Environmentally sensitive areas : 1975

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Environmentally sensitive areas : 1975
Physical Description:
ix, 97 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Gainesville (Fla.) -- Dept. of Community Development
Publisher:
The Dept.
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Nature conservation -- Florida -- Gainesville   ( lcsh )
Environmental policy -- Florida -- Gainesville   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
local government publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographies.
Statement of Responsibility:
City of Gainesville, Dept. of Community Development.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 028048783
oclc - 22253467
Classification:
lcc - QH76.5.F6 G3
System ID:
AA00024930:00001

Full Text



. ..... .. :i i: ,y . .
. ... ...... ..




:.@... .. ... .. :.:..'.. M .' "
n p Ir-y
J.,r ... :f. ,I .,:-.* ..f .. ..

l: + i .:." ^ -'" .: ^ /.;
Lilt7' ,, UILTL t
V: .E. :... f .k& 148i97"
. : .:. ..
!:! : :;4 '- :<
:::)'':":; : ;ii' r.2


t7Vl tWl ty#lL 6bvelopment


.l.'f l:r da "
:,;;;iE.!\ll'd A: :*J^ IFV W
.... . :. . ... .
4<:' : !i ::.;. :. "... I, I !
i: .2_,. .. ..jL. I,
























*H- *" '


" ". "E" :"HEEI~ ..:EE :EEEE: .. "E':" .:E :': .: < .^ p a
". ." :.:.. : ..:" i :,:,d:,: ::,," : : :..' ,hi : .*., '*




.* H


2:. .f;"q1; is
... *b :.: "i!;.::..:i :::::. . :: ..:::!: ".i: -"B lll.






: :..: .......~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..:" "..:~.. : /"*:i!: ~4 .*::!ib i:i.: : : *"!!. ..*::

.: ... : ::: E EE:' i" ::". ,,
.... : .... .. .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ..::::." .":." .,::. "* : ,. ..* .,,:,: ,.:,ii! : "*.":::. *
":" .. .: ." . .... ". *: ... ". .' -,::" ": :.: i : .4 ii: .
i H.:


"* *H -"* '
~~ ~ E" .... :."' .-" .* .. ....... m: s:tEE"EE












-1
C~~ ~ ~~~~ *. . .. ": ..... ... ::::: .. :::: ::::{. :ia:ili ; yjyjs |

"' :: i



.~~ ... ':.. :. ""*: ,:: 'l.-.i:" .* **,
... .. .:: .. : :: .:. '::: ..- ,.
... ..,. :.. .. ::..:: .....:?. ,::: I;.::i:! i
:i.. .. ": :4' :.:'d:;..~i7 :
i~~i :: ,"t ,": !: i!:' :li ,-p_ _
... : : ', ,,, :: Iii!~



::: .:. . 1..:..::
H.:: :" :: ":::. E HE


.... ....':: ":".:.:. '.' I '.:....,;: }








*, F: ..j. .. !!n'n ~ ii
,,a .. qq ........
".:: ':!,, -..'.. iiii~ il











i".=i H%
".. '"....:.::.". EE E:






























ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS-1975


City of Gainesville


Florida


Department of Community Development


June, 1975


The preparation of this report was financed in part through a
comprehensive planning grant from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. CPA-FL-04-29-1070






BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipient's Accession No.
SHEET GF DCD 7501I_________
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
June, 1975
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS-1975 6.

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Rept.
Carleton J. Ryffel principal author No. GF DCD 7501
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
Department of Community Development 601.0
City of Gainesville, Florida 11. Contract/Grant No.
P.O. BOX 490 -PA-FL-04-29-1070
Gainesville, Florida 32602__________
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type oi Report & Period
Covered
Department of Housing and Urban Development FINAL
451 Seventh Street, S.W. 1
Washington, D.C. 20410 14.
15. Supplementary Notes


16. Abstracts
Recognition of diminishing natural resources and the needs of an
increasing population, prompted the undertaking of this study. Nine
aspects or elements of the environment are discussed and each is
graphically represented consistent with a weighting system developed for
this study. A final map, based on the cumulative effect of the
preceding maps, shows four priority classifications of areas determined
to be environmentally sensitive to alteration. The visual and
numerical evaluation procedures used to determine priority areas was
discussed in the text. Recommendations based on the final map are
offered to reconcile growth and maintain as feasible, the environmental
sensitive areas.


17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors












17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms

Environment (elements, characteristics)
Sensitive Areas (mapping, priorities, evaluation methodology)
Recommendations



17c. COSATI Field/Group


18. Availability Statement
Available from the National Technical
Information Service; 5285 Port Royal Rd.;
Springfield, Virginia 22151


eURM NTI5~i~ IHEV. ~-75I UscoMM-oc 149~Z~P72


FORM NTI5-35 IREV. 3-721


USCOMM-DC 14952-P72








City Commission


Joseph W. Little, Mayor-Commissioner
Aaron A. Green
Russell W. Ramsey
James G. Richardson
W. S. Talbot



City Plan Board

John S. Winnie, Chairman
Harry H. Daugherty
Donna D. Faxon
Ira J. Gordon
Samuel N. Holloway
Earl M. Scarborough
Mrs. Daniel B. Ward



City Manager

B. Harold Farmer



Department of Community Development

Norman J. Bowman, Director
Richard A. Kilby, Assistant Director
Elmond B. Taylor, Housing Counselor
Delores K. Newton, Administrative Secretary



Planning Division

Carleton J. Ryffel, Planner III
Fred H. Flowers, Planner III
John V. Carlson, Planner II
V. Miles Patterson, Graphics Coordinator
Don Brandes, Planning Aide I
Louie Wilson, Administrative Clerk
Glenn R. Edwards, Planning Aide
Babette E. Herring, Secretary II


iii








Acknowledgements


The staff wishes to express their appreciation to the

following individuals for their assistance on various

chapters in this study.


Mr. Mike Bordyn, County Forester (Vegetation chapter).


Mr. Bill Hurst, County Pollution Control Officer (Geology

and Lake Trophic Levels chapters).


Mr. Stephen Nesbitt, Wildlife Research Biologist, Florida

Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (Wildlife chapter).


Dr. Earl C. Pirkle, Professor and Chairman, Department of

Physical Sciences, University of Florida (Geology

chapter).








TABLE OF CONTENTS


PAGE


Abstract

List of Tables

List of Figures

List of Appendices

Introduction

Preface


Chapter I



Chapter II


Chapter III



Chapter IV



Chapter V



Chapter VI



Chapter VII



Chapter VIII



Chapter IX


Geology
Methodology
References

Soils
Methodology
References


Slope
Methodology
References

Wetlands
Methodology
References

Lake Trophic Levels
Methodology
References

Flood-Prone Areas
Methodology
References

Vegetation
Methodology
References

Wildlife
Methodology
References

Land Use
Methodology
References


vii


viii








Table of Contents Continued


Chapter X


Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Methodology
Visual Step
Numerical Step


Recommendations

Glossary of Terms

Appendices

Sources Consulted

Other References


PAGE

65
65
67
67








LIST OF TABLES


PAGE

Table 1 Summary of Soil Suitability for Urban 17
Uses by Group

Table 2 The Effects of Different Slopes on 24
Development

Table 3 Trophic Levels of Lakes in Metropolitan
Gainesville 36

Table 4 Vegetation and Its Sensitivity to
Change, Metropolitan Gainesville 47

Table 5 Soil Ranking with Regard to Wildlife 76

Table 6 Combination of Soil and Vegetation 81

Table 7 Combination of Soil/Vegetation and
Land Use 81

Table 8 Site Evaluation Matrix 83

Table 9 Site Evaluation Matrix for a Priority
1 Area 88

Table 10 Site Evaluation Matrix for a Priority
2 Area 89

Table 11 Site Evaluation Matrix for a Priority
3 Area 91

Table 12 Site Evaluation Matrix for a Priority
4 Area 92


vii








LIST OF FIGURES


Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure


viii


- Gainesville HUD Area

- General Geology

- General Soil Suitability

- General Land Slope

- General Wetlands

- Aging Process of a Hypothetical Lake

- Typical Natural Trophic Succession

- Lake Trophic Levels

- 100 Year General Flood-Prone Areas

- General Vegetation

- General Wildlife Suitability

- General Land Use

- Environmentally Sensitive Areas

- Composite of Elements

- Interrelationship of Factors Affecting
Lake Metabolism


PAGE

5

10

19

25

30

34

35

38

43

51

55

62

66

68


76








LIST OF APPENDICES


PAGE


Appendix I


Appendix II


Appendix III


Appendix IV


Methods of Minimizing Erosion,
Sedimentation and Runoff

Interrelationship of Factors
Affecting Lake Metabolism

Procedure Used for Developing
the Wildlife Map

Methodology Used to Determine
Environmentally Sensitive
Areas-with examples






I~




I


I
I
I
f




I
V


ii
'I


F








Introduction


Man lives and functions within what is commonly referred

to as an ecosystem. This system may be defined as a collection

of relationships and linkages between living things and the

ways in which these living things relate or react to the over-

all environment. An ecosystem, if left undisturbed, is either

in a state of equilibrium or disequilibrium. If the state is

disequilibrium, then the ecosystem will strive to return to a

balance point.

In the context of urban growth, development and manmade

alteration it is not difficult to enumerate areas of conflict

or potential conflict with regard to the ecosystem. In order

to bring these problems of conflict into clearer focus, it is

helpful to consider two basic ecological laws:

1. "No species encounters in any given habitat the
optimum conditions for all its functions."1

In human terms, man tends to modify his habitat to satisfy

his short-run environmental needs and desires. He removes re-

sources from other places to satisfy himself.

2. "Organic evolution is slower than environmental
change on the average, and hence migration occurs."2

Environmental change may occur too rapidly for man's adap-

tive ability and migration (the escape from change) may not

suffice to solve the adaptive problems created.


iPaul Dansereau, Future Environments of North America, (Garden
City; 1966) pp. 459-460.
2Ibid.








An alteration of a sector of the overall ecosystem, whether

air, water or land related, is most often a result of a social

or economic stimulus. While certainly many of these alterations

are beneficial to man, these benefits are too frequently of a

short-term nature which incur long-term "costs" not originally

anticipated. It is especially important to recognize these costs

in light of resource shortages which are beginning to be felt

throughout the world. Better understanding of the natural systems

will help enable individuals to carefully weigh costs vs. benefits

in a broader context.

There are some locations in the Gainesville area that are

more sensitive to change than others. To effectively work within

the tolerance limits of an ecosystem in order to minimize degra-

dation of the environment and its quality, it is important to be

aware of the location of these sensitive areas.








Preface


The purpose of this study is to define those areas which

are environmentally sensitive for any of several reasons.

Accompanying the text are maps which depict the elements of

soils, geology, wetlands, wildlife, vegetation, flood prone

areas, lake trophic levels, land use and slope. These

individual maps are informative not only in themselves, but may

be examined simultaneously to ascertain the degree and type

of interactions between various elements. A map is presented

at the end of this report illustrating the cumulative

interactions of all the elements. This map represents

environmentally sensitive areas within Metropolitan Gainesville.

