• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Introduction
 Task 1: Review of RHPZ's and their...
 Task 2: Aquatic and wetland resources...
 Task 3: Relevant regulations, policies,...
 Bibliography
 Figures 1-7
 Tables 1-6
 Maps






Title: Tomoka River and Spruce Creek: riparian habitat protection zone
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00016651/00001
 Material Information
Title: Tomoka River and Spruce Creek: riparian habitat protection zone
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Brown, Mark T.
Orell, J.
Publisher: Center for Wetlands, University of Florida
Publication Date: 1995
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00016651
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: notis - AAA9249

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Task 1: Review of RHPZ's and their application to Tomoka River and Spruce Creek
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Task 2: Aquatic and wetland resources of the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Task 3: Relevant regulations, policies, and land use of the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
    Bibliography
        Page 29
        Page 30
    Figures 1-7
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
    Tables 1-6
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
    Maps
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
Full Text




TOMOKA RIVER and SPRUCE CREEK
Riparian Habitat Protection Zone




By



M.T. Brown and J. Orell
Center for Wetlands
Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville Florida




for the


St. Johns River Water Management District
P.O. Box 1439
Palatka, Florida


Under contract No. 94K353


October 31, 1995






























i






j
i



i

i








I



i

j
i
j
i



















I
i




















j












I





i
i

























i








TOMOKA RIVER and SPRUCE CREEK
Riparian Habitat Protection Zone




By



M.T. Brown and J. Orell
Center for Wetlands
Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville Florida




for the


St Johns River Water Management District
P.O. Box 1439
Palatka, Florida


Under contract No. 94K353


October 31, 1995








TOMOKA RIVER and SPRUCE CREEK
Riparian Habitat Protection Zone


By

M.T. Brown and J. Orell
Center for Wetlands
Dept. of Environmental Engineering Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida


INTRODUCTION


Background
To address concerns over increased urbanization and its effect on the protection and
maintenance of water quality and habitat for aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife species, the
St. John's River Water Management District requested that The Center For Wetlands research
current knowledge concerning Riparian Habitat Protection Zones (RHPZ) and their applicability to
the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek, in Volusia County, Florida.
Past development within these watersheds has led to loss of habitat and fragmentation of
remaining wildlands, decreases in diversity, and reductions in overall habitat quality. These
changes have often occurred within upland communities very near or adjacent to the Tomoka and
Spruce Creek stream channels or bordering riparian wetlands. Both the Tomoka and Spruce Creek
rivers exhibit some undisturbed stretches along their water courses, intermingled with
development. Yet, because of increasing urban growth pressures within the region, continued
development, loss of habitat, and decline of aquatic resources may be expected. Data collected by
the Volusia-Flagler Sierra Club (1989a, 1989b) in support of Outstanding Florida Water
designations for the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek, point to two rivers with fair to good water
quality and relatively intact faunal populations. Data developed in the course of this study show
increasing development pressure, which can only mean further declines in habitat value and water
quality.


Scope and Intent
The overall goal of this project was to assess the suitability of the Riparian Habitat
Protection Zone (RHPZ) findings in Brown. et.al (1990b) to the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek


MTB Final 10/31/95
Page I








watersheds in Volusia County, Florida. The project was originally organized into two tasks: (1)
an updated literature review of the most current literature concerning RHPZ's and their application
to the Tomoka and Spruce Creek rivers, and (2) an updated listing of aquatic and wetland
dependent wildlife utilization of RHPZ's, most importantly, wildlife species within the Tomoka
and Spruce Creek watersheds. In addition to the two tasks of literature review we have added a
third task of evaluation and synthesis of existing conditions and regulations within the Tomoka
River and Spruce Creek systems. This third task seemed appropriate since we believed that to
make recommendations concerning the need and applicability of RHPZ's it was necessary to
analyze existing conditions and future development pressures. To accomplish the third task, we
reviewed current wetlands and buffer zone regulations, present and future land use, and existing
land cover within each of the basins.


Organization of the Report
This report is organized to review the current literature concerning RHPZ's for aquatic and
wetland dependent species protection, provide lists of supplemental species utilization, and make
suggestions concerning the need and applicability of RHPZ's for water and wildlife protection in
the Tomoka and Spruce Creek systems.
The first section of the report reviews the current literature concerning RHPZ's. First the
section begins with a brief explanation of what RHPZ' s are and explains the rational driving the
need for RHPZ's and how they help solve problems created by developmental pressures. Finally,
the current literature on RHPZ's is reviewed.
An updated species list of wildlife utilizing RHPZ's, especially those characteristic of the
Tomoka River and Spruce Creek is given in the second section of the report. In addition to the
wildlife lists, this second section includes a description of the ecological and hydrological
resources of each of the watersheds, describing the resources of the Tomoka and Spruce Creek.
The final section of the report includes a review of land use regulations and Comprehensive
Plan policies that relate to buffer zones or RHPZ's in each of three municipalities and two counties
that have jurisdiction over parts of each of the river systems. In addition, current and future land
use are evaluated, and land use and land cover were studied as they relate to the need for RHPZ's.
The section ends with a discussion of the biotic and abiotic conditions of the watersheds,
development pressures that exist as a result of present and future urban growth, and
recommendations for RHPZ's that reflect existing conditions, future pressures, and resource
needs.



MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 2








Numerous maps were developed for the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek using Arc/Info
software and coverages provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District's GIS section.
These maps are included at the end of the report as fold out illustrations. The coverages of each of
the watersheds were used to evaluate the land use and land cover in the areas immediately adjacent
to the riparian zones of each of the rivers, and thus spatially evaluate the need for RHPZ's.
Volusia County's future land use map was digitized and used to develop insight into where future
conflicts between development and environmental protection might arise and thus where RHPZ's
might be of particular importance.

Acknowledgements
Funding for this project were provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District.
Ms. Carla Palmer, was project manager for the District. We wish to acknowledge the valuable
contribution of the GIS section of the District by providing land use and land cover, and other
coverages for the study areas. The Volusia County Growth Management Department, especially
Ron Paradise, provided valuable dialog on the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan. The Volusia-
Flagler Group of the Sierra Club compiled much data for the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek in
their petitions for designation of the Tomoka and Spruce Creek as Outstanding Florida Waters.
We have relied on their data for much of the descriptions of resources within the watersheds.























MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 3









TASK 1: REVIEW OF RHPZ'S AND THEIR APPLICATION
TO TOMOKA RIVER AND SPRUCE CREEK


Riparian Habitat Protection Zones


Lands immediately adjacent to and upland of wetlands are transition zones between
wetlands and uplands. They are zones that are wetland at times and upland at times, exhibiting
characteristics of each and vegetated by species that are found in each. They are important to both
the wetland and the upland as seed reservoirs, as habitat for aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife
species, as refuges to wildlife species during high-water events, and as buffers to the extreme
environmental conditions that result from sharp vegetated edges. When development activities
occur in transition zones wetland-dependent wildlife species that are frequent users of these areas
are excluded, silt laden surface waters are generated and cannot be filtered, and groundwater may
be diverted or drained.
Recently, much attention has been given to the concept of vegetative buffers for wetland
communities. In an earlier discussion of buffers, Jordan and Shisler (1986) posed several
questions regarding buffers that should be researched. They conclude..."until the data are
collected and the answers found, we are probably unreasonable to expect developers to adhere to
buffer regulations." Their questions were:

1. How does the structure of a buffer (both vegetation type and buffer width) affect its
ability to reduce disturbance to the wetland?
2. What use is being made of existing buffers by wildlife and what is the minimum buffer
width necessary to maintain levels of use?
3. How do differing land uses and levels of development affect the feasibility of buffer
zones?
4. What are the implications of topography and soil conditions [on buffer effectiveness]?
5. Are hardwood swamps, salt marshes, and freshwater marshes all equally amenable to
protection by buffers?
6. Can large wetland systems be protected as readily by buffers as small, isolated systems?

Many of these questions have been addressed in recent research in Central Florida (Brown
and Schaefer 1987, Brown et. al 1990a, and Brown etal. 1990b). As a means of protecting the
values and functions of wetlands, vegetative buffers have been proposed for the Wekiva (Brown
and Schaefer 1987) and the Econ Rivers (Brown etal. 1990b) and the wetlands of the East Central
Florida Regional Planning Council (Brown etal. 1990a). Numerous local initiatives have resulted
from these studies.

MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 4









We have attempted to review the recent literature (since 1990) to answer the questions
posed by Jordan and Shisler (1986), paying particular attention to aquatic and wetland dependent
wildlife. In addition we have paid particular attention to scientifically determined buffers and
scientific studies that have established acceptable buffer widths. Castelle et.al (1994) reviewed
wetland and stream buffer requirements finding that buffer size requirements have typically been
established by political acceptability and not scientific merit. Their review was of the scientific
functions of buffers, and they concluded that the need for buffers was real and that buffer widths
were dependent on site specific conditions. In their search for buffer requirements, they found
widths ranging from 3 meters to 200 meters, depending on conditions and functions required of
the buffer. They suggested that a buffer of at least 15 meters was necessary to protect wetlands
and water courses under most conditions.


Riparian Buffers and Water Quality
Probably one of the most studied functions of riparian buffers is their water quality
improvement function, that is their ability to reduce nonpoint-source pollution. While sediments
have been studied, and buffers shown to be effective in their trapping and removal, probably the
most studied aspect is their nutrient removal function. Haycock and Pinay (1993) in Great Britain
found removal efficiencies of 99% for nitrate in surficial groundwaters moving toward streams.
They found that forested riparian buffers were better than planted grass buffers, and they
postulated that above ground biomass of forested systems contributed more carbon to the soil
microbial biomass that is engaged in NO3 reduction.
Gilliam (1994) studied riparian buffers in the North Carolina Coastal Plain and reviewed
the literature related to their water quality improvement functions. He concluded that numerous
researchers have measured greater than 90% reductions in sediment and nitrate concentrations in
water flowing through riparian buffers, but that riparian buffers were less effective for P removal,
retaining only as much as 50% of the surface water P entering them. Measuring water quality
improvement of riparian vegetated buffer strips in central Illinois, Osborne and Kovacic (1993)
found that both forested and grass buffers were effective in removing nitrate nitrogen up to 90% in
shallow groundwater. On an annual basis the forested buffer was more effective in reducing the
concentrations than was the grass, but was less efficient at retaining total and dissolved
phosphorus.





MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 5









Riparian Buffers and Wildlife
There are few systematic studies of wildlife uses of riparian buffer zones. However,
Triquett et.al (1990) studied song bird uses of riparian buffer strips in silvicultural landscapes
concluding that buffer strips were necessary from continued survival of some species. On logged
sites where a buffer strip of mature trees of 15 meters (50 feet) in width was maintained higher
richness and diversity of birds were supported than on clear cut sites.
In a study of two watersheds in central Pennsylvania, an undisturbed reference one and a
partially disturbed agricultural and residential one, Croonquist and Brooks (1993) found significant
differences in bird usage and supported populations related to buffer widths along riparian
corridors. Bird species richness and abundance generally decreased with distance from the stream
in disturbed watersheds, but remained relatively constant through the reference watershed. While
an impoverished bird community can exist in the vicinity of the riparian band immediately adjacent
to the water with less than 10 meters (30 feet) of natural vegetation, sensitive species will not occur
unless an undisturbed corridor of greater than 25 meters (82 feet) in width on each bank is present.
The habitat needs of aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife species are related to
requirements for feeding, breeding, or nesting areas, and on sufficient solitude to carry out these
life functions. The State of Washington, Department of Wildlife, Habitat Management Division
(1992) has evaluated habitat needs for aquatic and wetland dependent species and determined that
buffer dimensions need be 200 to 300 feet upland of the wetland edge. They concluded:
To retain wetland dependent wildlife in important wildlife areas, buffers need retain
plant structure for a minimum of 200-300 feet beyond the wetland. This is
especially the case where open water is a component of the wetland or where the
wetland has heavy use by migratory birds or provides feeding for heron, the size
needed would depend upon disturbance from adjacent land use and resources
involved.


