - ,, , I I , 
, I , I . _ I . , , 
, I - I
:,_ ': . , I - _. "I " _ - - , , , , -,
-Q , , i ,, I I - I ,, , I -
t", _ . _ I _. I 1, I I - " , .-
.." I -- - , I I ;l I ,,,,
1 '_ I 
. ,I
Ulv ,V ,', '' 
, - -
, - , ''_ '_,., (, ,I --' '14.
1 I , , , - I I I - , 
. I . I I I - 1,
1-1 - .I. I. -
A N -
I _ .V %' :P:'" Il "". Z- _ ,,,, 
I .
1' _+,,t -. 
': I 
- 'S ',O 
t--,B 
. , - , :
. -
, 1, 
-
-RE 
_ - -,
I A; L A BY , - , 
-. , trR, S' UILLETIN'';," 
" - ,. .': , '
-. - , 
!, 
I . I - :1 I : I. , , I 
.
: ! 1. I I I . f, _ _ 
_1- -_ -- ,,, 1. -- _i- u 
- : I I l I 1-
5, , 1 1 , . , ': . :i I , , - - , - ! ,7 - - , : 1. _ '!
I I I .. . I , - , : 
, , , I ; I I - , I ,; I , , 
, , ( 1, , - ,I : '7 , - - , I I , ... ... . I I I 
_C . A , - . - - . ;, I
-, , ': , , , . , , . I . , , ., '- I I 
, , " 'i , , ,,, . , , , 1. 1 -
t tl I 11 
" , - 1. ! , 1:
,, , , , 1, % 
. , -, f r., , ., $1,1 e -
, t , , , , : , - , , , . I 
. 1 , . , , . . l 
1,
;4, 1 -1 1; 
, I , . I 
I 
--, 
, , 
11 -
, I ,
J,',- , I , I . I I .
, 7 . , , _ t .
I I 1, . ", _ , , - - , . ;1' 
, . I , , i I I , - , I 
I , : , I , - _ ." , I , 
" , - , I "
11 I I ,l - . . , I I I I I I , 
I - ;, I . I , " ". - I -
, 7,f , ,: , I 
. , . I , , - I I 
'. I , ,. . . , - , , , I I
I , I 
, .
- . I 
- -
I I , 
, , I I 
. , I 
e I % . I 
I .
I I -
I , 7 - 1,
, :,,:,*,. ,_ , , . .
'_ , , I 
I I I . , I : I I I I I , 
I , , _ I I " L , I
, . , ,. I - l I . ,- " , , - _tm , , - , : (t , % 7 , . i- 4 : - , I 
I .1 . I , , I I I I , , ;. ,
,,, ,- - , , I , , I 1 . , I . jfe , t . . -I , " L , , ,,, , , . , , , , , , , : , , , 
, _ , . , , ; , " , - , : , - " , , , , . I ,
, I I . I I , I - I : , e . , 1, , , , , I , , ': :, : ' ,I "! ,,, - , ! , , ', , _ , j . c , , , I .i i ,.,
, I I . - , - , , , , , tr -, I I 
I I " 1. " I , . I I . - , , I , , . I - , I , -
i , , , -, "; I * I I . I , , , I .
I 
, , I , I , 
, : I -- ' - -
, , , , . , , , , " , 
: I I 
* , 
11
A . I r . , , " , .1 
I I , , 
. , : - r I I '' 
I I 1 I I . , I 
, - "
11 I I I 
-
, , 
, , 
I .e 
. , I 
_. , 
, , 
- -
I 
, , , -
*
14 , 'i I 1-1 , . - : I . I - -I I " . , ,, .
, . f, , " , , , , - , , " L -I I I I m , ; , : ,, , " -
- - , t , , I I I I . I 1 .
I
ll I I - , , I , , ., , -,,, - , , , -
, ., , , I _ - , 
,:, ,; , , '- I I I I 11.1
I . . I I 
.
, , , .
r , -1,; -
, . .,
;_ " , , , I I 
I . " . , - - . , I . , : ; , , , , ,, 
,, - I : , ., , k,-, : 7 - . . I - I _ 1 " , ,
" I - , . ." 
. , I 
. I - I I 
I . : , 
, - * , 
, I I . I 
I , , , 
, , I 
1.
.., , , I , , , - , 
- , , , I , . , , , 
11 " , I , I . I .