It is expected that the study will be useful to developers,

property owners, planners and citizens in general since most

of the environmental problem areas will be displayed on the

maps. The user will be able to tell at a glance where these

problem areas are and what might be expected. Furthermore, the

study should be useful to decision-makers in that they will

be better able to anticipate what types of problems might be

encountered or result from land use changes or with changes in

the intensity of development.

This study is not intended to be a "no growth" tool or to

unduly inhibit development, but it is a source of information

to be used to accommodate both growth and environmental quality.

The fact that an area is found to be environmentally sensitive








does not necessarily mean that all types of development are

inappropriate. What it does mean is that adequate provisions

are called for to minimize impact and maximize environmental

quality.

Words in the text which are uncommon or might have a

meaning different from everyday discourse will be marked with

an asterisk (*). The words so marked are defined in the

glossary near the end of the report.

The geographic area in this report includes the City of

Gainesville and land adjacent to the City, approximately 135

square miles. The boundary enclosing this area is referred to

as the HUD line (See Fig. 1).

The maps, map codes and interpretations in this study have

been carefully coordinated with the North Central Florida Regional

Planning Council. Their publication entitled Natural Resources

Study for Alachua County, Florida, includes all of Alachua

County, but is generalized in the HUD area. The study by the

Department of Community Development focuses on the HUD area and

is, therefore, at the scale presented, in much greater detail.

The primary differences between the two studies are scale1 and
2
examined elements However, these differences do no preclude


1The base map used by the Department of Community Development is
at a scale of 1" = 2000'; by North Central Florida Regional
Planning Council, 1" = 5280'.

2Some elements were deemed appropriate at the County scale,but
not at the HUD scale. Example: Agriculture is a factor at the
County level, but not at the HUD line scale.





































GAINESVILLE


HUD. AREA


Figure 1


. dowwb









joint use of these studies. The information encoded on a

North Central Florida Regional Planning Council map is

equivalent to information encoded on the Department of

Community Development map.

It should be made clear that due to map scale and

information limitations, the maps contained herein are

necessarily generalized. Accordingly, small areas or single

parcels should be evaluated individually.

In order to publish the maps contained in this report,

it was necessary to reduce them in size. One result of this

procedure is a loss of detail. The original, full-size maps

are available for inspection at the Department of Community

Development.








Chapter I

Geology



History is replete with examples of structural damage or

destruction sustained as a result of poor planning and failure

to recognize geologic properties which were inappropriate for

the stability of a building. Geologic formations, whether

they are at or below the soil layer, have physical and chemical

properties which distinguish them from one another.

In the Metropolitan area of Gainesville, three geologic

formations are differentiated; the Pleistocene Sands, Hawthorne

formation and the Ocala group of limestone formations. All

of these formations are of sedimentary origin.1 Furthermore,

each of these formations possess properties which deserve

consideration before construction above them occurs.

The Pleistocene Sands are usually well suited to development

with the exception of localized occurrences of clay or organic

matter, which should be avoided if possible. Areas where the

water table is at or very near the surface should also be

avoided because of possible foundation instability and/or

groundwater* pollution.

Although the Hawthorne formation is usually thought of

as a heavy clay, it may vary in composition and include layers


A formation of sedimentary origin is one which was formed by
fragments of other rock, transported from their sources, and
deposited in water. They may also be formed by precipitation
from solution or from secretions of organisms.









of sandy clay or sandy phosphatic limestone as well. If the

Hawthorne formation is encountered at or near the surface and

when it possesses the heavy clay characteristic, it may impose

development obstacles. One of these obstacles is that the

areas are usually unsuitable for the use of septic tanks. Clays

usually inhibit water from percolating into the earth; therefore,

the surface stays wet longer after rainfall or flooding.

Furthermore, the Hawthorne formation will usually possess a

high shrink-swell potential which means that the clays expands

upon exposure to moisture (usually rain) and contracts in dry

periods. One approach to coping with this problem is to

excavate the poorly suited clays and fill with more stable

material such as sand.

The Ocala formation is composed of various limestone

formations which are usually soft, porous and permeable.2 In

addition, this formation is part of the Floridian Aquifer.3

This aquifer is replenished or "recharged" by rainwater which

percolates through the soil or other formations above it. Recharge,



2Porous refers to the ability of the limestone to absorb water;
permeability refers to the ability of the limestone to transmit
or distribute the water.
3
The Floridian Aquifer is the principal source of fresh water for
most of Florida. In some areas the aquifer is exposed at the
surface, as it is in Payne's Praire, and in other areas it lies
deep beneath the Hawthorne formation or the Pleistocene sands.








which is heaviest when the aquifer is at the surface, may

also occur through sinkholes (Haile's Sink).4

Depending on the depth of the Ocala formation beneath

the surface, its occurrence imposes two primary limiting

factors on development. First, pollutants associated with urban

runoff may degrade the water quality of the aquifer.5 It

should be pointed out, however, that the pollution potential

will usually diminish with the thickness of overburden*
6
overlying the aquifer. Secondly, occurrence of the Ocala

formation near or at the surface poses development problems

insofar as excavation for utility lines and foundations are

concerned.

The importance of protecting the aquifer from pollution

for residents of Metropolitan Gainesville, as well as residents

outside the area, cannot be stressed enough. The Geology map

(Fig. 2) will enable the reader to obtain a quick first

approximation of the area distribution of the various geologic

formations.



41f the Hawthorne formation overlies the Ocala formation and the
Hawthorne exhibits the heavy clay characteristic, little water
may reach the Ocala since clay is a poor water transmitter. The
water could, in this case, either evaporate or flow to a sinkhole
or place where the Hawthorne is more permeable.

pollutants derived from urban areas are discussed more fully in
the chapter entitled, "Lake Trophic Levels."

6Soils and geologic formations filter some or all of the pollutants
if they are thick enough. Adequate thickness varies with overlying
formation and soil type. Individual cases must, therefore, be
examined on their own merits.





I


F I r A ,r, "

4~4 k d, r ,
i1- -4 -
i / ,.i",-,' t
~~~ ~ "r _A/i '
I]- I "'" --

i~ ~~~ ~~ H > '.,,r+ ;
I I.,. """ '" "" I" I' +'' : '. _..-" ',' ,"; '. i'r

0, '- ., +-__1. -
', .. . L- -






I Or




4 --


-0,-0 t4,, 7 --


0 H. I l "U


J""4"

_- _-0 . _




4 -- . . _--_


1 0_ -

W. _


__ -- -


_ ...... ... -l.-


K =






S
I-











-. -_ *
.. _"


I-----


AICA
C D

hIJ Lai
~Lai~
16C LU I

LU 2C|

CI 2
CD

I-.
Lai.


LU
Ca












tuawdo|aQaa0l
&iI4 1i.uas
luI-IrJ 3u|
=

.5
en ?
m I-
cia0
K = C5
DO = 0
E^hJ


L__________________


I








Methodology


The Geology map is essentially the same as that which
7
appeared in the Physiographic Survey of 1967. This map was

selected after it was determined that, at that present time,

it was most representative of existing conditions.

The map shows the distribution of geologic formations

assuming that all surface materials (such as soil) have been

removed.

Sensitivities were assigned to the various formations and

the appropriate codes assigned. The Pleistocene Sands are

considered least sensitive, the Hawthorne formation intermediate

and the Ocala formation most sensitive. Reasons for the different

sensitivities are based on the characteristics of each formation

as discussed in the preceding section.

It is strongly recommended that, before any type of

development is proposed for a site, the developer become aware of

the geologic characteristic of that site. This could be

accomplished by taking core samples of the substrate.8



7Department of Community Development, Physiographic Survey
(Gainesville: 1967).

8There are also scattered core samples available, the properties
of which have been recorded and are considered to be public
information. Located at the Bureau of Geology, Gunter Building,
Tallahassee, Florida.








The importance of geologic awareness increases with the scale

of development. The negative effects of development over

inappropriate subsurface conditions oftentimes transcend

the development site boundaries.









References


Bartelli, L. J. et al., Soil Surveys and Land Use Planning,
1966.
A "how to" publication with regard to use of soil surveys.

Cason James, "Lake Alice A Study of Potential Pollution of
the Floridian Aquifer," in the Compass, vol. 47, no. 4,
May, 1970.

Clark, W., Musgrove, R. et al., Water Resources of Alachua,
Bradford, Clay, and Union Counties Florida, 1974.
A technical report primarily concerned with the geohydrology
of several counties. Of special interest is the geologic
description of the area (pp. 9-30) and the section on
groundwater (pp. 102-131).

Eschman, Donald and Marcus, Melvin, "The Geologic and Topo-
graphic Setting of Cities," in Detwyler, Thomas, Marcus,
Melvin, et.al, Urbanization and Environment. 1972, pp.
27-50.
A historical overview of the effects of geology on the form
cities sometimes take.

Flawn, Peter, Environmental Geology, 1970.

Hyde, Luthor, "Principal Aquifers in Florida," 1965.
A map delineating the various aquifers within the state.
An accompanying text provides a concise description of the
properties of each aquifer system.

Leggett, Robert, Cities and Geology, 1973.
A major work with many illustrations of the relationships,
conflicts and solutions to geologic phenomena as it relates
to urbanized and urbanizing areas. It is geared toward
civil engineers, geologists, planners and public officials.

McGauheay, P., "Manmade Contamination Hazards to Ground Water," in
Detwyler, T. ed., Man's Impact on Environment, 1971, pp.
225-232.
A discussion of the negative effects of urban derived
pollutants on water tables and aquifers.

Mcliarg, Ian, Design with Nature, 1971.
A basic environmental planning text which describes map
overlay techniques similar to the approach used in this study.









North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, "Water and
Sewer Development Plan," 1973.
A study focusing on Alachua County with much useful
information with regard to geology and hydrology. Plate
2-6 contains four geological cross sections twp of which
are across the HUD line.

Pirkle, E. C., "Notes on Physiographic Features of Alachua County,
Florida," 1956, Academy of Sciences Quarterly Journal, v.
19, pp. 168-182.

Planning Division, Department of Community Development,
Physiographic Survey, 1967.
The geology map from this publication was revised and is used
in this study.

U. S. Geological Survey, "A primer in ground water," 1966.
A general discussion of aquifer, gound water, recharge
areas etc., pp. 1-16.

White, W., The Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula, 1970.
A technical report focusing specifically on the geologic
history of Florida with the exception of the Panhandle area.








Chapter II

Soils



The identification and mapping of the different soil types

or soil groups is one of the primary steps in land use planning

and the determination of environmentally sensitive areas.

The characteristics of the various soils, in large measure,

should determine what the appropriate land use ought to be.

The various soils have characteristics which differentiate one

from another. However, some soils have similar properties that

are alike; and in this case, soils are usually mapped together

as a group or an association. This approach is generally less

cumbersome than mapping individual soils.

Soils surveys were originally compiled to aid the farmer in

selecting the best land for different agricultural purposes,

but their usefulness has been extended to other areas such as

the planning profession. Planners use soils data in recommending

development patterns consistent with minimizing losses to

individual property owners and businesses such as deterioration

of streets, flooded homes, cracked walls and foundations,

contamination of ground water, land sliding and so forth. The

object, then, is to fit the appropriate land use to the appropriate

soil.

Some soil characteristics that should be considered at the

preliminary planning stage of development include drainage*,

depth to limestone*, soil consistency*, shrink-swell potential,








1
trafficability*, bearing value* and slope. These characteristics,

in some cases, impose limitations to development. Early

recognition of these problem areas may lead to an-amenable

solution.

Methodology

There are approximately thirty individual soil types

occurring in the Metropolitan Gainesville area. Soils with

similar properties were grouped and ranked according to their

suitability (sensitivity) for development. Generalized
2
characteristics of these groups are summarized below.2

Group 1 best suited for development; limitations are

localized when they occur.


Group 2 limestone occurrence at a relatively shallow

depth beneath this soil may present an entry point for

pollutants to the aquifer, as well as impose excavation

difficulties.


Group 3 slow water percolation and this soils'

occurrence with a fluctuating water table would indicate

that due care must be observed in selecting the type and

scale of development in these areas.


1
Slope is the subject of an entire chapter.

2Due to the generalizing necessary when grouping is attempted,
localized limitation *i,iy exist. In all cases individual site
inspections would be encouraged.








Group 4 high shrink-swell potential and poor drainage signi-

ficantly limit development suitability to the point that

restricted recreational use might be most appropriate.

Group 5 low bearing value (due to organics, very poor

drainage and poor trafficability preclude most land uses.

Group 6 these soils border waterways, are periodically flo-

oded and are suited for recreational and open space uses only.

A summary table of the soil groups and their limitations is

presented below.

Table 1

Summary of Soil Suitability for Urban Uses by Group
Residential Commercial Transpor- Recreation
Group Septic Sewer Industrial station Intensive Extensive Limitations
1 good good good good good good slope,
drainage
2 very fair- fair fair- good good limestone
poor good good

3 poor fair fair fair fair good drainage,
trafficabi-
lity & bear-
ing value

4 very poor poor poor poor fair extreme wet-
poor ness, shrink-
swell, traf-
ficability &
bearing valuE

5 very very poor poor poor poor- drainage,
poor poor fair trafficabi-
lity, topo-
graphy

Source: After Table 2, Physiographic Survey, Department of
Community Development, Gainesville, 1967.









The Soil map (Fig. 3) shown in this chapter, with the

exception of some minor alterations is the same as the

"Soil Suitability" map which appeared in the Physiographic

Survey. The decision to use this map was based on an

evaluation of its accuracy by comparing the groupings in the

Physiographic Survey with basic soils information in the original

text and map of soils completed originally by the U. S.
3
Department of Agriculture. The two maps compared favorably;

and, in the absence of more recent soils information, the Soil

Suitability map was adapted to this study and coded accordingly.


































3
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil map (with text), soils
surveyed 1937-40.
























Ct








CD
*C 02

























Cf
*^^ =*m





:w










ica

C0
I-I




u-



IM Lai





= 2r






-J C
1.1. -











c-CD
^~~~. =^"^- ^







2



ca
= z a







References


Department of Community Development, Physiographic Survey,
1967.
A plethora of information with regard to soils, focusing
on Metropolitan Gainesville.

Detwyler, T. et al., Urbanization and Environment, 1972.
Soils and associated problems in an urban setting.

Division of State Planning, "The Florida General Soils Atlas,"
1974.
A soils atlas reflecting the new names assigned to soils
throughout the state. Soil potential has been broken down
by numerous potential uses.

Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Implementation, 1972.
Technical publication offering a large array of approaches
to deal with erosion/sedimentation problems.

Flawn, P., Environmental Geology, 1970.
Extensive discussion with regard to the engineering
properties of soils.

Leggett, R. Cities and Geology, 1973.
Discussion of numerous aspects of soils.

North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Housing, 1973.
The soils section of this study (pp. 94-101) contains
a good general discussion of soils including soil qualities
and their influence on the development.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, "Soil Map" (with text), 1940.










Chapter III

Slope



Slope may be defined as the change in land elevation over

horizontal distance, and it is usually expressed as a percentage

(change in elevation = % slope). Ordinarily, the rule of thumb
distance
with regard to slope is that the greater the slope, the more

difficult (costly) it is to develop a site. There are some

areas in Metropolitan Gainesville that are an exception

to this rule. In these areas slope is only 0-1% which would

seem to impose little, if any, restriction to development.

Further investigation, however, would likely reveal that the

soils in some of the 0-1% slope areas are generally

impermeable. When soil impermeability is coupled with gentle

slope,a common result is standing water after heavy rains.

There are potential development problems at the other end

of the scale in steeply sloping areas. In addition to the

economic cost of developing a site characterized by steep

slopes, there may be environmental impact implications as well.

For example, alteration of a slope in order to accommodate

development could lead to increased runoff and large-scale

erosion and subsequent sedimentation onto adjacent property or

nearby water bodies. Furthermore, sedimentation of water bodies

has a very wide spectrum of environmental difficulties associated

with it. There are methods of minimizing erosion, sedimentation









and runoff if a steep slope is to be develo_-d. S3,ie of these

methods are discussed in Appendix I.

Slope may have an effect on t'.e -!-croclimate 'of an area.

According to the North centrall Flori:a Ra ion 1 Planning Council's

publication, Housing:

"In the Northern Hemin:-,here, sou-" slon-os will be warmer
than flat land because they will receive [;-rIe direct
sunlight. During the -,..i.-r ,n ?',, slopes facing to
the southwest will be even warmer t.;, sc ith-facing
slopes, but they will be col-.er than south-facing slopes
in the winter. In general, stee :-.-rth slop',_-s are
inevitably the coolest areas as they receive virtually
no direct sunlight at any season of the -ear. Hollows
and areas at the fx-t of long slo -s coll-.st cold air.
Cold air "flows" into fr 1hi her ar --,:, sometimes
resulting in t. -,ratures that are i',: to 15F colder
than surrou-! 'in' ar -.s. forms y also channel,
redirect, and intensi-' prevailin. wit -;. In general,
it is preferable to l.-ate rf i'ential areas :,n south
or southeast facin sl. s ast slo *s are su7-.v-'-ior
to west slot .s to _.e a an ge of the risir sun and
avoid the direct rays o the not a -1 )n sun. And
it is bett--., to k--e -p stru tu res u. n any slo:', than in
the bottom 0o. a vall-y to take a ....tage of -revailing
winds."

In view of tI.- curr-nt ener, short es, l-.-ation of

structures in suc'- a '...,y ,is to ze or mi,-.i ize the effects

of winds and t .ra tures wil pr bably ; ore i.'ortant

with the passage of time.

While most difficulties wi`' r. -a- to slope are technically

solvable, recogniti-n of robem areas -rior to development,

rather than the att-:'._j-t to solve problems .. ter development is

completed, affords .: distinct a-' -. stage. Table 2 exhibits various

land uses, slov-s l-. !ii-.-ti_-ns which 7-,iy -_'ccur due to their

interaction.









Methodology

The Slope map (Fig. 4) was prepared utilizing U. S.

Geological Survey topographic maps. Spacing of the contour

lines on these maps was used to determine the various slopes in

Metropolitan Gainesville.
i
Four slope categories have been differentiated; 0-1%, 0-5%,

6-12% and 12+%. The 0-1% category contains areas characterized

by impermeable soils. Included in the category 0-5% are those

areas 0-1% without impermeable soils.

Least sensitive of the categories are the 0-5% slopes.

Higher in sensitivity are the 6-12% slopes. Finally, 0-1%

and 12+% slopes are the most sensitive and are considered to

be equivalent because they each have inherent drainage problems.

















-H
(U r-I
r-4 "H




u
.14













4.
U
0






CM
ci)


H


















Q) r--

4J
; -4




U4



>N












P-4
^X X



n U)
3(0
















W
^gI o "
1 i) .i-
4-a) a










owJ1^ X XxX
.71

in _4
ci
U) X
ci1
3



ci _ _ _ _


. J - .L I .4 I I--.


0
.H4
4~J

.4J

'.4
r-l



ca)
u

.r.4



4-)
U)
rlH

4-4
0c
U)





*41
4J H"



Ca)
o. t>

(0 r-
4-4

414i









.44



0

.4j

4-I
,j0



U0r,





4.4
0 0



$4 0
ta




U) 4

4-4U

P4-
to



4-1a
owl


r.
'4





uQ



















0
'-4

to





0

,r-1




0

rX4










,.4
C--







0
>..
3
4J
Cu







4-4

<-c


0

ci





0
'-4


Cu
r-1

ci


0
*rl

ci)
(4.


c)
Cd


r C 4
'. 0
Ii-lC04 tjn


.... I


. . . . . I I . I . I I I . .
















































































suO!ie!w!lI
!hiseaJtui


0a
a *-
Oul


0


Ct


Lo








References


Bureau of Economic Geology, (University of Texas), Approaches to
Environmental Geology, 1974.
A collection of papers primarily concerned with geology but
including many references to slope.

The Department of Environmental Services, "Erosion, Runoff and
Sedimentation Ordinance (No. 73-10 as amended by No. 73-57
for Leon County, Florida)," 1974.
A quick overview of a sediment ordinance along with
suggested alternatives of compliance.

~~~~____~~~_____________ _,I "Environmental
criteria for erosion, runoff and sedimentation control,"
1974.
A report written for the citizen and/or developer explaining
in words, as well as with graphics the problems associated
with alteration of land contour and methods of minimizing
associated effects.

Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Implementation, 1972.

North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Housing, 1973.
See "Slope use zoning," pp. 81-84.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
"Controlling erosion on construction sites," 1970.

__________________________, "Better communities through
resource planning," 1972, Unger, D. G., "A new look at
sediment control."

____________________ "Soil erosion, the work of
uncontrolled water," Agriculture Bull. 260, 1971.

U. S. Geological Survey, Topographic map Gainesville, East, 1966.

~~___~___ Orange Heights.


I



I

I


Rochelle.

Micanopy.

Airedondo.

Gainesville, West.









Chapter IV

Wetlands



For purposes of this study a wetland is defined as an

area such as a lake, swamp or physiographic depression which

contains water either perennially or intermittently.

In recent years, the importance and value of coastal and

inland wetlands has been brought into clearer focus at the state

and national levels. This new awareness is manifest by the

establishment of environmentally oriented governmental

organizations together with new laws and legislation, the purpose

of which is to cope with some of the problems associated with

wetlands.

Whether a wetland is a lake, submerged marsh, intermittently

submerged marsh or depression, it serves numerous natural functions.

If the wetland were to be destroyed, it would cost man a

substantial amount to duplicate its various functions,if he could

duplicate them at all.

The following is a brief listing of some of the functions

that the various types of wetlands provide. In mrny instances,

wetlands:

1. bear the brunt of flooding activity and act as retention

ponds in the aftermath, thereby reducing costs associated

with floods;

2. act as chemical/mechanical filters of pollutants from

urban runoff;










3. act as habitat for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and

associated vegetation;

4. are aquifer recharge areas;

5. moderate climate;

6. are important in the propagation of food supplies

and water storage; and

7. provide aesthetics and recreation.