Effects of Land Uses And Intensity of Development on Riparian Buffer Zones


Natural vegetated buffer zones of 91.4 meters (300 feet) were recommended by Nieswand
et al (1990) for water supply reservoirs based on the need to protect these systems from nonpoint-
source water pollution that results from increasing development Taking this study further,
Whipple, Jr. (1993) proposed a strategy to design a narrower buffer system that precluded
development only along the reservoir itself, and a wider zone behind (up slope) the front buffer
having special controls over nonpoint-source pollution imposed as a condition of development
The extent of the up slope buffer was determined by pollutant travel time in streams using the

MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 6









rational that as travel time increases, there is more in stream treatment of pollutants. To illustrate
the methodology Whipple used an equation derived for pool and riffle flows and an acceptable
travel time of 5 hours. His calculated up slope buffer width as 0.5 km from the reservoir edge,
and extended as much as 4 km up tributaries to the reservoir. Calling this zone a "special control
zone," he proposed that the controls on development would be required not only within the zone
as mapped, but on developments delivering runoff by closed sewers through, or into the special
control zone, since storm sewers do not reduce pollution to the same extent as runoff in natural
channels.
That intensity of activity should have an impact on buffer size requirements makes intuitive
sense, but little research has been conducted to verify this assumption. In earlier work, Shisler et
al. (1987) analyzed 100 sites in coastal New Jersey, to determine the effect of human disturbance
on wetlands. They found that the adjacent land use type accounted for much of the variation found
in the level of human disturbance. Human disturbance within wetlands was highest adjacent to
dense residential, commercial and industrial uses, and disturbance was inversely proportional to
buffer width.


Topography, Soil Conditions, And Buffer Effectiveness
Several researches have argued that generic riparian buffer widths for dealing with
sediment control are inappropriate, suggesting that they are over simplifications of complex
processes. Factors that effect the efficiency of riparian buffers in reducing sediments are micro and
macro topographic relief, density of vegetation, type of vegetation, litter characteristics, soil
characteristics, incoming sediment type, subsurface drainage, and slope, as well as the temporal
distribution of contributed sediment loads (Osborne and Kovacic, 1993). Indeed, earlier research
on sediment trapping effectiveness of vegetated riparian buffers showed widths necessary for
sediment removal of from 9 to 45 meters, where one of the main factors effecting width was
topographic slope (Karr and Schlosser, 1977; and Gough, 1988).


Buffer Requirements of Different Wetland Types and Sizes
It seems plausible that different sized wetlands will have different resiliency to impacts
from development activities in adjacent areas. Small wetlands, or thin bands of riparian habitat
adjacent to a stream channel should be less resilient to developmental impacts. Smaller size should
translate into lower bufferingg capacity," that is, lower ability to absorb impacts and buffer their
negative effects. Yet we have not found any literature, or scientific studies that have addressed
these points.

MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 7









For a riparian habitat protection zone to be effective, it should be sensitive to differences in
wetland type, and spatial distances. For instance, wetlands have differing functions; and a RHPZ
that addresses functional protection would vary its size depending on wetland types. In like
manner, wetland size should affect RHPZ requirements. Small wetlands with lower buffering
capacity, or thin riparian habitat adjacent to stream channels should have different buffer
requirements than large wetlands or broad riparian habitats. It might be appropriate to tailor
riparian habitat protection zone widths to the terrain, wetland type, and size of wetland. However,
there are no detailed studies in the literature that would confirm these suppositions, nor research
underway that can add to our body of knowledge concerning structure and function of riparian
habitats of different types and sizes, and the impacts of development upon them. Without this
work, all wetlands are treated the same and the tendency is for regulations to gloss over the
differences in function and size by selecting a standard buffer width that is easy to apply.
There is a dearth of scientific analysis on the buffer requirements of differing wetland types
and sizes in the literature. In our earlier work in Central Florida (Brown et al 1990a), we
recommended buffer widths between 20 and 550 feet for wetlands of differing types. We
developed methods for calculating buffer widths based on three aspects of wetlands: water quality,
water quantity, and wildlife habitat Using proposed development intensities and impacts, and
soils, slope, and groundwater for a particular site, the methodology could be used to calculate
buffer widths in a variety of circumstances based on the potential for groundwater draw down, and
sediment transport. The range of buffer widths for protection against groundwater drawdown
were from 20 feet to 550 feet, depending on site conditions and the intended development
groundwater elevations. The range of buffer widths necessary for sedimentation control were
from 75 to 375 feet, depending on particle size, slope, and vegetation of the buffer.
In addition, extensive evaluations of habitat requirements of aquatic and wetland dependent
wildlife were compiled for 6 landscape associations. In landscapes typical of the Tomoka River
and Spruce Creek, recommended buffer widths aquatic and wetland wildlife protection were
between 322 and 550 feet for freshwater riverine systems and 322 feet for salt water (salt marsh)
systems.










MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 8









TASK 2: AQUATIC AND WETLAND RESOURCES OF THE
TOMOKA RIVER AND SPRUCE CREEK

General Description of Tomoka River and Spruce Creek


The following discussion is based on reports by the Volusia-Flagler Group of the Sierra
Club (VFSC 1989a,b), U.S. Geological Survey reports (Rutledge 1985, Simonds et al. 1980),
and analysis of land cover maps provided by the St. Johns Water Management District.
Contained almost entirely within Volusia County, Florida, the watersheds of the Tomoka
River (150 mi2) and Spruce Creek (94 mi2) drain into the Halifax "River". Figure 1 shows the
drainage areas of both rivers and their locations within Volusia County and relationships to
metropolitan areas. The drainage basins of both streams have been artificially increased, by
drainage works that have connected previously isolated wetland areas. Lower reaches of both
rivers are located in the geomorphic region known as the Silver Bluff Terrace, while upper
portions of the basins originate in the Pamlico Terrace. The Atlantic Coastal Ridge forms the
eastern divides of both basins, although artificial channels have created connections between the
coastal towns and the northward flowing portions of both streams. The western boundary of both
watersheds is formed primarily by the Rima Ridge. Both the northern boundary of the Tomoka
River basin and the southern boundary of Spruce Creek basin are indeterminate, due to the flat,
swampy topography of these areas.


Tomoka River
The Tomoka River is located in the northeastern portion of the county and runs parallel to
the coast for more than half its distance before turning northeast and emptying into the Halifax
River. The natural channel of the Tomoka River rises near the intersection of Interstate Highways
4 and 95, flows north for approximately 9 miles, then northeast approximately 7 miles to its
confluence with the Halifax River estuary. The river is tidally influenced for up to 10 miles
upstream from the Halifax River, making it important manatee habitat. Natural tributaries are the
Little Tomoka River, Groover Branch, and Priest Branch--all of which have been modified to
improve drainage--and Misners Branch and Thompsons Creek. Several drainage canals now drain
into the river; Strickland Creek, Tiger Bay Canal, Thayer Canal, and the Lamoureaux canal which
increase the total size of the drainage basin to its current size of 95,437 acres.
Topography of the drainage basin is generally flat contributing to poorly defined watershed
boundaries. The basin is bound on its south western edge by the Rima Ridge at a height of 40-45


MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 9









feet above mean sea level (msl). On the southeastern portion of the basin is the Atlantic Coast
Ridge at an elevation of 30-35 msl. The river flows in the area between these two moderate ridges
called the Pamlico Terrace. Two of the canals; Thayer and Tiger Bay, were constructed through
such ridges to drain isolated wetlands. The same is true for the Lamoureaux Canal in the northern
portion of the watershed whose topography is even more poorly defined.
The slope of the river is generally flat, however significant variation does occur from
approximately 1 foot per mile near 1-95 to 5 feet per mile north of 11th street. The flat and sandy
nature of the watershed gives it a characteristically slow flow rate and slow response times to storm
events. This flat slope also allows for the Tomoka River to be tidily influence up to 10 miles
inland of the Halifax. The Tomoka River receives little surface runoff during most of the year.
Most of the river flow is contributed via subsurface flow. Only during the rainy season from late
July to October when water tables are typically at the surface does any appreciable amount of
surface runoff occur. An obvious exception to this would be areas that have been urbanized and
have a significant percentage of impervious surface area.
Lower reaches of the Tomoka River are characterized by extensive areas of salt marsh
along its margin and coastal hardwood forest in the uplands immediately adjacent.. The remainder
of the floodplain upstream from approximately river mile 3 consists of forested hardwood
hammock, and various adjoining vegetative communities. From U.S. Highway 1 to 1-95,
sawgrass and other herbaceous communities are interspersed throughout the channelway and
floodplain, bordered by live oak/sand pine communities. From 1-95 to around 11th Street, live oak
predominates in the adjoining uplands, while scrub oak/sand pine dominate in this zone further
upstream.
Tiger Bay Canal joins the large Tiger Bay swamp to the southwest portion of the basin.
This area is mainly forested wetland and marsh, with adjoining areas of upland forest, agriculture,
and pine plantations. The western portion of the basin, between U.S. Highway 92 and the Little
Tomoka River, is primarily pine plantations and the extensive Bennet Swamp forested wetland.
The latter is connected to the drainage basin by Thayer Canal. The area north of the Little Tomoka
and the lower (northern) Tomoka rivers is a more heterogeneous mix of natural forest, agriculture,
and urban land. Much of the eastern basin is highly developed.








MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 10









Spruce Creek
The Spruce Creek drainage basin (approx. 71,347 acres) is located in the southeast portion
of Volusia county immediately south of the Tomoka watershed. Of the two drainage basins Spruce
Creek has the largest percent of area that is urbanized. The southern half of the watershed is
drained by the Samsula Canal. This canal and its network of contributing canals flow north joining
the creek south of where it makes a wide sweeping turn to the east a which point it becomes tidily
influenced. Spruce creek is joined at Strickland Bay with Turnbull Creek, a major tributary from
the south.
The topography of the spruce creek drainage basin is relatively flat The highest elevation
of the creek at its headwaters is 27 feet above mean sea level (msl). The western boundary is
formed by the Atlantic Coast Sand Ridge and is bound on the east by the Rima Ridge. The creek
eventually flows through a section of the Rima Ridge as it turns to the east. Slope of the creek
averages about 1.4 feet per mile, typical of many of Florida's streams and rivers. Due to the low
topography of the area, stream flow is tidily influenced approximately 10 miles upstream from
Strickland Bay. A combination of the creek's low relief and small watershed translates into a
relatively small volume of runoff and discharge, but discharge can vary greatly with seasonal
differences in rainfall and isolated storm events. Base flow is as small as 1.0 cubic feet per
second (cfs) and can peak at 500 cfs. Velocities have similar variability from about 0.1 to 3.0 feet
per second (fps).
The natural channel of Spruce Creek rises around State Road 40A, and flows north then
east to Strickland Bay in the Halifax River. The natural channel has been significantly extended to
the south by the Samsula canal, which provides substantial drainage of the southern, headwaters
area of the basin. This area is comprised of extensive forested wetlands and large areas of pine
plantations. The middle portion of the basin has extensive areas of agricultural and urban uses
adjoining the creek, with interspersed forest, pasture, and pine plantations along the western side.
The eastern parts of the basin, along the coastal ridge and the Halifax River, are heavily urbanized,
including the areas adjoining Turnbull Creek. The channelway of Spruce Creek, from Strickland
Bay upstream to 1-95, is characterized by extensive areas of herbaceous marsh, dominated by salt
marsh with fringing needle rush. Live oak hammocks adjoin these areas landward. Further
upstream, swamp hammock communities dominate the floodplains of the creek, similar to those
found along the Tomoka River. Upper reaches of the 18 mile long Spruce Creek have been
designated a Florida Canoe Trail.




MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 11









Ecological Resources of Tomoka River and Spruce Creek


Numerous plant communities exist along the length of the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek
(see Maps #1 and #2). Plant communities are the biotic result of differing sets of physical
parameters such as soil type, soil moisture, and burn frequency. Generally soil moisture regimes
of the landscape for both of the drainage basins can be subdivided into Xeric, Mesic, and Hydric
classifications based on the persisting soil moisture. These in turn can been subdivided into
different community types that are defined by dominate vegetation. Excellent descriptions of
dominant plant communities of Tomoka River and Spruce Creek, including lists of dominant
species can be found in two volumes by the Volusia-Flagler Group of the Sierra Club petitioning
for designation of the Tomoka and Spruce Creek as Outstanding Florida Waters (Volusia-Flagler
Sierra Group 1989a, 1989b).
Xeric areas are found in association with sandy soils and are adapted to dry conditions
which persist for most of the year with the possible exception of the rainy season. The Xeric
communities described by the Volusia-Flagler Sierra Group (1989a, 1989b) that are of importance
to the two river systems are as follows: (1) Maritime systems, which have Coastal Scrub
Communities, and (2) Sand Hill/Sand Ridge areas bordering the rivers which have PinelXeric
Oak, Sand Pine/Scrub Oak, Xeric Oak, Live OaklScrub, and Live OaklSand Pine
communities. Areas of xeric communities are found in the lower reaches of the Tomoka River
between 1-95 and US 1, occurring immediately adjacent and upland of the riparian zone of swamp
hardwoods. There appears to be an area of Live Oak/Scrub Oak bordering the Spruce Creek
riparian swamp hammock in the vicinity of Airport Road. An area of Sand Pine/Scrub oak exists
along the northern shore of Spruce Creek bordering the riparian marsh community about 3/4 of a
mile east of 1-95.
Mesic communities are those areas that have water tables below the soil surface but are less
well drained than the Xeric communities. Mesic conditions are caused by topographical location
and water retention capabilities of the soil. They are often located as a transition area between
Xeric uplands and wetlands, and often result in fire exclusion. Mesic communities described by the
Volusia-Flagler Sierra Group (1989a, 1989b) that are of importance to the two streams include:
Live Oak Community, Live OaklSlash Pine, and Pinelands (or Pine flatwoods)
communities.
Pine Flatwoods are dominated by slash pine which is adapted to live under dry conditions
as well as areas that may experience extended wet periods during the rainy season. The pine
flatwoods are an upland system that can be found growing almost to the banks of Spruce Creek

MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 12









just east of the rail road tracks that cross Strickland Bay. Extensive areas of pinelands ( or former
pinelands that are now in silvicultural uses) are found throughout the headwaters of the Tomoka
River, and in the mid-reaches of the Spruce Creek surrounding 1-95. For the most part, in these
middle reaches the pinelands are not adjacent to riparian wetlands but are found landward of
bordering mesic hardwoods such as the Live Oak community, or Live Oak /Slash Pine
Community.
The mesic hammocks (Live Oak community, or Live Oak /Slash Pine Community) form an
important continuum with the riparian wetlands of the two rivers. Much of the lands immediately
adjacent to the riparian wetlands that remain undeveloped in the mid and lower reaches of both
rivers, are dominated by mesic hammocks.
Along the lower extremes of the mesic hammocks where elevation is low and soil moisture
is high, but where soils are never inundated, hydric hammocks occur. Soils are saturated for much
of the year and the diversity of vegetation is very high. These hammocks may form a relatively
narrow band between mesic uplands and riparian wetlands or they may by quite wide where sand
hill soils may contribute seepage to maintain high ground water tables.
Wetland areas within the drainage basins of the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek are highly
variable. There are depressional marshes and swamps communities such as; Wet Prairies,
Inland Ponds, Bay Swamps, Cypress Swamps, and Mixed Wetland Hardwoods.
Other community types are only found along the floodplain of the rivers such as; Freshwater
Marsh, Salt Marsh, Mangroves, and Bottomland Hardwood Swamps. The following
floodplain communities are those that have been identified along the banks of the two waterways.
Bottomland Hardwood Swamp Communities are found along the water ways of both
systems inland from areas influenced by salt water. They are situated along the banks in what are
permanently or semi-permanently saturated soil conditions. At times where topographic relief is
higher, the hardwood swamp communities may be relatively narrow in expanse, in other areas
where topography is relatively flat, the riparian hardwood swamps may form a wide band
bordering the rivers, as much as 1/4 mile across.
Marsh wetlands dominate the channelways of both rivers in their lower reaches.
Needlerush marsh communities are found within the brackish water interface between the
fresh water flowing to the coast and the tide water flowing in from the Halifax River.
Sawgrass communities are found in both watersheds and are located along the upland edge of
saltmarsh communities where the water is relatively fresh. The salt marsh community is found
along the lower, saline influenced portions of both Spruce Creek and the Tomoka River.
Mangroves can be found in the Halifax River and bordering the lowest portions of both rivers.

MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 13









The mangroves are relatively small here as a result of killing winter freezes that often naturally
prune trees back. Spartina often co-dominates during periods when the trees are reestablishing.



Hydrological Resources of the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek


Tomoka River
The quality of water in the Tomoka River was considered fair to good from the upper
reaches of the river to its outflow into the Halifax River by the Volusia-Flagler Sierra Club
(1989b). All of the tributaries and channels were also characterized as having fair water quality
conditions and no contributing stream or channel was identified as causing a notable decrease in the
over all quality of water in the Tomoka River. Nonpoint pollutant sources comprised the bulk of
inputs to the Tomoka, with agricultural sources dominating the western portions of the river and
urban sources dominating the eastern portions. There was one point source, Volusia County's
Tomoka Farms Road Landfill that discharged into the headwaters of the Tomoka, but only during
extreme rainfall events.
Water quality problems in the Tomoka consisted of two parameters: low dissolved oxygen
(DO) and relatively moderate phosphorous concentrations. The Tomoka River is one of Florida's
many black water rivers. As with most blank water rivers the Tomoka has high concentrations of
dissolved organic matter and tanins that color water and result in low (DO) levels.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations (according to 1985 FDER data as reported by the
Volusia-Flagler Sierra Club [1989b]) appeared to be about 3 to 4 mg/l throughout the length of the
Tomoka, with a slight tendency for higher DO's at its confluence with the Halafax River. The dark
water color, and narrowness of the headwaters, as well as the wetland source of much of the
surface water in the river, are most likely the causes for these low DO concentrations.
Phosphorus concentrations in the Tomoka overall are appear to be within normal ranges for
rivers draining pine flatwoods and relic dunes of the coastal plain. In 1985 total phosphorus
concentrations in the river ranged from about 0.03 to 0.11 mg/1, with highest concentrations at it
confluence with the Halifax and successively lower concentrations as one moves toward the
headwaters.
Overall the water quality in the Tomoka River when discussed by the Volusia-Flagler Sierra
Club (1989b) was fair to excellent depending on its characterization by chemistry or biological
parameters. Water quality was fair at most locations when chemical parameters were used to judge
condition, and good to excellent when biological parameters were used.

MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 14











Spruce Creek
Numerous sampling stations under a variety of sampling efforts spanning 10 years have
been established along the Spruce Creek system. Water quality in Spruce Creek is generally good.
There are no direct point source discharges along the creek that might lead to serious water quality
degradation. Threats to water quality exist in the form of urban development and agricultural uses
within the watershed giving rise to non point source surface discharge. Much of the new
development in Port Orange and other areas of development within the basin are required to
maintain storm water retention facilities which in addition to lowering peak discharges during
storm events, reduce sediment loads and to a lesser extent some of the other pollutants that
accompany urban storm runoff. This, however, is not the case for the agricultural and pasture
land in the southern portion of the watershed.
The dissolved oxygen (DO) values for the creek were generally below the 5 mg/1 standard
set by the state for Class III waters. This is most likely due to naturally occurring conditions not
anthropogenic causes. The Spruce Creek is a black water system (water color in Spruce Creek
was measured to be between 250 and 500 units). Black water is the result of organic compounds
leeching from decaying organic matter that has accumulated in uplands and wetlands boarding the
creek and that is carried into the river via ground waters. Black water rivers often have lower
dissolved oxygen concentrations as a result of low light penetration and high biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD). Waters flowing from wetland ecosystems are often low in dissolved oxygen as a
result of decomposition within wetlands.
Nitrogen and Phosphorous were measured in the Spruce Creek but were not excessively
high. Concentrations were high enough to cause algae growth and potential problems, however, it
was assumed that low light conditions (resulting from the narrow river channel and dark water)
significantly reduced algae growth. Phosphorus levels were extremely variable and were generally
higher toward the coast. The highest levels of nitrogen were found in the Samsula Canal which
receives water from upland pastures.
Coliform bacterial measured during the sampling periods exhibited unusually high numbers
in the big bend area of the creek up into the Samsula Canal but decreased in the most remote
sample stations in the canal. The types of bacteria found were of animal origin presumably from
pastures and not from urban sewage. Bacterial counts dropped dramatically upon entering the
larger, brackish waters of Turnbull and Strickland Bay.
The following summary of water quality for Spruce Creek was given by the Volusia-
Flagler Sierra Club (1989b):

MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 15









As a whole, the present water quality in the Spruce Creek watershed may be
generally characterized as having moderate to low biodegradable organic content,
high color, very low dissolved oxygen, moderate to high nitrogen and phosphorus
levels, and very high bacteriological counts. It is difficult to firmly establish
whether the overall poor quality is relative mainly to man-made situations or to
natural factors....Although they [land areas within the basin] cannot be considered
to all be in their original natural state, the direct influence of man should be very
minor. Under these conditions, it is entirely possible that the undesirable water
quality results primarily from natural factors...


Wildlife Resources of the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek

Wildlife resources of the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek are given in Tables 1 through 4.
The data in Tables 1 and 2 were taken from Volusia-Flagler Sierra Club (1989a and 1989b). A
total of 59 species of fish, 17 crustaceans, 12 mollusks, 8 worms, 9 reptiles, 6 amphibians, 9
mammals, and 40 birds were found within the Tomoka and Spruce creek systems by the Volusia-
Flagler Sierra Club. Habitat needs of the various species of land animals are given in Table 1 and
widths of land needed by each species (assuming the presence of a river edge) are given in the last
column. These data were summarized from Brown et al (1990a)
Table 3 lists rare and endangered faunal species that may occur within the Tomoka River
and Spruce Creek watersheds. The listed status is given in the third column and whether they
occur within the watersheds is indicated with a star in the fourth column, under the heading "Occ".
Habitat needs of each species are given in the fifth column. Table 4 lists rare and endangered plant
species that may occur within the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek watersheds. Data for Tables 3
and 4 were taken from Florida Natural Areas Inventory (1995).


















MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 16









TASK 3: RELEVANT REGULATIONS, POLICIES, AND LAND USE OF THE
TOMOKA RIVER AND SPRUCE CREEK

Regulatory Framework and Existing Buffers


There are five local governmental entities (2 counties, and 3 municipalities) that have some
jurisdiction over portions of both the Tomoka and Spruce Creeks. The Tomoka has portions of its
watershed in southern Flagler county, as well as large portions of the river in unincorporated
Volusia County. In its mid-reach, the Tomoka River flows through lands recently annexed by the
city of Daytona Beach. Nearer the confluence with the Halifax River, the Tomoka flows through
the city of Ormond Beach. Spruce Creek originates in unincorporated Volusia County and flows
through the City of Daytona Beach and Port Orange.
The following are policies, regulations, and development guidelines of the various
governmental entities that have some jurisdiction over the rivers.


Volusia County


Land Use Regulations
The 1990 Volusia County Comprehensive Plan, and updates there after, provide for
several important policies and criteria that affect land use and urban development within the
Tomoka River and Spruce Creek. The Comprehensive Plan provides for: (1) a Natural Resource
Management Area, an overlay district that limits development; (2) Environmental Systems
Corridors, areas where development shall be limited to conservation, silviculture using Best
Management Practices and large residential lots with limits on clearing; (3) Forestry zones, (4)
Low Impact Urban areas, lands within NRMA's that are determined to be suitable for
development, and (5) Conservation areas. Each of these districts or zoning classifications affect
the need for buffers, since wetlands and water courses are protected within each category to greater
or lessor degrees.
Natural Resource Management Areas are set aside for the maintenance of ecologically
sensitive areas. It is the intention of this land use category to maintain large tracts of land as part of
a landscape system with continuous and interactive parts. Areas designated as NRMA include; the
central pine flatwood and cypress swamp area, Turnbull Basin (from Highway 442 south), the
headwaters of Tomoka River and Spruce Creek, immediate drainage basins of the Tomoka Basin,
Mosquito Lagoon/Indian River and Strickland Bay, and the St Johns River flood plain. Three


MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 17








special use areas have been designated as compatible with NRMA's, these include: Environmental
Systems Corridors, Forestry, and Low Impact Urban.
Environmental Systems Corridors are important ecological corridors containing sensitive or
rare habitats. Some land development is allowed under this classification. The principal uses and
structures permitted are; apiaries, aquatic preserves, aviaries, utility services, excavations covered
by section 817.00 or article III of the Land Development Code, fire stations, fishing, hunting,
wildlife management, hobby breeders, musical events, pasture, public schools, public parks and
recreation areas, public water supply wells, silviculture, single family and manufactured dwellings
on a minimum of 25 acres with vegetation clearance not exceeding 20% and principle or accessory
building not exceeding 10% of the total area.
Forestry resources or silviculture is seen as a multiple land use activity. It provides not
only for economic activity but recreational, wildlife, reduction of storm water runoff, and ground
water recharge also. Silviculture is exempt from buffer requirements. Instead, it is suggested
that silvicultural operations adhere to practices outlined in the Silviculture Best Management
Practices Manual (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 1979). The manual
provides for a 35 foot permanent stream side management zone (SMZ) and a secondary upland
buffer. This secondary SMZ is highly discretionary and is based on a site sensitivity index. Site
sensitivity is a function of soil erode-ability and percent slope. The secondary boundary is not
required to be maintained in its natural condition. Clear cutting is allowed for nonsensitive sites
while selective cutting is allowed in other more sensitive areas. Buffer zones for silviculture are
designed solely for water quality and no consideration is given for the maintenance of wildlife.
Once established some activities are discouraged within the secondary zone such as mechanical
preparation, fertilization, herbicide and pesticide use, and use as a log gathering and loading area.
Residential use may also be allowed in Forestry areas. Density of dwelling should not exceed one
unit per 20 acres but development of smaller lot sizes at a density of 1 unit per 5 acres may be
permitted if consistent with the intent of the NRMA.
Low Impact Urban are lands within the NRMA which are determined to be suitable for
urban type development, and are adjacent to existing urban development, may be designated as a
Low Impact Urban Zone category. Any land use considered to be urban may be permitted within
this zone, but shall comply with standards consistent with the provisions of the NRMA. The
standards shall include, at minimum: a requirement to be serviced by central utilities, designation of
at least 50% of lands as open space preservation as provided for in Land Development Code to
preserve upland habitat sited in an ecologically strategic manner (e.g. adjacent to wetlands); and



MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 18









clustering of residential dwelling units. The gross residential density for such areas shall not
exceed 1 dwelling per unit acre but net density may exceed that to facilitate clustering of dwellings.
For the most part, areas designated as Conservation on the Future Land Use Map are areas
in public ownership. As a result, there is little need for wetlands buffering within lands that are
designated as conservation. Development at densities that may adversely affect riparian wildlife,
water quality or quantity are highly unlikely.


Buffer Zone Requirements
Natural Buffer Zones or setbacks are required landward of wetlands occurring in
unincorporated Volusia County. Within NRMA's the buffer zone has a minimum width of 50 feet
from the wetland/upland edge, and could be more depending on site specific conditions.
Determination of buffer widths greater than 50 feet use the following criteria: soil erode-ability;
cover and type of vegetation, slope, water table depths, water quality, wildlife, and protective
status of the receiving waters. In practice, for the majority of situations, the minimum 50 feet
buffer zone is used. Natural buffer zones shall consist of intact natural vegetative species in the
overstory, shrub and understory layer. Activities within the natural buffer zone are limited to those
which are shown to be consistent with the intended use of the zone while providing for reasonable
access to water bodies
Wetlands which are hydrologically connected to a surface water body, and not located
within the NRMA, require a natural buffer zone of 25 feet.


Flagler County


Flagler County is located to the north of Volusia County. A small portion of the Tomoka
River watershed extends into the south east corer of the county. The county is typically rural with
more that half of its approximately 11,000 residents living in unincorporated areas.


Land Use Regulations
Lands within Flagler County that are within the Tomoka watershed are classified as
General Rural, Agricultural Pursuits and Timberlands. As the name implies these lands are
designated as appropriate locations for agricultural activities and forestry operations. Allowable
housing densities within this land use designation are 1 unit to 5 acres (under special application)
and 1 unit per 20 acres (general provision for all lands in this classification)



MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 19









Buffer Zone Requirements
Flagler County's definition for a buffers is as follows: upland areas adjacent to wetlands
which are necessary to protect the wetland and wetland dependant species from the detrimental
impacts of development or alteration. The buffer shall include canopy, understory and
groundcover which consists of preserved existing vegetation or planted native species where there
is no existing vegetation.
The buffer zone requirements are similar to those found in unincorporated areas outside of
NRMA's in Volusia County. Flagler County requires a buffer of no less than 25 feet adjacent to
and surrounding all wetlands. The buffer may coincide with the setback on a lot under the Zoning
article in effect in Flagler County or may coincide with wildlife corridors designated tn Flagler
County's Comprehensive Plan.
Silvicultural operations near wetlands whether connected to surface water bodies or isolated
are to be managed according to the Best Management Practices(BMP) as described in the
Silviculture Best Management Practices Manual, published by the Florida Department of
Agriculture and consumer Services, Division of Forestry.


City of Port Orange
Port Orange boarders the Spruce Creek for approximately 2 miles. It is located on both
sides of I 95 and to the north and south of the creek. The heaviest development occurs in the
north east portion of the city limits and consists mainly of planned communities and downtown
shopping districts. Scattered low density housing and two small planned communities occur on
either side of I 95 in the north western quadrant of the city. Much of the development on the
north side of the creek occurs immediately adjacent the creek itself. There is little development
along the southern boundary of the creek.
As of the 1993 Port Orange Land Development Code, wetland buffer zones of not less than
25 feet are required for all areas adjacent to and surrounding wetlands. An additional 10 foot
upland buffer is required in which no structure shall be allowed, and a 20 foot buffer must be
maintained from the back edge of any single family or duplex units. Construction within the buffer
such as the creation of trails, decks, or catwalks cannot significantly impact the area. Allowable
maintenance activities and vegetation types are regulated by the same guidelines put fourth by the
county.





MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 20








Ormond Beach
Ormond Beach city limits cover 3 miles of the river between US 1 and I 95 and extend
from I 95 to the west on the north side of the Little Tomoka River. The land area lying between
the two interstates is heavily developed with residential uses on the south side of the river, while
the north side has lower development densities. The Ormond Beach Municipal Airport is located
along the north side of the River. Another area of heavy residential development is clustered along
the Groover Branch tributary.
The 1994 Ormond Beach Land Development Code, Article XII Resource Protection,
calls for the preservation of all natural vegetation occurring adjacent to surface water bodies and the
protection of riparian areas from developmental practices. The surface waters and marine life
habitat portion of the rules requires a setback of a minimum of 120 feet from the mean high water
mark or 50 feet from the upland/wetland interface line, whichever is greater for the Tomoka and
Little Tomoka Rivers. Setbacks of a minimum of 60 feet from the high water mark or 50 feet from
the upland/wetland interface is required for the mosquito control ditches; Strickland, Dodson's,
Thompson's Creek, Misner's and Groover's Branches. Any reductions in the wetland/upland
setback area will be required to conform to the following criteria:
(a) The proposed development shall be connected to a central water and sewer system.
(b) The proposed development shall not adversely impact the hydroperiod and other
functioning values of the adjacent wetland as determined by review of a Wetland
Management Plan.
(c) The proposed development shall provide one-to-one mitigation for reductions in the
setback requirements stated in paragraph b above, by enhancing the functioning
values of the on-site upland and wetland buffer areas.
The management and maintenance of setback requirements or buffer zones has similar
restriction as the county. Indigenous vegetation is to be left undisturbed except for the removal of
exotic species or dead debris that may pose some public threat. Some selective clearing may be
done to provide access way to water bodies. Selective thinning of the underbrush may occur
provided the area does not exceed 20% of the wetland site or 30 feet whichever is less. Any
development in the setback area is required to replant disturbed areas. Restoration plans must be
submitted to the Park's Director for approval. Wetlands are differentially protected within the city
of Ormond Beach. Wetlands are subdivided into four different Classes which have there own
different set of standards. The only wetland type of interest to this report is their Class 1 wetlands.
Class I wetlands include hydrologically connected riparian flood plain bottom land hardwood
hammocks; salt marshes; freshwater marshes; connected bay, gum swamps or other swamp

MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 21









hardwoods. Upland buffer zones of not less than 50 feet or greater than 100 feet are required
landward of the upland/wetland interface and activities shall be limited to those described in the
setback management requirements described above.


Daytona Beach
Daytona Beach is located on the central east coast of the county. Development occurs at
high densities on the land area immediately adjacent to the coast Daytona Beach has recently
incorporated a large area of undeveloped land to it's west, which extends past I 95 to 1 th Street
and overlaps the Tomoka River by 3.5 to 3.75 miles.
Daytona Beach has similar buffer requirements to those of Volusia County's non-NRMA
wetlands. The city requires a minimum buffer zone of 25 feet for all wetlands. Performance and
maintenance standards vary little from those of Volusia County.


Summary of Buffer Zone Requirements
Maps #3 and #4 summarize the buffer zone requirements of the various governmental
jurisdictions for both the Tomoka and Spruce creeks. Most of the lower reaches of the Tomoka
River have a 50 feet buffer zone requirements, while mid-reaches of the river require a 25 feet
buffer. The opposite is true in the Spruce Creek basin. A 25 feet buffer is required in the lower
reaches while the upper reaches are dominated by a 50 feet buffer zone. The following table
summarizes buffer zone requirements by governmental jurisdiction:


Buffer Zone Requirements


Governmental Unit
Volusia County
Wetlands Within NRMA's
Wetlands Outside NRMA's
Outstanding Waters
Flagler County
All Wetlands
Port Orange
All Wetlands
Ormond Beach
Tomoka and Little Tomoka

Tributaries to Tomoka

Daytona Beach
All Wetlands


Buffer Zone Requirement


50 feet minimum from upland/wetland edge
25 feet from upland/wetland edge
50 feet minimum from upland/wetland edge

25 feet from upland/wetland edge

25 feet from upland/wetland edge

50 feet from upland/wetland edge or 120 feet from
mean high water line, whichever is greater
50 feet from upland/wetland edge or 60 feet from
mean high water line, whichever is greater

25 feet from upland/wetland edge


MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 22










Current Land Use in the Tomoka River Watershed


Current land use/land cover for the Tomoka River basin (1992) was obtained from the St.
Johns River Water Management District are is given in Map #1. For convenience of analysis and
presentation, the watershed was divided into 5 subsections: Tomoka River estuary, Lower
Tomoka River, Upper Tomoka River, Little Tomoka River, and Groover Branch (see Figure 2).
Land use immediately upland of the river floodplain wetland system (called interface zone) was
analyzed using GIS technology.
The relative areas of land use/land cover of the interface zone are given as pie diagrams for
the sub-basins in Figure 3 and for the Tomoka River, as a whole, in Figure 4. Land use and land
cover categories were summarized into three classes: natural, agricultural and urban lands. For the
purposes of this summary, pine forest plantations were included in the natural lands category.
Pine forest plantations accounted for about 2% of the natural lands category.
Each of the various sub-basins had differing percentages of the interface zone in each of the
land uses categories; reflecting development trends in the county. Tomoka River estuary had only
about 22% of the interface zone in urban land uses and about 78% in natural cover. The lower
Tomoka had about 44% of the interface zone in urban uses and about 54% in natural cover.
Agriculture accounted for only 1.4% of the interface zone in the lower Tomoka sub-basin. The
upper Tomoka sub-basin had nearly 73% of the interface zone in natural cover, about 22% in
agricultural uses, and about 5% in urban uses.
The two main tributaries to the Tomoka River had very different land cover in the interface
zone. Groover Branch interface zone was dominated by 64% urban land uses, 20% natural cover
and about 16% agricultural uses. The Little Tomoka River was more equal in its distribution of
land cover, having about 40% agricultural uses and about 30% each in urban and natural cover.
In summary, the Tomoka River had nearly 77% of the land immediately adjacent to its
floodplain wetlands system in a natural cover. About 23% of the interface zone was in urban uses,
while less than 1% was in agricultural uses. The bulk of the interface zone that was in natural
cover was in the upper Tomoka River sub-basin; while that dominated by urban uses was in the
lower Tomoka and Groover Branch sub-basins.
A relatively large section of the middle Tomoka River west of 1-95 and north of highway
92 was recently annexed into the City of Daytona Beach. Presumably development plans are
underway, although the most recent Volusia County Future Land Use Map designated the area as
Planned Development The majority of the interface zone in this portion of the River is dominated
by natural cover.

MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 23









Current Land Use in the Spruce Creek Watershed
As in the Tomoka River Basin, the Spruce Creek was divided into 4 sub-basins for ease of
presentation: Lower Spruce Creek, Spruce Creek Channel, Spruce Creek Slough, and Tumbull
Creek (see Figure 5). A map of land use/land cover for the basins is given as Map #2. Levels of
development within the interface zone varied between sub-basins (see Figures 6 and 7). About
70% of the interface zone of lower Spruce Creek was in natural cover while 30% was in urban
uses (most of which was along the northern rivers edge. Here, the river channel is dominated by
salt marsh and is relatively close to uplands.
In the mid reaches of the Spruce Creek (Spruce Creek Channel) nearly 50% of the interface
zone was dominated by urban uses, stretching along both sides of the river. About 32% of the
interface zone was in natural cover, and about 19% was in agricultural uses. In the upper reaches
(Spruce Creek Slough) the creek's interface zone was dominated by agricultural uses (almost
82%). In this region, natural cover in the interface zone was about 15% of total, and urban uses
were only about 3%. Turnbull Creek's interface zone was over 64% urban and about 35% natural
cover. Agricultural uses accounted for less than 1% of the total interface zone.
In summary, the interface zone of Spruce Creek had greater proportion of urban uses than
did the Tomoka River (Figure 7). Overall, 47% of the interface zone of the Creek was in urban
uses, 43.3% was in natural cover, and 9.6% was in agricultural uses. The largest contiguous area
of natural cover in the interface zone was along the southern edge of the Creek surrounding 1-95
and eastward to Turnbull Creek.


Existing Cover and Future Land Use
Maps #5 and #6 overlay 1992 land use land cover with future land use provided by the
Volusia County Planning and Zoning Department for the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek basins.
The Tomoka River basin is given in Map #5. Most of the lower reaches of the Tomoka east of I-
95 are depicted as "City". This area corresponds, relatively, to the Tomoka River Estuary section
and portions of the Lower Tomoka River section (Figure 2). The river corridor of Grover Branch
is designated "conservation". Much of the mid-reaches of the Tomoka are designated as
"Conservation" surrounded by "Low Impact Urban" The upper reaches of the Tomoka are
dominated by "City" (north of US 92 and west of 1-95), with the area between US 92 and 1-4
designated as "Activity Center". The river corridor in this area appears to be designated as
"Conservation" and extends south of 1-4.
Future land use of the Spruce Creek basin is given in Map #6. The vast majority of river
corridor in the mid and upper reaches of the Spruce Creek is designated "Conservation"

MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 24









surrounded by "Agricultural Resource" in the upper reaches, and mid reaches surrounded by
"Rural" and "Urban Low Intensity". Upper portions of the lower reaches of the Spruce Creek, on
both sides of 1-95 are designated as "City", while the lower estuary portion is surrounded by the
designation "Conservation".
In all, the areas of most serious conflict, or areas where an RHPZ may be warranted
within both basins are as follows:
1. Lower reaches of the Tomoka River (remaining natural land cover adjacent to the
Floodplain)
2. Upper reaches of the Tomoka (especially those areas surrounded by the activity center
between US 92 and 1-4, and extending southward)
3. The upper portion of the lower reach of Spruce Creek (remaining natural land cover
along the southern shore line of the creek)
4. The mid reaches of the Spruce creek surrounded by "Rural" and "Urban Low Intensity"
uses
5. The upper reaches of the Spruce Creek surrounded by "Agricultural Resource"


Buffer Recommendations for Tomoka River and Spruce Creek
It appears that much of the interface zone on both the Spruce Creek and Tomoka River was
in urban uses (47% and 23% respectively) in 1992. There were some areas along the northern
shore of the Lower Tomoka River in the vicinity of the Ormond Airport and along the eastern shore
around and south of the confluence of the Little Tomoka, Groover Branch and the Tomoka River
that remained in natural cover. Most of the interface zone of the Upper Tomoka was in natural
cover. Little natural cover remained along Groover Branch (20%), while the Little Tomoka had
about 70% of its interface zone dominated by agricultural and urban uses. The only areas along the
Spruce Creek that remained in natural cover were along the southern shore of the Creek extending
west of 1-95 about 1 mile, and east of 1-95 about 2 miles. In addition, a small section (about 1/3
mile) along the northern shore of the Creek, just upstream from the confluence with Turnbull
Creek remained in natural cover.
A RHPZ may be appropriate for those areas on both rivers that remain undeveloped, as a
means of protecting aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife. Since significant portions of the zone
that would be designated RHPZ, have been developed, it is imperative that the remaining areas be
considered for protection. A zone that measures 550 feet from the waters's edge toward the
upland, and including at least 50 feet of upland has been determined adequate for aquatic and
wetland dependent wildlife in previous studies (Brown et al 1990a and 1990b). In areas where the

MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 25









floodplain is dominated by marsh vegetation, the RHPZ should measure 322 feet from the
landward edge of the marsh. In areas where there is no discernable channel, and/or the tree
canopy is continuous across the river channel, the RHPZ should be measured as 550 feet
straddling the river.
Maps #7 through #12 show an RHPZ for each of the five sections of the Tomoka as well
as land use/land cover in 1992. Map #7 shows a 550 feet RHPZ straddling the floodplain of
Grover Branch and surrounding a large wetland complex west of the floodplain. Since much of
the Tomoka River Estuary area is dominated by salt marsh, the RHPZ in Map 8 is 322 feet from
the Marsh edge. Some areas were already developed along the rivers edge, but there remained
undeveloped portions just east of US 1, near the airport. Map #9 shows a 550 feet RHPZ along
the relatively undeveloped Little Tomoka. The confluence of Grover Branch, the Little Tomoka
and the Upper portions of the Tomoka is shown in Map #10. Portions of the northern banks of the
Tomoka were undeveloped and are shown with a 550 feet RHPZ on each side of the river channel.
The Little Tomoka and Tomoka river, where canopy closure was complete, are shown with a 550
feet RHPZ straddling the channel. Maps #11 and #12 show the upper reach of the Tomoka river
with a 550 feet RHPZ straddling the river channel. In 1992 this area was relatively undeveloped,
but as indicated on the future land use map, the area between US 92 and 1-4 could become
relatively intensely developed as an Activity Center. While the river is designated as
"Conservation" the extent of the buffer beyond the river floodplain forest (if at all) is not known.
The recommended width is 550 feet straddling the river channel.
The mapped RHPZ for Spruce Creek is shown in Maps #13 through #15. The lower
reaches of Spruce Creek and Turnbull Creek are dominated by salt marsh. Most of the landward
edge of Turnbull Creek (Maps #13 and #14) was developed in 1992. On the upper portion of the
lower reach of the Spruce creek, the southern bank of the river was not developed in 1992. A
RHPZ of 322 feet from the marsh edge is recommended. Much of the area of the headwaters of
Spruce Creek were developed adjacent to the river floodplain in 1992. Some areas adjacent to the
flood plain, indicated as upland forest on the land use/land cover maps remained undeveloped.
The RHPZ is shown as 550 feet straddling the river channel.
Tables 5 and 6 summarize the areas of land use and land cover within the recommended
RHPZ for the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek. In Table 5 areas within the recommended RHPZ
for the Tomoka River are summarized. Total area within the Tomoka RHPZ is about 5000 acres.
Land cover categories having the greatest extent within the RHPZ were Forested Wetlands (1516
acres), salt marsh (1244 acres) and Upland Forest (1169 acres). Upland Forests (1169 acres),
Rangeland (88 acres), and Agricultural (54 acres) represented about 25% of the total area within

MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 26









the recommended RHPZ. Wetlands, and water areas (about 3233 acres) made up about 64% of
the total recommended RHPZ, leaving about 437 acres, or 8.6%, of the recommended RHPZ in
urban uses.
Table 6 gives the areas of different land uses and land covers within the proposed Spruce
Creek RHPZ. Total area within the RHPZ is about 4000 acres. Urban uses within the proposed
zone totaled about 860 acres or about 21% of the RHPZ. Upland forests (791 acres) and
rangeland (96 acres) covered approximately 22% of the proposed Spruce Creek RHPZ. Wetlands
(1362 acres) and water (837 acres) represented about 55% of the total RHPZ.


Summary
The concept of RHPZ's was an outgrowth of the realization that no system is isolated from
its environment, Just as single species wildlife management has been discredited by wildlife
management experts, it is obvious that protection of water resources requires a whole systems
approach. Aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife and water quality cannot be adequately
protected if only a river and its floodplain are considered. But more importantly, RHPZ's should
be looked upon as assets, instead of development potential that must to be forgone to protect some
environmental amenity. Once fully developed, much of the Florida urban landscape will be
without greenways. Instead of greenways, the urban landscape will be a patchwork of streets,
private lawns, and parking lots. Where will nature reside in such an urban scene? Where do
humans recreate, walk, or ride bikes?
Much of the proposed RHPZ is developed, however, this is no reason to suppose that
efforts to protect undeveloped stretches from further urban encroachment should not be attempted.
Often there is concern that buffer zones or RHPZ's infringe on property rights or that they are
excessive in the land that they take from developable portions of property. To accomplish resource
protection and at the same time not excessively hinder development should be the goal of efforts to
integrate RHPZ's into the development pattern. This may be achieved by providing development
credits, or transfer of development rights from RHPZ areas. Mitigation credits might be given for
purchase and rehabilitation of areas that have already been developed or used for agriculture.
Transfer of mitigation requirements might be coordinated so that financial resources are focused on
RHPZ's the community feels are important, and community funds for recreation and conservation
land purchases might be used to add to these funds. RHPZ's then become an "urban asset". They
are greenways that wind through developed lands which can accommodate human walking and
biking traffic away from motorized vehicles and in the tranquility of nature. They provide an
alternative to the streets as a means of getting from one end of the city to another. They add to the

MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 27









quality of life of everyone; and in the process, help to protect aquatic and wetland dependent
species and water quality of our surface water bodies.
Maps of the proposed RHPZ show numerous areas where the RHPZ is coincident with
urbanized lands or lands in agricultural uses. By all rights, greater protection of aquatic and
wetland dependent species could have been afforded had RHPZ's been developed prior to
development of these areas. A long term vision of the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek might
include the reclamation of these developed lands to natural ecological communities. It is possible
to retro-fit urbanized areas, not immediately, but over the long term as land uses change or housing
becomes senescent. The waterward edge of urbanized areas can be purchased and returned to
forested communities. Cleared and landscaped areas can be allowed to succeed to natural
communities. To some extent, agricultural lands can be managed to include the RHPZ concept
The edges of wetlands are often marginally productive for agricultural purposes and if given tax
incentives are given, these lands might be allowed to revegetate.
In all, it seems like a "win-win" situation when communities implement RHPZ's.
Environmental systems that are given added protection, benefit, and just as importantly, human
dominated systems benefit, as more greenspace is incorporated into urban lands. A network of
greenways through cities has been shown to be one of the most significant amenities that enhances
property values and quality of life. RHPZ's should be thought of as an opportunity, instead of a
constraint to development.






















MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 28








BIBLIOGRAPHY


Brown, M.T. and J.M. Schaefer, 1987. Buffer zones for water, wetlands and wildlife. Center
for wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. pp.163.

Brown, M.T., J.M. Schaefer and K.H. Brandt. 1990a. Buffer zones for water, wetlands and
wildlife in east central Florida. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida. Gainesville,
FL. pp.174.

Brown, M.T., J.M. Schaefer, R. Hamann, L. Wayne, M. Dickenson, C.S. Luthin, and J.
Tucker. 1990b. Econlockhatchee River basin natural resources development and protection
plan. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL.

Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland Stream Buffer Size requirements -
A Review. J of Env. Quality. Vol 23. pp878-882.

Croonquist, M.J. and R.P. Brooks, 1993. Effects of habitat disturbance on bird communities in
riparian corridors. J. of Soil and Water Conservation. Vol 48 No. 1. pp 655-70

Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services. 1979. Silviculture Best Management
Practices Manual. Dept. of Ag. and Cons. Serv., Div. of Forestry. Tallahassee, FL

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 1994. County matrix of habitatas and distribution of
rare/endangered species in Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 1018 Thomasville
Road; Tallahassee, FL 32303.

Gilliam, J.W. 1994. Riparian wetlands and water quality. J. of Env. Qual. Vol. 23 (Sept/Oct).
pp 896-900.

Gough, S.C. 1988. Stream water quality protection using vegetated filter strips: structure and
function related to sediment control. MS Thesis. University of Missouri, Colombia.

Haycock, N.E. and G. Pinay, 1993. Groundwater nitrate dynamics in grass and poplar vegetated
riparian buffer strips during winter. J. Env. Quality. Vol. 22. pp 273-278.

Jordan, R.A., and J.K. Shisler. 1986 Research needs for the use of buffer zones for wetland
protection. pages 433-435 In J.A. Kusler, M.L Quammen and G. Brooks (ed), National
Wetland Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. Association of State Wetland
Managers.