- . I , , - I I I . - ; , , - I , , . I - I 
, I " -1 : , , , , I" . . " I I I .1 . 4 11 l : - % , - 11 - , , .11. , , , , 7 , , e ., I , I , , 11, , , , . . , , I _ Ii, ; , ,:, , ,, . . r , I : , . I .
- . , , , , 
, - , , , 
, 
. I 
, -
I 1 . j 
I I 
I I 
I . -
t , .1 i 
i -
, , , I 
I , : 
, , Z , -
- , , 
, -, , , 
. - ! , _ 
:: I it 
1 1
:. - -I 
; 1 , "D - 1 ,:,,, " it 
, I - - , I 
, I I , I I
-tt;"_! ,- 
; -
, ", -, ,:, _ -. , ; - : ,, I , 
I
I , , . , 
- , , 
, , t I I I I I I - . - : , , , , ,
, , , 
, 
, . . , I . , , ,
-- I -R o -.,-, - __! ,- -1 -m 
. - 1. - l , ., " 1 : .,"li., 'l -1'l -'-.:'- tlhi - g e - ,A ' 11 1- __, "s 'b m a n a ,,,, i;o f :---, -' ll :., , 1 .-, , , , , -1 I I I .
jjjjmjjffjmFw v,"', 
, ;, I N o 
i'll :G;',e- - ;-;, 
il t,"e- 
gem ent 
;l , ': ,_
.
-4 Ill, 77-',7' .%::17,, ,.I_ . . 1.1- . I, I 1- 11 ""'' ''. ' '11 -.- I , I 1; 
, , t -
14j, p,_'11 - I . -1 , !-7 -,-- "I I I_ , I ;, " .1 11 . _
I ': 1 4 
F, 11- ' 1 ILI. -- -- 
" r,
1-1 . -
"' , 1_ - ', 1 -C , 
I -., -I - I - :. 
-- , -
' , 
c I 
" - I. 
-..- 
-11 I 
1, 
. --t-, 
"o, 
,_l -
-I ..
,
11"fl , ; 1 1- ,, , 11- I 
, -D )l I ; 1'6 3 V .. 
, , -- , .-, :,',,,'- ,,: :"-, -,, I _-, '". ,,,,- , _ ''.. " : , 
,-
-. 1 1,11.1 -11 
I 
1 1- ' ' 
' 
I 
I I .1 -1 .l.. 
. 1 I .,
, I 
", 
, 1, 
, 
I 
:_ 1. 
I 
I I 
le 
c e 
m 
b 
' 
,%-, 
-
.1, 
, 
.
' 
I 
, 
1--_ 
.:k 
-
11
.. ... . , 
ll ,:__ l 1 :: _j 
l ',. -l , _ l 
I I .
lbil-ik, , - -
- I I' -! - ;,.- , ;,f ,, ":;: ' ,t, --' -':'., 1,
,_;.,,,' I I t- , r ie s , -_:. , 
" '' , . , : 
.4,
1, , 
, 
". . I 
-, " -
-
, 
I 
, 
I i 
I ,,- 
. I 
,
,,, -
_ 1, 
-
' *.. 
'', ',',- 
.. _ _ 
,".1 '_ 
I 
4.j 
, 
-
'' 
, -
. .1 
.
,
'', : ,.- I ", -
_ ,n:0v,, -11, I , '' _ 7 
, r I - .
1'1 I t , -
1., :., , 
ll ''l , , , , 1 ." . "I.- 
I _ , ,,- - , I.", -
11
1- _, 
_ 
1-1,11, 
;, 
: , 
.
l 
-, 
-- 
;, 
_ 
,: 
, 
_ 
.
-
I 
''.'' 
, 
1 
.
--
, 
, 
-
, 
-
' , 
"I
1r, , -- " _.:, - _ ;'. 
";_ ." .,11,
1 " ;;, .,; , ,- , ,-- " -,-, : ,. "" -, , 'll, ',, :!'. .'.,t ,' ' l,-- -,..,: , -
!_ . 1;l, " 1, I- - - , ll -_- ., _ ..
