Land use plan

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Land use plan
Physical Description:
94 p. : maps (some folded) ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
North Central Florida Regional Planning Council
Publisher:
The Council
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Land use -- Planning -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Regional planning -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
multilocal government publication   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
"This study develops a planning tool to assist local government decision-makers and citizens resolve land use and land management issues."
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility:
North Central Florida Regional Planning Council.
General Note:
"The preparation of this report was financed in part through a comprehensive planning grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development."
General Note:
"July, 1977."
General Note:
"Report No.: NCFRPC 77-003"--Bibliographic data sheet.
General Note:
"Contract/ grant no.: CPA-FL-04-00-1006"--Bibliographic data sheet.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 030502273
oclc - 31798641
System ID:
AA00025281:00001

Full Text
L -3
1977
c land use plan

--> i ==-----------
*- \


11 -) [KB^- yII r A/\^ ^ ^ f-' n

IN











v'x-~




N! Cetrl7. Fr 2Sg





North Central Forida Reg'Dnal Planning Counofl









COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP
1977

OFFICERS
Jonathan F. Wershow, Chairman
Paul Riherd, Vice Chairman
Jerry Scarborough, Secretary-Treasurer


ALACHUA COUNTY


CITY OF ALACHUA


*-- as Coward
'*Jack Durrance
Per McGriff, Jr.


Wilson Robinson
Edwin B. Turlington
*Jonathan F. Wershow


*Glenn DuBois

CITY OF GAINESVILLE


BPEDFORD COL";TY


E. W. Hod.-.-s


*Robert L. Scott


COLUMBIA COUNTY


Clayton C. Curtis
B. Harold Farmer
*Aaron Green
William Howard


Gary Junior
Gary McClain
*Bobbie Lisle
*Joseph Little


CITY OF HIGH SPRINGS


'James Monitgormery


Wayne Nettles


Cleve Blanton


HAMILTON COUNTY


CITY OF LAKE CITY


*L. A. Edenfield


Elzina Jenkins


LAFAYETTE COUNTY


*Paul Roy


CITY OF LIVE OAK


-'Paul Traw-ick


Rev. Ellis Fann


*S. T. McDowell


".'DISON COUNTY


CITY OF MADISON


Albert '- 1 ey


Howard McDaniel


*Frank Merritt


SL,-Y',EE COUNTY


CITY OF MICANOPY


Jerry Scarborough


Will iam Proctor


TAYLOR COUrNTY


CITY OF PERRY


'-.hirley Curry


*Samuel Osteen


UNION COUNTY


Andy Bowdoin

CITY OF STARKE


*Paul Riherd


*Harold Epps


'Board of Directors









RESOLUTION



WHEREAS, the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council is preparing
a Regional Comprehensive Plan, the basic goal of which is to "improve our
quality of living;" and

WHEREAS, achievement of this goal is dependent upon sound comprehensive
planning addressing the problems and opportunities for future growth and
prosperity of the region; and

WHEREAS, it is the goal of the Council to blend man's activities with the
region's natural resources and processes; and

WHEREAS, it is an objective of the Council to encourage the orderly and
harmonious development and redevelopment of existing communities and,
further, to support the preservation of areas of historical and arche-
ological significance; and

WHEREAS, the adoption of the Land Use Plan study will assist in the
achievement of the goals, policies and objectives of the Council, as well
as provide assistance and guidance to local governments in the preparation
of local plans;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Council adopts the Land Use Plan to
manage land development in an equitable manner based upon a plan and
implemented according to consistent development standards.
~/





Jonat an F. Wershow, Chairman
Febru ry 23, 1978
i


treasurer


February 23, 1978




I
I




F



r
r
r
f
r
r
r














LAND USE PLAN


The preparation of this report was financed in
part through a comprehensive planning grant from
the Department of Housing and Urban Development.











July, 1977













North Central Florida Regional Planning Council
2002 Northwest 13th Street, Suite 202
Gainesville, Florida 32601
(904) 376-3344




[
F
11
H




II


I
I



t
I
I
I
I
I






BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 1. Report No. 2. 3.-'Recipient's Accession No.
SHEET INCFRPC 77-003 ".RprDa____________
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
July, 1977
6.
Land Use Plan
7. Authors) 8. Performing Organization Rept.
See #9 Below No. NCFRPC 77-003
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
North Central Florida Regional Planning Council ________
2002 N.W. 13th Street, Suite 202 11. Contract/Grant No.
Gainesville, FL 32601
_______________________________________________CPA-FL-04-00-1006
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period
Department of Housing and Urban Development Covered
661 Riverside Avenue Final
Jacksonville, FL 32204 14.

15. Supplementary Notes


16. Abstracts

This study develops a planning tool to assist local government decision-makers and
citizens resolve land use and land management issues. Map overlay techniques are
utilized to identify various physiographic characteristics of the land, and to analyze
the inter-relationships. Land is divided into three use categories: preservation,
conservation, and development. Land use issues such as new communities and water sup-
ply are addressed. Data and analytical techniques are shared with the Natural Re-
sources Study. Goals, objectives and policies are recommended.


17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
Land Use; Physiographic Characteristics; Preservation; Conservation; Development;
Population; urban Area.









17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms







17c. COSATI Field/Group


18. Availability Statement A able fom t North Central
Florida Regional manning Counci
2002 N.W. 13th Street, Suite 202
Gainesville, FL 32601


FORM NT'S-35 (REV. 3-72)


'JSCOMM-oC '4952-972


THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
i i i




I,
I
II
Ii
r

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I








TABLE OF CONTENTS


Chapter


Table of Contents . . . . . . .

List of Tables . . . . . . .

List of Maps . . . . . . .

Introduction: Scope and Objective of Study

Summary and Conclusions . . . . .

Existing Land Use . . . . . .
Definitions . . . . . .


Physiographic Characteristics . .
Existing Urban Areas . . .
Commercial Forests . . . .
So ils . . . . . . .
Flood Hazard Areas . . . .
River Floodplains . . .
Wetlands . . . . .
Hurricane Flood Zones . .
Wetlands . . . . . .
Selected Coastal Marshes .
Selected Freshwater Swamps a
Historical, Archeological, and Na


nd Marshes
tural Areas .


Population Factors Contributing to Growth Patterns

Future Land Use . . . . . . . . .
Physical Factors .. . . . . . . ..
Existing Urban Areas . . . . .
Soil Limitations . . . . . .
Floodplains . . . . . . .
Wetlands . . . . . . . .
Social and Economic Factors . . . . .
Land Use Categories . . . . . . .
Preservation . . . . . . .
Conservation . . . . . . .
Development . . . . . . . .
Land Use Plan . . . . . . . .
Land Use Issues . . . . . . .


Goals, Objectives, and Policies .
Land Use . . . . .
Natural Resources . . .

Appendices . . . . . .

Bibliography . . . . .


Page


V


. . . . . . . v ii

. . . . . . v ii


7
8
. . 7
. . . 8


. . . . . . . . . 77

. . . . . . . . . 83




I.
[
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IL
I
I


I


I


LI









LIST OF TABLES


Table

I A-L
1-A
1-B
I-C
1-D
1-E
1-F
I-G
1-H
l-J
1-J
1-K
1-L
2.
3.


Page


Land Use Profiles . . . . . .
Regional Summary . . . . . .
Alachua County . . . . . . .
Bradford County . . . . . . .
Columbia County . . . . . . .
Dixie County . . . . . . . .
Gilchrist County . . . . . .
Hamilton County . . . . . . .
Lafayette County . . . . . . .
Madison County . . . . . . .
Suwannee County . . . . . . .
Taylor County . . . . . . .
Union County . . . . . . .
Population Profiles, Region III, 1975-2000
Urbanized Area Estimates, 1975-2000 . .


* 11-22
* 11
* 12
* 13
S. 14
S. 15
. 16
* 17
* 18
S. 19
S. 20
* 21
* 22
. 44
S. 46


LIST OF MAPS

North Central Florida Planning Region District
Existing Land Use . . . . . . .
Existing Urban Areas . . . . . . .
Significant Commercial Forests . . . . .
Soil Suitability for Agriculture . . . .
Soil Least Suitable for Development . . .
Areas Subject to 100-Year Flood . . . .
Wetlands..... ..... . . . . . . ...
Significant Natural Areas . . . . . .
Preservation . . . . . . . . .
Conservation . . . . . . . . .
Development . . . . . . . . .
Land Use Plan . . . . . . . .


vii




r


r



'II
i


IL



'1
!1

I





)

)



P


-1






Q
00
-i


Sz


C0
0
z


A
I-,


7 0 0


I


4
4


z _


;n I-.


V
tp


- I,.


0


ft31"


Z 0 U
0




I
I
Em

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[
I
II
I)
II















INTRODUCTION

The objective of the Land Use Plan is to develop a mechanism to assist the
decision-making process with regard to land use and land management within
the Region. A continuing effort is being made to develop and refine a
planning tool consisting of a series of map overlays depicting a variety of
physical characteristics of land within the Region, ranging from existing
urban areas to natural systems to future urban area needs. Utilizing some
of the same data as the Natural Resources Study, these overlays will be used
to construct a map showing land within the Region divided into three use
categories: preservation, conservation, and development. Finally, a compos-
ite map will be developed showing these categories in relation to existing
urban areas and transportation networks, as well as those areas expected to
be converted to urban use.

The study addresses but does not resolve land use issues such as new commun-
ities, density of development, and water use, although it does offer recom-
mendations in these areas and others, such as conflicting land uses. The
reader should be cautioned that this plan is not intended as a panacea for
local land use problems or conflicts. Indeed, regional planning is supple-
mentary to local planning and not a substitute for it. The purpose of this
study is therefore to provide a broad framework within which local govern-
ments can plan for their own growth and orderly expansion. The plan there-
fore serves to alert local governments to the natural systems and resources
of their Region, to provide an indication of development trends and the
consequences thereof, and to recommend a direction for policy activity.

Policy activity must strive to accommodate anticipated population growth
while maintaining the integrity of natural systems. This study is so
oriented.




p
p




P

P



P
P
P
p

P
P
F:















SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


The information presented in the study indicates the complexity of the
land use issue, and illustrates the interrelationships between the
environment and human activity. Much of the data are closely integrated
with data presented in the accompanying Natural Resources Study. The two
studies complement each other and should be considered together.

Following a description of lands within the Region in terms of physio-
graphic characteristics, population projections from the 1976 Population
and Economic Study are utilized to project urban area needs in terms of
square miles of land consumed. The implicit assumption is that popu-
lation and economic growth will concentrate in and around current urban
areas, and that the physical expansion of these areas to accommodate the
growth will occur in an orderly and well managed fashion. Finally, lands
and waters within the Region are grouped into three land use categories:
preservation, conservation and development. The Land Use Plan map shows
these three land use categories in relation to each other, to the existing
urban areas, to the existing transportation systems, and to the anticipated
future urban area needs.

The study concludes that prime agricultural lands, rivers, wetlands and
historic, archeological and natural areas should be preserved, and the
values or functions associated with these areas should be protected. The
study also shows that there exists within the Region sufficient land area
to accommodate the projected population and economic growth without sacri-
ficing prime agricultural lands, and urges local governments to discourage
the development of new communities.

The study illustrates the dependency of human development upon natural
resources, and attempts to present a method whereby decision-makers and
citizens alike can rationally approach land use issues. Water supply is
one such resource that influences human activity, and the study is careful
to point out that while the Region sets upon a large portion of the
Floridan Aquifer, the quantity of fresh water contained therein is as yet
unknown, and it would be unwise to assume that the supply is unlimited.
Freshwater supply problems in southern Florida serve as as examples to
forewarn area residents against haphazard development.

The importance of considering natural resources and natural systems when
deciding land use questions is stressed throughout the study. Indeed, much
of the data and techniques of analysis and presentation are shared with the
Natural Resources Study. The study is oriented toward designing land use








policies at the local level which are cognizant of the importance of main-
taining the integrity of natural systems. The goals, objectives and
policies presented in this study represent broad policy statements at the
regional level, within which local policies may be designed to meet
specific needs.


GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES

GOAL: To manage growth and guide development within the Region
utilizing land management techniques to maximize efficiency
in (land) use while minimizing current and potential long-term
detrimental impacts to the land, natural resources or the
quality of life.


OBJECTIVE:


POLICIES:


OBJECTIVE:



POLICIES:


To encourage the orderly and harmonious development and redevel-
opment of existing communities.

To maintain and enhance the quality of the environment by the
proper use and development of land, within the tolerances of
natural systems.

To utilize energy and natural resources prudently and effi-
ciently in the use and development of land.

To employ land use guidelines to preserve land and natural
resources for use by future generations.

To assess a wide variety of alternatives to lateral expansion
of communities to accommodate the growth of human settlements.

To encourage the revitalization and redevelopment of existing
communities, recycling natural resources where possible, as
opposed to initiating new communities.

To protect and promote the health, safety, social and economic
well-being of residents within the Region by properly managing
land development.

To support the preservation of areas of historical and archaeo-
logical significance.

To encourage the preservation of areas of unique agricultural
significance.

To encourage the judicious use of those lands which are suitable
for both agriculture and development by providing local govern-
ments with the most up-to-date information available for use in
the decision-making process.




4









OBJECTIVE:




POLICIES:


OBJECTIVE:


POLICIES:


To protect and maintain the desirable social and economic
characteristics and functions of urban areas in a manner
consistent with the capabilities of the natural and man-made
systems of the area.

To encourage the provision of adequate community services and
facilities.

To assist local governments in the development and implemen-
tation of comprehensive plans.

To manage land development in an equitable manner based upon a
plan implemented according to consistent development standards.

To distribute growth and development within the Region in a
manner consistent with support capabilities of available
resources.

To assist local governments in the development and implemen-
tation of comprehensive plans, including but not limited to
land use guidelines, zoning and subdivision regulations.




r
r
r
r
r

r
r
r
r
r


r
r
r
r
r
r
'p
7















EXISTING LAND USE


The following pages present land use profiles for each of the eleven
counties in the Region, as well as a regional summary. The profiles are
limited to five specific land use categories--urban and built up, agri-
culture, forested, water, and wetlands--plus a general category to include
uses which do not fall within the previous five descriptive categories.
In each situation that the general category is used the specific land use
is identified. Each profile also provides a county summary, subdividing
the total county area into total land and total water areas. A similar
summary is provided for the Region as a whole.

Data for the construction of these tables came from a variety of sources,
as noted at the bottom of each table. County and/or city comprehensive
plans were utilized where they existed, as were several river basin plans,
coastal zone documents, and census documents. In a few cases some interpo-
lation of data was necessary. As a check to this methodology, and as a
safeguard against unsound interpolation results, the figures for total area
were compared with the latest edition of the Florida Statistical Abstract.
The variance, if any, and the direction of variance was noted at the foot
of each table. The variance experienced after summing data from the eleven
counties totaled 67 square miles, or 42,865.75 acres, representing less
than one percent of the estimate in the aforementioned abstract.

The nature of the tables is such that no accompanying narrative is neces-
sary, although one is provided for the regional summary.

The predominant land use in the Region is forest production, accounting
for nearly 60 percent of all land within the area. This percentage is
even greater if the area of the Osceola National Forest is included, and
greater still if forested wetlands are added.

Second in rank of land area consumed is agriculture, signifying primarily
crop lands and pasture land. A distant third is wetlands, including coastal
marshes, followed by urban areas. Although urban areas cover 250 square
miles of land, those areas represent less than four percent of the total
land area within the Region. This is a striking contrast to the heavily
urbanized areas in southern Florida, and indicates that there is sufficient
room to accommodate the anticipated population growth within the parameters
of manageable expansion identified later in this study.




I

DEFINITIONS I
Urban and Built-up Cities and metropolitan areas, not limited to the
confines of city limits, but including urbanized areas contiguous to
cities, to the extent identifiable; includes correctional institutions
such as Raiford. Also included are residential areas, schools, service
facilities such as water, sewer, solid waste disposal, and utilities, as
well as transportation networks, shopping and governmental buildings.
This constitutes the most intense use of land, and it is assumed that such
use precludes the return of the land to its natural state. I
Mining An industrial use of the land distinct from urban and built-up
areas. Shown separately as a means of identifying mining activities with-
in the Region, and to give some indication of the scale of these opera-
tions; intense use of land, although the land can theoretically be returned
to its natural, pre-mining state. In the land use profiles mining falls
into the 'Other' category, since it is not indigenous to all 11 counties. I

Agriculture Specifically, crop lands and pasture lands; temporarily
alters the landscape and is not considered as intense a land use as mining
or urban activity.
Forests Refers in this instance to commercial forests, since the smaller,
individually owned tracts of land which have trees on them are not consid-
ered a major factor in determining land uses in the Region. Clear cutting
is acknowledged as being the most common forest management practice,
although not all clear cutting is for that purpose. Forest development
and management is considered a less intense use of land than agriculture.
Water Primarily lakes.
Wetlands In the land use profiles, this category signifies forested and
non-forested wetlands, those areas where the water table is at, near or
above land surface for most of the year. Signified by swamps, and fresh
and salt water marshes, wetlands serve as habitats for specific types of
vegetation and wildlife, and serve other important natural functions such
as aquifer recharge areas. Due to the scale of the reproduction, wet-
lands are not shown on the Existing Land Use Map. However, these areas
are described in much detail in the accompanying Natural Resources Study.


!
I



I


I


8P

I








EXISTING LAND USE







I',

W LAKES. RESERVOIRS AND
SNON-FORESTED WETLANDS
FORESTED LAND

Increasing AGRICULTURAL LAND
Intensity 1-gj;j

-i ,

URBAN, INSTITUTIONS,
WAND BUILT-UP LAND


I




I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i

i








TABLE 1 -A

LAND USE PROFILE

REGION I I I SUMMARY


CATEGORY

Urban & Built Up

Agriculture

Forested

Water

Wet I ands


Other:

Extractive

Osceola Forest

Rangeland


Total Land Area

Total Water Area

Total Area


-- I -


ACRES*

160,167

1,142,298

2,533,556

62,409

404,814a




10,657

77,802

16,796


4,290,090

62,409

4,352,499


('76 F.S.A.)


('76 F'.S.A.)
SQUARE MILES*

250.0

1,785.4

3,960.0

97.6

632.5a




16.7

121.6

26.3


6,705.1 (6,775.4)

97.6 (94.6)

6,802.7 (6,870.0)b


______________________________ I I


aSee Footnote No. 3, Alachua County Land Use Profile, p. 12

bThe total area estimate differs from the 1976 Florida Statistical Abstract
estimate by 67 square miles, representing 0.97 percent of Florida
Statistical Abstract figure; 67 square miles represents 42,865.75 acres.

*See Appendix A.

*Columns may not appear to add correctly due to rounding of figures.


3.7-

26.2

58.2

1.4

9.3a




.2

1.8

.4


98.6

1 .4

100.0


I




I

TABLE 1-B I

LAND USE PROFILE

ALACHUA COUNTY I


CATEGORY ACRES* SQUARE MILES*

Urban & Built Up 55,245a 86.3

Agriculture 272,609b 421.9

Forested 258,000 403.3

Water 31,600 49.4

Wetlands (56,000)C I


Total Land Area 585,854 915.5 I

Total Water Area 31,600 49.4

Total Area 617,454 964.9 I


I!
This figure was derived from Table 9, page 24, "Land Use Profile Unincor-
porated (Gainesville Urban Area) 1963 and 1971"; Table 10, page 32, "1971
Land Use Profile, Non-Urban Area and Small Municipalities", Alachua
County Comprehensive Plan, 1975-1995, Volume II, 1975; Table 3, page 13,
Census of Local Governments, Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1977.
bTable 9, page 24, Table 10, page 32, Alachua County Comprehensive Plan,
1975-1995, Volume II; Includes area identified as Agriculture, as well as
Vacant and Undeveloped Lands.
Table 111-9, Page 3-34, "Florida Wetlands of the Northeast Gulf River
Basins by Counties", Northeast Gulf River Basins, Florida, Alabama,
Georgia, Cooperative Study, United States Department of Agriculture, et
al, 1977; Staff estimate of approximate acreage of total wetlands in
Alachua County. The reader is cautioned that this figure includes
acreage also identified as either Agriculture or Forested, and is there-
fore expressed parenthetically.

Total area figures coincide with data from the 1976 Florida Statistical
Abstract.

*See Appendix A.



12








TABLE I -C

LAND USE PROFILE

BRADFORD COUNTY


CATEGORY

Urban & Built Upa

Agricul ture

Forested

Water

Wetlands


Other (Rangeland)


Total Land Area

Total Water Area

Total Area


ACRES*

21 ,795

57,416

91,897

4,672




16,796


187,904

4,672

192,576


t


SQUARE MILES*

34.1

89.7

143.6

7.3




26.3


293.7

7.3

301.0


Includes Recreation & Open Space 93 Acres/.15 Square Miles.

Source: Table 1, pg. 180, "Existing Land Use for Bradford County,
Florida", Technical Assistance to Bradford County in
Developing a Land Use Plan: A Basic Research Document,
1974.

Figures for Total Area coincide with figures in 1976 Florida Statistical
Abstract, Table 8.02, pg. 217.

*See Appendix A.








TABLE I-D

LAND USE PROFILE

COLUMBIA COUNTY


CATEGORY

Urban & Built Up

Agriculture

Forested

Water

Wetland


Other (Extractive-
Oseceola National
Forest)


Total Land Area

Total Water Area

Total Area


I I


ACRES*

20,124

131 ,611

227,504

1 ,751

45,602



450
77,802


503,093

1 ,751

504,844


SQUARE MILES*

31.5

205.7

355.5

2.7

71 .3



.7
121 .6


786.2

2.7

788.9


Source:


Table 3-1, pp. 64-66, "Existing Land Use for Columbia
County Unincorporated Area", Comprehensive Planning
Program, Columbia County, Florida, 1976.


Total Area figure coincides with 1976 Florida Statistical Abstract
estimate table 8.02, pg. 217.

*See Appendix A.








TABLE 1-E

LAND USE PROFILE

DIXIE COUNTY


CATEGORY

Urban & Built Up

Agriculture

Forested

Water

Wetland


Total Land Area

Total Water Area

Total Area


ACRES*

7,560

13,230

393,600

10,620

28,740


443,130

10,620

453,750


SQUARE MILES*

11 .8

20.7

615.2

16.6

44.9


692.8

16.6

709.4


Source: Unpublished data

Total area coincides with 1976
8.02, pg. 217.

*See Appendix A.


furnished by Barr, Dunlop & Associates, Inc.

Florida Statistical Abstract data, Table








TABLE 1-F

LAND USE PROFILE

GILCHRIST COUNTY


CATEGORY

Urban & Built Up

Agriculture

Forested

Water

Wetland


Other extractivee)


Total

Total

Total I


Land Area

Water Area

Area


ACRES*

7,855

78,243

69,845

1,910

64,780


80


220,810

1 ,910

222,713


SQUARE MILES*

12.3

122.3

109.2

3.0

101.3


.1


345.2

3.0

348.2


Source: Table 4-I, pg. 72-73, "Existing Land Use for Gilchrist
County Unincorporated Area", Gilchrist County Comprehensive
Planning Program, 1976.


Total area figure coincides with 1976 Florida Statistical Abstract data,
table 8.02, pg. 217.

'See Appendix A.







TABLE -G


LAND USE
HAMILTON


PROFILE
COUNTY


CATEGORY

Urban & Built Up

Agriculture

Forested

Water

Wetland


Other extractivee)


Total Land Area

Total Water Area

Total Area


F I


ACRES*

10,859

69,583

224,629

820

11 ,560


10,127


326,758

820

327,578


SQUARE MILES*

17.0

108.8

351 1

1.3

18.1


15.8


510.6

1.3

511.9


Source: Table 3-1, pp. 60-61, "Existing Land Use for Hamilton County,
Unincorporated Area". Hamilton County Comprehensive Planning
Program, Volume I, 1976.
The total area estimate provided in Table 8.02, pg. 217, 1976 Florida
Statistical Abstract is 515 square miles.

*See Appendix A.






TABLE I-H
LAND USE PROFILE
LAFAYETTE COUNTY


CATEGORY


Urban & Built Up

Agriculture

Forested

Water

Wetlands


Other


Total Land Area

Total Water Area

Total Area


ACRES*


2,239

63,979

252,077

1,919

20,473





338,768

1 ,919

340,687


SQUARE MILES*


3.5

100.0

374. 0a

3.0

32.0





529.5

3.0


b ~ h


aIncludes 171 square miles of recreational area.


Source:


Table 22.5 AA-3, pg. 111-142, & Table 22.5 BA-3, pg. 111-165,
Aucilla Ochlockonee St. Marks Basin Water Quality


Management Plan; Table 21.26 A-3, pg. 111-59 & Table 21.2 AA,
pg. 111-42, Suwannee River Basin Water Quality Management
Plan; Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Aug.
1975.

bTotal area figure of 532.5 square miles does not coincide with 1976
Florida Statistical Abstract figure of 551 square miles as provided in
Table 8.02, pg. 217.

'See Appendix A.







TABLE 1-1


LAND USE PROFILE
MADISON COUNTY


CATEGORY

Urban & Built Up

Agriculture

Forested

Water

Wetlands


Other


Total Land Area


Total


Water Area


Total Area


ACRES*

4,158.62

179,460.35

97,567.57

3,838.72

152,909.10





434,095.64

3,838.72

437,934.36


SQUARE MILES*

6.5

280.5

152.5

6.0

239.0





678.5

6.0

684.5a


a Total area figure of 684.5 square miles does not coincide with 1976
Florida Statistical Abstract figure of 708 square miles, Table 8.02,
pg. 217.

Source Table 22.4 AA-3, pg. 111-123, & Table 22.5 AA-3, pg. 111-142,
Aucilla Ochlockonee St. Marks River Basin Water Quality
Management Plan: Florida Department of Environmental Regulation;
Table 21.1 AA-3, pg. 111-4, & Table 21.2 BA-3, pg. 111-59,
Suwannee River Basin Water Quality Management Plan, Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation, August, 1975.

*See Appendix A.







TABLE I-J
LAND USE PROFILE
SUWANNEE COUNTY


CATEGORY

Urban & Build Up

Agriculture

Forested

Water

Wetland


Total Land Area

Total Water Area

Total Area


ACRES*

16,455a

224,302

197,211 b

1,599




437,968

1,599

439,567


SQUARE MILES*

25.7

350.6

308.2

2.5




684.6

2.5

687.1


.1 ___________________________________


aLive Oak acreage interpolated from population density data provided by
Table 3, pg. 17, "Population, population change, area density by county
& municipality 1975", Census of Local Governments, Florida Department of
Community Affairs.

bTable 23 (see "Source" below) shows 198,810 acres of "Forests and Natural
Areas"; yet no water area at all. The Suwannee River Basin Water Quality
Management Plan, shows 2.5 square miles of water within the county. This
area was subtracted from the "Forest & Natural Area" category as a
"Natural Area".

Source: Table 23, pg. 79, "Existing Land Use, Suwannee County,
Florida" (excluding area within Live Oak City Limits),
Suwannee County Comprehensive Development Plan, 1974.

*'See Appendix A.







TABLE I-K


LAND USE PROFILE
TAYLOR COUNTY


CATEGORY

Urban & Built Up

Agriculture

Forested

Water

Wetland


Total Land Area

Total Water Area

Total Area


ACRES*

9,636a

25,665a

621,696a

1 599b




656,997

1 ,599

658,576


SQUARE MILES*

15.1

40.1

971.7

2.5




1 ,026.9

2.5

1 ,029.4c


aTable 1, pg. 6, "Land Use Inventory, Taylor County", Florida Regional
Coastal Zone Land Use Analysis, Region 3, North Central Florida, June
197T..

Aucilla Ochlockonee St. Marks River Basin Water Quality Management
Plan, Table 22-4 AA-3, pg. 111-123; Table 22-5 AA-3, pg. 111-142; Table
22.5 BA-3, pg. 111-165, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.

CThis figure is lower than the figure provided in the 1976 Florida
Statistical Abstract, Table 8.02, pg. 217. That figure is 1,052 square
miles, as opposed to the above figure of 1,029 square miles.

*See Appendix A.







TABLE I -L
LAND USE PROFILE
UNION COUNTY


CATEGORY

Urban & Built Up

Agriculture

Forested

Water

Wetland


Total Land Area

Total Water Area

Total Area


ACRES*

4l,240'

26,200

99,530a

2,080

24,750


154,720

2,080

156,800


SQUARE MILES

6.3

41.0

155.4

3.3

38.7


241.4

3.3

244.7


aOnly 800 acres of institutional lands are considered developed with the
remainder (7,300 acres) being state owned lands used for agricultural and
forestry within the correctional facilities grounds.

Source: Table 1, pg. 21, "Existing Land Use, Unincorporated Union
County", Union County Comprehensive Plan, 1976-2000 Part 1.

Total area figure coincides with figure provided in 1976 Florida
Stastical Abstract.

*See Appendix A.















PHYSIOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS


The following series of maps portray a variety of physical characteristics
of the Region, as well as existing land uses, considered important to
discussions of future land use alternatives. A number of other character-
istics are identified in an accompanying volume, the Natural Resources
Study, which explores the physical characteristics from a somewhat differ-
ent perspective. The reader may wish to consult that volume for additional
information, although the maps presented here are considered important to
the development of the regional land use plan.

The information presented on these maps is essential to the construction
of the land use categories and composite maps addressed later in this study.


EXISTING URBAN AREAS

The map on the following page shows the existing urban areas within the
Region, as well as the major institutions, such as Raiford, the Lake Butler
Reception and Medical Center, and correctional institutions in Trenton and
Cross City. Urban areas are not confined to the corporate limits of the
city, as evidenced by the large areas shaded representing the urbanized
area in and around Gainesville. Similarly, the shaded areas represent
urbanized areas as now identified, as opposed to city limits which are
outlined with dashed lines. In most cases, a city's corporate limits
extend beyond the areas that are actually built up. A striking example of
this is the City of Alachua.


COMMERCIAL FORESTS

The shaded areas of page 27 represent land owned by commercial timber
companies and used for the development of forest and forest products. The
map is limited solely to commercial forests and does not include individ-
ual or public ownership of forested land, as evidenced by the absence of
shading in the area of the Osceola National Forest. The map illustrates
that significant portions of Bradford, Dixie, Lafayette, Taylor and Union
Counties are used for forest production. A complete listing of ownership
is not provided here, but is available at the Council Offices.

This map is not intended to represent total forest area in the Region,
since it is felt that commercial ownership of forests may have a more
significant impact upon land uses than individual ownership. A specific








vegetation map, without reference to ownership, is provided in the
accompanying Natural Resources Study, identifying all lands within the
Region which are covered by forests.


SOILS

Soils are one of our most valuable resources, and their functions are
basic to many life processes. Every activity of man is affected by
soils as a natural starting point, as soils provide the medium for
growing food and fiber, as well as provide the foundation for homes,
stores, factories, schools, airports, roads, playgrounds, and other
human activities.

Soils possess many characteristics and/or properties which directly
influence the types and feasibility of urban development. These charac-
teristics include but are not limited to permeability, infiltration,
wetness, depth to water table, depth to bedrock, texture and slope.
Detailed descriptions including physical and chemical properties as well
as limitations and capabilities are developed and reported for each kind
of soil delineated on soil maps. Such maps provide a strong basis for
developing land use alternatives by local governments and private
developers. Adequate soil information greatly assists in developing and
understanding the capabilities and limitations of sites for a variety of
land use activities. Experience gained from selecting soils for farming,
ranching and forestry may be applied equally well to selecting and
evaluating sites for housing, highways, and a variety of other uses. .

Soils maps at various scales and degrees of generalization may be developed
and utilized along with interpretations to provide basic planning data for
rural as well as urbanized areas. The scale and detail of soil maps and
the level of generalization of soil data required are determined by the
type of planning desired. Detailed soil maps are designed to meet the
needs of operational planning, and consequently offer the highest degree
of precision and predictability. By comparison, general soils maps are
designed for broad planning purposes. Both general and detailed soil maps
may be interpreted or explained by using tables, narratives and maps to
illustrate ratings regarding soil suitabilities, limitations or potential
for various uses.

For each soil association defined in the soils atlas an evaluation is
provided which defines the association's relative degree of limitation
based upon certain defined uses. Applying only to soils in their natural
state, the degree and kind of limitation is defined for sanitary F
facilities, community development and water management among other
potential uses. Soil limitations are indicated by the ratings; slight,
moderate, and severe. These are not suitability ratings but more
precisely, are measures of degree or intensity of soil limitations or
hazards. As such they do not represent strict restrictions on soil use
as most soils are suitable for all uses if provisions can be made to
overcome problems presented. Provided adequate funding is available


24








EXISTING URBAN AREAS
AND INSTITUTIONS





























I



\l
1








I







COMMERCIAL
FOREST AREAS






| FORESTED AREA




I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[
[
[
1*
I
II
I








modern engineering techniques may be utilized to overcome almost any
soil limitation.

Two soils maps are presented in this study, each map isolating a specific
soils association to illustrate potential for certain defined uses. Soils
maps showing all soils associations for the entire Region are provided,
with explanation, in the Natural Resources Study published by this agency.
The map on page 31 isolates the soil associations most suitable for general
agricultural uses. Of the total of six soil groupings identified for
agricultural suitability, the two shown here represent the best potential
for agriculture relative to all the soils groupings identified. It is
important to note that these ratings do not represent absolute evaluations
of soil suitabilities for agricultural purposes. Rather, the soil
associations identified in the general soils atlas was grouped into six
broad categories according to relative suitabilities for agriculture,
ranging from best suited to least suited. To obtain specific data
regarding the agricultural use crops, pine forest, pasture, etc. best
suited for a given soil group, a detailed soils atlas should be consulted.

The map on page 33 isolates the soils association with the least potential
for community development. This should not be construed to indicate that
development is wholly precluded in these areas. However, soil properties
in these areas may have limitations to community development such that
overcoming them may'prove difficult, costly, and otherwise impractical.


FLOOD HAZARD AREAS

River Flood Plains

These are lands lying along drainage corridors (rivers and streams) that
are subject to flooding on a regular basis. These areas usually contain
mixed alluvial, poorly drained soils and natural vegetation that is
adapted to fluctuating water levels. The vegetation is especially
important in that it provides diversity to landscape, serves as vital
habitat for numerous species of birds and animals and performs very
significant ecological functions for the waters that flow through the
drainage corridors.

Development in flood plains is usually very expensive, both initially and
in terms of continuing maintenance costs. In spite of steadily increased
expenditures for flood control structures, national losses due to floods
continue to rise at an alarming rate. It is ironic that the most important
factor contributing to this situation is persistent invasion of the flood
plains by those land users most likely to suffer large financial losses
from floods. While other uses such as forestry, recreation, open space,
and agriculture may be acceptable in these areas, most development in flood
plains that does not actually require access to waterfront is likely to
become an unnecessary financial burden to local, state and/or federal
governments and should be subject to strict regulations. River flood
plains are subject to provisions of the federal flood insurance program,
with special development controls being required for participation in the
program.






Wetlands |

Wetlands or depression flooding is also extensive in the Region, as the
map illustrates. The discussion provided for river flood plains is also
pertinent to wetlands, and will not be repeated. A detailed discussion
of wetlands is offered in the next section of this study.


Hurricane Flood Zones

This category encompasses land between the shore line and the 100-year
flood line; that is, the areas subject to flooding by hurricane driven
tides that would occur with a statistical probability of at least once
every 100 years. It should be kept in mind that this frequency prediction |
represents an average that may occur several times within a short time
span or may be delayed for a considerable period. Most of the heavily
populated and rapidly growing cities of south Florida have been very
fortunate within the last three decades and have not been subjected to I
devastating hurricanes. Unfortunately, this has caused a false sense of
security in many areas, thus setting the stage for natural disasters.
U
It should be recognized that hurricane driven tides are accompanied by
severe wave action and are potentially far more destructive than the
rising water associated with poor drainage. Future storm losses can be i
minimized, but only if they are anticipated and planned for. This, of
necessity, will involve education of the general public through emergency
preparedness programs and imposition of stringent building standards in
areas subject to hurricanes and flooding.

It should also be recognized that the Federal Flood Insurance Program
utilizes the 100-year flood line as a basis for granting flood insurance. I
To qualify for insurance under this program, all new residential construc-
tion must have ground floor elevations above the 100-year flood stage.
Other uses have the option of either making ground floor elevation above
this level or flood proofing buildings to that height. Participation in
the program is mandatory in order to receive federal financial assistance
for projects in flood prone areas. In addition, mortgage financing
through any federally insured financial institution will be withheld from
projects within identified flood prone areas under the jurisdiction of non-
participating local governments.


WETLANDS
I
Selected Coastal Marshes

These are tidal marsh systems having major significance. Such areas are
valuable habitat for numerous species of birds and terrestrial animals.
Marsh systems contribute necessary nutrients to adjacent waters, and
through filtering action help maintain good water quality. Many impor-
tant marine species are dependent upon marsh systems for survival, and

I






SOIL SUITABILITY
FOR AGRICULTURE









Increasing
Suitability
V ^




I
I
1
I
1






SOILS LEAST SUITABLE
FOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT




I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II

II
II
11


II






I






AREAS SUBJECT TO
100 YEAR FLOOD











-.l FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
| *''*!'




I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I




I
I








0 lip88" "'"
NORTH d
CENTRAL


0" "p 0 ,j t0 S 'o
FLORIDA d

L11b a &0 Gil



,4 ii a '0 Vo ..


*..VJW t 'c 'a.0-g
%Is CIO e ~J




.0do 0" 0



'fZ7 ..~ 8 ~.*..be.ir.:,:.
oa aQ i Bide
19,0i
wj CP a110b 1







MlbLES












RILCUE'TENEl
Whit Chmtib FlailS elgiame Plmning Ccouncil
0!


WETLANDS















E WETLANDS




* .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I

I

I

I
1








preservation of these areas is considered crucial to the maintenance of
marine fisheries. Marsh systems also provide a storm-buffering function
which helps to reduce damages to coastal development. Included in this
category are high marsh areas generally considered as being above the
mean high water line. Under Chapters 253 and/or 403, Florida Statutes,
dredging and/or filling in portions of coastal marshes is regulated by
the Department of Environmental Regulation. These areas are also subject
to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.


Selected Freshwater Swamps and Marshes

As identified in the Florida Regional Coastal Zone Management Atlas, these
are areas having a high water table and supporting extensive stands of
water-tolerant vegetation. Such areas are unsuitable for intensive land
uses without major alteration. They are usually of substantial ecological
importance and serve as natural retention mechanisms for surface water.
Some swamps and marshes may also function as aquifer recharge areas.
Development in swamp and marsh areas typically involves a high initial
cost and a high continuing cost that is often borne by government. Such
problems as periodic flooding, poor stability of roads and streets,
creation of health hazards, and subsequent expenditures of tax money for
corrective measures are often encountered in such areas. Development in
freshwater swamps and marshes, therefore, is likely to become an unneces-
sary tax burden.

Because of the ecological significance of these areas, their value for
water retention purposes and their intrinsic unsuitability for intensive
development, they should be managed to ensure against modifications that
will significantly impair their identified functions or values. The
state and federal governments presently exercise only limited authority
over these areas, except in areas contiguous to "waters of the state"
and in areas of public ownership such as wildlife refuges, state and
national parks, state wilderness areas, and areas subject to flowage
easements. Many freshwater swamps and marshes are in private ownership
with very few effective controls on their use.

Due to scale limitations, some acreage mapped as wetlands includes low
flatwoods pine lands which are intermingled with cypress ponds, strands,
ti-ti drains and hardwood swamps.


HISTORICAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL, AND NATURAL AREAS

These are areas of outstanding historical and archeological significance
which reflect Florida's rich and colorful history. These sites provide
the informational base upon which our cultural heritage is built and
reflect our ethnic origins.

Archeological and historical sites can be divided into three functional
categories: informational, aesthetic, and commemorative. Informational
sites are those sites whose primary significance is derived from the data








they have provided, or are likely to provide, to archeologists and allied
researchers. In many cases, these sites provide the only extant avenue
to the understanding of our pre-history and history, and the physical
disturbance of these sites by unqualified individuals could result in the
irretrievable loss of a segment of our cultural heritage. Examples of
information sites include small, seasonly occupied aboriginal village
sites, aboriginal hunting sites, kitchen middens, aboriginal and early
historic farmsteads, military encampments, among others.

Aesthetic sites represent the best known examples of archeological and
historical sites. These sites are generally characterized as having an
obvious, and usually distinctive, physical appearance. Examples of this
type site include large burial mound and ceremonial mound aboriginal
sites, and architecturally significant structures and complexes, such as
the Gamble Mansion and Viscaya. A number of these sites may also be
considered as informational, since they contain original data unobtainable
elsewhere.

Commemorative sites are perhaps the least significant type of archeo-
logical and historical site. They are important, generally speaking, due
to their symbolic association with some aspect of our cultural heritage.
Examples of this type site include the Florida Meridian Marker and the Old
Spanish Trail. Some commemorative sites also contain informational and
aesthetic elements.

It should be stressed that archeological and historical sites are a non-
regenerative resource, and each individual site is unique, representing an
irreplaceable element of our ethnic and cultural heritage. Florida is
endowed with a valuable assortment of such areas, and many of these sites
are presently protected by state and federal legislation. Many important
sites however, are not currently protected, and the state is often
dependent upon private interests and local governments to assist in the
protection of these valuable resources.

There are several areas of natural significance that contain natural
features of an unusual or unique character, usually of comparatively small
geographic extent. Examples range from such diverse features as coral
reefs to unique sinkholes, caves and springs. Also included are waters
given a "special stream classification" by the Department of Environmental
Regulation. These include wild or scenic rivers, spring fed streams and
others which have exceptional scenic, ecological, or recreational value to
the public at large. The state has incorporated many such areas into its
State Park System or protected them in other ways. There remain, however,
many unprotected areas that are of significant value to both local and
state interests.








SIGNIFICANT

NATURAL AREAS














SITE LIST
1 SUWANNEE RIVER
2 WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER
3 PINHOOK SWAMP
4 SANTA FE HEADWATERS
5 AUCILLA RIVER SINK
6 TIDE SWAMP
7 GULF COASTAL MARSH
8 HIXTOWN SWAMP
9 SANTA FE RIVER
10 OSCEOLA NATIONAL FOREST
11 PAYNES PRAIRIE STATE PRESERVE
12 SAN FELASCO HAMMOCK
13 ICHETUCKNEE SPRINGS STATE PARK
14 CALIFORNIA SWAMP
15 AUSTIN CAREY MEMORIAL FOREST



NATURAL
A HISTORIC
a ARCHEOLOGICAL


















POPULATION FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO GROWTH PATTERNS


The anticipated population and economic growth within the north central
Florida region has been examined in detail in the 1976 Population and
Economic Study prepared and published by this agency. Table 2 on the
following page reduces to one table the population estimates for the
Region as a whole and each of the 11 constituent counties. This table
forms the basis for a discussion of population and economic factors
contributing to urban growth and the consequent impact of that growth
upon land uses.

The population within the Region is expected to grow approximately
168,700 people by the turn of the century, representing an increase of
66 percent over the estimated 1975 population. Employing a regional
average for household size to the projected population increase suggests
that the number of households in the Region will increase by more than
74,000 during that same time period. Since each new household requires a
place to live, household formation is directly related to an increased
demand for housing and supportive community facilities, such as transpor-
tation systems, water and sewer services, and utilities. The demand for
housing will be concentrated around existing urban areas, as opposed to
new communities, as the existing communities already have the infrastruc-
ture necessary to provide these support services.

Furthermore, as incomes rise, so do levels of consumption. With higher
incomes comes the ability to purchase automobiles, travel, purchase larger
homes, perhaps even second homes or vacation homes, and recreation.
Affluence also affects the demand for more support services such as trans-
portation facilities, utility extensions, shopping centers, education and
health services. The Commission on Population Growth and the American
Future has estimated that by the year 2000 average family income will rise
from the current (1970) $12,000 to more than $21,000 in constant dollars,
even if the work week were reduced to 30 hours and even if the population
grew at the rate of three children per family. Furthermore, the Commission
suggests:

"The average individual's consumption is expected to be more
than twice what it is today, whether the population grows at
the two-child or the three-child rate. As income increases,
people show an increased preference for services, such as
education and health services,as compared to manufactured goods.
So, the population of the year 2000 will boost its consumption
of services faster than the consumption of manufactured goods."







TABLE 2

POPULATION PROFILES

REGION III


AREA/COUNTY

Region III

Alachua

Bradford

Columbia

Dixie

Gilchrist

Hamilton

Lafayette

Mad i son

Suwannee

Taylor

Union


1975 est.

256,000

130,800

16,300

25,300

6,600

5,100

8,600

3,100

14,400

18,900

14,600

10,400


1980 est.

288,200

147,000

18,100

32,200

7,400

5,800

9,500

3,500

15,700

21,200

16,300

11 ,500


1990 est.

355,700

182,600

22,300

39,700

9,200

7,400

11,400

4,500

18,400

26,200

20,200

13,900


2000 est.

424,700

218,900

26,500

47,300 1

11,000

9,000

13,400

5,500

21,400

31,400

24,100

16,300


Source: 1975 estimate 1976 Florida Statistical Abstract, Table 1.24, pg. 8
"Population Projections"

1980 2000 estimates 1976 Population and Economic Study, North
Central Florida Regional Planning Council; some data previously
unpublished.







Thus, more people with more money, increasing the demand for housing and
support services while maintaining a desire for low-density living in an
urban area (with the infrastructure necessary to provide these services),
translates into larger urban areas. This, in turn, means a greater need
of land for urban purposes.

Table 3 indicates the amount of area, in square miles, needed to
accommodate expected population increases in the Region to the year 2000.
Comparing Tables 2 and 3, two points are noteworthy. First, those
counties with the highest population in 1975 are expected to show the
largest absolute growth in population to the year 2000, while coinci-
dentally showing the highest percentage increase as well. These counties
are population and economic centers within the Region, and are projected
to maintain these roles in the years to come.

It follows logically that these same counties are also anticipated to
experience the greatest lateral expansion of existing urban areas, as a
consequence of accommodating additional people. However, this conclusion,
as well as the figures in Table 2, are based upon two assumptions:

a) That development trends continue the current course of
low-density residential building as opposed to a shift
to higher density and/or vertical development;

b) The figures do not wholly preclude the advent of new
communities being built, rather, represent total land
area expected to be used for urban purposes.

Although low density and high density development will each ultimately
result in a lateral expansion of urban areas, the low density alterna-
tives will result in the expansion occurring at a faster pace. The
assumption is made that the population in Region III will continue to
prefer low density residential living and will manifest this preference
in buying and building practices.

New communities are not considered to be a major force in community develop-
ment within Region III for a variety of reasons. First, population growth
is expected to be concentrated around current communities with their
existing or planned abilities to provide community services to residents.
Further, employment opportunities are expected to continue to locate around
existing employment centers, to reduce cost associated with meeting energy
requirements transportation costs, utility costs and building costs.
The need for new communities to service industrial employment needs is
thereby lessened.

Finally, new communities would require the establishment of an entire
infrastructure to serve community residents, the most expensive of which
might be water and sewer systems, waste treatment and disposal systems, a
transportation network and electric and gas utilities. Providing these
services, plus other aspects of a community infrastructure, will probably
prove too costly to make new communities a viable alternative.








URBAN I ZED


TABLE 3

AREA ESTIMATES, IN


SQUARE MILES


OF AREA


REGION I I I

Alachua

Bradford

Columbia

Dixie

Gilchrist

Hamilton

Lafayette

Madison

Suwannee

Taylor

Union


1975

250.00

86.34

34.05

31.45

11 .82

12.28

16.97

3.5

6.5

25.72

15.06

6.31


1980

281.44

97.03

37.81

40.03

13.25

13.97

18.74

3.95

7.09

28.85

16.81

6.98


T I


1990

347.36

120.53

46.58

49.35

16.48

17.82

22.49

5.08

8.31

35.65

20.84

8.43


Cor


Cor


Assumptions:

I. That current density ratios within Urban & Built Up Areas
remain static.

ollary a. That development trends continue current course as
opposed to moving from lateral, low density development
to higher density and/or vertical expansion.

ollary b. Greater Urban and Built Up Area figures does not limit
growth to existing urbanized areas, does not preclude
"new community" type development.


*The sum of each column may not equal the Region III total, due to the
rounding of figures.

'**See Appendix B for methodology.


2000

414.75

144.49

55.36

58.80

19.70

21.67

26.44

6.21

9.66

42.73

24.86

9.89







The energy crisis and the anticipated duration of that situation may
significantly alter people's ideas regarding life-styles, especially if
the situation worsens, which will in turn affect residential development,
consumption patterns and eventually, land uses. A more restrictive energy
situation could result in a shift to higher density development, as
developers begin to recognize the economics of buying and developing land
where utilities and services are already provided. Furthermore, denser,
self-contained communities may become more attractive to the consumer who
is concerned about the distance to be traveled to and from'work or the
supermarket or the shopping mall.

It is impossible at this juncture to predict the future energy situation
or the ramifications thereof. Local governments should remain flexible
enough to review community development plans periodically and to alter
these plans as the need is identified.




11


11







il














FUTURE LAND USE


PHYSICAL FACTORS


Existing Urban Areas

The existing urban areas in the Region play a major role in determining
future land use, since these areas are expected to accommodate the greatest
share of the population growth between now and the turn of the century. As
these areas experience population and economic growth, there will be demands
to expand the size of the community to allow for residential development,
the location of schools and other community facilities, and the placement
of business and industrial areas. The transportation network within a
community will be expanded and improved to provide easier access within the
community as well as with other cities, states and market centers. Each
city and county government must engage in and complete a comprehensive plan
pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act, including as
one component of this larger plan a land use element.

The role of these areas in determining future land use is in large part a
continuation of their current roles as population and economic centers.
There are several reasons for this expectation, as alluded to earlier.
Urban areas have many features which people and businesses alike are cogni-
zant of when relocating. Electric and gas utilities, as well as water and
sewer systems and solid waste disposal mechanisms, are usually assumed to
exist in a metropolitan area, and a business may investigate to ensure that
the systems can provide the service needed for that business to profitably
operate. Roads, streets and signalization providing reasonable transit
between home and work, or home and shopping, or recreation, or schools, or
church, usually exists in urban areas. These same facilities, assisted
perhaps by other transportation facilities such as airports, serve the dual
purpose of providing ways for goods and commerce to come into the community,
while allowing local merchants to export their goods to other market areas.
Community facilities such as schools, fire and police protection, parks and
open space, benefit everyone, and must expand with population and economic
growth to avoid extending these services beyond the ability to adequately
and safely provide them. Finally, a community infrastructure exists, a
government or an orderly system of providing these and other services, and
of managing the community.

For these and other reasons that have not been mentioned, urban areas are
expected to attract the vast majority of the projected population growth








in the Region. Along with this concentration of people will come a concen-
tration of employment opportunities, and cities that are economic centers
today are expected to continue to be so throughout the coming years.


Soil Limitations

As discussed in an earlier section, some soils associations do not lend
themselves to use for community development and these areas have been
identified in the map entitled, "Soils Least Suitable for Community
Development". This does not suggest that these soils cannot be used for
some other purpose, although in some cases the same soils may be unsuitable
for agriculture as well. The ability of these soils to accommodate these
or other uses may be altered, but only at prohibitive costs.

A more difficult situation exists at the other end of the spectrum, how-
ever. Some soils are highly suited for agricultural use as well as
community development, as can be seen by comparing the two maps in the
Natural Resource Study entitled "Soil Suitability for Agriculture" and
"Soil Suitability for Community Development". The point is that many soil
groups that are relatively highly suited for agricultural uses also
possess qualities making them highly suited for community development.
Moreover, most of the cities within the Region are built in soil groupings
with the highest suitability for agriculture, a fact that probably dates
back to the beginning of these cities in a predominately agrarian society.
Consequently, lateral expansion of these cities will, in many cases, con-
vert to urban use soil that is among the best in the Region for agriculture.

Conflicting land use capabilities raises several questions which have been
addressed here and must be addressed again and in much detail at the local
level. The basic question raised is what constitutes the highest and best
use of the land, agriculture or community development? There is no single
answer with universal application; the approach taken here is that prime
agricultural land should be preserved for that purpose, and conversion to
urban use should be minimized, if not wholly precluded. This approach is
tempered by the following points:

a) Many existing urban areas are surrounded by prime agricul-
tural land, which is recommended for preservation;
b) These urban areas are expected to experience population
growth, which in turn will result in the physical expansion 1
of the urbanized areas to accommodate this growth;
c) The need for urban expansion represents a small percentage
of the total land area. Assuming that urban areas expand
while maintaining the current density, urban area needs in
the year 2000 are expected to be an additional 165 square
miles, representing a 66 percent increase over today's
figures, covering 6.6 percent of the total land area in
the Region, as opposed to 3.7 percent today;
d) These urban areas must be afforded the ability to expand,
with the tacit assumption that the local decision makers







will manage that expansion in an orderly manner, minimizing
adverse impact upon the environment and natural systems;
e) Based upon the maps presented in this study and the Natural
Resources Study, there is more than enough land available
that is suitable for development that is not also suited for
agriculture to accommodate much more population and industrial
growth than is anticipated in this Region.

Thus, a compromise of sorts is reached. While assuming that lateral
expansion will occur in an orderly and manageable fashion around existing
urban boundaries, prime agricultural land within the Region will be
preserved for that purpose. This action will benefit the agrarian economy
within the Region, will prevent an intense use of these lands which would
irreparably alter the natural systems, and will provide some measure of
open space for the Region's citizens while allowing at the same time for
the expansion of urban areas.


Floodplains

Development in and around rivers, depressions and hurricane flood plains
often appears quite feasible and even desirable when one considers the
relative infrequency of major storms and resultant flooding. However,
continued development within a flood plain usually increases the potential
for human and economic loss, as this development effectively restricts the
ability of the flood plain to absorb water and inhibits the flow of water
from the land. Consequently, flood volume and velocity are increased by
such development, and downstream flood hazards therefore increase. While
construction of storm sewers, canals and other stream channel improvements
may alleviate the potential for flooding problems within urban areas, such
activity may also aggravate the problem by increasing the volume and
velocity of flood waters flowing into stream channels. Clearly, proper
management of the river flood plains is important in urbanized or urbanizing
areas to ensure against property damage and loss of life.

Tidal flooding also has the potential to result in extensive damage,
particularly along the coastal areas of the Region. Most of this type of
flooding is the result of hurricanes or major storm events near the coast
which cause onshore winds for several hours duration. A 100-year frequency
storm for coastal areas in Dixie and Taylor Counties may result in tides as
high as 14 feet above Mean Sea Level. Development in the coastal zone must
be properly managed.

Flood plains provide valuable services when left in a natural state. In
addition to providing flood ways to remove storm waters, wildlife may find
refuge in vegetation that often flourishes in or near well watered areas.
Groundwater recharge occurs through soils during high water levels. Flood
plains may also provide useful open spaces near urban areas, and recreation
is enhanced in natural settings.

Flood prone areas have been identified and delineated in the Natural Resources
Study. The map provided in this study shows only those areas identified as








lying completely within the boundaries of the statistical 100-year flood.
These areas have been placed in the conservation land use category,
suggesting that while development is not wholly precluded, care must be
taken to prevent obstruction within the flood plain, as well as human and
economic damage.


Wetlands

These areas have often been regarded as worthless land suitable only for
land filling, or perhaps agricultural uses if properly channelized and
drained. However, wetlands have recently been recognized as providing a
service vital to the maintenance of natural systems. Wetlands protect
vegetation and wildlife that are dependent upon water for survival; serve
as a medium for the propagation of food supplies within the food chain;
serve as a stopgap against salt water intrusion in coastal areas; serve as
surface water storage and aquifer recharge areas, and assimilate urban
pollutants. Other specific and valuable functions are listed in the
Natural Resources Study. Proper management of wetland areas is necessary
to ensure the continued health, safety and welfare of area residents, and
to protect the economy of the state. The majority of wetlands are also
wooded, and thus serve an economic as well as a natural function.

Wetlands in the Region have been identified on the map so entitled on page
37. The importance of these wetlands is such that they have been placed
in the preservation category in order to protect the natural values and
important functions associated with them.


SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS

Social and economic factors influencing growth are often difficult to
distinguish and isolate from the physical factors of urban expansion,
since the three are all interwoven in a complex web of relationships. A
previous chapter examined in some detail the anticipated population growth
for the Region, by county, and the resultant need for urban areas in terms
of square miles of land consumed. Why this is happening is tied in some
measure to the economies of the State and nation.

Previous studies have indicated that the State population has been
increasing at a rate approximating 6,000 people per week, and that 90
percent of the State's population growth in the recent years has resulted
from in-migration from other parts of the country. The national economy
is related to this growth, indicating that a large number of people are
financially able to move to Florida. The state is involved because
employment opportunities are either here in fact or are perceived to be
here and thus attract these people to migrate. Florida's climate may also
be a factor, especially to a society becoming increasingly energy conscious.
The comparatively mild climate may either reduce utility bills, or be more
acceptable in harsh winters, bills notwithstanding.







The State's population growth has been experienced primarily in the larger
existing urban areas, notably those along the coast and in the southern
portions of the State. This is a trend that may recede somewhat in later
years as these areas become more crowded, as land and housing becomes more
and perhaps too expensive, and as cities and businesses begin to experience
the effects of a dwindling potable water supply.

Speculating for the moment, this Region may become more and more attractive
to those who can accept a mildly cold winter. There- are vast stretches of
open space here; the area is served by two interstate highways, as well as
other roads providing easy access to cities and markets; the area is not
crowded, certainly not to the extent of southern Florida, and land and
housing prices are not as inflated. Finally, and perhaps most importantly,
the area overlies a large portion of the Floridan Aquifer which possesses
vast but as yet unidentified quantities of fresh water.

Other, more complex reasoning exists. However, the assumption implicit to
this study is that existing population and economic centers in the Region
will continue in those functional roles in the future, as explained by
trend analysis in the 1976 Population and Economic Study.


LAND USE CATEGORIES

Land within the Region has been divided into three general use categories:
preservation, conservation, and development. The definitions of these
categories, and the accompanying maps, are presented here to assist local
decision makers and citizens when faced with the resolution of issues
regarding land use and land management. These maps are not specific to
local land uses, although local land use plans were consulted where they
existed. Nor are these maps intended as a substitute for local planning.
The definitions and maps are intended as general policy guidelines, within
which local governments should plan according to their specific goals and
objectives.

The assumptions are restated:

a) Existing urban centers are expected to experience population and
economic growth, which will result in the physical expansion of
the urban areas;
b) The need for urban expansion represents a small percentage of
the total land area. Urban areas constitutes approximately 3.7
percent of the total land area within the Region today; this
percentage is expected to increase to 6.6 percent by the year
2000;
c) While urban areas are expected to expand, that expansion will
occur in such a way as to minimize adverse impacts upon the
environment and natural systems;
d) There is sufficient land available for development such that
prime agricultural lands need not be converted to urban uses.







These assumptions may be altered by several factors, including a change in
the energy supply question, a climatic change, a continued slowdown in the
State or national economies, or a change in the preferences of people
regarding low density living.


Preservat i on

The preservation classification includes those lands identified as having
major ecological, hydrological, physiological, historical, or socioeconomic
importance to the public at large. Preserving the integrity of these lands
enhances the quality of life for residents and tourists, and will help
maintain an ecological balance in the Region. Public policy should attempt
to protect the functions or values associated with these areas to the maxi-
mum degree legally possible consistent with private property rights as
determined by the courts. Sustaining commitments regarding functions and
values should be made only by elected officials, and only after full
consideration of pertinent factors and an awareness of long-term
consequences.

Preservation areas include:

Marine Grass Beds,
Selected Coastal Marshes,
Selected Fresh Water Swamps and Marshes (Wetlands),
Historical, Archeological and Natural Areas,
Parks and Recreation Areas,
Prime Agricultural Areas,
Rivers.


Conservation

Lands and waters having some intrinsic value attached to them are included
in the conservation category, indicating that while development is not
wholly precluded within these areas, it is to be strongly discouraged.
Conservation areas are also lands and waters identified as having certain
natural or institutional use limitations which require special precautions
prior to conversion to development. Failure to consider the natural or
institutional limitations may result in consequences harmful to the public
health, safety and welfare, while failure to consider the intrinsic value
of an area may result in a significant aesthetic loss.

As a land use classification falling between preservation and development,
conservation areas are areas where development should be strongly dis-
couraged and allowed only after thorough consideration by elected officials
of the natural, institutional or intrinsic limitations attached to the
land.

Conservation areas include:

Areas subject to the 100-year flood,









PRESERVATION

















E PRESERVATION






The Infolrnmatln prvidced on this map
p'lnrays ph ,si-al ch-ra.-teristics of
the land without rg'rd for the locationll
or expansion of urban ares andlor
institLlions. Thn. Land U'e Plan Map
on p ge 63 %hrws lhe dla presented
here in relation to eaising urban
Preas, prjected lulure urban needs.
institu.lions, transpvrtaljon networks,
and othjr land use catlfg.;ries. The
reader is cautioned not to make
interpretive conclusions without
consulting the teail and the Land Use
Plan Map. where the social, economic
and physical functions ot urban areas
are discussed and illustrated in detail,














CONSERVATION
















0 CONSERVATION






The InfRrmatlin prodded on this map
p 'rtr-'ys ph 'siral chracteristircs ot
the land without r-g:.rd for the location
or e pansi-n of urban areas andlor
institutions. rhe Land Use Plan Map
on p gi 63 'h iws Ihe data presented
here in rel.tin to existing urban
rei-, pr jp- led Itlure urban needs.
instlt Ut.ns. Iran:p rotation networks,
and .Ih r I rd use cstrgilres. The
re der is cawti ned not to make
irnt:rp-l;ti e crncliJions wilhoul
cns 1'i g h- to i and the Land Use
PI'n M p, h:ri th- gocil. economic
a d ph ic I I nrh lns of urban areas
are d ,cu-ss.d a d illjstr .led in detail.














DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL


















AREAS WITH FEWEST
L ;J LIMITATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT






The Infermetlon provided on this map
pnrtrnys ph ti al chiracternsics of
the land with LI r'g-rd for the location
or e'pansrn of uIrbn areas and/or
insttitl-,ns. Th? Land U;e Plan Map
on p gs 63 rI vas the d(a presented
here in relalion to eiusling urban
-reir. pr jerled tituife irb3n needs,
inslitnttions. irn'p rlation networks,
and oth:r I.d .se c i g rei. The
reader is ca-ti, ned n;l to mike
interpi't'\e c nc,.l.jns iilhiulU
S cons -Ii g In? te I and ih! Land Use
Pl.an M p, -hiere Ih' s.:n I. economic
ad ph *'iicl f inci ns ol tilb n areas
are discussed a-d illusir led in detail.











Significant Forest Areas,
Game Management Areas,
Significant Mineral Deposits,
Acquifer Recharge Areas,
Lands with significant soil, drainage, or other physical restrictions,
Noise Hazard Areas.


Development

Development areas include those areas which, 1) are presently developed;
2) are presently undeveloped, or vacant or are used for other purposes,
including forestry and agriculture, which are intrinsically suitable for
intensive development; and 3) are presently undeveloped having minor
physical limitations such as poor drainage, poor soil permeability or
load-bearing capabilities, which can be corrected. Although these lands
are not generally considered to be environmentally sensitive, development
decisions regarding lands with high agricultural potential should be
considered with respect to long-term impacts to food production. Public
policy should attempt to guide future growth and development into areas
having the best intrinsic suitability, while simultaneously attempting to
minimize and neutralize any identified conflicts. Flexibility should be
incorporated into decision-making to address mining activities and the
prospect of new communities as the need arises.

Development areas include:

Urban Development,
Rural Development,
Institutions (significant correctional, medical or educational),
Transportation,
Utilities,
Mining,
New Communities.


LAND USE PLAN

This composite map shows the relation of each land use category to the
others, as well as to the existing urban areas, the expected expansion of
these areas, and the existing transportation system. County lines have
been added to further assist the reader in identifying the relative
position and scale of each land use category.

The majority of the land within the Region has been placed in either the
preservation or conservation categories, indicative of the importance
associated with maintaining the natural integrity of these areas. Further-
more, excluding the lands surrounding existing urban centers, which has
already been assumed as land for conversion to urban uses, there is
sufficient land identified in the Region as suitable for development to
accommodate all and more of the projected population increase. An








important distinction to note is that the lands placed in the development
category are not suggested as being best suited for any and all develop-
ment; rather, those lands are identified as possessing the fewest apparent
physical limitations to development. The actual cost of developing a
parcel of such land may prove prohibitive in one area of the Region and
economically feasible in another. In all cases, development should be
preceded by a thorough investigation of the environmental impacts not only
to the immediate area but to other natural systems and areas as well.
Such a local and interlocal impact analysis should identify and correct or
avoid adverse impacts to the environment or to future human development,
such as aquifer pollution, destruction of wetlands, and downstream flooding,
among others.


LAND USE ISSUES

Conflicting Land Use Capabilities This has been discussed previously in
some detail. The land use categories and maps defined here are recommended
as a policy guide to local governments, in conjunction with the data
compiled in the Natural Resources Study. Local governments are strongly
urged to recognize the values associated with these lands and to accept the
land use assumptions and categories as described herein.

Water Supply The Region rests atop a large portion of Floridan Aquifer
and possesses a number of fresh water springs and rivers. While the supply
of fresh water appears to be vast, it is as yet of undefined quantity, and
it would not be wise from a planning perspective to assume that the supply
is unlimited. Care must be taken to ensure that development does not
result in further salt water intrusion into the aquifer, or in the intro-
duction of pollutants into the aquifer, or to a significant lowering of
the water table. Likewise, the rivers must be protected from abuses by
developments, as rivers constitute a valuable natural resource not only as
a source of fresh water, but also as wildlife habitats and centers of
recreational activities.

Questions and issues regarding water supply and use are the primary responsi-
bility of Water Management Districts, and the Region contributes land area
to two. They are: 1) the Suwannee River Water Management District; and
2) the St. John's River Water Management District. The largest portion of
the Region lies within the boundaries of the Suwannee WMD.

More detailed information can be obtained from the chapter entitled "Water
Resources" from the accompanying Natural Resources Study.

Energy Concerns for energy consumption rates along with costs may alter
land use patterns within and around urban centers. Cities may become more
compact, with higher densities than exist today if people are willing to
concede some freedom of space for relief from utility and transportation
costs. Vertical, as opposed to lateral, expansion may become more
acceptable.









LAND USE PLAN
YEAR 2000











E EXISTING URBAN,
INSTITUTIONS


E FUTURE URBAN


DEVELOPMENT


$ CONSERVATION


77 PRESERVATION


POTENTIAL


Due to limitations of scale
incurred when reducing data to a
map of this size, representations
of "Future Urban" areas may
appear disproportionate with the
text of the study or with
, existing comprehensive or develop-
ment plans. The reader is
further advised to consult the
Goals, Objectives and Policies in
this study when viewing and
interpreting this map.











New Communities County and regional governments may be faced with the
prospects of new communities, but this is considered unlikely. In
addition, new communities are discouraged several times in this report,
and local governments are urged to support this position in the land use
and development policy statements.


















GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES


The goals, objectives and policies are intended as policy statements as
a supplemental guide to local decision makers. Included here are the
goals, objectives and policies pertinent to land use and natural resources.













GOAL:


OBJECTIVE:


POLICIES:


OBJECTIVE:



POLICIES:


OBJECTIVE:




POLICIES:


LAND USE

To manage growth and guide development within the Region
utilizing land management techniques to maximize efficiency
in (land) use while minimizing current and potential long-
term detrimental impacts to the land, natural resources or
the quality of life.

To encourage the orderly and harmonious development and
redevelopment of existing communities.

To maintain and enhance the quality of the environment by
the proper use and development of land, within the toler-
ances of natural systems.

To utilize energy and natural resources prudently and
efficiently in the use and development of land.

To employ land use guidelines to preserve land and natural
resources for use by future generations.

To assess a wide variety of alternatives to lateral expan-
sion of communities to accommodate the growth of human
settlements.

To encourage the revitalization and redevelopment of
existing communities, recycling natural resources where
possible, as opposed to initiating new communities.

To protect and promote the health, safety, social and
economic well-being of residents within the Region by
properly managing land development.

To support the preservation of areas of historical and
archaeological significance.

To encourage the preservation of areas of unique agricul-
tural significance.

To encourage the judicious use of those lands which are
suitable for both agriculture and development by providing
local governments with the most up-to-date information
available for use in the decision-making process.

To protect and maintain the desirable social and economic
characteristics and functions of urban areas in a manner
consistent with the capabilities of the natural and man-
made systems of the area.

To encourage the provision of adequate community services
and facilities.










OBJECTIVE:



POLICIES:


To assist local governments in the development and implemen-
tation of comprehensive plans.

To manage land development in an equitable manner based
upon a plan implemented according to consistent develop-
ment standards.

To distribute growth and development within the Region in a
manner consistent with support capabilities of available
resources.

To assist local governments in the development and implemen-
tation of comprehensive plans, including but not limited to
land use guidelines, zoning and subdivision regulations.


NATURAL RESOURCES:


GOAL:


OBJECTIVE:


POLICIES:


GOALS:


GENERAL


Support the optimal use of the Region's resources, prevent
their further degredation and rectify past damage.

1. Plan for and promote the wise use of both renewable
and non-renewable natural resources.

2. Foster the development of human benefits obtainable
from the natural environment.

3. Disseminate information to local governments and the
general public about the elements of the natural and
man-made environment, their interrelationships and
major problems and opportunities they present to
community and regional development.

4. Provide leadership and a workable strategy for the
efficient management of the Region's natural resources.

5. Promote responsible development within the tolerances
of natural systems.

6. Encourage the preservation of the Region's important
open spaces.

To incorporate elements of resource management into all
plans and programs.


Rock and Mineral Resources


1. To conserve and provide for the wise management of
rock and mineral resources.











OBJECTIVE:




POLICIES:


GOALS:


OBJECTIVES:


2. To insure that land reclamation is accomplished in a
manner compatible with the natural environment.

To plan for and guide the mining and utilization and mineral
resources tempered by a consideration of the balance between
long-term national, state and regional needs as well as
regional environmental and social cost.

I. To promote land reclamation in mining'areas.

2. Encourage planned land use in areas to be strip mined.

3. Encourage local governments to enact mining and reclam-
ation ordinances and assist in their formulation upon
request.

4. To encourage the use of under-utilized renewable
resources over finite resources and encourage the
recycling of resources.

5. Endorse and encourage the implementation of more
efficient mining techniques.


Water Resources

1. Support the attainment of "swimable and fishable"
waters throughout the Region by 1985 consistent with
national goals as expressed in PL 92-500.

2. Assist in the protection and management of the surface
and ground waters of the Region to insure the availa-
bility of an adequate quantity and quality of water to
all users.

3. Encourage the recognition of and respect for the
benefits afforded and the limitations imposed by
coastal marshes, swamps, flood plains and other wet-
land areas.

I. To incorporate state and federal environmental policies
and standards in the regional plans and programs
involving the management and protection of water
resources.

2. To control growth in recharge areas so that normal
recharge functions will not be impaired.

3. To pursue programs, such as '208' areawide waste water
management planning, which will afford the Region
mechanisms for water quality management.









4. To plan for the rational development or non-develop-
ment of sensitive wetland areas.

POLICIES: 1. To continue to seek planning designation for this
Council and Planning District III and work for the
subsequent implementation of a '208' areawide waste
water management plan for the region.

2. To plan for modifications to the natural hydrologic
conditions by structural improvements only when
determined that such activity is in the best long-term
public interest.

3. Discourage use of septic tanks, fertilizer, pesticides,
and other contaminants on land adjacent to estuaries,
coastal marshes, wetland, lakes or streams.

4. Encourage waste water reuse and renovation.

5. Plan for urban growth in concert with local water
availability.

6. Support water management district efforts in planning
for long-range water resource allocation.

7. Carefully plan and distribute growth around lakes,
rivers, and prime recharge areas in order to insure
that such development is compatible with hydrologic
systems.


Vegetation (Forestry and Agriculture)

GOALS: 1. Encourage the maintenance of integrity of prime agri-
culture lands and alleviate the threat of loss of
these areas.

2. Assist in the conservation of lands best suited to
agricultural uses in the Region.

3. Support the management of forest resources in a manner
compatible with land capabilities.

OBJECTIVE: 1. Promote an awareness of agricultural and forest manage-
ment problems or opportunities.

2. Prevent or minimize loss of agricultural lands to
suburban development.

3. Help minimize the potential adverse impacts that
intensively managed agriculture lands may have on
adjacent ecosystems.








POLICIES:


GOAL:


OBJECTIVE:



POLICIES:


GOALS:


OBJECTIVES:


1. Support forest management programs which promote mixed
use and aestetics and favors clear-cutting on a small
tract basis only.

2. Discourage clear-cutting along lakes and streams which
could cause erosion problems and endorse selective
harvesting in sensitive areas.

3. Discourage site preparation and building practices
that unnecessarily remove trees and natural ground
cover.

4. Encourage and plan for greater efficiency and conser-
vation in agricultural practices.


So i 1 s

Give due consideration to soil potentials or limitations in
the development and use of land.

Assist in the prevention of undue loss of valuable soils due
to erosion caused by agricultural mismanagement, development
abuses and other human activities.

I. When major land alterations become necessary, wherever
possible, recommend that exposed soils be expeditiously
stabilized and restored.

2. Incorporate consideration of soil potentials and limita-
tions in land use planning and review processes.

3. Encourage preparation of modern soil surveys in all
counties in the Region.


Topography and Climate

1. Insure that the regional planning process considers the
primary determinants of climate quality as viable
elements of resource management and site development.

2. In planning for future land use, insure the consideration
of topography as it relates to distinct land use
potentials, i.e., coastal zone, hurricane flood zone,
flood plain or areas excessively steep or flat in nature.

I. Encourage energy conservation through proper site
planning.

2. Discourage development in hazardous areas and require
specific modifications adapting development to unique
conditions.








POLICIES:


GOALS:


OBJECTIVES:


POLICIES:


GOAL:


OBJECTIVE:


POLICIES:


1. Encourage on site energy conservation including site
planning, optimum use of natural vegetation, efficient
structural designs, solar heating and cooling.

2. Encourage development to take advantage of slope and
prevailing winds to minimize pollution, maximize the
benefits of climate, and achieve economy in construction.


Wildlife Resources

1. Provide for the highest and most practical degree of
management for all game species.

2. Provide for the conservation of all wildlife and preser-
vation of those species recognized as rare and/or
endangered.

1. Plan for and promote the conservation of wildlife as an
essential element of the ecological components in the
natural system.

2. Maintain and preserve the natural complexity and
stability of the regions interacting natural systems.

1. Encourage the protection and conservation of important
wildlife habitat of the region through state and federal
programs.

2. Plan for the retention of important wildlife "islands"
or communities in and around urban centers.

3. Enhance the recognition of wildlife values through
environmental planning projects.

4. Promote the concept of wildlife as an essential element
of outdoor recreation activities.


Areas of Environmental Value

Protect and preserve recognized areas of high natural
environmental values, such as unique coastal marshes,
springs, hammocks and geological features.

Participate with state and federal agencies in the identifi-
cation of rare or unique or natural sites.

1. Endorse the preservation or conservation of important
unique natural or environmental areas through programs
such as the Florida Environmentally Endangered Lands
P program.








2. Discourage development adjacent to sensitive natural
areas such as coastal marshes unless development can
be demonstrated to have insignificant adverse impact
or there is overriding public interest.

3. Support public use of wilderness areas only to the
extent compatible with the purpose of the area.

4. Support the acquisition or management-of selected
natural areas by state, federal or local governments.

5. Work toward refinements in environmental assessment
and planning capabilities to improve project evalua-
tions for those activities having long-term or cumula-
tive impacts upon the physical environment.






































APPENDICES

















APPENDIX A

COMPILATION OF TECHNICAL DATA

The information appearing in tables of the Natural Resources Study and
Land Use Plan for north central Florida are similar in nature. Both
reports define land uses in forms suitable to the specific needs and
intent of each individual study. Although all information presented was
compiled from authoritative sources, discrepancies may be observed between
these documents and even individual tables.

In preparing these documents the need for a diversity of information man-
dated the use of a number of technical reference documents. Although
efforts were made to achieve consistency, no major attempt was made to
reconcile all sources of data. Therefore, minor inconsistencies between
figures presented in both documents are apparent. These inconsistencies
are attributed to both variations in land use definition as well as data
sources.

Definitions in land use categories can be misleading in terms of the data
presented unless each text is thoroughly read. For example, forestry
figures in the National Resources Study pertain to total forested lands,
while similar figures given in the Land Use Plan pertain specifically to
commercial forestry lands. This is also illustrated by forest figures
given for each county. In the instance of Alachua County, the Natural
Resources Study reports total forest lands as 311,400 acres, and similarly
the Land Use Plan records a total of 258,000 acres of commercial forest
lands.

A second problem, that associated with different data sources, must remain
unresolved pending further land use analyses as anticipated in the prepa-
ration of the Regional Comprehensive Plan. One example of this type of
problem can readily be illustrated by citing total land area figures for
Alachua County from three different sources. These include:

Forest Statistics for Northeast Florida (1970) 588,200 acres
1974 Census of Aqriculture 566,048 acres
Florida Statistical Abstract (1976) 617,454 acres.

Despite inconsistencies of this nature, the reader should note that the
discrepancies between reports and individual tables represent an average
error of less than five percent and typically less than one percent.
Therefore, the broad regional land use analyses contained in both docu-
ments are unaffected by this insignificant degree of difference.























The equ


APPENDIX B

METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING FUTURE URBANIZED AREA
ESTIMATES, IN SQUARE MILES OF AREA

ation employed was:


A
P1


A
S-2


Where:


= Urban and Built-up Area, in square miles, current estimate.

= Urban and Built-up Area, year (N) (Unknown).
2
= Population Estimate, 1975.

= Population Estimate, year (N).3


Solve for


Refer to the respective county land use profile for figures and data
sources.

2Taken from the 1976 Population and Economic Study, published by this
agency.

3Also taken from the 1976 Population and Economic Study, in addition to
unpublished data generated during that project.












I




BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Alachua County Department of Planning and Development, North Central
Florida Regional Planning Council, Alachua County Comprehensive
Plan, 1975-1995, Volumes I & II, August, 1976.

2. Barr, Dunlop & Associates, Inc., Comprehensive Planning Program,
I Columbia County, Florida, June, 1976.

3. Barr, Dunlop & Associates, Inc., Gilchrist County Comprehensive
Planning Program, June, 1976.

4. Barr, Dunlop & Associates, Inc., Hamilton County Comprehensive
Planning Program, Volume I, June, 1976.

5. Barr, Dunlop & Associates, Inc., Suwannee County, Florida, Compre-
hensive Development Plan, May, 1974.

6. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Florida,
Florida Statistical Abstract, The University Presses of
Florida, 1976.
7. The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future,
Population and the American Future, March, 1972.
S8. Division of Water Resources, Florida Board of Conservation, Florida
Lakes, Part III, Gazetter, 1969.

9. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Census of Local Governments,
March, 1977.

10. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Aucilla-Ochlockonee-
St. Marks Basin Water Quality Management Plan, August, 1975.

S11. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Suwannee River Basin
Water Quality Management Plan, August, 1975.
12. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Florida Regional Coastal
Zone Land Use Analysis, Region 3, North Central Florida,
June, 1976.

13. Florida Division of State Planning, Bureau of Comprehensive Planning,
The Florida General Soils Atlas, With Interpretations for Regional
Ii Planning Districts III & IV, July, 1974.







14. Robert G. Healy, Land Use and the States, The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1976.

15. Melvin R. Levin, Jerome G. Rose, Joseph S. Slavet, New Approaches to
State Land Use Policies, Lexington Books, C. C. Heath and
Company, 1974.

16. North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Housing, 1977.

17. North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Natural Resources
Study, 1977.

18. North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Population and
Economic Study, 1976.

19. North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Significant Natural
Areas in Planning District H I 1977.

20. North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Union County
Comprehensive Plan, 1976-2000, Part I, June, 1976.

21. William K. Reilly, Editor, A Task Force Report Sponsored by the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The Use of Land: A Citizens' Policy
Guide to Urban Growth, 1973.

22. Urban and Regional Development Center, University of Florida,
Technical Assistance to Bradford County in Developing a Land
Use Plan: A Basic Research Document, June, 1974.

23. United States-Department of Agriculture, et al, Northeast Gulf River
Basins, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Cooperative Study, June, 1977.

24. Wayne H. Colony Company, Inc., Taylor County-City of Perry Compre-
hensive Planning Study, June, 1974.






NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COU'.'CIL


STAFF
Charles F. Justice, Executive Director
Charles Harwood, Director of Rce ional Planning
Roy Brewer, Planner III
Alan Csontos, Environmental Planner
Jeanne Martel, Planner I
David Tillis, Planner I


I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I


Primary Responsibility