Karr, J.R. and IJ Schlosser, 1977. Impact of near stream vegetation and stream morphology on
water quality and stream biota. US EPA Report 600/3-77-097. Washington D.C.

Nieswand, G.W, R.M. Hordon, T.B. Shelton, B.B. Chavooshian, and S. Blair. 1990. Buffer
strips to protect water supply reservoirs; a model and recommendations. Water Resources
Bulletin Vol 26, No. 6. pp 959-966.

Osborne, L.L and D.A. Kovacic, 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water quality
restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biology Vol.29. pp243-258.


MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 29









Shisler, J.K., R.A. Jordon, and R.N. Wargo. 1987. Coastal wetland buffer delineation. New
Jersey Department of Env. Protection, Div. of Coastal Resources. Trenton, NJ

Triquett, A.M., G.A. McPeek, and W.C. McComb. 1990. Songbird diversity in clearcuts with
and without a riparian buffer strip. J. of Soil and Water Cons. Ju/Aug, 1990. pp 500-503.

Volusia Flagler Group, SIERRA CLUB. 1989a. Petition for the designation of Tomoka River,
Volusia County as outstanding Florida waters. Volusia Flagler Group, Sierra Club.
P.O. Box 1853. Ormond Beach, FL 32074.

Volusia Flagler Group, SIERRA CLUB. 1989b. Petition for the designation of Spruce Creek,
Volusia County as outstanding Florida waters. Volusia Flagler Group, Sierra Club.
P.O. Box 1853. Ormond Beach, FL 32074.

Washington State Department of Wildlife, Habitat Management Division. 1992. Buffer Needs of
Wetland Wildlife (final draft). February 12, 1992. Olympia Wash.

Whipple, W. Jr. 1993. Buffer zones around water-supply reservoirs. J. of Water Resources
Planning and Manag. Vol. 119 No.4. pp 495-499.





























MTB Final 10/31/95
Page 30











Flagler


Tomoka River
Basin


Spruce Creek
Basin


4* -,


Figure 1. Map showing the drainage basins of the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek in Volusia
County, Florida

















Groover Branch


Little Tomoka


River Estuary


Upper Tomoka


Lower Tomoka


Figure 2. Map of the Tomoka River watershed showing the five sub-basins used for detailed
analysis of land use / land cover within the wetland/upland "interface zone".


.^-'* :








Tomoka River estuary


Lower Tomoka River


r-Urban/industrial (21.6%)


-Agriculture (0.0%)


-Urban/industrial (44.2%)


Natural (54.4%)-


Natural


'-Agriculture (1.4%)


Upper Tomoka River


Little Tomoka River


Natural


-Urban/industrial (30.5%)


Natural


Grover Branch of Tomoka River


Natural (20.4%)


Agriculture (15.6%)


-Urban/industrial (64.0%)


Figure 3. Percent of the "interface zone" between uplands and wetlands occupied by urban,
agricultural, and natural cover of sub-basins of the Tomoka River.














Tomoka River Basin


/-Urban (22.7%)

-Agriculture (0.6%)


Natural (76.7%)-


Figure 4. Percent of the "interface zone" between uplands and wetlands occupied by urban,
agricultural, and natural cover for the Tomoka River










Lower


Middle


\


iVT


Headwaters


Turnbull Creek


Figure 5. Map of the Spruce Creek watershed showing the four sub-basins used for detailed
analysis of land use / land cover within the wetland/upland "interface zone".













Lower Spruce Creek


-Urban/industrial (30.3%)


Spruce Creek channel


Natural (32.0%)- :


-Urban/industrial (49.3%)


-Agriculture (0.0%)


Agriculture (18.7%) -'


Spruce Creek slough


Natural (1!


(3.3%)


Natural (34.9%)- 7


(81.5%)


Agriculture (0.5%)-


-Urban/industrial (64.6%)


Figure 6. Percent of the "interface zone" between uplands and wetlands occupied by urban,
agricultural, and natural cover of sub-basins of the Spruce Creek.


Natural (69.8%)


Turnbull Creek














Spruce Creek Basin


Natural (43.3%)




Agric. (9.6%)


-Urban (47.0%)


Figure 7. Percent of the "interface zone" between uplands and wetlands occupied by urban,
agricultural, and natural cover for the Spruce Creek









Table 1. Habitat needs of faunal species found in Tomoka River and Spruce Creek Watersheds


Common Name Scientific Name Tomoka Spruce Habitats Width of land
River Creek XS FW HH CS SH M&R EW needed (ft) '


Reptiles
Green Turtle
Alligator
Florida Mud Turtle
Florida Softshell Turtle
Banded Water Snake
Green Anole
Indigo Snake
Cottonmouth Water Moccasin
Florida Cooter


Amphibians
Dusky Salamander
Mud Salamander
Southern Toad
Green Treefrog
Bullfrog
Cricket Frog

Mammals
Manatee
River Otter
Opossum
Racoon
Marsh Rabbit
Florida Panther
Cottontail Rabbit
Water Rat
Bottlenosed Dolphin


Cheolonia mydas
Alligator mississippiensis
Kinosternon subrubrum
Trionyx fevox
Neridia fasciata
Anolis carolinensis
Drymarchon corais
Agkistrodon piscivorus
Pseudemys floridan



Desmongatus auriculatus
Plethinitida montanus
Bufo terrestris
Hyla ocularis
Rana catesbeina
Acris gryllus



Trichechus manatus
Lutra candensis
Didelphis virginiana
Procyon lotor
Sylvilagus palustris
Felis Concolor
Sylvilagus floridanus
Neofiber alleni
Tursiops truncatus


fn fn
fn fn
n
n n


f f
f
f f f
f f


50
1350
1350
50
51; 78
4654
50
1350


fn fn
fn
fn fn
fn fn
fn fn
fn fn


93; 177-591
93; 177-591
180
180
350
180


fn fn fn
fn fn fn


fn fn


527










Table 1. Habitat needs of faunal species found in Tomoka River and Spruce Creek Watersheds


Common Name Scientific Name Tomoka Spruce Habitats Width of land
River Creek XS FW HH CS SH M&R EW needed (ft) *


Birds
White Pelican
Brown Pelican
Little Blue Heron
Double Crested Cormorant
White Ibis
American Egret
Cattle Egret
Belted Kingfisher
Roseate Spoonbill
Marsh Hawk
Fish Crow
Snowy Egret
Osprey
Great Blue Heron
Black Vulture
Red Shouldered Hawk
American Coot
Herring Gull
Bonapartes Gull
Common Tern
Barred Owl
Chuck-Will's-Widow
Screech Owl
Pileated Woodpecker
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
Purple Martin
Redwing Blackbird
Common Grackle
Boattailed Grackle


Pelecanus erythrorhynchos
Pelecanus occidentalis
Florida caerulea
Phalacrocorax auritus
Eudocimus albus
Casmerodius albus
Bubulcus ibis
Megaceryle alcyon
Ajaia ajaja
Circus cyaneus
Corvus ossifragus
Leucophoyx thula
Pandion haliaetus
Ardea herodias
Coragyps atratus
Buteo lineatus
Fulica americana
Larus argentatus
Larus philadelphis
Sterna hirundo
Strix varia
Caprimulgus carolinensis
Otus asio
Ceophloeus pileatus
Picoides borealis
Progne subis
Agelaius phoenicens
Quiscalus quiscula
Quiscalus major


n n fn
fn
n n fn
n n fn
fn fn n
n n f


fn
n
n
n
fn fn
f


180; 39-63
50; 30-132
240; 38-120
60; 45-84
60; 33-63
60


fn fn


fn fn

fn fn
fn fn

fn fn f
fn


60
f 240; 123-165
60
f 60; 48-144
500
1177-2346;2640-2978
50




3455-7153
166
3455-7153
3098-5763; 2419
3960
50
50
60
60










Table 1. Habitat needs of faunal species found in Tomoka River and Spruce Creek Watersheds


Common Name Scientific Name Tomoka Spruce Habitats Width of land
River Creek XS FW HH CS SH M&R EW needed (ft) *
Bald Eagle Haliaetus leucocephalus X X n n n n n f 1500
Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis X X
Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana X
Wood Duck Aix sponsa X n n fn fn f f 300
Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus X fn fn fn fn 60
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus X fn fn
Purple Gallinule Porphyrula martinica X fn 50
Limpkin Aramus guarana X fn fn fn 180; 39-165
American Kestrel Falco spaverius X fn fn
Wood Stork Mycteria americana X n n fn fn f 1500
Louisiana Heron Egretta tricolor X n n fn fn fn f 240; 75-141


LEGEND
XS = Scrub or Sandhill
FW= Flatwoods
HH = Hardwood Hammock
CS = Cypress Swamp
SH = Swamp Hardwood
M&R = Freshwater Marsh and Rivers
EW = Emphemeral Wetland
f = use habitat to obtain food resources
n = use habitat for nesting/breeding


* Width needed is the width of land needed in feet by one individual of the species










Table 2. Fish and marine species found in Tomoka River and Spruce Creek watersheds

Common Name Scientific Name Tomoka Spruce
River Creek


Fish
Tidewater Silversides
Bay Anchovy
Striped Anchovy
Bluegill
Silver Jenny
Redear Sunfish
Moharra
Florida Gar
Largemouth Bass
Gizzard Shad
White Mullett
Striped Mullet
Sheepshead
Spotted Sea Trout
Snook
Jack Crevale
Sea Catfish
Mangrove Snapper
Croaker
Silver Jenny
Bullhead Catfish
Channel Catfish
Flagfish
Needlefish
Mosquitofish
Sheepshead Minnow
Pinfish
Darter Goby
Channel Bass
Worm Eel
Golden Topminnow
Starhead Topminnow
Spot
Flier
Freshwater Goby
Southern Flounder
Left Eyed Flounder
Fringed Flounder
Sailfin Molly


Menidia beryllina
Anchoa mitchilli
Anchoa hepsetus
Lepomis macrochirus
Eucinostomus gula
Lepomis microlophus
Eucinostomus argenteus
Lepisiosteus platyrhincus
Micropterus salmoides
Dorosoma cepedianum
Mugil curema
Mugil cephalus
Archosargus probatocephalus
Cynoscion nebulosus
Centropomus undecimalis
Caranx hippos
Arius felis
Lutjanus griseus
Micropogon undulatus
Eucinostomus argenteus
Ictalurus nebulosus
Ictalurus punctatus
Jordanella floridae
Stringylura marina
Gambusia affinis
Cyprinodon variegatus
Lagodon rhomboides
Gobionellus boleosoma
Sciaenops ocellata
Ahlia egmontis
Fundulus chrysotus
Fundulus notti
Leiostomus xanthurus
Centrarchus macropterus
Cobionellus schufeldti
Paralichtys lethostigma
Citharichtys arenaceus
Etropus crossotus
Poecilia latipinna










Table 2. Fish and marine species found in Tomoka River and Spruce Creek watersheds


Common Name


Mimmichog
Bull Shark
Southern Stingray
Tarpon
Hog Choker
Silver Perch
Black Drum
Sail Catfish
Lookdown
Bonnethead Shark
Pigfish
Leather Jack
Lemon Shark
Barracuda
Menhaden
Striped Killifish
Gulf Killifish
Least Killifish
Rainwater Killifish
Ladyfish

Crustaceas
Blue Crab
Ornate Crab
White Shrimp
Brown Shrimp
Stone Crab
Mud Crab
Grass Shrimp
Prawn
Fiddler Crab
Saltmarsh Crab
Isopods
Horseshoe Crab
Snapping Shrimp
Hermit Crab
Amphipods
Crayfish
Tanaids


Scientific Name


Fundulus hereroclitus
Carcharhinus leucas
Dasyatis americana
Megalops atlanticus
Trinectes maculatus
Bairdella chrysura
Pogonias cromis
Bagre marinus
Selene vomer
Sphyrna tiburo
Orthopristis chrysopterus
Oligoplites saurus
Negaprion brevirostris
Sphyraena barracuda
Brevoortia tyrannus
Fundulus confluentus
Fundulus grandis
Heterandria formosa
Lucania parva
Elops saurus


Callinectes sapidus
Callinectes ornatus
Peneus setiferus
Peneus azetecus
Menippe mercenaria
Panopeus herbstii
Palaemonetes intermedius
Macrobrachium sp.
Uca minax
Sesarma reticulata
Aegathoa spp.
Pagurus annulipes
Alphaeus heterochaelis
Pagurus annulipes
Gammaropsis sp.
Cambarus sp.
Tanaeidae


