GULF INTRACOASTAL 

WATERWAY ECONOMIC 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

October 2021

Report Prepared for:

Delta Regional Authority

236 Sharkey Avenue, Suite 400 | Clarksdale, MS 38614

Report Prepared by:

Authors:

J. Reid Cummings, D.B.A.

Ermanno Affuso, Ph.D.

Kevin D. White, Ph.D.

D. Alex Beebe, Ph.D.

Steven R. Schulze, Ph.D.

Jana Stupavsky, M.B.A.
Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 7-8

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 9-16

1.1 Delta Regional Authority .......................................................................................................9

1.2. Project ....................................................................................................................................9

1.3. Methodologies ................................................................................................................. 9-10

1.4. Black Belt Region and Waterways ................................................................................ 10-11

1.5. Black Belt Economy ....................................................................................................... 12-13

1.6. Black Belt Industries and Occupations ......................................................................... 14-16

2. Economic Impact Assessment ......................................................................................... 17-37

2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 17

2.2. Flow of Economic Impacts ............................................................................................ 17-18

2.3. Literature ...................................................................................................................... 18-20

2.4. Data and Methodology ................................................................................................. 20-25

2.5. Black Belt Total Requirements and Import Gaps ......................................................... 25-27

2.6. Clusters ........................................................................................................................ 27-34

2.7. Import Gaps Economic Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 34-37

3. Environmental Housing Impact Assessment .................................................................. 38-47

3.1. Introduction and Literature ................................................................................................ 38

3.2. Data .............................................................................................................................. 38-40

3.3. Methodology ................................................................................................................ 40-41

3.4. Results .......................................................................................................................... 42-45

3.5. Discussion .................................................................................................................... 46-47

4. Wastewater and Infrastructure Assessment .................................................................. 48-81

4.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 48

4.2. Literature ........................................................................................................................... 48

4.3. Data .............................................................................................................................. 49-59

4.4. Drinking Water .............................................................................................................. 60-71

4.5. Natural Gas and Propane ............................................................................................. 72-73

4.6. Broadband .................................................................................................................... 74-77

4.7. Cellular Wireless ...........................................................................................................78-80

4.8. Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 81
5. Watershed and Ecosystem Assessment ........................................................................ 82-104

5.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 82

5.2. Literature ...................................................................................................................... 82-90

5.3. Data and Methodology ................................................................................................. 91-92

5.4. Results ........................................................................................................................ 92-102

5.5. Discussion ................................................................................................................ 102-104

6. Geographic Information Systems Mapping ......................................................................... 105

6.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 105

6.2. Literature .......................................................................................................................... 105

6.3. Data and Methodology .................................................................................................... 105

6.4. Alabama Black Belt Digital Atlas Hyperlink .................................................................... 105

7. Data Visualization .......................................................................................................... 106-108

7.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 106

7.2. Literature .......................................................................................................................... 106

7.3. Data and Methodology ..................................................................................................... 107

7.4. Dashboards ............................................................................................................... 107-108

8. Strategic Recommendations ........................................................................................ 109-114

8.1. SWOT Analysis ................................................................................................................. 109

8.2. Black Belt SWOT Analysis Summary ....................................................................... 109-110

8.3. Weaknesses .............................................................................................................. 110-111

8.4. Opportunities .................................................................................................................... 111

8.5. Threats ...................................................................................................................... 111-112

8.6. Strategic Recommendations .................................................................................... 112-114

References ......................................................................................................................... 115-119

Appendix A – Alabama Black Belt Recreational and Tourism Opportunities .................. 120-122

Appendix B – Technology and Highest Speeds Offered by ISPs ...................................... 123-128
List of Figures

Figure 1 Alabama Rivers .......................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2 Black Belt Workforce Participation and Covid-19 ..................................................................... 6

Figure 3 Flow of Economic Impacts ....................................................................................................... 11

Figure 4 Wastewater Service Areas ...................................................................................................... 54

Figure 5 AT&T LTE Voice Availability ...................................................................................................... 71

Figure 6 T-Mobile LTE Voice Availability ............................................................................................... 71

Figure 7 Verizon LTE Voice Availability ................................................................................................. 72

Figure 8 AT&T Data Availability .............................................................................................................. 72

Figure 9 T-Mobile LTE Data Availability ................................................................................................ 73

Figure 10 Verizon LTE Data Availability ................................................................................................. 73

Figure 11 2019 National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for Alabama Black Belt ............................... 78

Figure 12 USGS Subregion (HUC-4) Boundaries Covering the Alabama Black Belt Region ............. 79

Figure 13 USGS Sub-Basin (HUC-8) Boundaries Covering the Alabama Black Belt Region ............. 80

Figure 14 Highest Designated Uses for Assessed Waters and Waterbodies from ADEM, 

as part of CWA Section 303(d).................................................................................................. 82

Figure 15 Waterways and Waterbodies Assessed by ADEM, as part of CWA Section 303(d) ......... 83

Figure 16 Causes of Impairment in the Black Belt Region from 98 Entries in the 

2020 ADEM 303(d) list .............................................................................................................. 84

Figure 17 Sources of Impairment in the Black Belt Region from the 98 Entries in the 

2020 ADEM 303(d) list .............................................................................................................. 85

Figure 18 Relative comparison of watershed and ecosystem health in Black Belt Counties ........... 99 
List of Tables

Table 1 Black Belt Economy Summary Statistics .................................................................................. 5

Table 2 Black Belt Workforce ................................................................................................................... 6

Table 3 Top 25 Industries: Ranked by Total Jobs .................................................................................. 7

Table 4 Top 25 Industries: Ranked by # of New Jobs, 2016-2021 ....................................................... 8

Table 5 Top 25 Occupations: Ranked by # of New Jobs, 2016-2021 .................................................... 9

Table 6 Black Belt Waterway & Logistics Cluster ................................................................................. 17

Table 7 Black Belt Recreation & Tourism Cluster ................................................................................. 18

Table 8 Top 25 Industries: Ranked by # of New Jobs, 2021-2026 ..................................................... 21

Table 9 Top 25 Occupations: Ranked by # of New Jobs, 2021-2026 .................................................. 22

Table 10 Top 25 Industries: Ranked by Total Requirements ............................................................... 23

Table 11 Top 25 Industries: Ranked by Import Gap .............................................................................. 24

Table 12 Industry Profile: Waterway & Logistics Cluster Ranked by # of New Jobs, 

2021-2026 ................................................................................................................................. 25

Table 13 Industry Profile: Recreation & Tourism Cluster Ranked by # of 

Forecasted New Jobs, 2021-2026 ........................................................................................... 26

Table 14 Top 25 Waterway & Logistics Cluster Industries Ranked by Total Requirements,

2021-2026 ................................................................................................................................. 27

Table 15 Top 25 Recreation & Tourism Cluster Industries Ranked by Total Requirements,

2021-2026 ................................................................................................................................. 28

Table 16 Top 25 Waterway & Logistics Raked by Import Gaps, 2021-2026 ...................................... 29

Table 17 Top 25 Recreation & Tourism Cluster Industries Ranked by Import Gaps, 2021-2025 ..... 30

Table 18 Black Belt Waterway & Logistics Cluster Industries with $2 Million+ Import Gaps ............ 31

Table 19 Black Belt Recreation & Tourism Cluster Industries with $2 Million+ Import Gaps ........... 31

Table 20 Economic Impact of Import Gaps .......................................................................................... 32

Table 21 County-Level Waterway & Logistics Cluster Industry Import Gap Economic Impacts ....... 34

Table 22 County-Level Recreation & Tourism Cluster Industry Economic Impacts ........................... 36

Table 23 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................................... 39

Table 24 Endogenous Switching Model Results (FIML Estimates) ..................................................... 44

Table 25 Counterfactual Analysis ......................................................................................................... 47

Table 26 Black Belt Region Wastewater Service Providers by County ............................................... 50

Table 27 Percentage of County Populations with Wastewater Service .............................................. 53

Table 28 Percentage of County Areas with Wastewater Service ........................................................ 53

Table 29 Service Provider Flow Rates .................................................................................................. 55
Table 30 Shortest Distances from Wastewater Service Areas to Nearest Major Waterways ............ 56

Table 31 Drinking Water Service Providers with EPA Service Population Data ................................. 58

Table 32 Drinking Water Service Providers with ADEM Service Population Data ............................. 60

Table 33 Percentage of County Populations with Drinking Water Service (EPA data) ...................... 63

Table 34 Percentage of County Populations with Drinking Water Service (ADEM data) .................. 64

Table 35 Black Belt Region Natural Gas Providers by County ............................................................ 65

Table 36 Black Belt Region Propane Providers by County .................................................................. 66

Table 37 Broadband Coverage with Speeds of ≥ 4/1 Mbps, Including Satellite Providers ............... 67

Table 38 Broadband Coverage with Speeds of ≥ 4/1 Mbps, Excluding Satellite Providers ............... 68

Table 39 Broadband Coverage with Speeds of ≥ 25/3 Mbps, Including Satellite Providers ............. 69

Table 40 Broadband Coverage with Speeds of ≥ 25/3 Mbps, Excluding Satellite Providers ............ 70

Table 41 Land Use/Land Cover for the Alabama Black Belt .............................................................. 77

Table 42 2019 NLCD Land Use/Land Cover for the Black Belt Region (in percent) .......................... 88

Table 43 Reduced NLCD Land Use/Land Cover Categories for the Black Belt Region 

(in percent) ................................................................................................................................. 89

Table 44 Land Use/Land Cover Scores for the Black Belt by Aggregate Score ................................ 90

Table 45 Designated Use Tier for Black Belt Waterways (in percent) ................................................ 91

Table 46 Designated Use Tier for Black Belt Waterbodies (in percent) .............................................. 92

Table 47 Black Belt Region County Scores for Designated Waterway Uses ...................................... 93

Table 48 Black Belt Region County Scores for Designated Waterbody Uses ..................................... 94

Table 49 Aggregate Designated Use Scores for Black Belt Region Counties .................................... 95

Table 50 Percentages of Impaired and Category 1 (i.e. unimpaired) 

Waterways and Waterbodies ..................................................................................................... 96

Table 51 Aggregate Designated Use Scores ........................................................................................ 97

Table 52 Category Scores and Total Scores for Black Belt Counties ................................................... 98
7

Executive Summary

The Delta Regional Authority contracted with the South Alabama Center for Business Analytics, Real Estate, 

and Economic Development to assess the economic importance of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway within the Alabama 

Black Belt region. Our analysis included four methodologies. Economic Impact Assessment examined industries linked 

to the waterway and the movement of people and freight and people. Additionally, it assessed new recreation and 

tourism economic development opportunities. Environmental Housing Impact Assessment examined the impact of 

housing proximity to Black Belt waterways and waterbodies. Wastewater and Infrastructure Assessment examined 

utility systems and capacities and their relationship to future Black Belt economic growth. Watershed and Ecosystem 

Assessment examined existing Black Belt land uses and water quality of the Black Belt’s waterways and waterbodies. 

We supplemented data reporting by creating a regional Digital Atlas and through multiple dynamic, user-interactive 

electronic Dashboards.

The Black Belt regional economy is small relative to Alabama, comprising only 5.2% of the state’s gross regional product. Of the 993 industries within the Black Belt, we included 31 in an industry cluster focused on waterway 

maintenance and operations, and related warehousing, distribution, logistics, and transportation functions. We also 

included 43 industries in an industry cluster focused on recreation and tourism. We identified multiple Import Gaps 

within each cluster that could reasonably be filled. We conducted economic impact analyses of a range of Import Gap 

scenarios at both the regional and individual county levels for both clusters. We reported total potential economic 

impacts from filling Import Gaps that support 725 jobs, add $25.3 million in wages, create $34.5 million in new value, 

produce $86.4 million in new revenues, and generate $11.1 million in new state and local taxes.

People living in the Black Belt consider tributaries to the Black Belt’s waterways and waterbodies as an amenity. We reported empirical results of a counterfactual analysis that properties in census tracts crossed or adjacent to 

the Alabama or Tombigbee Rivers could depreciate by approximately 22% compared to the counterfactual, or alternate, case if the same properties were located in areas with only minor tributaries. Most importantly, we found that 

properties located in areas with only minor tributaries could depreciate by almost 34% if they were counterfactually 

situated in the proximity of the two major waterways. Results suggest that Black Belt residents perceive the proximity 

to minor tributaries as an economic-financial benefit, equating to approximately $29,000 per household, and that 

average aggregate economicfinancial benefits are potentially as high as $722,512. We also found that the potential 

social cost of water quality degradation is $5,065 per mile of impaired waterway per household.

We collected data on the availabilities of multiple types of utility infrastructure services that impact the quality 

of life of Black Belt residents and the ability of the region to support new and expanding businesses. The availability 

of drinking water, wastewater systems, natural gas and propane, broadband, and cellular wireless service were 

examined for all counties in the region. Data indicate that drinking water and natural gas or propane are accessible 

throughout the area. Gaps in cellular data services are confined to relatively small areas. While affordable and reliable 

cable and DSL broadband services are generally only available in the region’s few urban areas, broadband internet 

service is available only to other areas via far less reliable satellite services. The region would benefit from expanding 

broadband services, which are critical to education, business, and industry. Municipally managed wastewater service 

is limited to the few small towns in the region. We reported that only 50% of Black Belt residents have access to 

municipal managed wastewater services, indicating a need for municipal system expansions or upgrades and decentralized wastewater cluster systems of individual onsite wastewater treatment systems.
8

Clean and unpolluted surface waters are essential resources that support economic development and supply 

the water needed for personal consumption, crop irrigation, industrial processes, thermoelectric cooling, domestic 

water, and recreational and tourism growth. We prioritized counties that provide maximum opportunities for economic 

growth based on watershed and ecosystem health by assessing three county-level metrics: land use and land cover, 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management designated uses for surface waters and the federal government’s Section 303(d) listings of impaired waters. We ranked counties according to the quality of each metric and 

compared aggregate data between counties to reveal environmental strengths relative to one another. We reported 

that all Black Belt counties offer desirable environmental qualities regarding land use and land cover, designated uses, 

and degrees of water quality impairment. Results indicate that Wilcox, Choctaw, Greene, and Clarke Counties offer 

several miles of unimpaired surface waters with high designated use tiers and little land disturbance. These counties 

and others throughout the Black Belt region could provide enhanced economic development leveraging the region’s 

many high-quality surface waters.
9

1.1 DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

The U.S. Congress established the Delta Regional Authority (DRA) in 2000 as a regional economic 

development entity. Functioning as a partnership between federal, state, and local governments, the DRA oversees 

federal infrastructure investments in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and 

Tennessee. Each state’s Governor serves on the DRA’s Board of Directors. Community participation throughout the 

region is coordinated through 45 development districts, which serves 252 counties and approximately 10 million 

people. Moving the Delta Forward, the DRA’s strategic plan (DRA, 2016), identifies three investment goals that 

underscore its mission:

1. Improved Workforce Competitiveness: Advance the productivity and economic competitiveness 

 of the Delta workforce.

2. Strengthened Infrastructure: Strengthen the Delta’s physical, digital, and capital connections 

 to the global economy.

3. Increased Community Capacity: Facilitate local capacity building within Delta communities, 

 organizations, businesses, and individuals.