Wetlands evolve and degrade by internal and external

forces. Lakes, for example, evolve from a pristine state and

then pass through several stages, or trophic levels, to dry land

or bogs. This evolutionary process, free of urban influence,

usually takes several thousand years. Man's influence oftentimes

accelerates the aging process of wetlands to the order of decades

instead of centuries.1 Some of the primary sources or activities

which hasten the demise of wetlands, thereby forfeiting their

benefits, include:

1. sediment from alteration of landform;

2. overtaxation of the pollutant assimilation capability

of the wetland by the introduction of an excessive

volume of urban runoff;2

3. filling or "reclaiming" wetlands, which removes storage

capacity for flood water and may "kill" the wetland

biologically;



ITrophic levels of lakes in Metropolitan Gainesville are discussed
and graphically represented in the chapter entitled "Lake Trophic
Levels."
2Urban runoff oftentimes contains greater strength and diversity
of pollutants than raw sewage.










4. reduction of flow of fresh water into the wetland, thereby

greatly lowering its ability to flush itself clean of

pollutants;

5. locating structures around the periphery of the wetland,

thereby subjecting it to runoff from structures themselves,

fertilizers on the lawns and pesticides in the gardens;

6. dredging in some instances.3

The examples above are but few of the means of greatly

impairing the effectiveness of or destroying a wetland altogether.

Fortunately, however, none of these adverse effects need occur

when citizens are aware of the possible consequences of certain

activities.

The Wetlands map (Fig. 5) delineates the wetlands by type

in metropolitan Gainesville.

Methodology

The wetlands in the study area were delineated using the

latest available United States Geological Survey (USGS)

topographic maps. Boundaries were traced utilizing the wetland

symbols on the map, as well as the peripheral ground elevations.

USGS maps distinguish three types of wetlands; lakes, permanently

wet marshes and intermittently wet marshes or depressions. The

boundaries drawn were then checked against the most recent aerial

photographs and corrections were made as needed.



3Dredging can save or destroy a wetland. In order to determine
the likely result, an intensive hydrogeological, biological and
chemical analysis should be prerequisite.








I,









"i'-4
a__
'1414
:41\.^^

go < Kij


0
'~4 44,
ill.)

0


IS qIk I'M'N


-IS PJEr-"N


~NI


siAW!Fm 5p


(


I .5. 1 m


44 ,
S q;



4 94








N is 41E .' s
"IS qIf|[ *:'i
-..-!i ; 'J / '*'*'i : ; l




















* sqS L "l-H'S \


t ;"


C#*




Lai
LU
,65


AI!A!Ii!SUOS
2U!SwaAJuI

Ci
m

Eilil
ac.*
DHHc


(~-)
(7


Q) /,
19 q


CD


CL i


IL_


I


D,


.qzw
q
z









The various categories and sensitivity rankings are as

follows:

Perennially Wet Marshes and Lakes Mos.t Sensitive

Intermittantly Wet Marshes

Permanently Dry Land Least Sensitive

Perennially Wet Marshes and Lakes are ranked as equivalents

since they are both continuously wet and support distinctive

fauna and flora. Intermittantly Wet Marshes were ranked next

since their containment of water is occasional and vegetation,

aquatic and terrestrial life forms are less dependent on them

than in the case of a permanently wet area. This is not meant

to diminish their importance as storm water overflow containers.

Permanently Dry Land is, of course, least sensitive.

The chapter on Lake Trophic levels explains the water quality

of some of the wetlands and will thereby provide an additional

parameter with regard to evaluating wetlands.










References


Detwyler, Thomas, ed., Man's Impact on Environment, 1971,
Bylinsky, G., "The limited war on water pollution,"
pp. 195-204.

~_________, Leopold, L., "The hydrologic effects of
urban land use," pp. 205-216.

~________ Cole, L., "Thermal pollutions," pp. 217-224.

~__________ McGauhey, P., "Manmade contamination hazards
to ground water," pp. 225-232.









Chapter V

Lake Trophic Levels



Lakes undergo a natural aging process known as eutrophica-

tion. In the beginning of this process, a lake is oftentimes in

a pristine state. The end of the process is usually characterized

by the invasion of terrestrial vegetation and the evolution of the

lake to marginal land (bog, swamp). The trophic level of a lake

refers to the water quality and stage of evolution of the lake.

The eutrophication or aging is caused by nutrient enrichment of

the water. These nutrients may be naturally occurring, such as

decomposing vegetation or aquatic life, or could be a by-product

of urbanization such as runoff from buildings, streets and lawns.

While eutrophication is a natural process, it is greatly

accelerated by development in proximity to water bodies. Fertili-

zers, pesticides, sewage, increased runoff, impervious surfaces

(streets, buildings, parking lots) and so on act as sediment to

fill in the lake and also as nutrients which encourage the growth

of water plants (hyacinths, weeds, etc.). These nutrients (ferti-

lizers) require oxygen dissolved in the water to decompose. This

reduces fish populations by depleting much of their needed oxygen

supply.



iFactors usually considered when determining the trophic level of a
lake include biological oxygen demand (B.O.D.)*, chemical oxygen
demand (C.O.D.)*, water clarity, faunal/floral populations, pH,*
level of sedimentation, color, turbidity*, and the overall chemical
composition of the water.










Figure 6 shows the relationship of nutrients or fertilizers

on the aging process of a hypothetical lake. Note the increase

in plant growth as a result of the introduction of nutrients

(dashed line) and the corresponding shortening of the life of the

lake.

Figure 6



Effects of Fertilizers
Artificial or Domestic


/ \
cew LU - - ----- ^
U U / /
/ I Extincion
I"I
u I
I.-j




Ou.0
04 Natural Eut rophication


I- i-
Z"'



O
0.0








AGE OF THE LAKE




Source: Revised after Putnam, et al., "Eutrophication
Factors in North Central Florida Lakes'; Engineering
and Industrial Experiment Station, College of
Engineering, University of Florida, 1969, p. 3.


Lakes progress through several stages or trophic levels.

There is little agreement, however, between authors on the defini-

tions of each of these and even less agreement on quantitative












values. The following qualitative definitions have been selected

for purposes of this study:

Oligotrophic low plant nutrient content and abundant dis-
solved oxygen (D.O.) in the water; the water is usually clear
and of good quality; the primary evolutionary state.

Mesotrophic increased nutrient levels with accompanying
increased aquatic faunal activity.

Eutrophic increased nutrient level; deficiency in D.O.;
greatly increased aquatic flora (weeds, algae, etc.).

Hypereutrophic highest nutrient and flora levels; increas-
ing amounts of sedimentation.

Senescent last stage of evolution before becoming terres-
trial; low oxygen content; weed choked.

Dystrophic does not refer to trophic level but is rather an
adjunct characteristic; refers to brownish water color as a
result of humic content.

Figure 7 is a representation of typical natural trophic succes-

sion and lake extinction. Under urban influences the graph would

be skewed to the left (shorter time periods).


Figure 7




<
aClimax

-Eutrophy

z
M


o



0 Mato t
u
a.
0 f t
O k^-- n


TIME











Source: Revised after Putnam, et al., "Eutrophication
Factors in North Central Florida Lakes,"Engineering
and Industrial Experiment Station, -College of
Engineering, University of Florida, 1969, p. 4.

Apjendix IIcontains an illustration which shows the complexity

of the interrelationships affecting the metabolism of a lake.

The importance of lakes and other wet areas are discussed in

the chapter entitled "Wetlands." Lake trophic levels are important

when considering priorities of which lakes are salvageable or in

need of protection from urban influences.


Methodology


The Lake Trophic Level map (Figure 8) was derived primarily

from a publication entitled "Eutrophication Factors in North Central

Florida Lakes." The project was directed by H. D. Putnam through

the facilities of the Florida Engineering and Industrial Experiment

Station. In this study lakes above a minimal size within Alachua

County were discussed with regard to their trophic levels. These

lakes are summarized in the table below.


Table 3

Trophic Levels of Lakes in Metropolitan Gainesville

Depth Area
Name Location (in feet) (acres)

1-Newnan's East of G'ville 6.0 6328.0

2-Trout Southeast of G'ville 4.5 37.0


Trophic
Level

HE

E


0 = Oligotrophic
M = Mesotrophic
E = Eutrophic
HE = Hypereutrophic
S = Senescent










3-Unnamed South G'ville 9.0 4.4 E

4-Meta Northwest G'ville 4.5 9.6 M

5-Bivens Arm South G'ville 6.0 172.9 HE

6-Alice University of Florida 6.0 91.4 S

7-Clear Southwest G'ville 6.0 10.6 E

8-Unnamed West of G'ville 6.0 18.3 M

9-Unnamed Northwest of G'ville 15.0 13.3 M

10-Unnamed South of Preceding Lake Not Avail. 5.4 M

11-Kanapaha Southwest of G'ville 3.0 207.5 S

Source: Revised after Putnam, et al., "Eutrophication
Factors in North Central Florida Lakes,"Engineering
and Industrial Experiment Station, College of
Engineering, University of Florida, 1969, p. 68.

The trophic level column in Table 3 was revised from the pre-

viously cited publication. In some cases, the table presented in

that publication gave a range of trophic levels; i.e., E-S. When

this was the case, the more severe trophic level was assumed for

purposes of this study. The reason for this was that since the

original study took place six years ago and development has increased

since that time, the more advanced trophic level was felt to be more
4
representative of currently existing conditions.

The lakes in the study area fall into four of the five trophic

level categories. These include mesotrophic, eutrophic, hypereutro-

phic and senescent. Insofar as the assignment of sensitivity was


3Trophic level of Lake Alice might fluctuate somewhat since periodic
hyacinth removal takes place. If left untreated, however, it would
likely become permanently senescent.

4Personal communication with Mr. Bill Hurst, County Pollution Control
Officer, 12/10/74.










J~I IN"
















r-









__1
C-4J










oo





C"C

Lai



I-.


,,, -



I"l
CD


CD

-9S C02
= 7c
IS 44*E 1<#A'N CC C.0
em \ \\
\ V\ \.\\\\,\\'S\\ \^\\S\\\\\ '>\\'< '.\V\'*\ N-\ N\\\ \\\ v\^ \'-' I /'' E
'IS Pit* '.vv\Nssv^ ^ ^ Y vMvv-gv~v~s ^ v A!/^-!fx0

V 'Sc^,x ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ v^^^ ^^^\ ^'.^^^\ ^^^^ \\^^ ^^v.^^^ <.^^ ^\ll z /fj I_
\ ^\\^V\NY\\S\^ N.\SY'S'NN\\SS\\-V\V\\N ^V'\^ A^4I / / / ^ .

\ Ch^ Y 'V ^ ^ ^ ^ V ^ ^^ *^ \ 'Y '^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^^ N N \ V,. / /X 1
*S. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4S A'S^''\\^^^\*-'''*^'^-^'^ \\V\\\N\V<\ O




' '*^ ~ ^11 \ 8




\ s.~~~VU4 / I r -7.Lc \ u "



^ f s i t s i r s r4 !$< i



S -- -- ^ --^^ \ I' C C
*:~~ ~ CL ,^
| ~~~~~ ~ 1 :a__^ I \< \^^
I ~~~~ ~ 4 zf_0\ SL^>
y^..-, V S MI ^<-3~~~ !^-^_ ^- \^ CL










C~~~ ~ ~ 01Ss ^/^^'^










concerned, it was assumed that those lakes relatively pristine

would be most sensitive. By way of example, a mesotrophic lake

is in a relatively pristine state and as such, would be the most

sensitive environmentally to change. A senescent lake is at its'

terminal point in evolution. It would have little sensitivity

insofar as change is concerned. Also taken into account when

assigning sensitivity values was the relative ease or difficulty

in reversing the eutrophication.

The fact that a lake is senescent does not mean that it is

useless. What it does mean is that it is at an advanced stage in

its evolution and there are probably little, if any, fish in the

lake. The lake could, however, be used for some recreational pur-

poses, such as boating. Additionally, the lake does serve as a

natural retention basin for runoff. The water and its location

could support local species of wildlife, and for this reason alone

it should be considered a valuable resource.








References


Clark, W. E., Musgrove, R. H., et al., "Water Resources of
Alachua, Bradford, Clay and Union Counties,"'" 1964.

Detwyler, Thomas, ed., Man's Impact on Environment, 1971.,
Beaton, A., "Eutrophication of the St. Lawrence Great
Lakes," pp. 233-245.


~______, Holm, L., Weldon, L., Blechburn, R.,
Weeds," pp. 246-265.


"Aquatic


Hurst, W. T., "Report to Alachua County Pollution Control Board,"
1974.
A study of Bivens Arm Lake to establish a data base upon
which a more detailed program could be conducted and to
catalog all sources of pollution entering the lake. To
these ends, sampling stations were set up, the findings of
which are included in the report.

Putnam, H. D., Project Director, Brezonik, P., et al., "Eutro-
phication Factors in North Central Florida Lakes," 1969.
An in-depth discussion of eutrophication as a process,
alternative schools of thought on the subject and the method
of analysis used in determining lake trophic levels in this
area of the State.








Chapter VI

Flood-Prone Areas



For purposes of this study, areas located within the 100

year flood plain were considered to be flood prone. The

Gainesville Flood Control Ordinance (No. 1883) defines the 100

year flood plain as:

"That area adjacent to the flood channel district which
is inundated as a result of the rainfall which occurs
once in one hundred (100) years on the average based upon
conditions existant at the time of passage of this Ordinance."2

Floodplain areas, if left undisturbed, serve several useful

purposes to man, wildlife and other sectors of the overall

ecosystem. They are oftentimes valuable as open space and buffer

areas but their primary function is to act as an overflow area

for storm water which has exceeded the capacity of the flood

channel. When the flood channel has been breached, the water is

contained and/or absorbed on the flood plains. When the storm

which produced the excess water ceases, the water begins to

disappear from the flood plain by percolation through the soil

and evaporation.

Runoff speed and volume will increase, most significantly,

as a result of impermeable surfaces such as roofs, streets, parking

lots, etc. The flood plain effectively limits the areal



1Actually a flood plain could also be defined as a 5, 10, 20,
50 year flood plain. Two things distinguish one from the other:
(1) the intensity of the rainfall, and (2) the area inundated as
a result of the rainfall. In this study only 100 year flood
plains are considered.

2Code of Ordinances, City of Gainesville, Florida, Chapter 20,
Sec. 30-2, Para b, p. 582.










distribution of excessive storm water. If a flood plain

is filled to some extent for developrtmerit or some other purpose,

the storm water retention capacity will be reduced by the volume

filled. This principle may be likened to a glass of water filled

to the brim. If an object is inserted into the glass, a volume

of water equal to the volume of the object will overflow the

glass. In an urbanized situation, filling sometimes means

that property that was once peripheral to the flood plain

becomes part of the flood plain.

Methodolo-,

The Flood-Prone Areas map (Fig. 9) was produced by

combining the information found in three independent studies

dealing with this subject. A study by Dr. B. A. Christensen

(Professor, Civil Engineering Depar!. -nt, University of Florida)

delineated the 100 year flood level along the Hlogtown Creek

Drainage Basin. The drainage study recently completed, under

the auspices of the North Central Florida Regional Planning

Council, mapped the 100 year flood line for most of

the HUD area. Federal flood miaps from the USGS were used to fill

in areas not covered by the other previously mentioned

studies.

The individual studies used different map scales; therefore,

each (except the USGS) map ";Ls _djustuJ to the base map scale of

1" = 2000'. After all information was transferred to the base

map, it was assumed that a certain amount of error would result

since scales were reduced and information was transferred from one

map to another. Therefore, a check was run to determine what the



















^rTO^X1


^v^ N^i




-4s Pi^ -

^nN^\0
^N^-faOO


2,Yz-00 0*&


^o^^4LD 4


Q 00
%003
o0o


4z

a o o
^ 700
j 00 IC


0 <:


062
&?


0000
00 0


























o o





ro o T o
-^ f ("^^ ^:o


6


I
CD
ac


boI

UJ
UJ
La-




S
UJ
C)~
C=~

C)~
CD


q


I








maximum deviation might be. The test indicated that the boundary

around any of the flood prone areas could be off by +300 feet, or

1/8 inch on the map. Because of this correction factor, it is

recommended that borderline properties be evaluated by the

individual maps at the Department of Community Development.









































3The error factor of +300' pertains only to the map kept at
Department of ConLmunity Development. The Flood Prone map in
this chapter was reduced in size from the map cited above for
publication purposes.









References


Christensen, B. A., et al., "Identification and .Evaluation of
Natural Detention Sites in Hogtown Creek Drainage Basin,"
1974.
One of the information sources used to produce the flood
prone map. Writing geared to the layman and engineer.

Soil Conservation Service, "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds,"
1975.
A technical report discussing runoff equations, their deri-
vation and application. Chapters 1-4.

Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc., (for North Central
Florida Regional Planning Council), "1974 Drainage," 1974.
A drainage plan with alternatives for the majority of the
HUD area.

U. S. Geological Survey, "Flood Prone Maps."

~~___~_______,I Leopold, L. and Langbein, W., "A primer
on Water," 1966; pp. 19-22.







Chapter VII

Vegetation



Much of the visual aesthetic quality of Metropolitan Gaines-

ville is due to the fact that more than eighty percent of the

area has tree cover or is in agricultural-type use. This per-

centage of vegetation coverage is signrificantly higher than many

other urbanized areas.

Vegetation (including trees, shrubs, grasses, etc.) plays an

important role in the overall ecc..-.' stem. Aside from its' intrin-

sic or aesthetic appeal, it provides ancillary functions as well.

In the wildlife sector v- :retation provides shelter, food, pro-

tection and migration way _0 well a habitat for reproduction.

The photosynthetic process of vegetation helps to maintain the

oxygen/carbon dioxide balance, which is a function important to all

living things.

Especially important in urban areas is the characteristic of

leaves to filter particulates and pollutant from the air. Vege-

tation may serve as greenbelt buffering and helps to cool the air,
2
somewhat offsetting the effects of --an and paving.

With regard to erosion, vegetation acts to hold soil together,

and the root systems absorb water in times of heavy rainfall and

flooding.


In order for an area to be classified as "tree covered," the site
must have approximately 30% tree crown cover as determined from
aerial photographs.
2See Heat Absorption table in North Central Florida Regional Planning
Council publication Housing, 1973, p. 87.









Some vegetative associations are unique to certain environ-

ments and are characterized by such dependencies as perennial or

intermittent wetness or dryness of the soil, soil acidity or

alkalinity, soil mineral content, topography and slope to name

a few. These unique associations are important intrinsically

and because they sometimes support uncomaron wildlife species.

Table 4 indicates the various vegetation classifications

mapped at the end of this section.


Table 4

Vegetation and Its Sensitivity to Change,
Metropolitan Gainesville


Vegetation Type % Metro Area Acres

Lowest Sensitivity Non-Forested/Urban3 15 12,900
Agricultural/Pasture 27 23,220
Pineland 38 32,600
Upland Hardwood 10 8,600
SPrairie 5 4,300
Highest Sensitivity Lowland Hardwood 5 4,300


Methodology



The various types of vegetation were delineated from an aerial

photograph mosaic. To the trained eye tones, shades, crown shapes

and image distinctiveness on a photograph represents different vege-

tation types. In order to secure the most accurate mapping of the

various vegetation types and their distribution, an individual with



30p. cit., Footnote 1.

4North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, "Aerial Photograph
of Metropolitan Gainesville," (scale 1" = 1500'), January, 1971.









expertise in the area and a thorough knowledge of Metropolitan

Gainesville was solicited.5 The map was drawn with some guiding

parameters which included:

1. areas with vegetation coverage of less than 30% are

considered Non-Forested/Urban;

2. within any vegetation category it was understood that

the main type is mapped and that minor amounts of other

species may be present; and

3. pinelands include naturally occurring, as well as planted

pines.

Vegetation sensitivity was assigned taking two guidelines into

account. First, the relative abundance of a given vegetation type

was considered (see percentages in Table 4). It was assumed that

if a particular vegetation type was a small percentage of the total

it would be more valuable than one which occupied a large percentage

Generally, each type has an accompanying and somewhat unique wild-

life community,as well as lesser associated vegetation. An appa-

rent discrepancy arises if one looks at the percentages in the

table and then at the ranking. Using percentages alone, the rank-

ing would be different than that found in the table; more specifi-

cally, the order of the first three vegetation types would be

reversed. Such a ranking, however, would be unreasonable and myopi



5Mike Bordyn, County Forester, essentially drew the vegetation map
and worked with staff to assign sensitivity values for vegetation.

6"Lesser" associated vegetation refers to ground cover found with
a particular tree type.







considering the nature of these first three vegetation types.

This approach to assigning sensitivity was, therefore, eliminated

and instead Non-Forested/Urban was ranked least sensitive because

by definition much of the vegetation has already been removed.

Agricultural/Pasture was ranked less sensitive than Pinelands

since agricultural land is usually monotypic because the land has
7
been cleared of indigenous vegetation to accommodate crops. Pine-

lands then is the most sensitive of these three since natural pines

in this category have an accompanying association of lesser vegeta-

tion species; i.e., the pineland category is more diverse than the

preceding categories.

The second guideline used to assign sensitivity was the prin-

ciple of natural succession. In terms of vegetation, natural

succession is an evolutionary process whereby species composition

changes with each new community being more advanced than the pre-

ceding ones. The ranking of vegetation types in the preceding

table is believed to be consistent with this process.

In addition to the primary guidelines discussed above, some

of the other considerations included such factors as sensitivity of

the vegetation type to an urban environment, uniqueness and quality.

Admittedly some of the ranking is based on subjective value judgment.


7Monotypic usually means "one specie." In this case, since most indi-
genous vegetation is removed to accommodate crops, the trees remain-
ing would probably have their ground cover removed in the process of
clearing, and other crop-preparatory measures. Therefore, little
diversity of species would likely remain.







The Vegetation map (Figure 10) is a product of the pre-

viously discussed parameters, guidelines and aerial photograph

interpretations.























. .. .......... ... ...-.. . ._ ", ,,,'',


-7. .. .. .


.......... .... ,,



i~ i iii ii ii ::, i~ i~ i~ ii i. ........











. . . . .. . .... .










..... .... ..... I- D BI-
-LI
Ivd





C.0 La
.1 LW1






U-





"a



~-7-
--- - ---



- --- -- --






A ...
.~~- . ..




-7U


- da- - . .. ..
- - - - L tj A
---- ----- --- ----- -- -









References


Detwyler, T., ed. Man's Impact on Environment, 1971.
Curtis, John, "The Modification of Mid-Latitude Grasslands
and Forests by Man," pp. 507-521.
An historical perspective combining the natural evolution/
succession of vegetation and the effects brought on by man-
made influences.

Turk, A., et al., Ecology, Pollution, Environment, 1972.
See pp. 17-19 for a brief but informative discussion of
natural succession. Also see pp. 91-98 for a discussion
of the effects of air pollution on vegetation.

University of Florida, Agricultural Experiment Station, "General
map of Natural Vegetation of Florida," June, 1967.









Chapter VIII

Wildlife



All living things depend on plants, animals or both for food

to sustain them. This interdependency is commonly referred to as
1
a food chain. In turn, the food chain is a linkage within the
2
overall ecosystem. Therefore, disruption or elimination of any

of the levels in the food chain hierarchy will lead to spin-off

effects in other sectors. These effects are not always catas-

trophic, but it is important to recognize that they do indeed

occur so that ameliorative measures can be taken.

Man is the most adept species for altering his environment

to suit his personal needs and wants. He is a species which

encapsulates himself by building a home, regulating the tempera-

ture within it, insulating it from outside noise and sealing it

with a door to keep out would-be intruders.

Wildlife, on the other hand, are limited in their efforts of

encapsulation. If their present surroundings are acceptable for

life functions, they will reside there. But, if the surroundings

change (fire, natural alteration, man), migration may become neces-

sary.

When man changes an environment, wildlife migration is some-

times a side effect. The wildlife species which remain after the


iFood chains are discussed with graphic examples in Ecology, Pollu-
tion, Environment, Turk, Turk and Wattes, Philadelphia: W. B.
Saunders Co., 1972, pp. 3-12.

2Ecosystems are discussed in the Preface.










alteration are more adaptive than the ones that left and some

tend to become a nuisance to man.

In order to promote the co-existence of man and wildlife,

due care should be taken to recognize wildlife habitats which

are unique or which support a diverse wildlife community. If

these areas can be preserved or disturbed minimally, then man

and wildlife will benefit. Man will retain the intrinsic and

aesthetic benefits of a diverse wildlife community and their

accompanying habitats. The wildlife will benefit because most

of them will have no need to migrate and will thereby continue

their life cycle relatively undisturbed.

Gainesville and its surrounding environs have certain areas

which are valuable wildlife habitats (see Wildlife Map). The

quality of these areas are coded appropriately on the Wildlife

map, from Highest to Lowest sensitivity.


Methodology


The Wildlife Suitability map (Figure 11) is a combination of

soils, vegetation and land use information.

Soils were evaluated as to their ability to support diverse

vegetation types which would supply various wildlife with neces-
3
sary habitat. The various soils were then mapped, as was the


3The basic information used to determine the relative value of soils
in relation to production of vegetation, was derived from the table
on pages 5 and 6 in The Florida General Soils Atlas, with Interpre-
tations, Division of State Planning, July, 1974. This source of
soils information was selected for use in the wildlife section instead
of the Soils map in Chapter II of this report because Chapter II did
not consider wildlife, while the map from the Division of State
Planning did.
























Ct
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. ..........-.,, o-



.. .. .. .. .. .. "L
























j I-
1 11

a-
LL r
















hIJ
. .. 'a .0















. . . . C .0_. .
















I -- -A" . ..
Ahi Q, "

VA dt,~,s P'
C, .A , ,.A ,, US~J










vegetation and land use elements, in accordance with a devised

numerical rating scheme. This numerical approach is exhibited

in Appendix III of this report. Included in the mapping were soils

suited for openland, woodland and wetland wildlife.

Next, vegetation was evaluated using the Vegetation map

(Chapter VII). The types were rated Most-Least suitable with

regard to their ability to provide all necessary wildlife habitat

functions.

The last element to be mapped was Land Use (Chapter IX). It

was assumed that, even though an area might be well suited in terms

of soils and vegetation, land use would in many cases cancel this

suitability. For example, the University of Florida is suitable

from the vegetation and soil aspects; however, intensity of land

use precludes diverse wildlife species from residing there.

Finally, these three elements were combined to form a compo-

site and a fourth map, the Wildlife Suitability map, resulted.

Each of the previously discussed maps were carefully weighted in

order to give the most realistic display. The Wildlife map has

been examined and evaluated for omissions by experts in the field

of wildlife and was found to be a reasonable representation of a

given area's suitability to support wildlife.4

The wildlife specie types considered in this report included

members of the reptile/amphibian, bird and mammal groups. A few



4The experts included Steve Nesbitt and other staff members of the
Florida Game and Fish Commission.










of these are considered to be "threatened" species and, therefore,

warrant special consideration.

There is one known Florida Eagle nest located in the HUD area.

Although eagles are not extremely rare, they do have nesting habits

which are sensitive. Unlike most birds, eagles will use the same

nest year after year. Therefore, destruction of the nest could

lead to the destruction of the eagle. The eagle then is not threat-

ened by its numbers but rather by its nesting habitats. Herons are not

especially uncommon either, but Bivens Arm provides a breeding

environment which is uncommon.

Finally, the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker is a type of bird which

will nest only in a mature, longleaf pine tree afflicted

with a heart disease. This woodpecker is environment specific,

which means it requires a very special nesting site without which

it will probably perish.

A complete list of all known wildlife species in Alachua County

is available for inspection at the Department of Community Develop-

ment. The list includes between 300 and 400 separate species, a

great number of which are encountered in the HUD area.

It should be pointed out that different species require areas

of varying size. It was not feasible to include this element in

this report because in order to have done so, it would have become

necessary to map each species on an individual map. Although area



5Reprint from Florida Wildlife, "Threatened Species of Florida
Wildlife," May, 1974.










requirements are important, staff believes that the approach

used (soils, vegetation and land use) will serve the purposes

of this report.










References


Detwyler, T., Man's Impact on Environment, 1971,
Fisher, J., "Wildlife in Danger," pp. 625-635.

Highsmith, R., Jensen, J., et al., Conservation in the U. S.,
1963.

Meshenberg, M., Environmental Planning: 1, Environmental
Information for Policy Formulation, American Society of
Planning Officials, Planning Advisory Service, 1970,
pp. 22, 44.

Wildlife Management Class, Oklahoma State University, The
Role of Wildlife in the Stillwater Creek Greenbelt, 1973.










Chapter IX

Land Use



The formulation of a land use plan is the end-product of

evaluation of a myriad of data. Some of the information used in

formulation of the Gainesville Urban Area Land Use Plan included:

1. public attitudes concerning the desired character the

community will take;

2. economic base studies;

3. physiographic information;

4. cost/revenue studies of land use;

5. population and employment studies;

6. community facilities and recreation;

7. transportation studies;

8. industrial and land use studies.

In addition to the main topics in the studies listed above,

contained in most of them are many sub-elements. These data were

evaluated individually and then in concert to arrive at the final
1
product; i.e., the Land Use Plan. The general categories depicted

on the land use map include residential, commercial, industrial,

institutional, recreational, community facilities and proposed



1Part of the Land Use Plan is in map form delineating the various
land use categories and intensities by employing various color
schemes. The text portion of the Land Use Plan discussed com-
munity objectives, consolidated the information of the various
studies and is in general, an exhibit of the reasoning used to
generate the land use map.









thoroughfare extensions. Some of these general categories are

broken down further by density differences and some are combined

in mixed-use categories. It should be noted that the map desig-

nates proposed future land use.

The "Existing Land Use" map should, over time, become con-

sistent with the "Land Use Plan" in order to propagate the goals

set forth. Existing land use is a limiting factor when environ-

mentally sensitive areas are to be determined. For example, an

area may be environmentally sensitive due to its physical charac-

teristics; but if the area is already heavily urbanized, its envi-

ronmental importance will be greatly diminished or eliminated. It

was necessary, therefore, to balance physical elements which con-

tributed to an area's environmental sensitivity with current land

use so that a realistic determination could be made of which areas

remain in a relatively natural state.


Methodology


The Land Use map (Figure 12) is a composite and generaliza-

tion of the "Existing Land Use" map, and the "Wetlands" and "Vege-

tation" maps from this study. Three broad land use categories

were determined and sensitivities assigned as follows:

Most Sensitive Undeveloped, Vacant, Woodland, Marshes (from

Wetlands map)

Agriculture, Pasture, Commercial Forestry (from

Vegetation map)

Least Sensitive Urban/Developed, Institutional ("Existing Land

Use" map)

































m



S2C
uj.z
e s









The first land use category was considered most sensitive

since its characteristics impose the least threat to an environ-

mentally sensitive area. Category two represents a somewhat

altered environment which could impinge upon sensitive peripheral

areas. The last category is least sensitive since, as previously

discussed, the area is already essentially committed and/or

urbanized.

Land use has the greatest single effect on the integrity and

maintenance of the environmentally sensitive areas in Metropolitan

Gainesville.










References


Department of Community Development, Commercial Study, 1969.

_________ Community Facilities and Recreation,
1968.


of Florida and Sant


, Economic Study, 1969.

, Enrollment and Employment, University
:a Fe Junior College, 1967.

, Industrial Study, 1969.

, Land Use Analysis, 1969.

SLand Use Plan, Gainesville Urban Area,


1970.


~___~___________ Physiographic Study, 1967.

~___~___________ Planning Unit Study, 1968.

~___~___________, Population Study, 1968.

Goodman, W. and Freund, E., eds., Principles and Practice of Urban
Planning, 1968, pp. 106-136.






Chapter X

Environmentally Sensitive Areas



None of the areas determined to be environmentally

sensitive were found to be so on the basis of one element.

These areas were synergistically determined in an effort

to afford the greatest simulation of natural interaction.

The Environmentally Sensitive Areas map (Figure 13)

is the result of evaluating all the previous individual elements

maps simultaneously. The map shows four priority or sensitivity

classifications. The darkest areas are the most sensitive and

the white areas are least sensitive of the four. These white

areas, however, have a wider range of numerical values and should
2
not be considered to be of little or no sensitivity. Instead,

white areas, or any other area, may be evaluated by using the

numerical evaluation method described in Appendix IV.

Methodology

A detailed description of the methodology used to determine

the environmentally sensitive areas may be found in Appendix IV.

Due to its length and complexity, a greatly summarized version

is presented below.

Determination of the environmentally sensitive areas involved

two approaches; visual and numerical. This combined method was

selected as a check and to minimize the potential error which could

result during the interpretation stage.



iSynergism refers to the cooperative action of all the elements in
the preceding chapters. The result is a total effect which is
greater than the sum of the individual elements.

2See Appendix IV.














Z













CD



L.-
_ _" __





La


Ldc


LA.,




16L I-








-, _
Lai
P ilumllrAI









Visual Step

The individual element maps were overlayed and a composite

map (Figure 14) emerged. From the composite, staff members

individually delineated the darkest areas and assigned values to

them depending on their degree of darkness. After this was

completed, it was found that there was a great deal of

similarity in the area designations. There were,- however some

differences of opinion of the degree of darkness or sensitivity.

In order to reconcile these differences, a numerical rating system

described below was also used.

Numerical Step

Three test sites for each value assigned in the visual step

were selected from each map. Values for each of these were

determined using Table 8 in Appendix IV. Conflict areas were

then numerically analyzed and assigned to their appropriate

priority groups.

Some ninety conflict areas were evaluated in the manner

described above. These were catalogued and indexed and are

available for inspection at the Department of Community Development.













commend nations


Grov,'th, dev )o .-t and

environmentally sensitive ar

meeanis of rea izin this end i

where to grow <:.. responsive

within the limitations of th

of a given site

It is,therefor, ecc

the following su gsos be

reg,:i A to the sensitive ara

1. a riri casis



nec sary, as fi s

2. Alter tively, if nc


S-ian fe foil ity o
answerr f eo


maintenance of the integrity of

; is an attainable end. The

ncludes careful evaluation of

decisions concerning land use

Sphysical characteristics



mediation of the staff that

i.en care. 1 consideration with

; wi A Metropolitan Gainesville:

estabish a program to preserve

.tive areas through purchase, if

be a ilable.

) s are anticipated, investigate

r ,servin, these are-si through

ment .ts ," scenic easements or


o0lt alternative means.

3. igna, as eas on a priority basis, some of

the areas depicted in j i re 13 as green space or very,

very low density wen ui'ting the Land Use Plan.

4. Sites p d for reoing should be evaluated as to

their sensitivity, a .ng with the short and long run

ben-fits cts suc a c-'.,-.ge would have on the


er
en i~r Tion t

5. _tilize te :a s i ividually ,.- in concert to determi,

the .. st propr :sity Vi/or intensity of land

use rs s to natural -nstraints.


ie










6. Invest ate :: of de.- easing the impact of

develo>rent thr ugh r. :ulatory ordinances,

such as seci:' -.tation, landscape, and flood

control ordinances.

In the final anal sis it is public opinion with the

leadership provide 1 by governing body that will

reconcile gr-._ th, evelol, nt and environmental quality.








Glossary of 1:-rms


Bearing value the ability of a -oil to sustain static or
mobile loads; the numerical value is usually expressed in terms
of thousands of pounds per square foot.

B.O.D.-(biological o:. ,gen dpmni) oxygen consumed as a result
of the breakdown of organic matter.

C.O.D.-(chemical ox'-ien d'.nr1), the amount of oxygen consumed
by chemical reactions and does not include organic (B.O.D.)
reactions.

Depth to limestone the vertical distance fr:mr the surface of the
earth to the top of an i :., erlying limestone formation.

Drainage "Much of the water that falls on the surface is drained
away by running do n the slopes to i, e 1-'..-st places to which it
can flow, h,-ce the source e water dies, the streams, lakes and
swamps, taken collectively, have come to be known as the drainage,
and the individii1 water bodies as drainage features." (La Forge,
Geol. Survey of C> ., Bull. 42, p. 13, 1925.)

Groundwater water encountered bt r,-ith the surface of the earth,
as water in an aquifer.

Overburden loose soil which covers a geologic formation.

pH a scale used to express the d-'uJee of acidity or alkalinity.
of a given "..uiter bod.,

Soil consistency the degree t which soil particles adhere to one
another; also soil firmn,--.s or resistance to movmenIt or separation.

Trafficability the relative* ease of passage over an area by foot or
vehicle.

Turbidity the condition of a b. y of water that contains suspended
material such as clay or silt particles, dead organisms or their parts,
and/or small living pl:;tt. and animals.










TP.;-:ndix I


Methods of Minimizing Erosion, Sedimentation and Runoff



1. Compile a comprehensive re source plan of the area in order

to fit development plans to cliinatic factors, topography,

soils, and vegetative cover.

2. Use those ar--,.-;s not well sm'uted for urbLrn development

for open spaces and recreation.

3. Remove only those gr..':s:. shrubs, .r.1 trees that must be

removed. Protect the remaining vegetation to preserve their

erosion-control value.

4. Divide large development sites into small '.workable units

upon which construction xirn be completed rapidly in order

to reduce the duration of c:.:osed soils.

5. Stockpile topsoil for land-._ap;r.nj and protect it against

erosion.

6. Install erosion control structures before disturbing the site

in order to provide for safe disposal of runoff.

7. Construct roads and storm drains before construction of

buildings begin.

8. Protect disturbed ;roils during construction with mulch or

temporary vegetation.








9. Establish permanent vegetation before or immediately after

completion of construction.

10. Provide accommnc-ation for increased runoff caused by changed
1
soil and surface conditions.














































1After Department of Environmental Services, "Environmental
Criteria for Erosion, Runoff and Sediment Control," Tallahassee,
Florida, 1974.







Appendix II


Interrelationship of Factors Affecting Lake Metabolism




GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION

Human CGologicol Topography aotitHud$
Influence Fotrmatoi r Longitude
/ I \\ Altitude


H~ot Penetraltion Oxygen Penetration Development of Seasonal Cycle
and Strotficotion and utilization Littoral Region Circulation Stognethotra
Growing Season


TROPHIC NATURE OF THE LAKE


Figure 15


Source:


Revised after Putnumr, et al., "Eutrophication
Factors in (.Nrth Central Florida Lakes," Engine-
ering and Industrial Experiment Station, College
of Engineering, University of Florida, 1969, p. 8.









Appe-rn.3i:- III



Procedure Used for D' u. i-i theii Wildlife Map



STEP 1 Soil

In order to determine values for the soils found in

the study area, a numerical ratio n schfei-e was devised. The

basic soil information, i.e., percen-'.-ge of soil in an

association, general soil suitability for openland, woodland

and wetland wildlife, soil ri-ime, etc. were obtained from the

Florida General Soils Atlas, with Intcij.retations, Division

of State Planning, 1974. The table on the following page

depicts the rating scheme develop -5 by using the basic

information found in the aforem!,ntioned publication.



STEP 2

Pages 77 and 78 of this Ap.!:ndix contain a description of

the soil groups found in the study area and are included

individually in the table follo'..ing page. The number

to the immediate left of each description on pages 77 and 78 refers

to the group number. Each group or association will usually have

more than one soil type. These different soil types were grouped

by geologists and pedologists (soil scientist) because they have

similar physical and/or chemical pr'-perties. The group numbers

were used in the table dJeling with Alachua County in the

publication cited above in STEP 1.










CL
c) 0
0











4--



4- 4-)
0 0J 0 0 0 D
tE 0 C- 0 0 0 0 1r 0C C CC
.t3,0
CC CO O o- OD o co Osi CO ro r-




r 4- o 0 f" CD w rO" m CD0 r-'- r- M kDR;- -- M r- z- CD W W :
o0 0 . ... ..... . . . .. . . . .
4--
(U








4-)

0 00 C0 o 00 0 000 0 0 00 0- 1-_ Ill 00 N. 00 00
n F- C-
a) o rjClj LO inj eN n o ua CD M M M t. -!o DM rM

























-r- r--
-03 4--
.4)























rC.J J"-cO C Th CO AC
4-
vi-i-



















4-IC




tt V) C0 q- :Z- O CY) Ct) t(") CC) CV) C- C\J ct) M C M M C) C\ 'J (\j M M M M COJ C\J

m
04-0




0 0(A
fl 0-.
CV)> C%*rC- .raLA~ Cr























E
U))
*1-.






















0
U)
4D 0 4--) -0 0

-- ca oC 0 4ij MW >omra--S..-r r- '0 W rio (o :i
) 4- -- ----- ----- --- --- '-,-- S.--)d--

E. S-r_ W~ Cn :3O..0a) M C:0 O-iz (o :
0 S-C10 i Qj 0 S 0-C S- Q ( : r -~i (0C.S 3>) CO r
+ji :3 L -oX :CC- r. I C)CCcrC


u
0
U)
U)

*o-
0
1--'-


CJ


_________ 4 I I ..~ ________ I ________ .L1 _____


C\j
a-


a
CE
U3




(A 4-)
r-0 -0- U)






0 aW C 1


)z= 00
liz 4-
4-) O>
0 * U -l(



Ou0) (U 4-'
f- CO -
CLu (A ( (14-)

JO4- bC-

4-)c a)
c/)C) =
4-) ( -)
.C S- >"









4- O r- .-4
II 1- *I- &-

0) C:)




0 a) 0 4-C

0 C.) 4J

, C 0+ .C
4r- 4 ( -)
3 t- ,._0 -

4-> r- C 0

S -r- 4- )-






0004- U 00
.0 0 4
0 0 +r- ( .n+-





a_ 'I '- 4-
If-:--C 0 4-
> =3 >






t._ (U 0D () 0 -'

II 4- ,-) + ,
.I- cr ko cI+






(10 rIJ C a v

S ,- :3 E
0i rr-- 0- :,-
0 U0 .0>



II "" c0 0 r E
*) *C > ) C00

S4- 4-) >)E C

S c -- 0 .
, .-- I.. 0 ,- --"
S^+-. 0- -- ,- -
*rI 0C X> C




f0 C 0 (- C
u .,- E "x,--- ^
- ., c-
ITO (A O O C



c-- 0 -a 0 E



0 4-0-Wi)-
b0 a 0 r- 0 M C
-C0 0 C- 4-- 3 a-






i- L- 0 -
Siz L- U 4-
11 >- **l ct 3









> "C > r-- E 9 C3
4- E4-'C 4-)0 0 -



4-, S- 0 C ,--
a V.) m W-r 4J
<" 0 3 = r C7" 0

to r-0-( U4r (
la=0r > ) :n -a>




*E- 0 4-)-M 4-I
u4-3 S- -0 0)X v







a- (A 0V- (A 3 S- E
OJ~ ~ ~~- +J -n /l3C /





as cn (a OS.-c
~C 'l 0 (L) 0
0- *tn 3-= E *
40 -) r- +>( (i
>I > +- VE (A 4



.1-0 ) 0 to


C0 Ur-- O f -0 4- Vi)
C a) < c o 0 (a
:- U-) V) M:
(0 ce; U tr s










Group Number

4. Hernando-Archer-Chiefland Association: Nearly level

to gently sloping moderately well to well drained

sandy soils with loamy or clayey subsoil underlain

by limestone.

9. Blichton-Flemington-Kanapaha Association: Nearly level

to strongly sloping, poorly drained sandy soils with
21
loamy or clayey subsoil and poorly drained soils with very

thick sandy layers over loamy subsoil.

13. Meggett, var.-Wauchula-Chobee Association: Nearly

level poorly drained soils with thin sandy layers over

clayey subsoil and poorly drained sandy soils with a

weakly cemented sandy subsoil layer underlain by loamy

subsoil, and very poorly drained soils with very thick

loamy layers, over sand.

18. Fresh Water Swamp Association: Nearly level very poorly

drained soils subject to prolonged flooding.



2. Jonesville-Chiefland-Archer Association: Nearly level

to sloping excessively drained soils with very thick

sandy layers over loamy subsoil, and well to moderately

well drained sandy soils with loamy or clayey subsoil
3
underlain by limestone.


IThis number refers to the map symbol on work copy maps. These
are kept at Department of Community Development. The number
also refers to the group of soils to its immediate right.










5. Kendrick-Hague-Zuber Association: Nearly level to

I sloping well drained soils with very thick sandy layers

over loamy subsoil and well drained soils, sandy

throughout.

S16. Martel-Placid Association: Nearly level very poorly

drained soils with thin loamy layers over clayey

I subsoil and very poorly drained soils,sandy throughout.



I
1. Candler-Apopka Association: Nearly level to strongly

sloping excessively drained soils with very thick sandy

layers over thin loamy or sandy loam lamella, and well

drained soils with very thick sandy layers over loamy

subsoil.

3. Arredondo-Zuber Association: Nearly level to sloping
4
well drained soils with very thick sandy layers over

loamy subsoil and well drained soils with thin sandy layers

over clayey subsoil.

12. Myakka-Wauchula-Placid Association: Nearly level poorly

drained sandy soils with weakly cemented sandy subsoil

layer underlain by loamy subsoil and very poorly drained

soils, sandy throughout.














78










STEP 3 Vegetation

The vegetation was mapped and ranked as follows:1

RANK

Praire = 1

Lowland Hardwood = 2

Upland Hardwood = 3

Agriculture, Pasture,

Pinelands = 4

Non-forested/Urban = 5

STEP 4 Land Use

Existing land use was mapped and ranked as follows:

Woodlands, Marshes, Praires, Lakes, Institutional
2
(essentially vacant), Undeveloped and Vacant = 1 (Rank)

Agriculture, Pasture, Commercial Forest3 = 3 (Rank)

Urban/Developed, Institutional (essentially developed) = 5 (Rank)

Group 5, i.e. Urban/Development, Institutional (developed)

was dropped from consideration at this point since these areas

are already developed. Any area which is urban is considered as

poor habitat regardless of soil and vegetation.



1The major portion of the vegetation map was completed by Mike
Bordyn, County Forester.

2Information derived from Wetlands Map (this report) and New
Construction Maps 1970-74, Department of Community Development.

Information derivedfrom Vegetation Map (this report) and North
Central Florida Regional Planning Council "Preliminary Plan -
1972."










STEP 5 Composite

The last step was to evaluate the information and values

represented by the three maps in concert. To accomplish this,

combined rankings of the three elements was necessary. Vegetation

and soil were combined first using their respective values. From

this one joint value was obtained. Then land use with its

values was similarly combined to yield a final rank value which

indicated which combinations of soil, vegetation and land use are

optimal for the perpetuation of diverse wildlife communities.

The following table represents the foregoing numerically.




































(,)
:D




aU


-J
gZ



GJL
















0,
Z.:
<:
oI


o


~1


I-


C% Co


4 + 4


,1" LO U')


4 +


r- r


Co -- mo r-- I C) cn


1 4 4 4


-- C\J


.- m C C\j d-1 m o I C 3- In


4AjTnIaVIns ONISVanONI


V~)







CC\ CV) m\J 04 m ::I m- %;I Cn Ln CV O *t-







z
--

0
(/*)








uJ
2:
0
*- i- C .- c~j CV) c\J CV) CV) ro in <$ In In
1-
I-
LU
C3
LU


-0
E
0


C-)
U)

4-3
.r-
4J
c
(U

>
0


c)


4--
U-C

4-J


Ed.

0'to
s r


*- o-

*'-
(U



0)
cni



49-
*r"-' i





Q)-)
-C U









Appendix IV


Methodology Used to Determine

Environmentally Sensitive Areas-with examples



As stated in Chapter X, a visual and numerical

approach was used to determine the sensitive areas. There

was little difficulty in determining which areas were most

sensitive (darkest) and then delineating the boundaries.

Differences arose when the priorities were assigned by the

individual evaluators. In order to reconcile these differences

or "conflict areas," it became necessary to first determine

a numerical value for each type of priority area on each

evaluators map. Three sites were selected for testing purposes

for each of the four priorities so that a numerical range

could be ascribed to each priority. With this done, conflict

areas could be numerically evaluated, a value obtained and its

correct priority assigned. The Site Evaluation Matrix which

follows, was designed and utilized to arrive at these values.








Co 10
0 Co
C~4 CN1 (NI


o
WI- -~

10 10 10 10 10 10 10
0
1-4 ~4 1-4 1-4 -~
.c~LLJ


o




I- (NI Co 0 10 0 Co
o y-4 0 r4 0 Co -~
I- r- co co (NI -~
Co *
i-I '-4 '-4







=
LLJ~0
(NI (NI
LLJLLJ






OW -~
,LU~J

(~)
LL~Q
00
CD
~~JLLJ
0 (NI -..~
(NI 0 '-4 0
I-- ~jq ~-E ~4 1







0 0
10 -~

cv, cv,
10 ~v, '-4 -~
C~LU
0Q~
LU
I- LU 0 Cv, Co -~
q' Co
10 -

cv)
- ~Zz
0) 0)
OLL~ NI
ZZZ
1-i C- 0
~1 1 CO 0
___ __ __ ____ '-4


* I-
. 0


.0










































0
1-4


.4-i -a o~ --.2 ~
0') ~(fl C I ~
LU 0 412 0
o. a~o~ o -. -~
LU e- 0') ~- 0 0 -~O> 0 -.~ C
LU (-I CD 10 -J I-- .~J ___ U._~___










Explanation of Site Evaluation Matrix


Site Number corresponds to site numbers on the Index

map at Department of Community Development.

Element The individual element maps.

Individual Category % of Total Area Each element map was

divided into categories (see individual legend blocks). Each

category was assigned a numerical value relative to its

importance when compared to the other categories on the other

element maps. Individual category % refers to the percent

each category is of the total area.1

Sum Total of Category % X Category Value Each category

% was multiplied by its category value. The individual values

which resulted were then totaled and entered. This approach was

used to place the individual elements and their accompanying

categories in relative perspective to one another. The category

values, for the various elements, are given below in the same

order as the legend blocks.

Wildlife 1, 3, 4, 5, 6
Vegetation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Wetlands 1, 4, 5
Soils 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Lake Trophic Levels 2, 3, 4, 5
Geology 1, 4, 6
Slope 1, 2, 5
Flood Prone Areas 4
Land Use 1, 4, 5



iAreas were determined by the use of a compensating polar
planimeter.









X (times) Element Weighting Individual elements were

also weighted one against the other. The greater the number

the higher its importance.2 The possible weightings were

2, and 4, with 4 being the heaviest weight.

Subtotal The result of multiplying Element Weighting

Factor by Sum Total of Category % X Category Value.

Land Use Offset Factor The purpose of this factor (0.5,

1.0 or 1.5) is to bring together the enviroiimenital value,

as well as the land use of the site. If for example, an area

is urbanized, a land use factor of .5 was assigned. This

effectively diminishes the environmental sensitivity of a

given site. If the site is vacant or undeveloped, a factor

of 1.5 was assigned. This raises the numerical value and

consequently the sensitivity of the site.

Total is the result of multiplying the Land Use Offset

Factor by the subtotal.

Sum of Totals The sum of all values in the Total column.

This is the numerical value of a site.


2
This weighting was assigned in response to the proposition of
which categories would be easiest or most difficult to replace
or cope with technologically if development were to occur on these
sites.

3The Land Use eleoo.-nt was used to determine what the Land Use
Offset Factor should be. If, for example, category 1 under the
Land Use Element comprised the majority of the site, then a Land
Use Offset Factor of .5 was assigned. Similarly, a majority
of category 4 yields 1.0, and category 6 yields a 1.5 Land Use
Offset Factor.










Each site was evaluated using the matrix. It was decided

that a Priority 1 site would be one with a numerical total in

excess of 10,000. Priority 2 sites would be between 8,500 and

10,000, Priority 3 areas would be between 5,000 and 8,499 and

Priority 4, less than 5,000. Using this approach, all conflict

areas were checked and coded appropriately. In all, 245

sites were checked within the HUD area. The result of this

analysis is represented by the Environmentally Sensitive Areas

map (Figure 13).

In order to clarify the procedure used in the Site

Evaluation Matrix, (Table 8) the Vegetation element is traced

below through the table.

1. The total area or size of Site 54 was determined by
using the planimeter.

2. After inspecting the Vegetation map, it was determined
that there was 11% of category 1 (non-forested), 9%
of category 2 (pineland), 0% of category 3 (agricultural/
pasture), 40% category 4 (upland hardwood), 0% of
category 5 (prairie) and 40% of category 6 (lowland
hardwood).

3. To determine the Sum Total of Category % X Category
Value the following calculation was made: 1 X 11 +
2 X 9 + 4 X 40 + 6 X 40 = 429. This is simply the
category % multiplied by the percentage.

4. The element weighting (for Vegetation) is 4, therefore
4 X 429 = 1716.

5. The Land Use Offset Factor is 1.5 since the Land Use
is 100% category 6. Therefore, 1716 X 1.5 = 2574.
This value, 2574, is the numerical value of vegetation
at this particular site.

This procedure may be followed for any site, the Sum of

Totals determined and then depending on the numerical value,

the site given its priority 1, 2, 3, or 4 as discussed previously.










General

Characteristics of Priority Areas



Priority 1

Table 9 represents the data from a Priority 1 area.

Typical of Priority 1 areas are high percentages in the

category weightings (usually a high ratio in the 4, 5, or

6 weightings). Further, these high values usually coincide

with high element weightings, such as Flood-Prone areas which

have aweighting of 4. In addition, almost every Priority 1

areas has a Land Use Offset Factor of 1.5 which increases its

numeric value significantly. Finally, the "Sum of Totals"

of 12,357 places this site in the Priority 1 range.

Priority 2

Table 10 represents a typical Priority 2 area. The

primary difference between this priority area and Priority 1

areas is that the high percentages under "Individual Category %",

tend to occur, in the middle of the weighting (3 or 4) with an

occasional 6. As in the case of Priority 1 areas, the high values

oftentimes coincide with high element weightings. The "Land Use

Offset Factor" is typically 1.5, but ratings of 1.0 also occur.

The "Sum of Totals" for this site was 9,063, well within the

range for Priority 2.


















C)

V)L)

LL- U) LO LO LO LO LO L
1-4

>< LLJ







0 0 co C )-
= C






CN C14 COr : co Co)c
1-- 10- co o 100 t-nI
If<) ~-











U-

LAiJ


X "










Cce
CD L
LA J --

















I--~
LL- 0 O C Od'


















0 C CC<) 0 O Co CD
C0 C-t C O CD C0 Co c0) cc)
CQ4 -~























4/))
000





















So -^



C- wo


LL&J
0 C14 CoD C4~


M 1-4
L i') --

























-J
cr:rJ
04


C)T


= I- 0


U
J- .-
CL. (1)
0 >
'---J


1.0

Co














I--
i-

LiO
In..
10
Vr)

CD


0



L3J






c-

__ I