Tomoka
River
X

X
X
X
X
X
X







X
X
X
X
X
X


Spruce
Creek
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X




X


X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X










Table 2. Fish and marine species found in Tomoka River and Spruce Creek watersheds

Common Name Scientific Name Tomoka Spruce
River Creek


Molluscs
Quahog Clams
Periwinkle Snail
Coffee Bean Snail
Mud Snails
Oysters
Barnacles
Ribbed Mussels
Hooked Mussels
Blue Mussels
Oyster Drill
Freshwater Marsh Clams
Bubble Shells

Worms
Round Worms
Tube Worms
Mud Worms
Polychaete Worms




Feather Worms

Coelenterates
Comb Jellies
White Jellyfish
Many-Mouth Sea Jelly


Mercenaria campechiensis
Littorina angulifera
Melampus olivaceous
Nassarius spp.
Ostraea virginica
Balanus balanoides
Midiolus demissus
Brachiodontes recurvus
Mytilus edulis
Urosalpinx cinerea
Corbicula manilensis
Bulla occidentalis


Oligochaeta
Serpula sp.
Onuphidae
1. Pectinaris sp.
2. Neanthes sp.
3. Capitella capitata
4. Streblospio sp.
Euchone elegans


Ctenophora
Arelia surita
Stomolophus meleagris










Table 3. Faunal species that may occur in Tomoka River and Spruce Creek watersheds (after Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 1994)

Common Name Scientific Name Status Occ Habitat


Fishes
Shortnose Sturgeon
Mountain Mullet
Snail Bullhead
Sea lamprey

Amphibians
Striped newt
Ephemeral wetlands, lakes

Reptiles
American Alligator
Loggerhead
Green Turtle
Spotted turtle
Leatherback Turtle
Eastern Indigo Snake
Gopher tortoise
Atlantic ridley
Atlantic salt marsh snake
Florida pine snake

Birds
Cooper's hawk
Bachman's sparrow
Roseate spoonbill
Florida scrub jay
Limpkin
Short-tailed hawk
Great egret
Piping plover
Florida prairie warbler
Little blue heron
Snowy egret


Acipenser brevirostrum
Agonostomus monticola
Ameirus brunneus
Petromyzon marinus



Notophthalmus perstriatus
Rana areolata



Alligator mississippiensis
Caretta caretta
Chelonia mydas
Clemmys guttata
Dermochelys coriacea
Drymarchon corais couperi
Gopherus polyphemus
Lepidochelys kempii
Nerodia clarkii taeniata
Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus



Accipiter cooperii
Aimophita aestivalis
Ajaia ajaia
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Aramus guarauna
Buteo brachyurus
Casmerodius albus
Charadrius melodus
Dendroica discolor paludicola
Egretta caerulea
Egretta thula


stream, marine, estuarine
alluvial stream, blackwater stream
blackwater stream, marine, estuarine



Ephemeral wetlands, lakes
Ephemeral wetlands, lakes



Various aquatic and hydric habitats
Coastal, various marine and estuarine habitats
Coastal, various marine and estuarine habitats
Mesic flatwoods, various hydric habitats
S Coastal, various marine and estuarine habitats
Various hydric, mesic, and xeric habitats
Sandhill, scrub, flatwoods, xeric hammock, coastal
Various marine and estuarine habitats
* Marine and estuarine tidal marsh
S Sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, xeric hammock, ruderal



Various terrestrial and palustrine habitats
Various terrestrial habitats, ruderal
Various aquatic and hydric habitats
Scrub, scrubby flatwoods
Various aquatic and hydric habitats
Various terrestrial, palustrine, and estuarine habitats
Various terrestrial, hydric, and aquatic habitats
Beaches and beach dunes
Maritime hammock, marine and estuarine tidal swamp
Various hydric and aquatic habitats
Various hydric and aquatic habitats










Table 3. Faunal species that may occur in Tomoka River and Spruce Creek watersheds (after Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 1994)


Common Name Scientific Name Status Occ Habitat


Tricolored heron
Black-shouldered kite
White ibis
Merlin
Peregrine falcon
Southeastern american kestrel
Florida sandhill crane
Bald eagle
Black rail
Wood stork
Yellow-crowned night-heron
Black-crowned night-heron
Osprey
Brown pelican
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Hairy woodpecker
Glossy ibis
Crested caracara
Black skimmer
Least tern
Caspian tern
Royal tern
Sandwich tern
Black-whiskered vireo

Mammals
Southeastern weasel
Florida long-tailed weasel
Round-tailed muskrat
Pallid beach mouse
Southeastern beach mouse
Southeastern big-eared bat
Florida mouse
Sherman's fox squirrel
Southeastern shrew


S4

S4


S3?
S2S3
S2S3
S3?
S2

S3?
S3S4
S3
S2


Egretta tricolor
Elanus caeruleus
Eudocimus albus
Falco columbarius
Falco peregrinus
Falco sparverius paulus
Grus canadensis pratensis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Laterallus jamaicensis
Mycteria americana
Nyctanassa violacea
Nycticorax nycticorax
Pandion haliaetus
Pelecanus occidentalis
Picoides borealis
Picoides villosus
Plegadis falcinellus
Polyborus plancus
Rynchops niger
Sterna antillarum
Sterna caspia
Sterna maxima
Sterna sanvicensis
Vireo altiloquus


Mustela frenata olivacea
Mustela frenata peninsula
Neofiber alleni
Peromyscus polionotus decoloratus
Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris
Plecotus rafinesquii
Podomys floridanus
Sciurus niger shermani
Sorex longirostris longirostris


S Various hydric and aquatic habitats
Various terrestrial and palustrine habitats, ruderal
S Various hydric and aquatic habitats
Various terrestrial, palustrine, and estuanne habitats
Various terrestrial, palustrine, lacustrine and estuarine
Various terrestrial, palustrine, and estuarine habitats
Dry prairie, ruderal, marsh, lake
S Various aquatic and hydric habitats
Marsh
Various palustrine, lacustrine and estuarine habitats
Various palustrine, riverine and estuarine habitats
S Various aquatic and hydric habitats
Various terrestrial, aquatic and hydric habitats
S Various marine and estuarine habitats
Sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, mesic flatwoods
Various terrestrial and palustrine habitats
Various palustrine, lacustrine and estuarine habitats
Dry prairie, ruderal, wet prairie, wet flatwoods
Beach dune, ruderal, various marine and estuarine habitats
S Beach dune, ruderal, various aquatic habitats
Beach dune, ruderal, various aquatic habitats
Beach dune, ruderal, various aquatic habitats
Beach dune, ruderal, various marine and estuarine habitats
Maritime and rockland hammock, tidal swamp


Various terrestrial and palustrine habitats
Various terrestrial and palustrine habitats
Marsh, lake
Coastal strand, beach dune
Beach dune, coastal strand, scrub
Various terrestrial and palustrine habitats
Scrub, sandhill, scrubby flatwoods
Sanhill, mesic and scrubby flatwoods, depressional swamp
Floodplain forest, floodplain swamp










Table 3. Faunal species that may occur in Tomoka River and Spruce Creek watersheds (after Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 1994)


Common Name Scientific Name Status Occ Habitat


Manatee Trichechus manatus S2? Various riverine, marine and estuarine habitats
Florida black bear Ursus americanus floridanus S2 Various terrestrial and palustrine habitats

Invertebrates
Blue spring aphaostracon Aphaostracon asthenes S1
Enterprise spring snail Cincinnatia monroensis S1
Blue spring snail Cincinnatia parva S1


Notes:
S1 = Critically imperiled statewide of extreme rarity or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction due to natural or human caused factor
S2 = Imperiled statewide because of rarity or because of vulnerability to extinction due to natural or human caused factor
S3 = Either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally in restricted range or vulnerable to extinction
S4 = Apparently secure statewide; but may be rare in parts of range


Known occurance in Tomoka River and/or Spruce Creek













Table 4. Plant species that may occur in Tomoka River and Spruce Creek watersheds (after Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 1994)


Common Name Scientific Name Status Occ Habitat Comments


Golden leather fern
Brittle maidenhair fern
Balsam torchwood
Curtiss' milkweed
Auricled spleenwort
Bird's nest spleenwort
Ashe's savory
Curtiss' sandgrass
Sand butterfly pea
Simpson's prickly-apple
Sand-dune spurge
Piedmont jointgrass
Large-flowered rosemary
Rugel's pawpaw
Coastal vervain
Tampa vervain
Hartwrightia
Lake-side sunflower
Scrub holly
Star anise

Nodding pinweed
Pine pinweed
Southern red lily
Florida spiny-pod
Godfrey's sandwort
Pigmy-pipes
Piedmont water-milfoil
Fall-flowering ixia
Florida bear-grass
Hand fern
Yellow hibiscus
Spoon-flower
Terrestrial peperomia


Acrostichum aureum
Adiantum tenerum
Amyris balsamifera
Asclepias curtissii
Asplenium auritum
Asplenium serratum
Calamintha ashei
Calamovilfa curtissii
Centrosema arenicola
Cereus gracilis var simpsonii
Chamaesyce cumulicola
Coelorachis tuberculosa
Conradina grandiflora
Deeringothamnus rugelii
Glandularia maritima
Glandularia tampensis
Hartwrightia floridana
Helianthus carnosus
Ilex opaca var arenicola
Illicium parviflorum
Lantana depressa var floridana
Lechea cernua
Lechea divaricata
Lilium catesbaei
Matelea floridana
Minuartia godfreyi
Monotropsis reynoldsiae
Myriophyllum laxum
Nemastylis floridana
Nolina atopocarpa
Ophioglossum palmatum
Pavonia spinifex
Peltandra sagittifolia
Peperomia humilis


52
53




S2

82
S2

53
S1
52
S1


S3
S1
S2
S3

S3





52
53
S2
S2S3


Upland hardwood forest, spring-run stream banks
Coastal

Slough, hydric hammock
Strand and dome swamp
Scrub
Flatwoods, wet prairie, depressional marsh
Sandhill, scrubby flatwoods

S Coastal; in openings
Sandhill upland lake margins
* Scrub, coastal strand
S Mesic flatwoods
Beach dune, coastal strand
Mesic flatwoods, hydric hammock
Flatwoods, depressional swamps
Seepage slope, wet flatwoods
S Scrub
Bottomland forest, hydric hammock, bay swamp
S Coastal, pine rockland, marl prairie
Scrub
Scrub, scrubby flatwoods
* Flatwoods, wet prairie, seepage slope
Upland mixed forest, upland hardwood forest
Seepage slope
Upland hardwood forest
Floodplain or dome swamp, lake, blackwater stream
* Flatwoods, wet prairie, depressional swamp
Mesic flatwoods
Hydric hammock
* Upland hardwood forest, shell mound, hydric hammock
Freshwater hydric habitats
Upland hardwood forest, swamps


disturbed areas

ruderal




disturbed areas

ruderal
edges & clearings
clearings





openings & disturbed areas




ruderal



clearings
grassy areas

on limestone













Table 4. Plant species that may occur in Tomoka River and Spruce Creek watersheds (after Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 1994)

Common Name Scientific Name Status Occ Habitat Comments


Scrub bay Persea humilis S3 Scrub, sandhill
Slender-leaved dragon-head Physostegia leptophylla Hydric habitats
Brown-haired snoutbean Rhynchosia cinerea Pine rocklands, dune, scrub, sandhill, mesic flatwoods roadsides, fields
Chaffseed Schwalbea americana Scrub, sandhill, mesic flatwoods, wet prairie
Rain lily Zephyranthes simpsonii Dome swamp, wet flatwoods ditches, wet pastures


Notes:
S1 = Critically imperiled statewide of extreme rarity or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction due to natural or human caused factor
S2 = Imperiled statewide because of rarity or because of vulnerability to extinction due to natural or human caused factor
S3 = Either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally in restricted range or vulnerable to extinction
S4 = Apparently secure statewide; but may be rare in parts of range

* known occurance in Tomoka River and/or Spruce Creek











Table 5. Land Use / Land Cover Within TOMOKA RIVER recommended RHPZ (Acres)


Land Use Type Groover Branch Tomoka River Little Tomoka Confluence Tomoka River Rivers End Basin Total**
Estuary Headwaters (acres) (Percent of total)