1.2. PROJECT

Recognizing economic decline in many of Alabama’s rural communities located on highly trafficked, 

commercially navigable waterways within the 20-county Alabama Black Belt region,1 DRA leadership seeks ways 

to steer federal investment into projects that strengthen the region’s connections to the global economy. In March 

2021, the DRA issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide input and recommendations into how to leverage the 

commercially navigable waterways connecting to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) system to stimulate economic development within the region and improve the overall quality of life for the 388,520 Black Belt residents. The 

RFP calls explicitly for investigating “the economic impact that commercially navigable waterways and tributaries 

connecting to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway have on the Alabama Black Belt’s economic competitiveness and their 

ability to facilitate sustainable job growth through viable commercial use and continuous, reliable navigation.”2

1.3. METHODOLOGIES

To complete the Project, the South Alabama Center for Business Analytics, Real Estate, and Economic 

Development (SABRE), housed within the Mitchell College of Business at the University of South Alabama (USA), 

combined six methodologies, as follows:

1. Economic Impact Assessment: Evaluates how changes in spending move through an economy, 

 revealing information about local industries operating within it. An economic impact assessment 

 examines the spending of industries that supply goods and services necessary for operation or 

 production. This spending results in increased personal earnings, which in turn spurs increased 

 personal spending. The economic impact cannot be reduced to a single number. Instead, jobs, wages, 

 new value creation, revenues, and taxes must be considered.

2. Environmental Housing Impact Assessment: Evaluates the environmental quality of waterways 

 based on a housing hedonic model, a revealed preferences method that uses the housing market 

 as a surrogate market where the property is assumed to be a bundle of goods purchased by homebuyers 

1. Introduction

1 Alabama Black Belt counties include Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Choctaw, Clarke, Conecuh, Dallas, Escambia, Greene, Hale, Lowndes, 

Macon, Marengo, Monroe, Perry, Pickens, Russell, Sumter, Washington, and Wilcox.

2 March 2021 DRA RFP, page 3.
10

 that include housing, neighborhood, and environmental attributes. The analysis provides a quantitative 

 measure, in monetary value, of the external costs associated with the current state of the study area’s 

 waterways and waterbodies for households and the region.

3. Wastewater and Utility Infrastructure Assessment: Evaluates those areas with inadequate or 

 non-existent wastewater management systems and utility infrastructure. Because economic growth 

 depends on an area’s ability to provide critical infrastructure, improper or inadequate wastewater 

 management poses dangerous public health and environmental risks to a community. It also serves 

 as a deterrent for retaining and attracting industry and commerce. For waterway-dependent 

 communities, inadequate or worse, untreated wastewater will increase economic decline and public 

 health and environmental risks, reducing the overall quality of life and diminishing economic 

 development opportunities.

4. Watershed and Ecosystem Assessment: Evaluates and ranks watersheds and ecosystems and their 

 abilities to support robust ecosystem services and ecotourism activities, as well as efforts to stimulate 

 economic development. This process is critical to initiatives designed to promote the use of waterways as 

 recreational outlets for activities such as fishing, swimming, boating, canoeing, kayaking, and the like, all 

 of which are wholly dependent upon the quality of the water itself.

5. Geographic Information Systems Mapping: GIS mapping creates, combines, analyzes, and incorpo

 rates complex data layers to develop comprehensive, multi-layered graphical interface maps to serve as a 

 sort of regional atlas containing physical and human features, waterways and tributary systems, ports, 

 land uses and transportation routes, recreation and tourism outlets, soil conditions, and demographic, 

 environmental, and climatological data.

6. Data Visualization: Presents complex data analysis in ways that are easy for non-researchers to under

 stand. SABRE is highly skilled at converting large, complex datasets and analysis into dynamic, visually 

 appealing, electronic, interactive dashboards using the Tableau data visualization platform.3 Dashboards 

 allow users to move through data over time and at different levels of granularity. End users can easily 

 integrate dashboards into future policy initiative documents, funding proposals, and stakeholder 

 presentations.

1.4. BLACK BELT REGION AND WATERWAYS

“Depending on the criteria employed to characterize the area, the Black Belt of Alabama, named for its dark, 

rich soils, contains roughly between 12 and 21 counties in the central part of the state” (Winemiller, 2009). For the 

Project, we include the twenty DRA-specified counties: Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Choctaw, Clarke, Conecuh, Dallas, 

Escambia, Greene, Hale, Lowndes, Macon, Marengo, Monroe, Perry, Pickens, Russell, Sumter, Washington, and Wilcox. Alabama’s Black Belt is part of a much larger crescent-shaped area known as the Southern Black Belt stretching 

from Maryland to Texas. Rivers and streams from five large river basins run through the Black Belt—the Sipsey-Warrior, Coosa-Tallapoosa, Alabama-Cahaba, Tombigbee, and Chattahoochee. The Claiborne, Miller’s Ferry, and Robert 

F. Henry locks and dams lie on the Alabama River within the Black Belt. The Alabama and the Tombigbee Rivers are 

both navigable, commercially viable waterways. At Demopolis, the Tombigbee River joins the Black Warrior River. It 

runs to Clarke County, where it joins the Alabama River to form the Mobile River, which flows to the Gulf of Mexico. 

The Alabama River flows west until connecting with the Cahaba River, the state’s longest river (Figure 1).

3 Tableau Public data visualization software available for free at www.tableau.com.
11

Figure 1 Alabama Rivers
12

1.5. BLACK BELT ECONOMY

Of the 388,520 people living in the Black Belt, 52% are female, 48% are male, 51% are black, 43% are 

white, and 40% are aged 50-plus (Table 1). Population growth has trended down in recent years, and forecasts 

expect a continued near-term decline of 3.8% by 2026. Gross Regional Product (GRP) totaled $12.5 billion in 2020.

Table 1 Black Belt Economy Summary Statistics 
13

The most populous county in the Black Belt is Russell County, home to Phenix City, with 58,237 residents. 

The least populous county is Greene County, with a population of 7,990. Over the next five years, the most significant population decline is projected to occur in Dallas County, home to Selma, down 10.54%. Only Pickens County, 

home to Pickensville, the northernmost Alabama town on the Tombigbee River, is expected to see an increased 

population, growing by 2.68%. Median incomes within the Black Belt range from a low of $23,400 in Perry County 

to a high of $42,400 in Russell County. The region’s most prominent labor force is in Russell County, with 23,368 

labor force participants; the smallest is in Wilcox County, with 2,826. The top three counties ranked by the number 

of jobs are Russell County, with 15,955, Escambia County, and Dallas County. Education appears valued in the 

Black Belt, with 39% high school attainment, 43% with some college or higher, and 15% with undergraduate or 

graduate degrees. The Black Belt’s civilian workforce is 152,669, which is 67% of the population (Table 2) and the 

unemployment rate is 5.3%. Black Belt workforce participation fell immediately after the Covid-19 pandemic began, 

but in recent months has shown improvement (Figure 2).

Table 2 Black Belt Workforce

Figure 2 Black Belt Workforce Participation and Covid-19
14

1.6. BLACK BELT INDUSTRIES AND OCCUPATIONS

The top five 2020 Black Belt industries ranked by jobs per industry were government, manufacturing, retail 

trade, health care, and accommodation and food services (Table 3). The top five industries ranked by forecasted new jobs created from 2016-2021 were services for the elderly and persons with disabilities, newsprint mills, 

elementary and secondary schools, commercial and industrial machinery repair, and industrial truck, tractor, trailer, 

and stacker machinery manufacturing (Table 4). Within those industries, the top five occupations ranked by the 

number of new jobs created from 2016-2021 were retail salespersons, food preparation workers, paper goods 

machine setters and operators, middle school teachers, and restaurant cooks (Table 5).

Table 3 Top 25 Industries: Ranked by Total Jobs
15

Table 4 Top 25 Industries: Ranked by # of New Jobs, 2016-2021
16

Table 5 Top 25 Occupations: Ranked by # of New Jobs, 2016-2021
17

2.1. INTRODUCTION

Economic impact assessment refers to processes that trace how changes in spending, such as business 

expansions or closures, industrial or infrastructural developments, natural and manufactured disasters, sporting 

events, conventions, and many other economic events move through an economy. Economic impact studies generate large amounts of information about local industry employment, wages, value creation, revenues, and taxes.

An economic impact analysis looks at the industries that supply it with the goods and services necessary 

for its operation or production, which in turn spurs spending by the firms supplying those goods and services. Increases in labor dollars also have economic effects because increased labor dollars typically translate into increased 

personal earnings and, as a result, spur increased personal spending. Economic impact analysis provides a measurement of the impacts of employee spending within the study area employed by the impacted industries.

It is impossible to track the accumulation of business-to-business and labor purchases until the complete 

removal from the economy of the resultant spending of the original sale by imports, savings, taxes, and profits. 

Correctly structured economic impact analysis studies reveal significant clues that economic development officials 

and policymakers can use to frame strategies and develop arguments that advocate for the reallocation of capital to 

new economic development projects.

2.2. FLOW OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Economic activity contributes to the local and state economy by generating business revenue for the local 

and state firms that provide goods and services. In turn, these firms provide employment and income to individuals 

and pay taxes to various governments. Studying the diagram (Figure 3) shows how the impact of economic activity 

flows through local and state economies and makes it quickly understood that the economic impact could not be 

reduced to a single number, but instead, must be considered in terms of multiple impacts, namely, the impacts of 

jobs, wages, value-added, revenues, and taxes. 

Figure 3 Flow of Economic Impacts

2. Economic Impact Assessment

Flow of Economic Impacts Generated 

by Economic Activity

Revenue

Retained Earnings 

& Investments

Local Purchases

Re-Spending Induced Jobs Indirect Jobs

State & Local Taxes

Payroll

Direct Jobs
18

Economic impact analysis is a complex undertaking, and the terminology used can be confusing. Input-output 

(I-O) models attempt to describe an array of economic transactions between various sectors in a defined economy 

for a given period, typically a year. These models provide researchers with estimates of the economic multipliers involved and support a detailed decomposition of those multipliers. I-O models are functions of final industry production 

demands. As one industry’s economic activity spurs demand for production by another industry, multipliers determine 

how the affected industries respond to each other’s demand and production functions. The multiplier effect is the 

additional economic impact created because of the organization’s direct economic impact.

Value added is expressed in dollars and refers to the difference between total revenues generated by economic activity and the costs of goods and services necessary for economic activity to occur. The direct effect includes 

all direct effects the organization has on the regional area due to its operations. These items include direct organizational and employee spending. The indirect effect captures the impact of local industries buying goods and services 

from other local industries. The cycle of spending works its way through the supply chain until all money leaks from 

the local economy. The impacts are calculated by applying direct effects to the multipliers. The induced effect is the 

response by an economy to an initial change that occurs through re-spending of income received by components of 

value-added, recognizing that labor income, which includes employee-compensation and proprietor components of 

value-added, may result in leakage from the local economy (because workers employed in one area may live and 

spend their earnings in another area), as money is recirculated through household spending patterns.

Since its introduction (Stone, 1948), social accounting aggregation has morphed into the Social Accounting 

Matrix. This national accounting matrix considers the interrelationships of income and transfer flows between firms 

in industries amongst all economic sectors. It treats the distribution of income identically to patterns of interindustry 

production transactions.

2.3. LITERATURE

The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) is a 1,100 mile commercially navigable inland waterway system 

running from St. Marks, Florida, through the Alabama Black Belt to Brownsville, Texas (Grossardt, Bray, and Burton, 

2014). The GIWW is part of the national inland waterway system that includes over 12,000 miles of navigable waterways, operated and maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Due to its strategic coastal location, the 

GIWW is a vital element of the national inland water system. Because the U.S. Gulf Coast hosts 45% of U.S. oil refining 

and 51% of natural gas processing capacities, the GIWW’s location along the energy-rich Gulf of Mexico offers a clear 

competitive advantage. The nation’s third-busiest inland waterway system, nearly 285,000 vessels each year move 

more than 110 million tons of cargo along the GIWW (Texas DOT, 2019). 

There are numerous studies of ports and port systems, some of which include ports within the GIWW system. 

However, because our focus is on economic development opportunities for all rural communities within the Black Belt, 

most of which have no ports, we exclude port studies from our review. Instead, we limit our review to previous studies 

examining the economic importance of the GIWW. The primary purpose of our literature review is to inform methodology wherever possible and to support our adaptations and exceptions as necessary depending on data availability. 

Moving large freight cargoes by water is cost-effective. Likewise, constructing and maintaining navigable 

waterways is a less expensive alternative to the development of road and rail systems (Lambert, 2010). Researchers suggest four critical benefits to water-based freight movement: less highway congestion, lower costs of moving 

cargo, lower environmental costs, and increased overall safety (Griffin, James, and Basilotto, 1997). A primary result 

should be viewed as a combination of improved fuel efficiency and lower environmental impacts. For perspective, 

consider that the capacity of a 1,500-ton barge is equivalent to 58 commercial 18-wheel trucks and 14 rail hoppers 

(USACE, 2000) and that joining multiple barges together increases exponentially overall efficiencies. 

The GIWW is a significant economic driver within the five states it spans—Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, 

Louisiana, and Texas. Although we found no recent studies of the overall impact of the GIWW, an older study provided 

important literature context and modeling framework (Hardebeck et al., 1999). The Texas A&M University Transportation Institute reported heavy dependence on the waterway system in Texas alone, with energy and chemical industries 

generating $137 billion in sales, producing $20 billion in payrolls, supporting 900,000 jobs, and providing $200 million 
19

in sales tax revenues. As impressive as these numbers are, note they were reported for 1993 nearly 30 years ago! 

A large body of work on inland waterways economic impact analysis methods comprises five barge 

movement models (Clark, 1983); one measures the impact on road-based transportation systems due to waterway system impairments or closures4

 (Roop et al., 1993). We reviewed various valuation methods to value inland 

waterway systems. We found no research preference for cost-benefit versus economic impact analyses. Notably, 

we did find one study that used industry analysis to examine how marine industries contribute to local economies 

(Hodges et al., 2013).

Dredging is a crucial driver of waterways-related economic prosperity and supports meaningful linkages to 

the global economy (Wetta and Hanson, 2011). Nearly 80% of global trade by volume and more than 70% of global 

trade by value moves by water (IADC, 2018). Globally, the ocean-based economy is estimated at $3 trillion annually, 

accounting for 5% of global GDP (Mining World, 2015). Without dredging, many waterways, ports, and harbors would 

become impassable to commercial and recreational vessels (USACE, 2021). It is critically important to maintain inland 

waterways to ensure continued commercial use and reliable navigation. Failing to do so can result in economic decline 

for the many regions, cities, and towns situated along the waterways. 

As crucial as dredging and the global economy are, there is limited research on the links between dredging of 

inland waterway systems and the global economy, and even less on local economies. Most studies focus on environmental, geographical, and political issues. The limited economic research typically includes impacts as a component 

of a more extensive study of a particular waterway project, not as part of an overall waterway system. Data limitations may be the reason. The U.S. Corps of Engineers (USACE) oversees all inland waterway system development, 

operation, and maintenance. Because accessing their dredging contract funding data, parsible at county levels, is not 

possible, researchers must rely on economic activity databases for dredging-related data.

In addition to waterway system sustainability as a driver of the commercially related economy, its recreational use will also impact the effort. Increasing recreational use of the waterway system may also offer significant 

opportunities to contribute to the local economy through added recreation, hospitality, and tourism. The outdoor recreation economy in America is vast. Activities include wildlife viewing, hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, motorcycling, 

off-roading, and snow, trail, water, and wheel sports. American recreational enthusiasts spend money on gear and 

travel. Gear purchases include apparel and footwear, bicycles and all-terrain vehicles, boats and kayaks, fishing poles 

and tackle, tents and backpacks, rifles and bows, and anything else needed to have fun in the great outdoors. Trip 

purchases include airfares, rental cars, lodging, campgrounds, restaurants, groceries, gasoline, and souvenirs, and 

all the people providing services along the way such as river guides, instructors, rangers, outfitters, and more. 

Long after the proverbial boats are cleaned and the fish are in the freezer, economies continue to benefit from 

recreational expenditures from businesses restocking their shelves, expanding their workforces, adding additional locations, and from local employee spending. The outdoor recreation economy numbers are staggering. A recent study 

reported annual expenditures of $887 billion, support for 7.6 million jobs, and $125 billion in annual federal, state, and 

local tax revenues (OIA, 2018). 

Nevertheless, as important as the outdoor recreational economy is, it is equally important to recognize that 

efforts must be made to sustain and grow it. It is essential therefore, to ensure that future generations have the same 

recreational opportunities and that communities benefit economically. Everyone, from users to policymakers, must 

recognize the importance of sustainability and work to promote ecological, climatological, and environmental best 

practices. The Outdoor Industry Association promotes three policy goals as foundational to ensuring that Americans 

can continue to enjoy outdoor recreation for generations to come: protect the environment, invest in local and federal 

recreation infrastructure and programs, and promote outdoor recreation as a community health asset. 

Tourism is often a key component of local economic development initiatives (Frederick, 1993). There are 

several reasons for its widespread inclusion. Most jobs are filled locally, often by workers at the lower end of the pay 

scale. Tourism can spur local investment by outsiders attracted to an area for some reason, such as the weather, a 

4 Mode-Shift Impact Model
20

university, or historical interest, and who stay and invest and promote new economic activity doing so. Tourism as 

an economic development strategy is relatively risk-free. Even though it is necessary to invest in marketing and promotion, and efforts to spur and sustain exciting attractions is necessary, costs pale to the money needed to attract 

something such as a manufacturing or distribution center. Because amenity, accommodation, and entertainment 

facilities are often privately funded, they are somewhat risk-free to policymakers as an economic segment. However, 

tourism sometimes gets a black eye amidst criticisms about low wages, adverse local environmental effects, and local 

culture disruptions.

We reviewed existing outdoor recreation and tourism and entertainment opportunities within the Alabama 

Black Belt. We summarized available categories of primary venues and outlets related to hospitality and entertainment 

offerings for each county, such as hotels, restaurants, museums, tours, and music and theatrical productions and 

events (Appendix A).

In sum, the literature review produces some clear takeaways. Examining commodity trade flow data is a 

commonly preferred method. However, use is often limited because necessary data are reported typically per span, 

meaning a distance from point-to-point along some portion of the waterway rather than per county. Using trade flow 

data is also limited by reporting frequency.5 However, even if the data were available, this method does not lend itself 

to the Project because it will not capture the required value of the economic impact of the commercially navigable waterway itself; the value of the freight moved through the GIWW has no relevance. Second, the literature offers a path 

for examining potential economic development opportunities by identifying Import Gaps that enumerate the import 

dollar components of the present economy. Third, IMPLAN, a sophisticated, comprehensive input-output economic 

modeling tool using economic base theory, is the preferred platform for economic impact analysis. Finally, evaluating 

a region’s economic development opportunities must also include outdoor recreation and related tourism, hospitality, 

and entertainment industries.

2.4. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

2.4.1. Cluster Analysis

Consistent with the literature, we use cluster analysis to identify and evaluate industries specific to the Project. Cluster analysis is a statistical technique used in many different fields. It includes a wide-ranging assortment of 

methods, practices, and procedures used to outline and categorize various economic sectors or industries into related groups, or clusters. At the core of cluster analysis is the process of delineating an assembly of objects into similar 

groups that have more similarities than those in other clusters. Promoting industry clusters and targeting industries 

within clusters for expansion is an effective and vital tool for economic developers and policymakers because both 

industry retention and expansion are critical for the long-term health of any economy (Porter, 1998).

We varied our application slightly by combining two clusters, two separate times. In one case, we included 

an additional industry category. We did so because in both instances, the clusters we combined are closely related 

and because of inherent data granularity concerns given a total Black Belt population below 400,000. We combined 

the Harvard clusters Water Transportation and Transportation & Logistics with the industry category related to dredging activity to Form the Waterway & Logistics Cluster (WTC) (Table 6). We combined the Harvard6

 clusters Hospitality 

and Tourism and Local Hospitality Establishments to form the Recreation & Tourism Cluster (RTC) (Table 7). We then 

assessed each cluster’s industry distribution for the Black Belt region and each of the twenty counties in the Black 

Belt. Some included industries do not apply to the area, such as Coastal and Great Lakes Passenger Transportation. 

We include and report them rather than exclude them even if the number of jobs equals zero. We do this to illustrate 

and underscore the extent of economic activity generated by each industry within each cluster and highlight any lack 

of activity as an opportunity. Because the Project requires current and county-level analyses, data availability and 

granularity were critical.

5 The U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics produces national commodity trade flow data reports in years that end with “2” or “7.” 

 The most recent report was for 2017. 

6 U.S. Cluster Mapping Project, available at https://www.clustermapping.us/.
21

Table 6 Black Belt Waterway & Logistics Cluster
22

Table 7 Black Belt Recreation & Tourism Cluster 
23

2.4.2. Total Requirements Approach

For this reason, we used the Total Requirements (TR) Approach to set up our initial analysis. The Total Requirements Approach captures the total value of all goods and services needed for production inside a region, and 

crucially, where they are purchased (Cummings and Epley, 2014). The TR Approach enabled us to construct a gauge 

of the present regional exchanges of dollars necessary for production. This gauge functions as an economic baseline 

of what exists today before new economic development activity is undertaken.

2.4.3. Import Gaps Approach

TR’s data structure enabled us to use the Import Gaps (IG) Approach to quantify total dollars spent outside 

a region to import goods or services needed for production inside a region (Cummings and Epley, 2015), which we 

then used as inputs in our economic impact modeling. We identified, ranked, and reported the top 25 industries in 

each cluster by 2021-2026 forecasted jobs, occupations, TR, and IG. The forecasted jobs and occupations data 

explain what is likely, given past trends, to occur in future occupations across all industries if existing economic 

development activity continues unchanged. The TR data explain how large an industry is based on the total amount 

of economic activity needed to support it. The IG data explain how much industries spend to import resources needed 

for their production.

We used identified IG to analyze economic impacts on industries most likely to be economic development 

targets within each cluster. We then modeled the economic impact of the IG. We demonstrated how the money could 

have had a more significant economic effect if spent within the region. Note that not all industries are targets for 

local economic development recruiting just because they have significant IG. For example, a large federal military 

or a petroleum refinery IG are not likely targets. Still, there are other targets, such as industries that need products 

and materials to run their operation or production or personnel to man a distribution or call center. This exercise is 

critically important because it produces results that policymakers can use to help understand the economic impact 

values of potential new targeted economic development activity.

2.4.4. Input-Output Modeling

We analyzed the IG using IMPLAN’s input-output framework,7 which expands the basic I-O model by including transactions within regions and between institutions, calculating the direct, indirect, and induced economic 

impacts. IMPLAN calculates the indirect and induced impacts by applying a series of multipliers throughout its modeling processes using regional Social Accounting Matrices (SAM) that help explain various financial flows through 

the economy (Cheney, 2018). Like all I-O models, IMPLAN is based on the theory that when new money enters a 

community, some of it is re-spent one or more times in the local economy, creating additional economic impacts. 

This multiplier effect or impact is measured in terms of employment or income. The total economic effect on a region 

caused by a change in final demand is measured in jobs, wages, value-added, revenues, and taxes. 

Our cluster-centered research design best captures the economic value of the waterway and logistics framework on a per-industry basis across multiple metrics. Using it enabled us to frame the current economic perspective 

of the Black Belt region and its counties, identify each cluster’s preferred industries as economic development targets, and provide modeled economic benefit estimates of identified IG that pose realistic opportunities for economic 

development advancement. 

2.4.5. Black Belt Industries and Occupations, 2021 – 2026

Looking ahead five years, ranked forecasts of the top five industries for job creation in 2021-2026 are services for the elderly and persons with disabilities, elementary and secondary schools, general medical and surgical 

hospitals, limited-service restaurants, and offices of all other miscellaneous health practitioners (Table 8). Job occupation patterns over the 2021-2026 horizon differ from the past, with home health and personal care aides in the 

top position (Table 9).

7 IMPLAN’s I-O framework is based on Nobel laureate Wassily Leontief’s I-O model of equilibrium of the economy’s interdependent relationships 

 (Leontief, 1936, 1937, 1970).
24

Table 8 Top 25 Industries: Ranked by # of New Jobs, 2021-2026
25

Table 9 Top 25 Occupations: Ranked by # of New Jobs, 2021-2026

2.5. BLACK BELT TOTAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPORT GAPS

2.5.1. Total Requirements

Black Belt TR total $14.3 billion. Note that in some cases, the dollars needed for production are for operations and manufacturing, for example, with governments and institutions. Of the Black Belt’s 993 industries, the top 

25 account for 42% of TR (Table 10).
26

Table 10 Top 25 Industries: Ranked by Total Requirements

2.5.2. Import Gaps

Black Belt IG total $10.22 billion, which means that Black Belt industries purchase 72% of their needed 

production inputs from suppliers outside the region. The $3.9 billion purchased by the top 25 industries accounts for 

38% of all IG purchases. As already discussed, not all industries have IG that can be easily filled because of limitations imposed by institutional structure (e.g., government), complexity (e.g., hospital), or scale (e.g., refinery). However, industries needing goods and materials, or personnel offer significant IG opportunities for targeted economic 

development recruitment. (Table 11).
27

Table 11 Top 25 Industries: Ranked by Import Gap

2.6. CLUSTERS

We identified, ranked, and reported all industries in the WLC and RTC Clusters by 2021-2026 forecasted 

jobs, occupations, TR, and IG. Industries with highly positive expected jobs changes merit economic development 

consideration. The most significant number of forecasted new jobs within the WLC will be in trucking and warehousing, which makes sense given the earlier reported TR of over $228 billion spent on marine cargo handling, and 

dredging (classified as heavy civil engineering) (Table 12). Within the RTC, the most significant number of new jobs 

forecasted will be in food service and lodging accommodation (Table 13).
28

Table 12 Industry Profile: Waterway & Logistics Cluster Ranked by # of New Jobs, 2021-2026
29

Table 13 Industry Profile: Recreation & Tourism Cluster Ranked by # of Forecasted New Jobs, 2021-2026

2.6.1. Cluster Total Requirements and Import Gaps

Black Belt WLC TR are $303.9 million annually. The top 25 industries account for 57.8% of all purchases 

(Table 14). Black Belt RTC TR are $221 million annually. The top 25 industries account for 58.1% of purchases (Table 

15). The total Black Belt WLC IG estimate is $221.1 million (Table 16). The total Black Belt RTC IG estimate is $209.1 

million. (Table 17). 
30

Table 14 Top 25 Waterway & Logistics Cluster Industries Ranked by Total Requirements, 2021-2026
31

Table 15 Top 25 Recreation & Tourism Cluster Industries Ranked by Total Requirements, 2021-2026
32

Table 16 Top 25 Waterway & Logistics Raked by Import Gaps, 2021-2026
33

Table 17 Top 25 Recreation & Tourism Cluster Industries Ranked by Import Gaps, 2021-2025

2.6.2. Import Gap Economic Development Opportunities

Using the IG Approach, we identified which industries offer potential economic development opportunities 

based on the dollar amounts of goods or services needed for production inside the region that are purchased from 

outside the region. As already shown, the IG point to significant monies being spent outside the Black Belt. Reducing 

IG by increasing money spent inside the region will lead to increased economic impact because of the additional 

spending’s added indirect and induced effects.

Earlier, we outlined why it may not be possible to fill all IG within a region. However, some industries do have 

IG that can potentially be filled. We examined the data to identify and select industries with significant IG that were 

likely targets. Four industries within the Black Belt WLC have IG greater than $2 million annually, with a combined 
34

total IG of $43.3 million (Table 18). Two industries within the Black Belt RTC have IG greater than $2 million annually, 

with a combined total IG of $12.1 million (Table 19). The two clusters’ combined IG represent $55.4 million worth of 

economic development opportunity. Recall earlier discussions that it may not be possible to fill all industry IG due 

to specific industries’ structure, complexity, or scale. For others, though, IG can be filled. When they are filled, local 

regions benefit economically by the new change in resulting local economic activity. The question that must then 

drive the analysis is which changes to pursue. Economic impact estimation of IG offered some insights.

Table 18 Black Belt Waterway & Logistics Cluster Industries with $2 Million+ Import Gaps

Table 19 Black Belt Recreation & Tourism Cluster Industries with $2 Million+ Import Gaps

2.7. IMPORT GAPS ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

We conducted economic impact analyses of the IG of the six identified Black Belt industries offering opportunities for economic development. WLC industries included couriers and express delivery services, general warehousing and storage, freight transportation arrangement, and marine cargo handling. RTC industries included real 

estate agents, brokers, and property managers, and internet publishing, broadcasting, and portals from the RTC. 

We reported the results of the modeled changes in economic activity in five ways (Table 20). Jobs is the 

number of jobs supported. Wages are employee wages. Value is the difference between revenues and production 

costs. Revenues are the total contribution to GRP. Taxes are the total taxes paid by businesses and individuals to 

state and local governments. The results suggest that if all Black Belt IG were filled, total economic impacts would 

support 725 jobs, add $25.3 million in new wages, create $34.5 million in new value, produce $86.4 million in new 

revenues, and generate $11.1 million in new state and local taxes.
35

Table 20 Economic Impact of Import Gaps

We conducted 34 county-level economic impact analyses of WLC industries (Table 21). The WLC IG opportunities translated to combined industry economic impacts would support 371 jobs, add $12 million in new wages, 

create $15.3 million in new value, produce $38.5 million in new revenues, and generate $1 million in new state and 

local taxes. We conducted 22 county-level economic impact analyses of RTC industries (Table 22). Impacts from 

the RTC IG would support 71 jobs, add $1.4 million in new wages, create $3.3 million in new value, produce $14.7 

million in new revenues, and generate $232,500 in new state and local taxes.
36

Table 21 County-Level Waterway & Logistics Cluster Industry Import Gap Economic Impacts
37

Table 22 County-Level Recreation & Tourism Cluster Industry Economic Impacts
38

3. Environmental Housing Impact Assessment

3.1. INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE

A conventional method used to assess how waterbodies affect citizens’ welfare living in their proximities is 

studying the relationship between proximity to water and property value. The hedonic pricing method (Kain and Quigley 1970; Rosen 1974) is a standard procedure used to directly assess the value of environmental disamenities based 

on consumers’ revealed preferences. When a consumer purchases a property, he buys a bundle of goods that includes 

housing and neighborhood attributes, and environmental characteristics of the surrounding area. It should then be 

clear that clean or polluted waterbodies can affect property values. The idea behind the hedonic pricing method is 

to use the housing market as a surrogate to measure the aesthetic and recreational value of water and the marginal 

value of its environmental quality.

The location of water bodies has historically affected human settlement decisions since ancient times. There 

is a common consensus, based on empirical evidence, among environmental scientists and practitioners of real estate economics to consider water proximity as a positive externality on the market for residential properties (Artell, 

2014; Bin, 2005; Lanford and Jones, 1995). Increased property value associated with water streams and open lakes 

increases local tax revenue, triggering economic growth. However, some studies have found opposite results when 

the quality of water bodies is impaired. Steinnes (1992) supports the thesis that consumer perceptions of degraded 

water quality could switch the positive externality associated with the waterbody itself into a negatively perceived 

disamenity because of waterbody impairment. 

Affuso et al. (2010) found that properties in Anniston, Alabama, located one kilometer from a waterbody, are 

associated with an almost 17% loss in value. However, homebuyers are willing to pay a premium of nearly 74% to 

live one kilometer from potentially lead polluted water streams in the same area. This result confirms the findings of 

Gibbs et al. (2002), who provide empirical evidence that water quality has a significant positive effect on residential 

property values. Similarly, and most recently, Tuttle and Heintzelman (2015) and Bonetti et al. (2016) confirm the 

previous studies’ findings. The first researchers argue that the presence of loons in Adirondacks lakes increases property values. In contrast, lake acidity depreciates residential properties. The latter study found that clean water bodies 

provide a positive externality in the residential property market in the province of Milan, Italy. In contrast, reduced 

water quality is perceived as a disamenity.

3.2. DATA

We obtained cross-sectional data on property values and attributes, and demographic and socioeconomic 

characteristics from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS)8. The observation unit used was 

the census tract within Alabama Black Belt. We merged this dataset with county-level water quality obtained from the 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management. The proxy for water quality is measured as miles of impaired 

streams per county (Table 23).

8 https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml — last accessed on 09/27/2018.
39

Table 23 Descriptive Statistics
40

Our outcome variable, the median property value of occupied housing units per census tract, estimates the 

house and land value, as self-reported by the survey’s respondents if their properties were for sale. Because the 

outcome variable is an unobservable transaction, we based our analysis on a “stated preference” model rather than 

a “revealed preference” model. One possible drawback is self-reporting bias due to survey respondents’ overvaluing 

their properties. However, Arrow et al. (1993) suggest that stated preferences models like contingent valuations are 

more than adequate tools to assess the analysis of environmental externalities if surveys have a reliable basis. Paul 

Portney (1994:16), writing about the contingent valuation debate of stated preferences versus revealed preferences, 

concludes:

“Whether the economics profession likes it or not, it seems inevitable to me that contingent valuation 

methods are going to play a role in public policy formulation. Both regulatory agencies and governmental 

offices responsible for natural resource damage assessment are making increasing use of it in their work. 

This has now been reinforced by the Department of the Interior and NOAA–proposed regulations sanctioning 

the use of the contingent valuation method. Surely, it is better for economists to be involved at all stages of 

the debate about the contingent valuation method than to stand by while others dictate the way this tool 

will be used.”

Also, McLean and Mundy (1998) argue that contingent valuation analyses are widely accepted as ways to 

assess the values of contaminated properties when historical or recent transactions are unavailable. Therefore, since 

contingent valuation models are based on self-reported stated preferences, an owner’s self-assessment of the value 

of his property is a reasonable measure of their willingness to sell. In our analysis, this measure would capture an 

owner’s willingness to accept compensation for potential externalities, such as waterbody pollution’s impacts on 

property value.

3.3. METHODOLOGY

Our endogenous regime-switching model attempts to include a latent process (D*) that captures a consumer’s locational choice of buying a property in a census tract that is crossed or adjacent to the Tombigbee or Alabama 

Rivers. Therefore, if such a process exists, then

(1) 

where z’i is a vector of exogenous variables that help to explain a homeowner’s choice to buy the property in the 

census tract that is in proximity to the Alabama or Tombigbee Rivers, if Di=1 or the census tract where only minor 

tributaries are present if Di=09. The exogenous factors include population density (POPDENSITY), size of the African 

American population (POPBLACK), size of the Caucasian population (POPWHITE), median household income (MEDINC), number of housing units (HUNITS), number of mobile homes (MOBHUNITS), number of vacant housing units 

(VACHUNITS), and area covered by water (AWATER).

The discrete choice equation (1)—a probit model—is simultaneously estimated with the following endogenous switching equations to model the median property prices that face two regimes: (D1) median price of properties 

located in a census tract crossed or adjacent to the main waterway; and, (D0) median price of properties located in a 

census tract not crossed or adjacent to the main waterway. Therefore, the hedonic model that accounts for the two 

regimes can be written as:

(2)

 

(3)

9 Alabama counties with minor tributaries in the current report inlcude Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Conecuh, Escambia, Hale, Perry, 

 Marengo, Macon, and Russell.
41

where yi is the median price of the property in logarithmic form in the two regimes; and, x’1i and x’0i are vectors of 

housing attributes, economic, demographic, and environmental characteristics of the census tract i that may have an 

impact on the median price of the property in the two regimes. Those factors (all in logarithmic form) include: size 

of the African American population (POPBLACK); size of the Caucasian population (POPWHITE); median household 

income (MEDINC); population with high school diploma (HSDIPLOMA); population with associate degree (ASSOCDEG); population with bachelor’s degree (BACHDEG); area covered by water (AWATER) that may explain the value 

of lake- and riverfront properties; number of housing units with 1 room (R1); number of housing units with 2 rooms 

(R2); number of housing units with 3 rooms (R3); number of housing units with 4 rooms (R4); number of housing 

units with 5 rooms (R5); number of housing units with 6 or more rooms (R6PLUS); number of vacant housing units 

(VACHUNITS); number of mobile homes (MOBHUNITS); number of occupied rented units (HUNITSRENT); number of 

properties less than three years old (HAGELT3Y); number of properties between four and six years old (HAGE4T6Y); 

number of properties between seven and 17 years old (HAGE7T17Y); number of properties between 18 and 27 

years old (HAGE18T27Y); number of properties between 28 and 37 years old (HAGE28T37Y); number of properties 

between 38 and 47 years old (HAGE38T47Y); number of properties between 48 and 57 years old (HAGE48T57Y); 

number of properties between 58 and 67 years old (HAGE58T67Y); number of properties between 68 and 77 years 

old (HAGE68T77Y); number of properties older than 78 years (HAGEGT78Y); and, miles of impaired waterway (IMPAIREDMILES). The model is efficiently estimated using an algorithm of nonlinear unconstrained optimization that 

maximizes a Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) function (Affuso and Lahtinen, 2018).

The endogenous switching model allowed us to conduct a counterfactual analysis that estimated the monetary value of housing in proximity to waterways (Heckman, 2001). Our analysis goal was to estimate the average median value of a property in a census tract crossed or adjacent to the main waterway. Counterfactually, we estimated 

the same value in an area where main waterways were not present. Similarly, we estimated the average median value 

of a property located in a census tract without a main waterway relative to what it would be if located in a census tract 

with one. The advantage of using the endogenous regime-switching model versus similar non-parametric methods 

(such as propensity score matching) is that it allows us to compute heterogeneity effects—meaning, the impacts of 

other unobservable factors influencing median property value (Winship and Morgan, 1999; Carter and Milon, 2005).10

10 See Affusso and Lahtinen (2018) for the statistical derivation of the heterogeneity effects, statistical properties of the endogenous switching regime model, 

 and statistical derivation of the FIML function.
42

3.4. RESULTS

For numerical optimization, we scaled the probit equation variables by 1,000 (except for the area covered by 

water). Therefore, the estimates of the marginal effects for the selection equation should be interpreted as changes 

of the order of 1,000 units. Statistically significant results indicate an increased likelihood that people choose to live in 

houses and mobile homes in the census tracts crossed by the main waterways, 77%, and 59%, respectively. Other 

significant predictors are the Caucasian and African American populations and vacant housing units. If housing units 

are vacant, the probability associated with the choice to live in census tracts crossed with major waterways falls 

by 76% per 1,000 vacant housing units. Water surface does not influence the choice of living within a census tract 

crossed by the main waterways.

Because our two-regime hedonic model’s variables are in logarithmic form, estimates should be interpreted 

as elasticities—meaning, the percentage change in the average median property value due to a one percent change 

in the variable (Table 24). In terms of statistical power, the number of rental units is the main predictor of median property value within the census tract with major rivers. In contrast, median income appears to be the most economical 

and statistically significant predictor for the median property value in the census tracts with minor tributaries. A 10% 

increase in median income corresponds to a 5.8% increase in the average median property value in those census 

tracts not adjacent to the Alabama and Tombigbee Rivers. Finally, water quality seems to affect only those properties 

located in areas with minor tributaries connected to the main waterways (Regime 0). There is empirical evidence that 

a 10% increase in pollutants (measured in impaired river miles) corresponds to a decline in median property value 

that is approximately 0.6% (5% a-level).

As expected, the coefficient of correlation of the selected equation and the statistical noise (error terms) associated with the equations for the two regimes, p1

 and p0, are statistically different from zero with 99% confidence. 

Consequently, there is evidence of a sample selection process, which justifies using our econometric modeling approach.
43

Table 24 Endogenous Switching Model Results (FIML Estimates)
44

Table 24 Endogenous Switching Model Results (FIML Estimates) cont.
45

Table 24 Endogenous Switching Model Results (FIML Estimates) cont.
46

3.5. DISCUSSION

Our analysis focused on environmental disamenity. The estimated econometric model predicts that households in areas with proximity to minor tributaries experience a 0.6% loss in property value per mile of impaired 

stream. This loss corresponds to a monetary value loss that is approximately $5,065 per polluted mile of water stream 

per household. 

We reported counterfactual analysis results (Table 25, Row 2) of the predicted average median value of a 

property located in a census tract that is crossed or is adjacent to the Alabama or Tombigbee Rivers in the actual 

case, E(Price|D=1), and the counterfactual, or alternative case, E(Price|D=0). The difference between these figures 

provides a potential measure of the social benefit or cost of living close to a major waterway. Alabama or Tombigbee 

River proximity is perceived as an external cost of approximately $22,756 (or a 22.17% decrease in value). However, 

as previously mentioned, this value should be taken as a hypothetical upper boundary given that the median property 

value includes (house and lot) and is a self-reported value. In other words, this may be upper biased. However, the 

t-test of the difference between the means of the factual and counterfactual scenarios (t-value -4.352) rejects the 

hypothesis that living in proximity of a major river has no impact on the median value of properties located in an area 

that is crossed or is adjacent to a major river (99% confidence). Likewise, the t-test rejects the null hypothesis that a 

major river would not impact property value. Hypothetically, major river proximity would reduce median property value 

by an average of 34.02%.

Base and transitional heterogeneities accounted for other unobserved factors that may impact property value 

(Table 25, Row 3). For example, owners of properties located in a census tract in proximity to one of the two major 

rivers would be willing to sell their property, on average, for $22,554 more, regardless of the potential impact of the 

major river. Similarly, in the counterfactual case where a property was located in an area with minor tributaries, the 

same households would be willing to sell their property for an additional $15,758, on average. These disparities are 

potentially induced by the systematic variation across the two subsamples not fully captured by the hedonic model 

using available data. However, the transitional heterogeneities, which measure whether the effects of the major waterways were more significant for households located in a census tract with a major waterways or for those located in 

a census tract with minor tributaries, were statistically equal to those located in a census tract with minor tributaries. 

This means that the negative impact of the major waterway is equal across the two subsamples (census tracts with 

major waterways and census tracts with only minor tributaries). Our analysis suggests that people prefer living in 

areas crossed or adjacent to minor tributaries rather than the Alabama and Tombigbee Rivers. The counterfactual 

cost of a major waterway on those households’ welfare could be as high as $29,552. Since this cost is measured in a 

counterfactual scenario, it could also be a benefit of living in a developing area with only minor tributaries. The aggregate benefit of living in areas with only minor tributaries could be computed by summing the home price differential 

in the factual and counterfactual case across all the census tracts. This figure is approximately $722,512. 

The primary takeaway is that properties near minor tributaries are associated with higher median property 

values, and potentially higher tax revenues. However, one should not forget that there is also a cost associated with 

the environmental quality of these water bodies. If ecological issues are not addressed, water quality degradation 

could affect property values in these areas, which in turn would reduce tax revenues and shrink economies.
47

Table 25 Counterfactual Analysis
48

4. Wastewater and Infrastructure Assessment

4.1. INTRODUCTION

The facilities and systems that support the daily life of residents and businesses in an area make up the local 

utility infrastructure. The availability of crucial infrastructures provides the opportunity to establish new businesses 

and attract new residents. Policymakers and political leaders must ensure that adequate infrastructure services are 

available to both residents and industries. Failing to do so will restrict economic growth.

4.2. LITERATURE

Access to several utility infrastructures was determined for the Black Belt region:

 • Drinking Water

 • Wastewater

 • Natural Gas/Propane

 • Broadband (internet)

 • Cellular Wireless (telephone)

Note that basic electricity and transportation infrastructures are available throughout the Black Belt. Each of 

the selected infrastructure categories has direct and indirect impacts on the potential for economic growth within this 

region. Direct impacts of investing in infrastructure include creating jobs infrastructure design, construction, and operation. There would also be indirect impacts related to material purchases necessary for infrastructure construction. 

Addressing infrastructure gaps is an important issue for the Black Belt region. Closing the gaps would provide 

immense economic benefits. For example, the American Society of Civil Engineers indicates that the direct impact 

of closing the nation’s water and wastewater infrastructure gaps would result in annual increases in employment of 

500,000 jobs, wages of $32 billion, and revenues of $82 billion per year. Indirect and induced impacts of investing 

in infrastructure include increased spending in the region as a result of direct job creation; the ability for businesses 

to open in areas with newly established infrastructure; the economic stimulation and jobs created in the building and 

operation of these new businesses; and finally, the increased spending in the region due to the creation of jobs by 

these new businesses. According to the Value of Water Campaign, the indirect and induced impacts of closing the 

nation’s water and wastewater infrastructure gaps would result in annual increases in employment of 760,000 jobs, 

wages of $43 billion, and revenues of $140 billion. Of course, impacts would be smaller in the Black Belt region, but 

just by addressing water and wastewater infrastructure needs, if roughly proportional to population, doing so would 

result in about 1,500 jobs, $89 million in wages, and $260 million of new revenues.

These economic impacts are observable in each infrastructure category targeted in this study. For example, 

according to the Farm Foundation, the number of jobs per billion dollars spent in infrastructure is estimated at 21,888 

for natural gas infrastructure and 17,761 for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Additionally, the Farm 

Foundation estimates that for every 1 billion dollars spent, there is an economic output of $2.88 billion from broadband infrastructure and $3.45 billion from water and wastewater infrastructure.

Another factor to consider is the risk of economic impact due to disruption of services because of aging and 

failing infrastructure in need of repair. According to the Value of Water Campaign, “an eight-day national disruption 

in water service would amount to a 1 percent loss in annual GDP—putting roughly 1.9 million jobs at risk.” When 

interpreting the gathered infrastructure data for the Black Belt, one must consider the complex factors that impact the 

need for infrastructure investments. For example, when reviewing drinking water infrastructure, it is easy to assume 

that most, if not all, residents have access. It is essential to note that the data do not include information regarding the 

age, expected lifespan, or current condition of water infrastructure in each county. Therefore, service providers must 

be individually investigated to establish the exact need for drinking water infrastructure investments for each county 

within the region.
49

4.3. DATA

4.3.1. Wastewater

Fifty-nine wastewater service providers serve homes and businesses within the Black Belt (Table 26). Each 

reported service area (city or town) assumes the entire geometric area is within city limits. However, by comparing 

the population served by the wastewater system to the service area’s Census-listed population, one can determine if 

the actual area of service is likely to be somewhat larger or smaller than the geometric area within city limits (Tables 

27 and 28 and Figure 4). Other considerations are maximum daily flow rate, annual average flow rate, the design 

flow rate of each system (Table 29), and the shortest distances from each service area to the nearest navigable 

waterway (Table 30). 

Table 26 Black Belt Region Wastewater Service Providers by County
50

Table 26 Black Belt Region Wastewater Service Providers by County cont.
51

T

able 26 Black Belt Region Wastewater Service Providers by County cont.
52

Table 26 Black Belt Region Wastewater Service Providers by County cont.
53

Table 27 Percentage of County Populations with Wastewater Service
54

Table 28 Percentage of County Areas with Wastewater Service
55

Figure 4 Wastewater Service Areas
56

Table 29 Service Provider Flow Rates
57

Table 29 Service Provider Flow Rates cont.
58

Table 30 Shortest Distances from Wastewater Service Areas to Nearest Major Waterways
59

Table 30 Shortest Distances from Wastewater Service Areas to Nearest Major Waterways cont.
60

4.4. DRINKING WATER

One hundred nineteen drinking water service providers provide access to the entire Black Belt population 

(Table 31). The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) track and report relationships between service areas and populations served (Table 32) and the 

percentages of each county’s population with access to drinking water service according to the EPA and the ADEM, 

respectively (Tables 33 and 34).

Table 31 Drinking Water Service Providers with EPA Service Population Data
61

Table 31 Drinking Water Service Providers with EPA Service Population Data cont.
62

Table 31 Drinking Water Service Providers with EPA Service Population Data cont.
63

Table 31 Drinking Water Service Providers with EPA Service Population Data cont.
64

Table 31 Drinking Water Service Providers with EPA Service Population Data cont.
65

Table 32 Drinking Water Service Providers with ADEM Service Population Data
66

Table 32 Drinking Water Service Providers with ADEM Service Population Data cont.
67

Table 32 Drinking Water Service Providers with ADEM Service Population Data cont.
68

Table 32 Drinking Water Service Providers with ADEM Service Population Data cont.
69

Table 32 Drinking Water Service Providers with ADEM Service Population Data cont.
70

Table 33 Percentage of County Populations with Drinking Water Service (EPA data)
71

Table 34 Percentage of County Populations with Drinking Water Service (ADEM data)
72

4.5. NATURAL GAS AND PROPANE

The entire Black Belt population has access to either natural gas or propane (Tables 35 and 36).

Table 35 Black Belt Region Natural Gas Providers by County
73

Table 36 Black Belt Region Propane Providers by County
74

4.6. BROADBAND

Black Belt counties are served by one, two, and in some instances, three broadband internet service providers 

(ISPs) (Tables 37-40). Service speeds range from a minimum of 4/1 to a maximum of 25 megabytes (Mbps) per second (minimal speeds by national comparison). Although satellite internet service is a far less reliable, and most often 

more expensive substitute for broadband, all areas of the Black Belt region do have satellite internet service access, 

even in the most rural of areas. A table listing the technologies utilized by ISPs to deliver internet service by county is 

listed in Appendix B.

Table 37 Broadband Coverage with Speeds of ≥ 4/1 Mbps, Including Satellite Providers
75

Table 38 Broadband Coverage with Speeds of ≥ 4/1 Mbps, Excluding Satellite Providers
76

Table 39 Broadband Coverage with Speeds of ≥ 25/3 Mbps, Including Satellite Providers
77

Table 40 Broadband Coverage with Speeds of ≥ 25/3 Mbps, Excluding Satellite Providers
78

4.7. CELLULAR WIRELESS

AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile are the three primary cellular service providers in the Alabama Black Belt region. 

Cellular service can be purchased directly from these providers or from mobile virtual network operators who purchase services from AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile to sell to consumers. LTE cellular voice and data services are widely 

available throughout the Black Belt (Figures 2-7).

Figure 5 AT&T LTE Voice Availability

Figure 6 T-Mobile LTE Voice Availability
79

Figure 7 Verizon LTE Voice Availability

Figure 8 AT&T Data Availability
80

Figure 9 T-Mobile LTE Data Availability

Figure 10 Verizon LTE Data Availability
81

4.8. DISCUSSION

The compiled data shows the availability of critical infrastructure in the Alabama Black Belt region, which 

could provide opportunities for economic growth. The areas with established infrastructure for every category researched are likely suitable for establishing new businesses without the immediate need for infrastructure expansion. 

Other areas, which do not currently have established infrastructure for every category researched, provide opportunities for expansion, which can foster economic growth.

Drinking water and natural gas or propane services appear to be available throughout the target counties. 

These infrastructure categories could still benefit from investments for upgrades and necessary repairs, which would 

also stimulate economic activity. Cellular voice and data coverage are available in most parts of the target area, and 

continued expansion of these service areas could be beneficial. Satellite broadband is available to all areas in the region. However, expanding service areas utilizing other technologies, such as fiber and cable, would provide area users 

with more reliable and affordable service. Since the Covid-19 pandemic began, access to reliable, fast, and affordable 

broadband service has become increasingly important. 

Municipal wastewater service is the most limited infrastructure category in the Alabama Black Belt region. 

Service area expansions are recommended for wastewater service providers with the capacity to expand their service 

areas without investing in wastewater treatment facility upgrades. All other service providers in the area could benefit 

from investing in expanding both their treatment facilities and service areas. The establishment of new municipal 

wastewater systems or decentralized cluster wastewater models could also be beneficial in the targeted counties. 

These expansions would create job and economic growth and provide opportunities to establish new housing, businesses, and industries.
82

5. Watershed and Ecosystem Assessment

5.1. INTRODUCTION

Natural waterways and waterbodies provide many ecosystem services and resources that support economic 

development. For example, surface waters are used throughout the state to provide recreational opportunities, including fishing, swimming, and boating. Surface waters also serve as critical water resources that support crop irrigation, 

industrial processes, thermoelectric cooling, and domestic water supply. All these critical uses are contingent on unpolluted water and healthy aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Ecotourism activities, in particular, are perhaps the most 

reliant on healthy, robust ecosystems and pristine water quality.

The health of streams and rivers is primarily a function of land use and land cover in surrounding watersheds. 

For example, pollution that drains from land surfaces (i.e., non-point source pollution) and pollution that is discharged 

directly into surface waters (i.e., point source pollution) degrade water quality and related habitats. This degradation 

limits surface waters’ abilities to support ecosystem services and provide appropriate resources for economic development. We reviewed the current environmental status of streams and rivers in the Alabama Black Belt region regarding their abilities to meet designated use criteria established by ADEM and mandated by the U.S. Clean Water Act 

(CWA). We also extracted and reviewed land use and land cover data from the 2019 National Land Cover Database 

(NLCD) to relate water impairment to land use and land cover and identify economic growth opportunities provided by 

clean waters.

Our primary objective is to evaluate current surface water quality and related ecosystem conditions in the 

Alabama Black Belt Region regarding their abilities to support vital ecosystem services, economic development, and 

ecotourism activities (e.g., fishing, swimming, hiking, canoeing, kayaking, and similar activities). Our secondary objective is to rank and prioritize surface waters for ecotourism opportunities or restoration activities that will enhance 

economic development.

5.2. LITERATURE

The Alabama Black Belt region is a crescent-shaped, physiographic region spanning through central and 

west-central Alabama. The term “Black Belt” was initially used to describe the region’s fertile, organic-rich black soils 

that developed due to the underlying Cretaceous-aged limestone. The limestone bedrock tends to have poor drainage 

characteristics and provides natural lime buffering in contrast to the well-drained, acidic soils in southern Alabama. 

Black Belt region soils have been highly prized for agricultural development since the 19th century (Smith, 1883).

Although the soils and geology of the region are desirable for agriculture, development within the Black Belt 

region has not been without some environmental concerns. Notably, the clay-rich soils, high seasonal groundwater 

table, and likelihood of flooding present challenges for rural development (Cook, 1993). According to the EPA (2002), 

over 40% of Black Belt households rely on onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS). OWTS are designed to 

discharge treated wastewater to the land surface where filtration and percolation further degrade and dilute harmful 

contaminants. However, poor drainage characteristics of the Black Belt region’s soils lead to poor OWTS performance 

and a failure rate that is one of the highest in the nation (EPA 2002). The immediate impact on water quality and health 

is most notable in areas of higher population density and OWTS demand (He et al., 2011).

While wastewater management presents a unique challenge for new development, much of the Black Belt region is undeveloped or used for agriculture and animal pasture. The 2019 National Land Cover Dataset from the United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) indicates that land cover is dominated by forests (51.6%) and wetlands (19.7%). The 
83

major land uses include pastureland (10.1%) and cropland (2.4%). Development is sparse at only 4% of land use, of 

which 2.8% is classified as cleared “open space” (Table 41; Figure 11).

Table 41 Land Use/Land Cover for the Alabama Black Belt
84

Figure 11 2019 National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for Alabama Black Belt

Numerous streams and rivers dissect the Black Belt region. Four major river systems or “basins” traverse 

the region and include the Mobile-Tombigbee, Alabama, Choctawhatchee-Escambia, and Apalachicola River systems 

(Figure 12). These basins drain across the Gulf Coastal Plain before eventually discharging to the Gulf of Mexico in 

Alabama and Florida. River system drainage boundaries do not follow geopolitical boundaries such as state or county 

lines. Because instead, they extend beyond the Black Belt region, water quality is not entirely dependent on land use 

or land cover within the region. In other words, pollution from the upstream watershed area may linger in surface 

waters and migrate into the Black Belt region.
85

Figure 12 USGS Subregion (HUC-4) Boundaries Covering the Alabama Black Belt Region 

 

There are 22 more minor “subbasins” that drain into Black Belt tributary streams and rivers (Figure 13). 

Again, the boundaries of these subbasins ignore geopolitical boundaries, especially county lines. Therefore, cooperation among adjacent counties that share sub-watershed boundaries is vital for environmental protection and preservation of surface water.
86

Figure 13 USGS Sub-Basin (HUC-8) Boundaries Covering the Alabama Black Belt Region.

Water quality and ecosystem health are regularly monitored by ADEM throughout the state and reported to the 

EPA as part of Section 305(b) of the CWA. The scope of monitoring is intended to determine whether surface waters 

are meeting pre-assigned designated use criteria. Water quality and habitat criteria for designated uses are tiered, 

with the highest tier designated as Outstanding Alabama Water (OWA). Below OWAs, public water supply is the next 

tier, followed by swimming (i.e., whole-body contact), fish and wildlife support, and lastly, agriculture and industry use. 

Surface waters with higher-tiered designated uses must also meet the criteria of every lower tier. For example, OWAs 

must also meet criteria for public water supply, swimming, fish and wildlife support, and agriculture and industry use.

Suppose surface water quality does not meet the pre-assigned designated use criteria. In that case, the 

waterbody is placed on the EPA’s CWA Section 303(d) impaired waters list. The reason for impairment must also be 

submitted and approved by the EPA. Impaired waters remain on the list until the quality criteria are met, the impairment 

has been determined to be natural, or a total maximum daily load (TMDL) has been developed and approved by the EPA 

to address the cause of impairment.
87

The Section 303(d) list of impaired waters provides a snapshot of a region’s surface water quality. Impairment 

sources can be analyzed to determine regional issues affecting water and habitat quality. Furthermore, because the 

surrounding land use and cover affect water quality, the Section 303(d) list provides a unique perspective of the environmental quality of both land and water within an area.

Designated uses in the Black Belt region are diverse. They include OWA, public water supply, swimming, and 

fish and wildlife support (Figure 14). Outstanding Alabama Water has the highest quality criteria, while agriculture and 

industry use have the lowest criteria. Higher tier designated uses to meet the criteria of all tiers below. Many of the 

assessed streams in the Alabama Black Belt region are designated for high tier uses, including Outstanding Alabama 

Water, public water supply, and whole-body contact (i.e., swimming), thus providing ample opportunities for economic 

development. None of the Black Belt Region streams are designated for the lowest tier – agriculture and industry. 

None of the assessed waters are designated for the lowest tier designated agriculture and industry uses. Because 

of the tiering of designated uses, all surface waters within the Black Belt region must meet at least fish and wildlife 

support.

Figure 14 Highest Designated Uses for Assessed Waters and Waterbodies from ADEM, as part of CWA Section 303(d). 

The latest Section 303(d) list for Alabama identifies several impaired waters within the Black Belt region 

and the rest of the state (Figure 15). Impaired waters do not meet designated use criteria (e.g., fish and wildlife, 

swimming, water supply). Almost every county within the Black Belt region has at least one impaired waterway or 

waterbody; Lowndes County is the sole exception.
88

Figure 15 Waterways and Waterbodies Assessed by ADEM, as part of CWA Section 303(d)

With only a few exceptions, causes of impairment and 303(d) listing are mainly related to land use and land 

cover and related activities on the land surface. Pathogens were the most significant cause of impairment affecting the 

Black Belt region (Figure 16). Pathogen impairment is determined by elevated counts of E. coli, which are bacteria that 

live within the intestines of people and animals. Waterways and waterbodies are at risk of pathogen impairment due 

to direct discharges of untreated sewage, failed wastewater treatment systems, wastewater system overflows, and 

runoff from livestock waste.
89

Figure 16 Causes of Impairment in the Black Belt Region from 98 Entries in the 2020 ADEM 303(d) list

Mercury contamination was the second largest contributor to impairment. Mercury impairment is typically 

assigned based on fish consumption advisories issued by the Alabama Department of Public Health. Predatory fish 

species such as largemouth bass accumulate methylmercury in their tissues. This accumulation is a potential health 

concern because of the risks of consuming mercury-contaminated fish. The source of mercury is most commonly 

from atmospheric fallout related to coal-burning power plants. Mercury impairment is not necessarily related to land 

use activities in the vicinity of a stream or river.

Following pathogen and mercury impairment, siltation, nutrients, lead, biochemical oxygen demand (i.e., 

organic enrichment), and total dissolved solids (i.e., salts) contributed to 303(d) listings. The sources of impairment 

generally relate to land use or land cover within the region, with the notable exception of mercury (Figure 17). Pathogens and siltation impairment are primarily attributed to livestock raising (pasture and animal feeding operations) and 

agriculture. Atmospheric deposition is from coal-burning power plants and not watershed activities. Infrastructure 

concerns (collection system failure, urban runoff, and on-site wastewater) contribute to about 10% of the listings.
90

Figure 17 Sources of Impairment in the Black Belt Region from the 98 Entries in the 2020 ADEM 303(d) list

In summary, the literature review provides salient takeaways revealing the watershed and ecosystem health 

in the Black Belt region. 

1. Brick and mortar development may be limited in the Black Belt region, where centralized wastewater 

 collection and treatment are unavailable. OWTSs have high failure rates due to impermeable soils and 

 seasonally high water tables.

2. Primary Black Belt land uses and land covers are forests, wetlands, and pasture lands. Therefore, potential 

 sources of impairment to surface waters attributed to surrounding watersheds are limited in contrast to 

 more developed portions of the state.

3. Designated uses within the Black Belt region broadly support recreational and ecotourism activities, 

 including swimming, boating, fishing, hunting, and many others. The numerous streams and rivers in the 

 area provide multiple opportunities for these recreational activities.

4. Impairment in the Black Belt region is most commonly attributed to pathogens from livestock pastures and 

 animal feed operations, and mercury from coal-burning power plants.

Our initial findings suggest that the Black Belt watershed and related ecosystem quality are highly desirable 

for low-impact ecotourism activities that do not rely on the significant development of brick-and-mortar industries.
91

5.3. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

A preliminary framework for the watershed and ecosystem assessment was adopted from the watershed 

management plans recently released by the Mobile Bay National Estuary Program (MBNEP). In these plans, significant 

waterways and watershed conditions are assessed by pooling data from various public sources to identify opportunities for watershed improvements that enhance environmental resiliency, address threats to water and ecosystem 

quality, and enhance stakeholder engagement.

Following the watershed management plan framework, we completed a top-down, non-exhaustive scouring 

of published government agency reports, gray literature, and peer-reviewed literature to compile resources delineating 

major watersheds and sub-watersheds and further describe the condition of surface waters and associated ecosystems within the Black Belt (Figure 8). Data collection began at the national level through the United States Geological 

Survey’s (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). The NHD and WBD 

are geospatial datasets identifying navigable waterways and the drainage divides (i.e., watershed boundaries) that 

delineate catchment areas for these waterways. The WBD was used to identify subregions, subbasins, and sub-watersheds overlapping the Alabama Black Belt region. The NHD was used to identify waterways and impoundments. 

Additional data retrieved from the USGS include land use and land cover, soils, and other factors that may influence 

watershed quality. 

After identifying surface waters and their associated boundaries, we reviewed the Section 303(d) list of 

impaired waters to identify surface waters that are either impaired or threatened and no longer meet designated use 

criteria established by the State of Alabama. ADEM maintains and submits an updated Section 303(d) list to the EPA 

every two years. The most recent update was completed in 2020. ADEM also provides information regarding the 

specific criteria for impairment for each Section 303(d) listing, suspected causes for impairment, designated uses for 

all assessed surface waters in the state (Section 303(d) listed or otherwise), and special designations for high-quality waters, termed Outstanding Alabama Waters (OAWs). We parsed ADEM’s 2020 Section 303(d) list at the county 

level to extract water and ecosystem quality identifiers, including designated uses, 303(d) listed streams, causes of 

impairments, and sources of impairments. Additional morphometric data, including reach lengths for streams and 

impoundment areas for lakes, were also compiled to rank water quality between Black Belt region counties and reveal 

threats and opportunities for economic development. ADEM’s 303(d) list provided the bulk of our analysis’s granular 

water and ecosystem quality data. We also reviewed additional gray literature retrieved from the Geological Survey of 

Alabama (GSA) and scientific studies to provide additional context and insight.

Since most of the counties in the Black Belt region share similar environmental properties, regional findings 

were synthesized as an initial assessment. From there, county-level parsed environmental data were compared to 

develop county scores based on land use or land cover parameters, designated uses, and impairment. We calculated 

means and standard deviations from the aggregate Black Belt region county data from each category (land use, land 

cover, and impairment). A numeric score was determined for each county by subtracting the average Black Belt region 

value from the county metric and dividing the difference by the Black Belt standard deviation:

where is the county metric (i.e., percentage of wooded area and average designated use value), is the Black 

Belt region average, and is the Black Belt region standard deviation. Designated uses were scored based on 

tiers with normalized percentages of waterways or waterbodies multiplied by higher scaling factors for higher tiers 

(OWA = 9, public water supply = 6, swimming = 3, and fish and wildlife use = 1). A similar approach was used for 

scoring impaired and unimpaired waters within each county.
92

The resulting scores for each category were summed to provide final county composite scores. The composite scores indicate environmental conditions relative to other Black Belt region counties. Scores greater than zero 

indicate better than average environmental conditions, while negative scores indicate lower than average. Indeed, the 

scores are simply relative indicators and do not indicate the overall quality of the conditions. Positive scores indicate 

better than average conditions, and therefore, suggest a priority for economic development involving environmental 

resources (e.g., ecotourism).

5.4. RESULTS

5.4.1. Land Use and Land Cover Scores

We parsed the 2019 NLCD to determine county-specific land use and land cover metrics. Raw land use 

or land cover areas were converted to percentages for normalized comparisons between counties (Table 42). 

Before scoring, similar categories were grouped to reduce granularity. For example, low intensity developed, medium 

intensity developed, and high intensity developed percentages were added together and categorized as developed 

(Table 43).
93

Table 42 2019 NLCD Land Use/Land Cover for the Black Belt Region (in percent)
94

Table 43 Reduced NLCD Land Use/Land Cover Categories for the Black Belt Region (in percent) 

County-level data from each of the reduced NLCD land use or land cover categories were compared to the average 

and standard deviation to develop scores. Because open water, undeveloped land, and wetlands are desirable for environmental 

robustness, counties received positive scores for above-average metrics in each of these categories. In contrast, open space 

(i.e., cleared space), developed land, and agricultural land all have the potential to degrade the environment; thus, negative 

scores were assigned to counties with above-average metrics in each of 

these categories (Table 44).
95

Table 44 Land Use/Land Cover Scores for the Black Belt by Aggregate Score

5.4.2. ADEM Designated Uses

We extracted county-level designated uses for each waterway and waterbody from the 2020 ADEM Sections 

303(d) and 305(b) reports. Total assessed waterway length for streams and waterbody area for lakes and other 

impoundments were calculated for each category. We normalized lengths and areas of each designated use tier (i.e., 

OAW, public water supply, swimming, and fish and wildlife use) to total lengths and areas to determine each county’s 

respective percentages (Tables 45 and 6).
96

Table 45 Designated Use Tier for Black Belt Waterways (in percent)
97

Table 46 Designated Use Tier for Black Belt Waterbodies (in percent)

Because higher-tiered designated uses like OAW and public water supply include criteria for lower-tiered 

designated uses, waters with higher-tiered designated uses can provide more ecosystem services than lower-tiered 

waters. Therefore, the proportion of each designated use was weighted by tier to develop county-level scores and 

rankings (Tables 47-49). Note that a few counties do not contain waterbodies that have been assessed by ADEM and 

therefore do not receive any additional points. This methodology is justified because waterbodies like impoundments 

and lakes provide several opportunities for economic development (e.g., water supply, recreation, and tourism).
98

Table 47 Black Belt Region County Scores for Designated Waterway Uses
99

Table 48 Black Belt Region County Scores for Designated Waterbody Uses
100

Table 49 Aggregate Designated Use Scores for Black Belt Region Counties

5.4.3. Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters

Waters on the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters are waterways and waterbodies that fail to meet the 

EPA’s water and ecosystem quality criteria. Waterbodies failing to meet designated use criteria are only removed 

or de-listed when the impairment source is addressed by establishing total daily maximum limits (TMDL) or when 

the cause of impairment is deemed natural. Delisting may also occur when new assessment data demonstrate that 

designated criteria have been met. Waters that have been de-listed may still fail to meet designated use criteria even 

though TMDLs have been established.

Additionally, waters that meet all designated use criteria and have been thoroughly assessed are considered 

Category 1 waters. However, many waters fall between impaired and Category 1 waters when insufficient data have 

been collected to determine impairment.
101

We extracted impaired water data from the Section 303(d) list and parsed it at the county level. We normalized the length of impaired waterways and area of impaired waterbodies to total waterway length or total waterway 

area to determine impairment percentages for each county. The percentage of impaired waterways and waterbodies 

was multiplied by negative three as a preliminary score for each county. We extracted additional data on waterbodies 

meeting designated use criteria from the 305(b) list. The percentage of waterways and waterbodies that met designated use criteria (EPA Category 1) were multiplied by positive three. The impaired and unimpaired scores were 

summed for each county to provide aggregate scores and permit percentage calculations (Tables 50 and 51). We 

determined final scores for each county by summing the aggregate scores from each assessed category (i.e., land 

use, land cover, designated uses, and impairment) (Table 12 and Figure 9).

Table 50 Percentages of Impaired and Category 1 (i.e. unimpaired) Waterways and Waterbodies
102

Table 51 Aggregate Designated Use Scores

5.5. DISCUSSION

Several counties within the Alabama Black Belt region offer desirable watershed and ecosystem qualities for 

economic development (Table 52 and Figure 18). The comparison is based on land use, land cover, designated uses 

for surface waters and the degree of surface water impairment. In particular, Wilcox, Choctaw, Greene, and Clarke 

counties had positive scores in each of the three categories and total scores exceeding 7.5. These counties should be 

prioritized for economic development that takes advantage of the high-quality environmental conditions. For example, 

area waterways and waterbodies could be expressly targeted for the economic development of recreation, tourism, 

and ecotourism activities. Although Wilcox, Choctaw, Greene, and Clarke counties had the highest scores, no counties 

received negative scores in all three categories, suggesting that each county has desirable conditions suitable for 

economic development.
103

Table 52 Category Scores and Total Scores for Black Belt Counties
104

Figure 18 Relative comparison of watershed and ecosystem health in Black Belt Counties
105

6. Geographic Information Systems Mapping

6.1. INTRODUCTION

The University of South Alabama GIS Center created a Digital Atlas for Alabama’s Black Belt region. It features 

spatial information spanning a wide range of datasets available for viewing through the University of South Alabama’s 

GIS Server, housed through ESRI’s ArcGIS Online outlet. This product can be considered a “Living Atlas” in that data 

can be added and updated as new data sources become available.

6.2. LITERATURE

Similar “Living Atlas” projects hosted by ESRI’s ArcGIS Online outlet can be found for many projects. These 

projects can display many data types and are typically created with public access and ease of use in mind. The hyperlinks below show the wide range of examples and this concept’s utility in several fields, ranging from transportation 

infrastructure to forest fire hotspot mapping to urban flood zone mapping.

6.3. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

Among other data sources, the beta version included the following Black Belt region data layers:

 • Detailed census data by county

 • Detailed census data by zip code

 • Rivers and Streams

 • Impaired Rivers and Streams

 • Simplified land use

 • Address, location, and contact data for hospitals and urgent care facilities

 • Address, location, and contact data for public and private school facilities

 • Address, location, and contact data for higher education facilities

 • Address, location, and contact data for child-care facilities

 • Simplified climate characteristics

University of South Alabama staff will continue developing and refining available GIS resources to create 

additional informational map layers and the Digital Atlas will continue to grow in size, providing users with increasing 

amounts of information. Additionally, data can be edited, and visualizations can be updated or improved. Compared 

to other atlas forms, the primary benefit of our Digital Atlas is that updating can be a continual process. Future layer 

additions may include information on fire stations, police precincts, airports, bridges, and other items of interest.

6.4. ALABAMA BLACK BELT DIGITAL ATLAS HYPERLINK

https://www.southalabama.edu/colleges/artsandsci/earthsci/geography/dra_digital_atlas.html
106

7. Data Visualization

7.1. INTRODUCTION

Descriptive analytics enables examining and analyzing historical and current data to describe “what happened” or “what has been happening.” In contrast, diagnostic analytics enables answering the “why did it happen” 

question (Banerjee et al., 2013; Delen and Ram, 2018). Historically, data has most often been presented in tabular 

format. Modern, practical visualization tools, such as interactive dashboards, help decrease the time and effort needed for accurate data interpretation. 

We designed and developed a series of Black Belt Dashboards to provide leaders and policymakers with leading economic indicators and infrastructure data at their fingertips. The Dashboards will be accessible on any internet 

browser using publicly available hyperlinks. Additionally, users can embed Dashboards into their websites using the 

embed code (“Share” button in each Dashboard’s lower right corner). 

Each Dashboard is designed to answer a single question outlined in its title. A brief explanation of metrics 

used is summarized immediately under the title. Each Dashboard’s footer section contains data source links, a button 

users can use to download a PDF version, and where applicable, an “About Data” button for further methodology 

explanation. Charts and other dashboard elements are introduced by descriptive titles or by a question to be answered 

by the chart. Additional details about the topic become visible by hovering over the charts or other dashboard elements. Where applicable, they can also be clicked on and serve as filters to customize the dashboard view to provide 

additional insights.

Data visualization is a process that transforms data and information into intuitive graphics serving a specific 

purpose (Thorp, 2013; Valkanova et al., 2015). For the project, we considered several questions while preparing to 

visualize project data, including: 

1. What data are available?

2. What questions can a dataset answer? 

3. Who is the audience?

4. What answers are users likely to seek from the data? 

5. What are users’ data literacy levels? 

We worked with proprietary and publicly available data to develop the visualizations and perform descriptive and 

diagnostic analytics. Our goal was to provide a “data toolbox” that makes it effortless to obtain Black Belt economic 

and utility infrastructure data to assist leaders and policymakers in focusing on data-driven strategic decision-making.

7.2. LITERATURE

Technology adoption and advancement throughout the 21st century has gradually enabled businesses and 

organizations to collect and store ever-increasing volumes of data related to many aspects of managing an organization. Asset management, financial data, employee performance, marketing performance, operations, and sales are 

but a few examples. Therefore, the importance of recognizing the value of data for businesses and organizations has 

become critical (Fosso Wamba et al., 2015). One of the challenges that large datasets present is making sense of all 

the rows and columns. 

We kept this scientific evidence in mind while designing project dashboards. For the most part, we opted to 

use commonly used presentations (bar charts, line charts, pie charts). In some cases, though, newer and more practical data visualization techniques were utilized. The features easily identifiable by the human eye, such as color or size, 

have been used strategically to draw the user’s attention to the targeted area and increase the data’s faster interpretability (Barcellos et al., 2017; Barrera-Leon et al., 2020; Wolfe and Horowitz, 2004). Well-designed visualizations are 

tools that can help increase public awareness, inspire discussion by a wider audience, and spur much-needed public 

discourse between citizens, public agencies, and civic groups (Valkanova et al., 2015).
107

7.3. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

We used both proprietary and public data to depict the region’s economic overview and utility infrastructure. 

In addition, the datasets have been cleaned and shaped to accommodate the project. The sources are described in 

previous sections.

7.4. DASHBOARDS

7.4.1. 

Alabama Black Belt Population Trends

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/sabre/viz/PopulationTrends-AlabamaBlackBeltregion/PopulationTrendsDE1-1?publish=yes

Alabama Black Belt Population Demographics

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/sabre/viz/PopulationDemographics-AlabamaBlackBeltRegion/PopulationDemographicsDE1-2?publish=yes

Alabama Black Belt Economy

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/sabre/viz/EconomyatGlance-AlabamaBlackBeltRegion/EconomyatGlanceDE1-3?publish=yes

Alabama Black Belt Major Industries

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/sabre/viz/MajorIndustries-AlabamaBlackBeltRegion/PopulationDemographicsDE2

Alabama Black Belt Top 25 Industries Shift

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/sabre/viz/Top25IndustriesShift-AlabamaBlackBeltRegion/Top25Shift?publish=yes

Alabama Black Belt Future Jobs in Selected Industries

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/sabre/viz/FutureJobsinSelectedClusters-AlabamaBlackBeltRegion/Clusters-FutureJobs?publish=yes

Alabama Black Belt Top 25 Occupations Shift

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/sabre/viz/IndustriesbyTotalRequirementsandImportGap-AlabamaBlackBeltRegion/ImportgapandTotReq?publish=yes

Alabama Black Belt Import Gap By Cluster By County

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/sabre/viz/ImportGapEconomicImpactofClustersbyCounty-AlabamaBlackBeltRegion/Importgap-BYCOunty-Bars?publish=yes

Alabama Black Belt Import Gap Economic Impact By Cluster

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/sabre/viz/ImportGapEconomicImpactbyClusters-AlabamaBlackBeltRegion/

ImportgapandTotReq2?publish=yes
108

Alabama Black Belt Wastewater Infrastructure

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/sabre/viz/WastewaterSystems-AlabamaBlackBeltRegion/FlowRates?publish=yes

Alabama Black Belt Drinking Water Infrastructure

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/sabre/viz/DrinkingWater-AlabamaBlackBeltRegion/Water-Dahsboard?publish=yes

Alabama Black Belt Natural Gas and Propane Infrastructure

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/sabre/viz/GasProviders-AlabamaBlackBeltRegion/GasDashboard?publish=yes

Alabama Black Belt Broadband Internet Infrastructure

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/sabre/viz/InternetAccess-AlabamaBlackBeltRegion/Coverage-Dashboard?-

publish=yes
109

8. Strategic Recommendations

8.1. SWOT ANALYSIS

A SWOT Analysis focuses on the four elements included in the acronym: Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, 

and Threats. A SWOT Analysis is an analytical framework that identifies internal and external influences, which companies and organizations can use to identify existing challenges and difficulties, and then develop future operational 

and growth strategies designed to overcome roadblocks and chart a course for success. Often used in strategic 

planning efforts, a SWOT Analysis can serve effectively as a precursor to any organizational decision or action.

8.1.1. Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths and Weaknesses typically refer to internalities: financial, physical, personnel, and organizational 

systems and processes. Key questions to examine include:

Strengths:

• What does the organization do well?

• Upon what unique resources can the organization draw?

• What do others see as the organization’s strengths?

Weaknesses:

• What could the organization improve?

• Where does the organization have fewer resources than others?

• What are others likely to see as the organization’s weaknesses?

8.1.2 Opportunities and Threats

Opportunities and Threats typically refer to externalities: markets, economics, politics, and demographics. 

Organizations must act strategically in their external response and leverage perceived strengths as opportunities (e.g., 

in support of an organization’s expansion or to highlight its unique attributes to build brand awareness and increase 

demand). Similarly, identified weaknesses can provide informed platforms for improvements. Key questions to examine include:

Opportunities:

• What opportunities are open to the organization?

• What trends could the organization turn to its advantage?

• How could the organization turn its strengths into opportunities?

Threats:

• What threats could harm the organization?

• What is the organization’s competition doing?

• What threats do the organization’s weaknesses create for the organization?

8.2. BLACK BELT SWOT ANALYSIS SUMMARY

8.2.1. Strengths

Economic Impact Assessment

• The GIWW is a critical asset to the Black Belt region, connecting 20 largely rural economies to those of the 

 Gulf Coast, the Great Lakes, and beyond.

• Gross Regional Product (GRP) in the Black Belt is $12.5 billion and has increased in recent years.

• The Waterway & Logistics Cluster GRP is $258.8 million (2.1% of total Black Belt GRP)

• The Recreation & Tourism Cluster GRP is $327.9 million (2.7% of total Black Belt GRP)

• The GIWW and its tributaries are closely connected to local Black Belt economies.
110

Environmental Housing Impact Assessment

• Close geographic proximity to the GIWW’s tributaries, not the GIWW itself, 

 is a preferred choice of homebuyers.

• The external financial benefit of close proximity to GIWW tributaries is approximately $29,000 

 per household (28% higher than no proximity).

• The average aggregate financial benefit of GIWW tributaries within the Black Belt is $722,512 

 per household.

Wastewater and Infrastructure Assessment

• Areas with all critical infrastructures in place are immediately ready for the expansion of residential areas 

 and the establishment of new businesses.

• Drinking water is available throughout the Black Belt.

• Natural gas or propane service is available throughout the Black Belt.

• Electricity infrastructure is available throughout the Black Belt.

• Internet service is available via satellite throughout the Black Belt region where cable, fiber, and ADSL 

 technologies are unavailable.

Watershed and Ecosystem Assessment

• Land use within the Black Belt is generally undeveloped.

• For waterways within the Black Belt, designated tier uses from the Alabama Department of Environmental 

 Management are for fish and wildlife or higher.

• The Black Belt has numerous unimpaired waterbodies and waterways.

8.3. WEAKNESSES

Economic Impact Assessment

• The Black Belt receives no economic benefits from the value of the freight that is moved through its portion 

 of the GIWW.

• Black Belt land area is 33.4% of Alabama’s total, yet Black Belt GRP is only 5.6% of Alabama’s total 

 as a region.

• Black Belt household income levels are lower than for Alabama as a whole.

• Most current Black Belt occupations are relatively low-skilled.

Environmental Housing Impact Assessment 

• Water pollution creates an external cost of $5,065 per mile of impaired river per household.

• The median residential property value is lower compared to other areas in Alabama.

Wastewater and Infrastructure Assessment 

• Adequate wastewater infrastructure is not currently available in many areas of the Black Belt, which may 

 suggest that in some places untreated sewage is being directly discharged onto the ground and which, as 

 a result, may negatively impact water quality.

• Many areas of the Black Belt have soils that are unsuitable for septic tank usage, forcing reliance on 

 alternative and often more expensive wastewater management systems.

• While cellular voice and data are available in most areas, some notable gaps are present.

• Fast and reliable broadband internet service is limited throughout the Black Belt.

• Areas within the Black Belt lacking critical infrastructures, such as adequate wastewater systems, may not 

 support economic growth.
111

Watershed and Ecosystem Assessment 

• Waterbody impairment is an issue, especially downstream of livestock pasture and feeding operations.

• Pathogens are a major cause of impairment, limiting many recreational uses, including swimming.

8.4. OPPORTUNITIES

Economic Impact Assessment 

• Target economic development to industries with Black Belt region Import Gaps totaling $10.3 billion.

• Specifically, target economic development to industries within WLC and RTC Clusters with combined 

 Import Gaps totaling $430.2 million.

• If filled, WLC Import Gap’s potential economic impacts would result in 371 jobs, $12 million in new wages, 

 $15.3 million in new value creation, $38.5 million new revenues, $1 million in new taxes.

• If filled, RTC Import Gap’s potential economic impacts would result in 71 jobs, $1.4 million in new wages, 

 $3.3 million in new value creation, $14.7 million new revenues, and $232,500 in new taxes.

Environmental Housing Impact Assessment

• Adopt policies that maintain dredging and protect water quality, increase property values, and generate 

 higher tax revenues to support economic development.

• Promote GIWW tributaries as aesthetical and recreational assets.

Wastewater and Infrastructure Assessment 

• Fill the Black Belt’s water and wastewater infrastructure investment gap and potentially provide 1,500 jobs, 

 labor income of $89 million, and total annual revenues of $260 million.

• Boost economic output of $2.88 million per every $1 million spent expanding broadband internet 

 service infrastructure.

Watershed and Ecosystem Assessment 

• Promote the many Black Belt waterbodies and waterways suitable for recreational activities such as 

 swimming, skiing, fishing, kayaking, boating, and other water-related activities.

• Utilize Black Belt waterbodies and waterways suitable for public water supply to expand infrastructure.

• The Black Belt has large expanses of undeveloped land with unimpaired waters that may be desirable 

 for housing.

8.5. THREATS

Economic Impact Assessment 

• Failure to maintain dredging activities within the GIWW could impact navigability and devalue the industries 

 that depend on its use.

• Failure to maintain dredging activities within the GIWW could devalue property values in the region.

• Continued outward population migration poses a threat to the Black Belt region.

• Automation could replace low-wage jobs (e.g., a French fry machine could replace a low-wage worker in a 

 fast-food restaurant), which would place additional pressure on employment and the labor force.

• Failing to adopt policies and legislation designed to promote and support economic expansion could result 

 in long-term negative consequences for the Black Belt region.
112

Environmental Housing Impact Assessment 

• Farming activities and other nonpoint sources of water pollution could impair waterbodies and waterways 

 and diminish property values.

• There are multiple potential health issues associated with poor water quality.

Wastewater and Infrastructure Assessment

• Failing to invest in correcting wastewater system deficiencies and constructing new wastewater treatment 

 infrastructure will deter residential and economic growth within the Black Belt.

• Failing to invest in wastewater infrastructure will continue to impact the Black Belt’s environmental and 

 community health negatively.

• Failure to invest in drinking water infrastructure updates and repairs could cause disruptions of service and 

 result in negative economic impacts.

Watershed and Ecosystem Assessment 

• Land development may degrade surface water quality.

• Mercury impairment is present, but it is caused mainly by factors external to the Black Belt region.

8.6. STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS

We used SWOT Analysis results to formulate multiple strategic policy, statutory, and investment 

recommendations. Guiding the effort were some key questions:

• How can the Black Belt use its strengths to succeed?

• Which weaknesses can the Black Belt improve that maximize success?

• Which opportunities should the Black Belt pursue? 

• What strategies can the Black Belt employ to be prepared for threats?

8.6.1. Economic Impact Assessment 

Maintaining the navigability of the GIWW is critical. Even though the Black Belt derives no economic benefit 

from the actual value of the cargo that flows through it, area residents, businesses, and industries do benefit from jobs 

and economic activity tied to GIWW operation. Any constrictions on waterway navigability are potential constrictions 

on economic output. Additionally, our results showed that people value the properties surrounding the many tributaries of the GIWW. Inadequate dredging could reduce access, and as a result, potentially lead to reduced property 

values. Black Belt leaders must continue to push national and state political leaders to ensure adequate financial 

appropriations for GIWW dredging within the Black Belt.

Economic development does not happen in a vacuum and is most often due to synergies between community 

groups. Failing to provide policy support may reduce outcomes. Assemble a group of key policymakers, local leaders, 

and economic development officials to form a coalition that represents and lobbies at both the federal and state levels 

for the economic and social welfare interests of the Black Belt.

Some counties may be too small or lack the necessary experience or financial resources to pursue economic 

development projects at the county level. Just as regionally, there is strength in numbers, even more so for a small 

area. Leaders in these counties should consider partnering with neighboring counties and organizations to promote 

each area’s complementary attributes and work together to promote their mutual interests.

The Black Belt economy is small relative to Alabama. Even so, opportunities for expanding it do exist. Earlier, we identified substantial Import Gap opportunities in two critical Black Belt economic clusters. We then used our economic 

impact analysis to evaluate how filling all Import Gaps would affect the economy with respect to jobs, wages, value 

creation, revenues, and taxes. Logic would urge economic development pursuit. 

In addition to the identified cluster opportunities, consider that the Black Belt has 993 industries. However, 

only 74 of these are from either the WLC or RTC. Given that the WLC and RTC account for only 4.2% of the Import 
113

Gaps in the region, leaders should make efforts to conduct similar analyses on remaining Import Gap opportunities 

within the Black Belt and use results to inform a broader economic development strategy.

The Recreation and Tourism industries offer opportunities for expansion in some areas within the Black Belt. 

Officials should utilize and take full advantage of the many local attractions and amenities described earlier to develop 

a comprehensive plan for advancing interests and adding value by recruiting outside the region. They should partner 

efforts at the county level with regional economic development officials to introduce sustained, targeted marketing 

and promotion strategies. Involve not only local officials but also local businesses in campaign discussions and development. 

8.6.2. Environmental Housing Impact Assessment 

Our results indicated that people highly value close proximity to GIWW tributaries. Higher property values are 

the result. As a contribution to efforts to realize increased economic activity, Black Belt policymakers should work to 

maximize the aesthetical and recreational values of the GIWW tributaries.

Water quality and aesthetic appeal influence property values. Our results showed aggregate financial benefit 

increases related to GIWW tributaries. Local leaders should work with policymakers to enforce high water quality 

management to preserve and increase tributaries’ aesthetical and recreational values and minimize property value 

losses. 

Our results showed that agricultural practices are contributors to water quality impairment in some areas. 

Agriculture is a critical industry in the Black Belt region that is essential not only to the economy but in many ways 

to the fabric of people’s lives. Leaders must look for ways to decrease agricultural land use waterway pollution while 

at the same time not impeding the agricultural industry’s ability to operate and succeed. One suggestion might be to 

engage an agriculture extension office to design and host best practices educational programs for area farmers. 

8.6.3. Wastewater and Infrastructure Assessment

Key to any area’s economic development prospects is its ability to provide a range of competitively priced and 

reliable infrastructure services to area residents. New infrastructure services development, existing systems maintenance, sufficient service supply and system capacity demand, and operations within environmental and regulatory 

compliant are all keys to economic welfare and uninterrupted service. 

Focus economic expansion in the areas already supported by the necessary infrastructure. Adding to existing 

systems and expanding existing supplies is less costly and time-consuming than starting from nothing. Local government owners and operators of wastewater treatment facilities should seek grants and other funding and assistance 

from federal and state agencies. Area leaders, policymakers, and elected officials should focus on increased investment in increasing and updating wastewater treatment facilities. 

Conflicts between federal, state, and local environmental laws can lead to confusion and create gaps in enforceability. Although some can often view any change in the law with skepticism, some changes to environmental 

statutes may need to be addressed. Regulators and policymakers should consider joining forces to update and standardize state and local infrastructure regulations to match U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s standards. 

In some areas, soils in the Black Belt simply will not accommodate a typical residential septic tank system. 

This deficiency poses an obvious challenge to residential and business development. Alternate systems and designs 

may offer opportunities. Utility authorities should adopt strategies for expanding the use of decentralized wastewater infrastructure and exploring new, more cost-effective technologies to meet rural and underserved areas’ unique 

needs.
114

8.6.4. Watershed and Ecosystem Assessment 

The Black Belt region has numerous waterbodies that are unimpaired. These waters present opportunities 

for increased recreational use and residential development. Leaders should incorporate the natural attractiveness 

of Black Belt waters into marketing and promotional efforts to encourage investment and expand real estate development.

Because much of the Black Belt region is undeveloped, Black Belt leaders can modify existing land use regulations to encourage and promote real estate development. At the same time, any policy that encourages development must also embrace sustainability and environmental protection concepts. Allowing real estate development that 

degrades land or impairs lakes, streams, and rivers will not likely lead to positive economic outcomes. 

Agriculture-related waterway impairment can be detrimental to the region. Policymakers must recognize that 

as vital as the agriculture industry is, potential adverse effects from agricultural practices may well hinder positive 

future growth within the Black Belt region. Work to increase awareness and education about links between agriculture 

and water pollution, and set policies that promote safe, environmentally sustainable agricultural practices.
115

References

ADEM, 2020. Alabama’s Water Quality Assessment Listing Methodology: Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management. Montgomery, AL.

ADEM, 2020. Final 2020 303(d) List: Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Montgomery, AL.

Affuso, E. and Lahtinen, K.D., 2018. Social media sentiment and market behavior. Empirical Economics, pp.1-23.

Affuso, Ermanno, Christophe Vincent de PARISOT, Chau-Sa Ho, and Diane Hite. “The impact of hazardous waste on 

property values: The effect of lead pollution.” Urbani izziv 21, no. 2 (2010): 117-126.

Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R. and Schuman, H., 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on 

contingent valuation. Federal register, 58(10), pp.4601-4614.

Artell, Janne. “Lots of value? A spatial hedonic approach to water quality valuation.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57, no. 6 (2014): 862-882.

Banerjee, A., Bandyopadhyay, T., & Acharya, P. (2013). Data Analytics: Hyped Up Aspirations or True Potential? Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 38(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090920130401

Barcellos, R., Viterbo, J., Miranda, L., Bernardini, F., Maciel, C., & Trevisan, D. (2017). Transparency in practice: Using 

visualization to enhance the interpretability of open data. Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on 

Digital Government Research, 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1145/3085228.3085294

Barrera-Leon, L., Corno, F., & de Russis, L. (2020). Systematic Variation of Preattentive Attributes to Highlight Relevant Data in Information Visualization. 2020 24th International Conference Information Visualisation (IV), 74–79. 

https://doi.org/10.1109/IV51561.2020.00022

Bin, Okmyung. “A semiparametric hedonic model for valuing wetlands.” Applied Economics Letters 12, no. 10 (2005): 

597-601.

Bonetti, Federico, Stefano Corsi, Luigi Orsi, and Ivan De Noni. “Canals vs. streams: To what extent do water quality 

and proximity affect real estate values? A hedonic approach analysis.” Water 8, no. 12 (2016): 577.

Carter, D.W. and Milon, J.W., 2005. Price knowledge in household demand for utility services. Land Economics, 81(2), 

pp.265-283.

Cheney, P. (2018). “Key Assumptions of IMPLAN & Input/Output Analysis,” IMPLAN Group, LLC. Available at https://

implanhelp.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115009505587-KeyAssumptions-of-IMPLAN-Input-Output-Analysis.

Clark Jr, M. W. (1983). Methods, Models, and Data Sources Applicable to Transportation Economics Studies (No. IWR83-TR-1). Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources Alexandria, VA.
116

Cook, Marlon, R., 1993. The Eutaw aquifer in Alabama: Geological Survey of Alabama, Hydrogeology Division. Tuscaloosa, AL.

Cummings, J. R., and Epley, Donald R. (2014). “A Total Requirements View of a Tourism and Hospitality Market is 

More Accurate than Traditional Location Quotients,” Tourism Economics, 20(3), 1-20.

Cummings, J. R., and Epley, Donald R. (2015). “Better Tourism Market Analysis by Including Import Gap Analysis,” 

Tourism Economics, 21(3), 871-879.

Delen, D., & Ram, S. (2018). Research challenges and opportunities in business analytics. Journal of Business Analytics, 1(1), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/2573234X.2018.1507324

Delta Regional Authority (2016). Moving the Delta Forward: Delta Regional Development Plan III. Available at: https://

dra.gov/images/uploads/content_files/DRA_RDP3-FINAL_APRIL2016.pdf.

Dewitz, J., and U.S. Geological Survey, 2021. National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2019 Products (ver. 2.0, June 

2021): U.S. Geological Survey data release, available at https://doi.org/10.5066/P9KZCM54.

Farm Foundation. (2018). Economic Impacts, Costs and Benefits of Infrastructure Investment— Review of the Literature. Available at https://www.farmfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/FP-PenderTorero.pdf.

Fosso Wamba, S., Akter, S., Edwards, A., Chopin, G., & Gnanzou, D. (2015). How ‘big data’ can make big impact: 

Findings from a systematic review and a longitudinal case study. International Journal of Production Economics, 165, 

234–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.031

Frederick, M. (1993). Rural Tourism and Economic Development, Economic Development Quarterly, 7(2), 215-225. 

Gibbs, Julie P., John M. Halstead, Kevin J. Boyle, and Ju-Chin Huang. “A hedonic analysis of the effects of lake water 

clarity on New Hampshire lakefront properties.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 31, no. 1 (2002): 39-

46.

Griffin, R. C., James, A. P., & Basilotto, J. P. (1997). A Synthesis of Modern, Professional Economic Wisdom and Literature Pertaining to Navigation Projects (No. SWUTC/97/467109-1).

Grossardt, T., Bray, L., & Burton, M. (2014). Inland Navigation in the United States: An Evaluation of Economic Impacts 

and the Potential Effects of Infrastructure Investment. National Waterways Foundation Research Report.

Hardebeck, S., Boze, B. V., Basilotto, J. P., McGuire, J. M., & Rhi-Perez, P. (1999). Economic Impact of Barge Transportation on the Texas Portion of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) and Extension of the GIWW into Mexico 

(Revised) (No. TX-97/2993-S).

He, J., Dougherty, M., Zellmer, R., and Martin, G., 2011. Assessing the Status of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in the Alabama Black Belt Soil Area. Environmental Engineering Science, 28(10): 693-699.
117

Heckman, J.J., 2001. Micro data, heterogeneity, and the evaluation of public policy: Nobel lecture. Journal of Political 

Economy, 109(4), pp.673-748.

Hodges, A. W., Stevens, T. J., Rahmani, M., & Swett, R. (2013). Economic Analysis of Working Waterfronts in the 

United States. Newport, 460(6,176), 144.

International Association of Dredging Companies (2018). Available at: https://www.iadc-dredging.com/wp-content/

uploads/2019/10/dredging-in-figures-2018.pdf.

Kain, J.F. and Quigley, J.M., 1970. Measuring the value of housing quality. Journal of the American statistical association, 65(330), pp.532-548.

Ketels, C. (2017). Cluster Mapping as a Tool for Development. Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness-Harvard 

Business School: Boston, MA, USA.

Lambert, B. (2010). The economic role of inland water transport. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 

163(5), 8.

Lansford Jr, Node H., and Lonnie L. Jones. “Recreational and aesthetic value of water using hedonic price analysis.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics (1995): 341-355.

Leontief, W.W. (1936). Quantitative input and output relations and the economic system of the United States. The 

Review of Economics and Statistics, 18(3), 105-125.

Leontief, W.W. (1937). Interrelation of prices, output, savings, and investment. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 19(3) 109-132.

Leontief, W.W. (1970). Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: An input-output approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 52(3), 282-271.

McLean, D. and Mundy, B., 1998. The addition of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis to the required body of 

knowledge for the estimation of environmental damages to real property. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education, 1(1), pp.1-19.

Outdoor Industry Association (2019.) The Outdoor Recreation Economy. Available at: https://outdoorindustry.org/

wp-content/uploads/2017/04/OIA_RecEconomy_FINAL_Single.pdf.

Porter, M. (1998). Clusters and competitiveness. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 140-147.

Portney, P.R., 1994. The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 

8(4), pp.3-17.

Roop, S. S., Wang, D. U., Dickinson, R. W., & Clarke, G. M. (1993). Closure of the GIWW and its Impact on the Texas 

Highway Transportation System: Final Report—Volume II (No. FHWA/TX93/1283-2F).
118

Rosen, S., 1974. Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political 

Economy, 82(1), pp.34-55.

Smith, E.A., 1883. Report for the Years 1881 and 1882 Embracing an Account of the Agricultural Features of the State: 

Geological Survey of Alabama. W.D. Brown, Montgomery, AL. 

Steinnes, Donald N. “Measuring the economic value of water quality.” The Annals of Regional Science 26, no. 2 

(1992): 171-176.

Stone, Richard (1948). Social accounting, aggregation, and invariance. University of Cambridge, Department of Economics.

Texas Department of Transportation (2019). Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Legislative Report. Available at: https://ftp.

txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/tpp/giww/gulf-intracoastal-waterway-legislative-report-2020-9-30.pdf.

The Value of Water Campaign. (2017). The Economic Benefits of Investing in Water Infrastructure. Available at http://

thevalueofwater.org/sites/default/files/Economic%20Impact%20of%20Investing%20in%20Water%20Infrastructure_VOW_FINAL_pages.pdf.

Thorp, J. (2013). Visualization as Process, Not Output. Harvard Business Review, 5.

Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A Feature-Integration Theory of Attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 40. https://

doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5

Tuttle, Carrie M., and Martin D. Heintzelman. “A loon on every lake: A hedonic analysis of lake water quality in the 

Adirondacks.” Resource and Energy Economics 39 (2015): 1-15.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017. National Hydrography Dataset Plus High Resolution (NHDPlus HR): USGS National Map 

Downloadable Data Collection.

US EPA, 2002. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual: Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA/65/R-00/008.

USACE (2000). Inland Waterway Navigation – Value to the Nation. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Available at: https://

www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/Navigation/InlandWaterways-Value.pdf.

USACE (2021). Dredging. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Available at: https://navigation.usace.army.mil/CED.

Valkanova, N., Jorda, S., & Vande Moere, A. (2015). Public visualization displays of citizen data: Design, impact and 

implications. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 81, 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.02.005

Wetta, R.B. (2015). Dredging impact on the global economy. Available at: https://dscdredge.com/news/192.
119

Wetta, R.B. and Hanson, W.H. (2011). How does dredging affect the economy? Proceedings of the Western Dredging 

Association (WEDA XXXI) Technical Conference and Texas A&M University (TAMU 42) Dredging Seminar, Nashville, 

Tennessee, June 5-8, 2011.

Wetta, R.B. and Hanson, W.H. (2011). How does dredging affect the economy? Proceedings of the Western Dredging 

Association (WEDA XXXI) Technical Conference and Texas A&M University (TAMU 42) Dredging Seminar, Nashville, 

Tennessee, June 5-8, 2011.

Winemiller, T. L. (2009). Black Belt Region in Alabama. Encyclopedia of Alabama. Available at: http://encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-2458.

Winship, C. and Morgan, S.L., 1999. The estimation of causal effects from observational data. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), pp.659-706.

Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2004). What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do 

it? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(6), 495–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1411
120

Appendix A – Alabama Black Belt

Recreational and Tourism Opportunities

The Alabama Black Belt offers many opportunities for recreation. Hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, canoeing, kayaking, paddle boarding, skiing, hiking, exploring, wildlife viewing, and horseback riding are just some of 

the many things residents and visitors alike enjoy throughout the year. Many tourism opportunities are available as 

well. Each year thousands of people from the Black Belt and beyond visit the region’s many historical sites, museums, playhouse productions, state and national parks, and athletic events. Each county is unique, and each offers 

many outlets that if properly marketed and promoted could serve as economic drivers that do not require significant 

resource investment.

BARBOUR COUNTY

Lakepoint State Park is situated along the banks of Lake Eufaula, a 45,000-acre lake known as “The Bass 

Capital of the World.” Waterways are the Chattahoochee and Choctawhatchee Rivers. Amenities include campgrounds, 

on-water gas pumps, and boat launches. State parks, preserves, historical landmarks, and museums include Shorter 

Mansion and Fendall Hall.

BUTLER COUNTY

The waterway is Pigeon Creek. Bent Creek Lodge offers 30,000 acres for bow and gun hunting, with abundant white tail deer and eastern wild turkey throughout. State parks, preserves, historical landmarks, and museums 

include the Hank Williams Boyhood Home and Museum, offering visitors opportunities to learn more about one of 

country music’s biggest stars.

BULLOCK COUNTY

Blue Heron Lake supports many recreational activities. The waterway is the Conecuh River. Amenities include 

stables, paddocks, and campsites. Providence Canyon and Blue Springs are state parks. State parks, preserves, 

historical landmarks, and museums include Josephine Arts Center, Bullock Count Jail Museum, and the Log Cabin 

Museum.

CHOCTAW COUNTY

The waterway is the Tombigbee River. Numerous hunting lodges and campgrounds are available, including 

the Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge, Bladon State Park, Coffeeville Lake, Lenoir Landing Park. State parks, preserves, historical landmarks, and museums include Broadhead Memorial Park, Choctaw County Historical Museum, 

and Military Memorial Walkway.

CLARKE COUNTY

The waterways are the Tombigbee and Alabama Rivers. Amenities include the Claiborne Lake Dam, with 

camping facilities and boat ramp. State parks, preserves, historical landmarks, and museums include Alabama Southern Community College Regional Art Museum, Clarke County Historical Museum, and the Kathryn Tucker Windham 

Museum.
121

CONECUH COUNTY

The waterway is the Sepulga River. Amenities include Boggs & Boulders Off Road Park and Campground, and 

the Bull Slough Bridge Canoe Launch. State parks, preserves, historical landmarks, and museums include the Brown 

Hawkins Rural Learning Center, Booker’s Mill, and the Historic Evergreen Train Depot.

DALLAS COUNTY

The waterways are the Cahaba and Alabama Rivers. Amenities include a fishing center at Dallas County 

Public Lake and numerous hunting lodges. State parks, preserves, historical landmarks, and museums include the 

Ancient Africa Enslavement and Civil War Museum, the Bienville Monument Museum, and the National Voting Rights 

Museum of Selma.

ESCAMBIA COUNTY

The waterway is the Conecuh River. Amenities include a boat ramp and fishing pier at Leon Brooks Hines Public Lake. State parks, preserves, historical landmarks, and museums include the Magnolia Branch Wildlife Reserve, 

the Poarch Creek Band of Indians Museum, the Thomas E. McMillan Museum and Alabama Room, and the Turtle Point 

Environmental Science Center.

GREENE COUNTY

The waterway is the Black Warrior River. Amenities include Forkland Park Campground that has campsites 

with views of Rattlesnake Bend, a 12-mile ox-bow loop of flat water on an arm of the river. State parks, preserves, 

historical landmarks, and museums include Boligee Hill, the Coleman-Banks House, and the Greene County Courthouse Square District.

HALE COUNTY

The waterway is the Black Warrior River. Amenities include the Payne Lake Recreational Area, with campsites 

and cooking and campfire areas. State parks, preserves, historical landmarks, and museums include the Safehouse 

Black History Museum.

LOWNDES COUNTY

The waterway is the Alabama River, including the Robert F Henry Lock and Dam. Amenities include campsites 

and hiking trails. State parks, preserves, historical landmarks, and museums include the Original Site of Tent City, 

the Lowndes County Interpretive Center, the Elmore Bolling Historic Site, the Jonathan Daniels Memorial Site, and the 

Viola Liuzzo Memorial.

MACON COUNTY

The waterway is the Tallapoosa River. Amenities include campsites and shooting ranges. State parks, preserves, historical landmarks, and museums include Tuskegee National Forest, the George Washington Carver Museum, the Tuskegee Heritage Museum, and the Tuskegee Human and Civil Rights Multicultural Center.

MARENGO COUNTY

The waterways are the Tombigbee River and Black Warrior Rivers. Amenities include hunting lodges, campgrounds, boat ramps, and boat docks. State parks, preserves, historical landmarks, and museums include Foscue 

Creek Park, Kingfisher Bay Marina, Bluff Hall, Laird Cottage and Geneva Mercer Museum, the Marengo County History 

and Archive Museum, and the Gaineswood National Historic Landmark
122

MONROE COUNTY

The waterway is the Alabama River, including the Claiborne Lock and Dam. Amenities include boat ramps, 

campgrounds, and lodges. State parks, preserves, historical landmarks, and museums include the Davis River Ferry, 

Little River State Forest, Monroe County Lake, the Old Courthouse Museum, the Southwest Alabama Regional Arts 

Museum, Lyle Salter Park, and Rikard’s Mill Historical Park.

PERRY COUNTY

The waterway is the Cahaba River. Amenities include a 100-foot-tall canopy birding tower, boat ramps, and 

Barton’s Beach Cahaba River Preserve with sand and gravel bars, beaver ponds, swamps, and the hardwood forest. 

State parks, preserves, historical landmarks, and museums include the Alabama Military Hall of Honor Museum, the 

Alabama Women’s Hall of Fame, and the Marion Female Seminary Building.

PICKENS COUNTY

The waterway is the Tombigbee River. Amenities include campsites, fire pits, and a 25-foot diameter floating 

trampoline. State parks, preserves, historical landmarks, and museums include Shark Tooth Creek Outdoor Adventures, the Aliceville Museum and the Tom Bevell Visitor Center.

RUSSELL COUNTY

The waterway is the Chattahoochee River. Amenities include Big Uchee Creek. State parks, preserves, historical landmarks, and museums include the Fort Mitchell Visitors Center, the Infantry Museum, the Phenix Cit Museum, 

and the Greene Museum.

SUMTER COUNTY

The waterway is the Tombigbee River. Amenities include campgrounds and boat ramps. State parks, preserves, historical landmarks, and museums include the Spence-Moon House, listed on the Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage, the Alamuchee Covered Bridge, built in 1861 by Captain William A. C. Jones, and the Black Belt 

Museum on the campus of the University of West Alabama.

WASHINGTON COUNTY

The waterway is the Tombigbee River. Amenities include boat rentals, boat ramps, tackle shops, kayak rentals, fishing piers, and campgrounds. State parks, preserves, historical landmarks, and museums include Healing 

Springs and the Washington County History Museum.

WILCOX COUNTY

The waterway is the Alabama River. Amenities include boat ramps and campgrounds, and fishing tournaments. State parks, preserves, historical landmarks, and museums include Chilatchee Creek Campground, the Pine 

Hill Depot Museum, Moore Academy at Pine Apple, the Wilcox Female Institute, and the Snow Hill Institute.
123

Appendix B – Technology and Highest Speeds 

Offered by ISPs
124
125
126
127
128
129

ALABAMA • ARKANSAS • ILLINOIS • KENTUCKY

LOUISIANA • MISSISSIPPI • MISSOURI • TENNESSEE

Visit us at dra.gov

236 Sharkey Avenue, Suite 400 | Clarksdale, MS 38614

400 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 365 | Washington, DC 20001