', -! - -'' '' ', 1 , -
_ I
? - , I , 11 - _ 4,,,lX,',l' , , " - , , ,:,.l, , :", t , - ,,,,,- 1 1'., . - - I ., - '! '' 
, ',,:!,,, , v -)F,. --, l_ ,;-, , : t ,, ., o _ 1 ",
I n I m . Vi' , : , , .11 I ,I,",; , ,,, ;I,, " .l tl 
, , ",- _ I , , 1 , " , , . - , , " '. , , , , , , , , I ' , - ,, , , I- " - - , ., ", " , - ,., , " I I I I , , I !, , - , , ,
t ." - , -- I 
-1 - - ' , . , 
' t , 
- - - , , , ; _- , ". *7 1 1 I 
' .1 . I I . 1 " , 
1 I I I
., , , I .
- , ', , . , I ,-f
,:, , ,, , I , 'i - ,, I 
, , I , 
, , , 
,
, 
, I :_ I , I I , . , " -> 
, , . , ., " 1, , .
I , , " - , I 
,i , , - ,- , . , , I - I :
I - I 7 -, , I , ! , _11" " I , I 
, ", , , "I lk I , I- I 
I , , . , , . , 
I 11 1, ; I I T, , , , , , , -
I
, , , : , , - ", , " - ," , 
I , I , I . , , I .lq I I I I . , , 
, , I . I , . , I 
, " i , I I I I I , -, I
I 
-
-:, -
- . z, , , -
, , 
- . , 
I I .
I , 
. .1 . ,., 
11 I - I . , 
I I 
I I 
, . .1 
, , , 
, , 0. , -
, 
,:
., , 
.
I , 
, , X , , 
, ! 
11" , 
, i, , 
, 
I _'.
1. - , I : - , 
, , , , . : r . I I 11, : -,, , 1 , . I 
I I - " - I . 1, -, 1, , , , - , , , l ,, , I I I 
I I;-
_ 
, l 
16 , '. 
' 
"' 
- -
' 
-- ,,, 
";:, 
* 
- ,,
j' , ' ' 
: is 
, 
" I 
, 
:1 , 
'. 
I 
" 
-- -
,
11 1!, I - tS.,.- I -" - .11". 1, " - -, '-: - '-_ 11_i;,_, , : 
. 2 '', -C r 66,'ll- : ; , -: :,- "; v;d ' hn , o - --s ,b_ __ ..,.., ,( , -d :,bib 1 - - , - , - ,
N n' -
-10,p " ,by 
.fAlAb' "i-ov,,
", , 
, , I , 0 
9 T 
il I * 
I
" 0 4 ,-__:O, " _ , - - ., .e. to- I -
I 
, 
,, , 
, a p111"),111 
_11, -i .-':,H , 
"
,_ 11 1. ,._: -C 4, ,,,, ', '0,;. - , .t, , -" ' ,- -
1. ". I I -_- -., __,- _:,_ ." - - .
I -1. ,; .
I , 
- , , , 
" I z 1' I l " i , 
, 
:.: , I~ 
, , _ - . A- I 
."'':, '' t r _ '-:ll .
Ill " -
. .- , - 11
1 . . .1 , I -
.fl'. I 11 I 1". 11 :- - .. , _1 1 , - 1. I . ,,,, .
11 - '. - 1;
-pp ,'' - ,,, - it, ",' -e s t u . I '- 1 1 , - . , ,7 1 - , - ,,I,. ,I- I I I i I I . . - - I I T I- I 1: ,,, I _ ; -- ,'- " , ! -'.:,;J- 6r:""i_"-"* ,:_ *;-_ ,;, ., , :1 9 W - ." - " "- " '': , L -
, 11 , I 1,Z_ ; , l -7 1 ,,, , 
, ,
-- :;111 
I U IV , 
I _ -
,_",; I r 1; , ''I" 
-, I .
, , ! .
- -
, , 
, 
1 I I 
1,
, ,,,,' - I I 1 .,_ I , ,,, "t , , "".'', _., , -
- - - l T, 1' %,' 1;, ,,,, " , - .1 , -;% ,', , 
;,:, -1 - , . ", .1 
, ,, 
.i. 1. _ ' ' -, a f fe s 
, '' J . , , 
i '11% , I , -
I .. , -1.
, 1:, 
T:. 
41 
i 
, 
I 
-
, 
" 
, -
-
I _ 
. -
1, 
-
.
I -
I 
,, 
- " 
.,; 
1, 
11
" l .,, , , 1 1 , - , , ., ;;, Z'- '. 1, "I'' - . I -.- " I "T! 1, ,, " I 1, , : I "'. . I , , " I W t , , . , _ ! ' '. , I , " I I I I I ,, 
, ,., ,, , . .1 . , 1. _ I I'_ .-
" '171 , _ , , , ,', ' - it , ,, , .' 
,-_ " , - , , ': '. '7 1, .
I . . , . 1, . I , 
. . 1, 1 .f: 
k , I I 1 1 - - . ,l.,
.1 
I 
''. 
' 
' 
' , 
, 
" 
''I'," 
!- 
.
; 
-
I 
.
, 
, 
-
I 
-
, 
,
'i , I , I - I - - , : I ., " .1 , , : . " I - 1 - , - - I o 1, I I 
I I ; :" , ; ,; . ; I I ''I '', I
. ;', , I _ . , , - , 1, 
- ", , IL I I 1- , :_' ' 
" '', , , _. 11 .
I . I I , ,;", 
I .1 ,
" , , , - -, _ ! . I . 1. _ , - 'l , , , - , 
,., I , " 4 1 , . I I . I .; 1, I " I 
I . -, , . - . I
.
;" 41 
1, I 
n I , A 
, .
113 1: " I 
:"
1, :" . , !, , , , - , '11 , t, , 
'' ,. -,, , , . - _: ; :__:; , , I I I . , ., -
" -, 
,_ . , .
I , . I -
.. W I I .
, , , I 11 ,. 
, , ., 'l
-, I I I I . I - - , .. I 
. I I I I , I . I -
A , , . . - I 
I - .
: .
1. , , 
,
_ ".", ; " i I ,.'e 1. - 11 I - I l I I ',:, - - ; ,, " , 1, 11 _- ;, . I - I "I , . 11 4', 1- 
I ". , . . . - I -11 I I - .- -1 11 I I
I - ll, l , I - , ; _ 
,,-_% . I 1, I 
_ 4 
1 - I '' , '- " , , I _. 
1. I _ '_ , I , . , I I I '' ,q 
I' ',
11 -- I , I 1; '., , 1 '. 
- I I
, 
;,. 
0 a 
"" 
.* 
::i; 
I 
' 
-1, ' 
-
1,
.... .I I . I y 
, , , , 14? 1; I . - - , I 
" I 
- ... _.." I .
';; ;,;',' ,, 1: 
M , ,, , ' '. E dm .ih-, 
B-':' --,,F e'A ibtlitybf 
-o" -
, - l Itur.. , ,.,,' _N ; : ,Q,_ 
I-, 1, , f , m oyst 
;--cu - t , ',
t I 71i, _- ,,: , ,I 
ll 1, '' -
- - , - -- -, *,' 
" I , -
1. I '. --- 
- _,_,.,- .',-' 
_- ;- ,,z " -
i , f 
ibotto, ' er 0, i I
- "'. , ,; "', .11 I I _: , , 1 21 - .I 11 11.1 
, -,_;', ',V 7: " -', _ -, , - -, , : 1 I " .
11 I . ',', '', _ - -- 1 _ ":-, <11:_ I ''I -I
. "' --"8, ,I , " 
,t o o ,a ,, , , _,,,: ' I , I .'- I ;- 
1 , ill-I _; , . . _
,!,', -,,_ 
'1-: ,._,, 
, ,( -"' 
-
--
'--'', 
I - I 
; - _ -:, 
- 1, I
1, -_ 1 .1 , "Ll, -.1 
I . I I ''. , " 
I I I - - -
- , ; _ , "" . 1 : ,,, ,,,, "" ., , , _', 
, , 
. 1 1 . - , ., I " I , ''I , ll , -;, -,! 11 
I _ , . 1, I .,
_., ." ", _ ,; " -A .A '.- --, 11 
, " 1, -,- _ -, .I - ,
IV - ,. ' - & b n I - '' 'b at , ., 11 , ,,, .: -1
,Al' 
. _..D 
ecem 
-,, 
-
,:
,j h _ ___ 
_ 
, 
-
, 0 .
I :, " 
,, I 
'_ .
, I -_ 
It
1 , z i, , , , ". 1, " . - I , I , , 1. , , , c".1 i;: , , I I , ", :,,. "' , .. .,_, ,.,, ,, "' T .," , - : I " -,-, 71, , 1 -, I I I I - I I % . , , . , , ", ,
, e T, r i - 7 i; I . . I . I . I I - . , I 1 1 I . - , i, f - . , " , 
" ,
I 
I . I 
I I 
" I .-.1 I I 
.
("'1,1;11 .,;,.- I . I 
. - I ''I
I" - .": - 4, 41, 1. 1. . , , , , - l , , , _- I , I !_ " I 
- ... .1 -
,, . I I , 
, . ':
' I . . . ", 
" , . 11 I " I - I 1, 4 .- -- - , , ... ; , ,_,e , -'ll ., 1 ,' , , " - - I 
. I , 11 I I _ , . ". " ::, J ,' _ v I I''!, I , , 
- - I , A
_ Y?, " I I , . , . ', " - '- .; , " '. , ." , : ,, , :, , t "' , -,y ,':,':- ,-- .., , : I - , 
;, ': - - , , , ,
I - , - - _ , ,, -, I , - - ?, ", , : - ,,, , - . I -
, 1. I 1 - , , , I I , . I I - . I I . , I
I I.- I 1: , . ,,,' '' . l " , ", , , , ,. ;, , .1 I , , I I- I ., I , , I , I 
I . I I
1 
, , , , ', I 
- , ", 
'i ; , , e , 
,, , 
" . 1. .
,'_ , - " -
-,:
: , " ', , " ; " ') ! , t _ , 4 , ,,,,:,.ql. , , , _ , ,4 I ,,, , "l-J, , '' , , , , 57 - ,, , , _ I _ ,: ' , I 
, I I ': 1, I I . , , I
_ ., 1, , i , " . . -
- I - , , , ;- 1- _1 11:1 t: 1_ _,, - " , .T. ', I I I , t
.. .! - t , , , , , t, ': , , ,.;, I , II- -
I . , , I 
1, . . I .,, - - I . I _ . , ,', .', -,, z - i ; . , - . , " - ", I., , I , I . , 1, . I I 
t I " , . - , I . I 1. '. ;,. .I. : I . 11 ll_ _ ! , 11 . ; " I I . I I
, , - , , - , 
I _' - ' ' I I - _ 
I - 1, r I I . I -1 
- - -2 .-r , ' 
- ' ' I I '' t - ".: 
, - _ . I'll,- I "" - 1 ,-- I n 
- , , .1 %,
" I I -' . I - : I..' ., - I - -, 
, I I I I
,;-. '. I 1 -, '-M- ; -
:,,E--,idw ,,l , 
d , er
- . .-1 I , 1) _: " ,::, - 1, ,-N O .- 
.0 I I , -,-- 
-
e,",_/. q I a ,If ;':- ,,,,,, - I I .
'' -_ _,t",., -,'_ ,, n.'BY -.-A"fsurv 'iy, bf , U, ,O-Oyoter ia,' ,,l ; .,, -,.,: i _
-:, --- - ,, - - "'', - I 11 -11 - . . ,s , -
-, 11 1 I
t, , , ;,.- _ -, ' " , ''.1'' , .."I _ I I ,, ,1 .
.. -, " ' ' 1- 1 , I " , m ,
._; ,",.._, , ,, - "I.- , , _ " ' , " , I 'll, 11 I , ,,e- I _ 1 , 
, ,,_ _ ,,, , p y 11 - , -
.--
, 
a m 
l 
.
I 
-
- -t- 
I f' 
,_., 1:_-, 
"I",,
, I .1 . I - -',T 1 ' ; ',_ I , - ' , t , ,_, "., , 
. . I I I I I 1-1 .. I I I 
- 11.- , -7 '_' ,, . : ' 1 4 ,- I 11 
I ;, , , I
1 1 .. p -, ,, , , , I - lo I I - , ,, I . I , I I , - l. . I I,- . I . I I I , , . . I . I -. I I
I . I 
I , ,S-, I', 1 , I , _ Tem t_ ces, f b 
ebr_ _ _ - _ , 
. I -mm iry ,, 271 o' ''I - , , I 
I I .
1,4 , , _', ;' , , ', "'u r O . -A lA , , ,j - , 'i 
"I , I. , , -4 "I' ." -,., 7'--."- : .' -' ,_ .; 'l I 
- 1 ..,*-,, 
. - I , 
- ,
1, I 
-
-1. 
-I -
I - 'I," 
1 _ 
- 11 
- 1 
- -
,
' '.. . ll- , % ', ,:t, ',lli_ A :; l - - I 'I, ,,, _ , 
, - .. " - 1 , '' , , , . " 
I _ I I l , 
- - , " , '' : v I l I I -1 I .1 - - . , ,:,2 -1, , , , , " I , 
. -, ; , I , , '. - . , . . .. ,
"I I , i ,, I I , 4 , I " , ;_ - I 
I I
I 
I . , , 
;l - . I I .
'I ' , , ,- , - , ; " , - , -:I :, . I 
- , , , -
I I I , _ 1 - , I .
I I
, " 
''. , ' : l ":', 4., 
_ ,. _ , 
, , .
'' I 
'. - , _ 
, I 
-
I 11
:-., . I . - . -1 I , , ,,, - , , ': , - - '. ,( - - ; 
. I 1- 1 I ,,,';,- " .1 , - , - , , I 41 1 1 '", I 
I -
_. - - - - _ , ,.. , , 
, '''' _" I I - T It, . - I - I , I I 
I . , I I 1
.i -
#, 
, , 
21 1, , -
I " 
, 
, I .., I I ''
_14r W1 _" .,4 - , " I- " - - I - ., I , , '' 11 1 I 'l , , I ; % 1, , , I I 1 - I", I I , :, I ", I -
7, - , I - ", '. , I'll .." 
, , , - , , ,' , , 1- .: I I I , c" I'll I : , 1, , I I 11 
,.: l . ' - , ' " ' " 1, -I 1-11 ) - I- ,, I. 
- . , , , - " I I 
_. I I I I I
. ... I I , I - - I ", , " , '_ '*' L , , ., , , , " -1 .
I - 7 , I
, , . ' 
' 
. I .1. -, I 
: , 
? 
, , - , .. 11 
1 1 :
"I' -;l,,,,:, , , , I I -11 _ ; ;;- ' 
, ' T ,:',, , ,,, - * ' ' -
I
I 
- r
I I . I . I 
I .I. . ,f, - ,'", - I , , : .:- - -,- w 1r, - l g -
-' ,:1 't u - a s
i) ... 11 , " 
'U 4" , 
- , a , 
' ' 'a e :, I- I 
.11 - I I
, R I - I "o. klbo-:H ,iht 
:, ,-, Biol: , : tf,'' A e's
, , -sI ,- 
, _ I I-~ I -
.-Lt in e ,__ . -
o I
N -:'4 ' L , ';., A , 1:_ ; 6gy 
7 '' i" a .,,,, ,,
j., _ -,:_," ,,- , .C, ,7, ,,, ,",' ' ',. ' .' --, ,_ ". 'i _ ._ '_._,_ I , 11 -tl 
, I- -- -"'. , ,:--, -, " -, , , ,- .p'- :,- -;,. I l . -, 1, I
-, i -,_: ''"., _ ::,!., :-,!-; 
,_ -, ---: 7 , _, , L I I 
- ,, , "'le"., 
, _- 
o '' I 
,
11, 1-yv- 1, . -, 
, -
, M , 
, -I '- .1 I - I", I I 1. I ,.- 
I .. I".. I 
, 
I , : -
- , ' ' , , 
- ,
'-',*".i , -, _ I - I I lv- -__1 , 
I., , bxicQ , bstuarine , -, - :, 
, ,,'lli- -.* - - . I~ $ , " .:' !' : , ,',' ', t, 6 "'G "U'lf '
, , , ,; - I 1'-.T.:l:l 11 , r ',_ , , I 
- -r,.&F p "_- -,.: _ , -
, , , ,- CQ 
-liX __ !l I I - , "'I.1v o
3" - -, 
" , . , , , 
,
't...'' _ '' ,,O 1,1, ,-.,, _ '-'_. --". .
i ir - - -,'-: , ,, , ,_, .- i'': ., .. .'' , . .
" . - '. " ., . _ '-- :, ,,- _ 
, 
- I I 
i"
,Clll_ '' 
1'1 ll; 
, z 
-" 
-_ 
, 
- , 
l?, I 
-
I -
"Ill -
11 
, 
'F
-, .1 r ,. 
1, _ __,4", 
., 
.1 p _.,
" ., i, l - t '' ., I 
" - ' - " ', "' -
1 7_, - , ,, ',,,', - , _ z .
'_ -1 , , I il I ,
!,% ;,k , '_ - - ;-ll I -
.11 I I -_ ;" , , -! _ ,_ ;. - ,',' . t- , '. ,.'' 
1, -ll 'j!_ I I ''._, 1, .. 1, I I I I I I I 
"I
,- , : -i ," I - ". :,; '' .":, Ll - k -A u , g 'u s'Af ,, -1 9 7 1 ' ' p":. '' .I-,- . ,_ 
_ - ,. : .., , I .. -J - I , - ,
1 1, -_ _ , I " , 1, , I 
I I .1 I -1 , "'':, , ; I . I . - ,-
.1 1 .. --, -
'11:- , ", " 
I .'' I I I
--, 
1. 1, 
I I -
I 1, 
_;:_ -, 
, .1 1,
_ 11 .I I". , %,. ,. ,::", -, --1 _ , :4 , t , ':, '.' ', _ ., 
- I I 1. " . :,
.1 1 1 1 , a 
i ,*_i _, : , 
t !, , '' ; , _ _ , ,
11 , __ I - , , ",, ,: , .,';-" .-,,. , , 
, .: ,; .1, , , 1, 1 . -1. 
': .
.t',,' ; :lr": I ' 'I 1. 1, ,- i" ' , -,, , , , , , , , , _, ' , , , I , ' ' 
- I I , ,
i, " _ , - - 4 , ,, __ 1 -
: , ? il I _,' '_' I - -I I -, ,,,,, *1 ,- I
1 1 , 1 1 
1, , 
,' ' 
.1 -
, 
-, 1. 
I.. 
11 
,. I 
1 1 .." ', 
I -
,,,
-- , - I " '. 
- - , 
- __ t,, ._ 
I , ._ " o ''. , , 1,
., , , ,- ___ , - -. '' , " -
. I I
, , -, , . , , ' 4 _,; , 1. '.1 - -1 I " 1 I 4 I I- -, ,_ ,, - . , l f -_ 1 1 , . , 11 v " ' ' ' f , 1 - ' I , ;", 1 , ' , - l I .
" ', _, ,.- _ , , ,,,: ,',-, ' , -
I , 1,
1" ,- , - , .111, ., -l - , , _: , , -, I ,'','. ., - , -1- I . ,, _ "I .:;- __ , I I, , ,- _ I , ' -" I , , ", - . - ! .. .... ._. _ '' 2 , _ - I-
-, ' ' 'l- - -, ' ,", -e,:" "',;,t ' 7" 1-1-_" . , I I "l! .. I I , . .i- -. -, ,, , I I- ", 
-- 
_ 
, , ,,:- 
.." -- 
" __ 
_ , 
,_ 
, 
f , 
, 
, -, 
, -
, I , 
, _, _,- 
-_ , 
- I 
I 
1 11 
'. 
I 
I -
1,
"--, - , 1' , -,','', .?r,-''-", ,."- -, ''" -"-" l- . , , -
'_ , r ,_ ,,- '_ -, , , -, , - '' 
. I ll l
,,,,, -! , .' ' ' ' . " , -, -_ i , I 
liI- -ly l- 
- , , 
'. , 
I... _ , 1. 
-
, -, - _-., 11 I 
.: d ' 
11
, , ' - ' , v , , 11
--1_4 , , '' 1 I Z_ " ; -i'l . ab 
a'm --
'' !&V I - "Ol , rll_ -- 
- ' '
I., I " O i -0 -1 I I ' 1-1 
, I I -.- ;,:, , 
-b
1.7 '-'. lA l st, iak( lfle "":",
I .llb, , ,, _4 , I . 11 "a" - - 1. -! - 'D e st r ip 't io n ,.. 
-,a ,',, .e , .t . -
-1: &- - l _ I", ;11_11'_, ;.: ,C H, ,;, ., . 6 f I ':"N 
, * I , -r ,ce- -J ibh -I I ' ",
. I , : I _ - I . ,. ,' ".", , j%:: V'I",_;_,:" '- -f'a I.- -11, I , ,,,--_,, -_ __, , , I - ,,,, . I y I
; l - ., 1 : N ': - -, 1, - , kl l , '. I ''. .I I I Is , ,, , , .,ff , - -1 11. , - - - _ ., , 
I., , 'i 11 -,-,' I,- ,
,r,, - , .',',z ,- -,,-, ,. ',, , , , ,,-- - '' . 1. ,, , -*, , - , - I - I r4l. I 11
11 -- I . " I - !,, : .-,. . _ - ;,- , o ' , -1 " , - _ z'-il .; . I. .,: It , 1-o _ .- I I I
,,', ,',. ,,' -,'', _, ''.: 1 - "- __ , !,,"_"..' ;, , -- " bi --wlvd -0 It bff 
, M exm o , e , t VY
, . "; :,; -
- , -
r in e , 11- 11,;"Z_:, , " , -, " , -1. I . 1, - I I I
- -, , - I i 111, are'&s ,.,7,__c'o_ perat 
. , -.-u I -inven 
*,: I I I I .
%, . ";',,,,- --_lj- ,-, :,,-,, , -F"; """, ,.'' , , _- ; "- ? ' I 'l 11 ,,z , :, , 
- 1; -- - ., -'-- 
, 
I 
I 
-0 ,% 
: , -,, 
---. , , 
" .
", - -11 I 
i , , . .. - .
I~ _. , I 1-1 I I
I -,, '' , ", - , ,-,, -?.*,- i:-_, ,,;,- ' - _- , , 1. I I '- _ 
- , -, ,,, ,. _. : , , ,% ,'' I i - - 11,
1, , ,_ 1 : -, , - , , -
, I ,- -,, , , ''I I I , . I
--t ., , ; -_ " -
, I I - - I I "I,
''. - - , , , !,, -, , 
,: , ''
, , , I-~ , , - ,!" y-,. " -, - ,' '! .'_',!, _ .''_., , - , 
1:1 - .; --., 11 I
, 
, 11 - .1 
I , _ .
, - -
, ,;'% :1 _, 
_
,4 -- .I -, -, .
". -f ,, I ' ." 1 ., I ': -- , -
1: 1 I li , ,:- I - I "
, , - I . ., I -Z- 1! I 1* - , ", _ " , - _, -I I 
I ;
-1 ,,, 
,T J 'T" -,u 
g u s. 11. 
" -
, I 
11-- , 11 
.C -1
,, ,, , I I 
, , 1) 
I AA , 1 
t -'..I ,9 ,7 , 
l "'', ,",",, ' ,, ''' 
:, , '.", ,,,, t" ; 
.I_ 1 , 
- ',"-,', -
, '' 
, i :- " " , 
_ - , 
I _ , , .,;, , , - , -
, . i _, ,,, , , , ., " , ,. , , 
. . - il . , 
11 I 
. , , " 
". _ , , .
, . , " , 
I I', I 11
11. q 7'' , ., '' - , .. , . . , , I . " , , . - . , 
: , -,l ,I 1,' ,- , ,,, , - , , - . . -,, .4e, 
l I ". I I -
I
, . a I , , , I'll , , , - , . , , , 
" I , , , - I . - , , , : I
, - t , , t r 1 11. - '. ' , - , , I . , '-' , - ,;t, , 1 7- ,,,- , , , p ,- " ., . . I , . I,:" _11 1, , - I , , ,l -, , I I I i , I , I j 1, ,, f , , , , '' " " , * 
'.
, , - , " - I , , . . - ,14 -I 4:, 1;1'1 , - , , ,_ " ,f , , I _1 , I 1, I , ''I,, 
. , - ,,', , - , , , , 
-,11, , -,- , ,,- -;, , , -' -, " , ":, l , 'I" , , ,i ! _,.' ,, W, _;_, , 2, - -- ",,Zz" 
I , . _ I . -- ;
-- - , - - " ,,,." , _:" '; . ;_, '-,',,-,,"t vl ! , 04 * , '' 
, " 'i. " , , li 1 1' ,
1. I 1,;l _ ,,. 1''. ", , l!'La-., , _'_ - - ":" 
' '' _,-,;:'_'., _ -1 I _-l .1 I., - I -
% " ', . _,- ,;-, ! ''. " !: ,- " ,;, )" , - , , , "I , " "T 5 - , ,:, I 
, .t . , ,
I 
I 
, 
_ 
, 
l 
-
7 .
_, 
,.t,, 
1, 
;, 
., 
, ,, 
p 
;.lf 
, 
v_ 
;181',,,, 
,!, 
.- 
,- ! 
- ,.'. 
, 
_ ,' 
-
4--,,,,,l 
't'. 
,,,, 
-
-, 
, 
-,;"."- 
:-, 
: ...... 
.5 
i'. ,,, 
" " 
_,, 
, 
_*"",. 
-
" 
,,:i' 
-
"", 
;