Urban
Residential 13.8 137.0 8.4 157.6 0.0 0.0 316.9 6.3%
Commercial 0.0 20.1 0.0 2.3 0.8 0.0 23.1 0.5%
Transportation 9.1 63.3 2.2 5.3 13.3 4.0 97.2 1.9%
Recreational 20 11.2 27.6 0 0.0 0.0 38.8 0.8%
Subtotal 24.9 231.6 38.2 165.2 14.1 4.0 476.0 9.5%
Agricultural
Agriculture 47.4 0.0 0.0 4.1 1.9 0.0 53.8 1.1%
Rangeland 0.0 827 1.3 1 ZA 00 88.0 1.8%
Subtotal 47.4 82.7 1.3 5.7 4.3 0.0 141.8 2.8%
Natural Cover
Upland Forests 258.2 494.3 209.3 150.0 43.3 14.0 1169.2 23.3%
Forested Wetlands 40.7 443.7 196.0 461.8 276.2 97.4 1516.6 30.2%
Salt Marsh 0.0 1244.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1244.7 24.8%
Freshwater Marsh 25.4 12.0 2.8 7.5 0.9 0.0 4.9 0.1%
Non-forested Wetlands 15.9 19.6 0.5 11.4 2.3 0.0 49.7 1.0%
Open Water 46 318.4 10.9 4.7 0.0 418.5 8.3
Subtotal 344.8 2532.7 419.5 103.6 322.7 111.4 4403.6 87.7%

Total 417.1 2847.0 459.0 274.5 341.1 115.4 5021.4 100%

** Basin total is based on data for the entire basin and may not equal sum
of columns due to overlap between map coverages










Table 6. Land Use / Land Cover Within SPRUCE CREEK recommended RHPZ (Acres)


Land Use Type Spruce Creek Tnmbull Bay Spruce Creek Basin Total**
Estuary Headwaters (acres) (Percent of total)

Urban
Residential 430.5 490.9 166.7 772.0 19.0%
Commercial 4.6 4.0 0.0 8.6 0.2%
Transportation 32.3 32.4 20.0 78.8 1.9%
Recreational 2.0 51.0 6 54.4 1.3%
Subtotal 469.4 578.3 193.2 913.8 22.5%
Agricultural
Agriculture 0.0 12.5 50.4 62.9 1.5%
Rangeland 50.0 77.4 11.5 95.8 2.4
Subtotal 50.0 89.9 61.9 158.7 3.9%
Natural Cover
Upland Forests 545.8 363.3 129.6 790.8 19.5%
Forested Wetlands 60.0 45.9 354.3 441.1 10.9%
Salt Marsh 581.3 368.4 2.7 749.9 18.5%
Freshwater Marsh 6.7 8.7 65.3 79.8 2.0%
Non-forested Wetlands 75.7 232 10.6 91.8 2.3%
Open Water 743.7 476.3 37.5 837.5 20.6
Subtotal 2013.2 1285.8 600.0 2990.9 73.6%

Total 2532.6 1954.0 855.1 4063.4 100%

** Basin total is based on data for the entire basin and may not equal sum
of columns due to overlap between map coverages






- I


Land Use Key
Residential
Commercial
Transportation
SRecr national
Agric Itural
Ran e Land
Upland Forests
Fore ted Wetland
Salt arsh
Frest water Marsh
Non- rested Wetland
" Water
2 0 2 4 6 Miles


SI Source: Land Use I Land Cover Data Based on 1988 89 Aerial Photography.
GIS Coverages Provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District
G.I.S. Analysis & Presentation
John Craig and Josh Orrell MAP # 1
_________6/21/9


N Tom0ka River
A Land Us / Land Cover
Sf Prepared for the St. Johns River
W E Water Mapagement District
By:
Center for wetlands and Water
S Resource Univ. of Florida









Sprupe Creek
Land Use / Land Cover
Prepared for the St. Johns River
Water Management District
By:
Center for Wetlands and Water
Resources, Univ. of Florida

Land Use Key


i. _- .
I---


0


Residential
Commercial
Transportation
Recreational
Agricultural
Range Land
Upland Forests
Forested Wetland
Salt Marsh
Freshwater Marsh
NOn-Forested Wetland
Water


4 Miles


Source: Land Use I Land Cover Data Based on 1988 89 Aerial Photography.
GIS Coverages Provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District.


G.I.S. Analysis & Presentation
John Craig and Josh Orrell
6/21/95(


SMAP


_ __II II I i II


I I


I I '! C '


.~-~i"
.~~~icl
Eiibi~



~~~fSIOJ~ii~

::. :
r:: "`::'"r
:s


". i~S6~~1~
i
B


I









SI Tombka River


Existing E
Prepared
Water


suffer Zone


for
Mai


Center for V
Resource,


Land
/\/ 50


Regulations


the St. Johns River
lagement District
By:


Wetlands
I, Univ.


and Water
of Florida


,e Key
Buffer


Residential
Commercial
Transportation
Recreational
Agricultural
Ran e Land
Upland Forests
SForested Wetland
Salt Marsh
Freshwater Marsh
Non+Forested Wetland
Water


0 2


6 Miles


Source: Land Use I Land Cover Data Based on 1988 89 Aerial Photography.
GIS Coverages Provided by he St. Johns River Water Management District.


G.I.S. Analysis & Presentation
John Craig and Josh Orrell MAP # 3
6/21/95i


- I _I_


_ I~


I a I I, r I


I0









I Spruce Creek
,:I N


__________________________________________


Existing


Buffer Zone


Regulations


Prepared for he St. Johns River
Water Management District
By:
Center for Wetlands and Water
Resources; Univ. of Florida
.I !


Land
/\/5C


Use


Key


I Foot Buffer


/V 25 F ot Buffer


1 Resid
Comn
;,: Trans
Recre
Agrici
Rang,
"- Uplan
g Fores
Salt f
Fresh
Non-F
SWatei
2 0


ential
lercial
portation
national
iltural
. Land
d Forests
ted Wetland
Aarsh
water Marsh
restedd Wetland


4 Miles


Source: Land Use I Land Cover Data Based on 1988 89 Aerial Photography.
GIS Coverages Provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District.


G.I.S. Analysis & Presentation
John Craig and Josh Orrell
6/21/95


MAP # 4


I mI' I'


JIL












Tomoka River Watershed

Current and Future Land Use


Prepared
Water


for the St. John's River
Management District


By:
Center for Wetlands and Water
Resources, Univ. of Florida


Current Land Use

Source: S.J.RW.M.D.
Residential
Commercial
Transportation
I Recreational
Agricultural
Range Land
g Upland Forests
Forested Wetland
Salt Marsh
Freshwater Marsh
Non-Forested Wetland
Water


Futu

Source:
Planning







CTO





4
r--w


re Land Use

Voluia County
I and Zoning Dept
Transportation
City
Conservation
Env. System Corridor
Forestry Resource
Low Impact Urban
Agricultural Resource
Rural
Public/Semi-public
Urban Low Intensity
Urban Medium Intensity
Urban High Intensity
Commercial
Industrial
Activity Center
Daytona Annex
6 Miles


Source: Land Use I Land Cover Data Based on 1988 89 Aerial Photography.
GIS Coverages Provided by the St. John's River Water Management District.


G.I.S. Analysis & Presentation
John Craig and Josh Orrell MAP # 5
1 _6/21/95


- I I J I I _J


I I I II: I







------ II_ i LI U


E


Current Land Use
Source: S.J.R.W.M.D.
iii1 Residential
Commercial
Transportation
Recreational
Agricultural
Range Land
SUpland Forests
Forested Wetland
Salt Marsh
Freshwater Marsh
Non-Forested Wetland
Water


Future Land Use
Source: Voluia County
Planning and Zoning Dept.
STransportation
I] City
__ Conservation
^ Env. System Corridor
i Forestry Resource
- Low Impact Urban
T]] Agricultural Resource
f Rural
InM Recreational
=1 Urban Low Intensity
SUrban Medium Intensity
Urban High Intensity
_ Commercial
Industrial
Planned Community


2 0 2 4 Miles


Source: Land Use I Land Cover Data Based on 1988 89 Aerial Photography.
GIS Coverages Provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District.
I/ I I


G.I.S. Analysis & Presentation
John Craig and Josh Orrell
RI/1I K/


I U Irv


MAP


Spruce Creek Watershed

Current and Future Land Use

Prepared for the St. Johns River
Water Management District
By:
Center for Wetlands and Water
Resources, Univ. of Florida








Tomoka River
Recommended Buffer Zone
Prepared for the St. Johns River
:W E Water Management District
By:
SCenter for Wetlands and Water
Resources, Univ. of Florida

t Land Use Key
/V/ Recommended Buffer Zone
Residential
Commercial
Transportation
Recreational
Agricultural
Range Land
::, Upland Forests
Forested Wetland
Salt Marsh
Freshwater Marsh
Non-Forested Wetland
M Water
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles
Source: Land Use I Land Co er Data Based on 1988 89 Aerial Photography
GIS coverages Provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District.
u ; G.I.S. Analysis & Presentation
John Craig and Josh Orrell MAP # 7
6/21/95







N Tomoka River
Recommended Buffer Zone
Prepared for the St. Johns River
Water Management District
By:
Center for Wetlands and Water
.S Resources, Univ. of Florida

Land Use Key
S/V Recommended Buffer Zone
Residential
Commercial
STransportation
S"Recreational
.'.. Agricultural
Range Land
....:. Upland Forests
... ..... Forested Wetland
Salt Marsh
."' .;iiii Freshwater Marsh
Non-Forested Wetland
Water
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles
Source: Land Use I Land Coye Data Based on 1988 89 Aerial Photography
GIS Coverages Provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District.
G.I.S. Analysis & Presentation
John Craig and Josh Orrell MAP # 8
6/21/95








N Tomoka River
Recommended Buffer Zone
Prepared for the St. Johns River
E Water Management District
By:
Center for Wetlands and Water
Resources, Univ. of Florida

Land Use Key
/V/ Recommended Buffer Zone
Residential
i :l:: :;- ; 1 Commercial
STransportation
Recreational
Agricultural
Range Land
Upland Forests
Forested Wetland
Salt Marsh
Freshwater Marsh
Non-Fprested Wetland
Water
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles
Source: Land Use I Land Cover Data Based on 1988 89 Aerial Photography
GIS Coverages Provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District.
G.I.S. Analysis & Presentation
John Craig and Josh Orrell MAP # 9
6/21/95







SN Tomoka River
........... Recommended Buffer Zone
Prepared for the St. Johns River
...E Water Management District
By:
S .Center for Wetlands and Water
..i..iiii..li.i..iiiii Resources, Univ. of Florida
...i..l..i. .. ...............
Land Use Key
...././ .Recommended Buffer Zone
Residential
........... Commercial
Transportation
Recreational
Agricultural
Range Land
Upland Forests
...... ..... Forested Wetland
: _Salt Marsh
Freshwater Marsh
Non-Forested Wetland
\ Water
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles
Source: Land Use I Land Cover Data Based on 1988 89 Aerial Photography
GIS Coverages Provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District.
G.I.S. Analysis & Presentation
John Craig and Josh Orrell MAP # 10
6/21/9$







.... Tomoka River
Recommended Buffer Zone
Prepared for the St. Johns River
Water Management District
By:
Center for Wetlands and Water
SResourceS, Univ. of Florida

Land Use Key
// Recomrmended Buffer Zone
SResidential
Comrr ercial
Transportation
Recreational
Agricd tural
Range Land
-Upland Forests
Forested Wetland
Salt harsh
Freshwater Marsh
Non-Forested Wetland
Water
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles
Source: Land Use I Land Co er Data Based on 1988 89 Aerial Photography
GIS Coverages Provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District.
G.I.S. Analysis & Presentation
John Craig and Josh Orrel MAP # 11
6/21/95








NTomoka River
Recommended Buffer Zone
Prepared for the St. Johns River
SWater Management District
i m "By:
SCenter for Wetlands and Water
S.Resources, Univ. of Florida

Land Use Key
'// Recormmended Buffer Zone
Residential
Commercial
X I..... Transportation
~l ecre tional
SAgric ltural
Rang; Land
-Upland Forests
Forested Wetland
Salt Marsh
FreshwNater Marsh
Non-Forested Wetland
Wate
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles
Source: Land Use I Land Coer Data Based on 1988 89 Aerial Photography.
GIS Coverages Provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District.
G.I.S. Analysis & Presentation
John Craig and Josh Orrell MAP # 12
6/21/95 z




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs