Title: Final Report and Recommendations for the Proposed Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004992/00001
 Material Information
Title: Final Report and Recommendations for the Proposed Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: The Florida Environmental Land & Water Management Act, Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, Bureau of Land Planning
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Final Report and Recommendations for the Proposed Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern (JDV Box 40)
General Note: Box 30, Folder 4 ( The Green Swamp - 1974 - 1993 ), Item 6
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004992
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text









DSP-BLP-16-74


FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR

THE PROPOSED GREEN SWAMP AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN


LAKE AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA



JUNE, 1974








TO THE

STATE OF FLORIDA

ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION

BY THE

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

DIVISION OF STATE PLANNING

BUREAU OF LAND PLANNING


I This public document was
promulgated at an annual cost
of $720.00 or $0.72 per copy
to fulfill responsibilities
under Chapter 380. F.S.





























































The publication of this document was
financed in part through a Comprehensive
Planning Assistance Grant from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development
under the provisions of Section 701 of the
Housing Act of 1954, as amended.



ii











TABLE OF CONTENTS


Section


I. INTRODUCTION . . . . ..


1


II. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE GREEN SWAMP AREA . .


Purpose . . . .
Location . . . .
Natural Physical Conditions .. ..
Topography . . .
Climate . . .
Geology . . .
Hydrology . . .
Vegetation and Soils . .
Wildlife . . .
Manmade Conditions . . .
Land Use . . .
Public Improvements . .
Economic Conditions and Trends .
Population Conditions and Trends
Regional Conditions and Trends
Administrative Considerations


III. EVALUATION OF THE GREEN SWAMP AREA AS
AN AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN . . . .

Reasons for Critical Concern . . . .
Floridan Aquifer Resource Considerations . . .
Discussion of Values and Functions . . .
Dangers That Would Result From Uncoordinated
Development of the Area . . . .
Advantages Achieved From the Development
of the Area in a Coordinated Manner . .
Wetlands Resource Considerations . . . .
Discussion of Values and Functions . . .
Dangers That Would Result From Uncoordinated
Development of the Area . . . .
Advantages Achieved From the Development of
the Area in a Coordinated Manner .. .....
Public Investment Considerations . . . .
Discussion of Values and Functions . . .
Dangers That Would Result From Uncoordinated
Development of the Area . . . .
Advantages From Development of the Area in
a Coordinated Manner . . . .

IV. BOUNDARY RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . .

Existing County Regulatory Considerations . . .
Regional and State Resource Considerations . .


Page


....










Section Page

V. RECOMMENDED PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT . ... 37

VI. APPENDICES . . . . ... . .... 41

Appendix A
Summary of the Florida Environmental Land and Water
Management Act of 1972, Section 380.05, "Areas of
Critical State Concern" . . . . .. 41

Appendix B
Legal Description of the Green Swamp Critical Area ... 43

Appendix C
Legal and Administrative Considerations . . .. 46

VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . .... 48











LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure Page

1 General Location of the Green Swamp Area 3

2 Detailed Map of the Green Swamp Area 4

3 Generalized East-West Geologic Cross Section Through
Central Green Swamp Area 6

3a Sketch Map of Green Swamp Area Showing Location of
the Above Cross Section 6

4 Major Surface-Water Drainage Basins and General
Direction of Surface-Water Flow 8

5 Generalized Geologic Cross Section of the Florida
Peninsula Showing the Relation of the Green Swamp
Area to the Floridan Aquifer 9

6 Potentiometric Map Showing the Radial Flow Pattern of
Ground Water from the Green Swamp High 10

7 Recent and Proposed Developments, Future Highway Proposals,
and Land Registered For Sale 14

8 Regional Location of the Green Swamp Area 16

9 Existing and Proposed Public Owned Lands in the
Green Swamp Area 19

10 Hydrologic Characteristics of the Floridan Aquifer 21

11 Major Wetland Areas of the Withlacoochee, Little
Withlacoochee, Oklawaha and Hillsborough Rivers in
the Green Swamp Area 26

12 Flood Detention Areas 29

13 Recommended Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern 33

14 Geographic Areas Affecting Resources of Regional or
State Concern 35

Tables

I Population: Existing and Projected 15

II Applications for Developments of Regional Impact
July 1, 1973 to June 1, 1974 17

III County Acreage in the Recommended Critical Area 32

IV Recommended Principles for Guiding Development 37











REPORT IN BRIEF


This report was prepared for presentation to the Administration Commission
by the Division of State Planning. The purpose of the report is to recommend
critical area designation for approximately 322,690 acres of southern Lake and
northern Polk Counties in central Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida
Statutes, a critical area boundary and principles for guiding development in
the critical area are recommended in Sections IV and V of this report.

The recommended Green Swamp Critical Area depicted in Figure 13 is an area
containing natural resources of regional and statewide importance and an area
which has a significant effect upon existing and proposed major public facilities.

The most important resources in the critical area are those related to ground
and surface water; specifically, the valuable natural functions of the Floridan
Aquifer and the wetland areas. The Floridan Aquifer is the most important water-
supply resource in the State, supplying approximately 70% of all the ground water
used in the State and 90% of all ground water used in central Florida for public
supplies, irrigation and industry. The Floridan Aquifer annually receives over
55 billion gallons of recharge water from the critical area. By conservative
estimates, and with coordinated development, the critical area has the potential
for providing over 2.4 million people daily with public water supplies. The
ground water level of the Floridan Aquifer reaches its highest elevation in the
State, in the critical area. This elevated portion of the Floridan Aquifer,
referred to as the Green Swamp High, provides ground water pressure which helps
maintain free-flowing springs and rivers and allows easy withdrawal of ground
water from the Floridan Aquifer in central and southern Florida.

More than 50% of the Green Swamp area contains dense vegetative type wetlands.
These wetlands are the origin of five major rivers. Due to the dense vegetation
and the gradual slope of the land, these wetlands retain the seasonal storm waters
within the area for extended periods of time beyond the rainy season. This extended
retention time reduces flood peaks and magnitudes, increases aquifer recharge and
helps to maintain seasonal river flows.

The flood-detention areas, which are the major public facilities affected
by the wetlands in the critical area, are designed to provide flood protection
for agricultural and urban areas along the Hillsborough and Withlacoochee Rivers.
These facilities are designed to temporarily retain flood waters received from
upstream wetland areas and will be available to the public for recreational
purposes.

The critical area is located between three of the fastest growing regions
in the State; Orlando, Tampa and the Lakeland-Winter Haven area. The Disney
complex is less than 5 miles from the critical area and has generated an explo-
sion of development activity extending outward from Orlando into the critical
area. This development activity has resulted in major land-use alterations,
converting agriculture, forest, open lands and wetlands into tourist attractions
and commercial and residential developments. The development activity is increas-
ing annually and the trend is expected to continue. Uncoordinated development in










the critical area will have significant adverse effects on all the resources of
regional and state importance.

Uncoordinated development could result in draining and filling of wetland
areas, decreases of recharge quantities, lowering of the ground-water supply and
seasonal flooding by exceeding the design capacity of the flood-detention areas.
The coordination of development through the use of sound land development regula-
tions can alleviate most of these anticipated dangers.

An analysis of the existing zoning and development regulations for Lake and
Polk Counties indicates that existing regulatory programs are not oriented toward
the protection of the resources of regional and state importance. Over 90% of
the critical area is zoned agriculture or rural conservation, which is primarily
agriculture. Under these classifications, local government can issue development
permits allowing planned unit developments, mobile home parks, airports and mining
operations. Local framework for protection of natural resources of critical con-
cern exists, however, there is a need to establish more definitive principles and
evaluation tools to aid in the local government land-use decision making process
with respect to these resources.

In sum, the resources of regional and state concern in the critical area
which are becoming endangered as a result of central Florida's growth explosion,
and uncoordinated development are:

A. The natural functions of the Floridan Aquifer including;

1. annual recharge exceeding 55 billion gallons,

2. recharge potentials for providing over 2.4 million people with daily
public water supplies,

3. the potentiometric high which helps maintain free-flowing springs
and rivers and allows for easy withdrawal of ground water.

B. The wetlands which;

1. are the origin of five major rivers,

2. provide natural flood protection,

3. increase aquifer recharge,

4. help to maintain seasonal river flows.

C. The flood-detention areas which;

1. provide flood protection for urban and agriculture areas along the
Hillsborough, Withlacoochee and Little Withlacoochee Rivers,

2. are available for recreational and educational purposes,

3. represent a 114 million dollar public investment.


vii










SECTION I


INTRODUCTION


The purposes of this report are to provide background information and make
recommendations, pursuant to Section 380.05, Florida Statutes, "Areas of Critical
State Concern," regarding the Green Swamp area in Central Florida. A summary of
the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972, Section 380.05,
Florida Statutes, "Areas of Critical State Concern," is included as Appendix A of
this report.

In May of 1973, the Division of State Planning began a study on the Green
Swamp area. On June 5, 1973, the Governor and Cabinet, acting as the Administra-
tion Commission, passed a resolution relating to the Green Swamp and other vital
fresh water recharge areas, requiring such areas to be investigated for preserva-
tion purposes. Following this resolution the Division of State Planning intensi-
fied the study effort for the Green Swamp area.

Throughout the study, field investigations and public meetings were conducted
in the Green Swamp area. Representatives from local, state, federal and private
agencies, public interest organizations and individuals provided vaulable assis-
tance in compiling data and research, identifying problems, proposing possible
approaches and reviewing draft report materials. Representatives from the South-
west Florida Water Management District and the United States Geological Survey
provided invaluable assistance during the study effort and review process. As a
result, the report reflects the efforts of a large number of individuals and
agencies without whose assistance this report would not have been possible. For
this support and assistance, the Division is deeply appreciative.

Designation of a portion of the Green Swamp area as an area of critical
state concern could provide a means of resolving many existing and potential
problems in central Florida. It is important to stress, however, that critical
area designation is but the first step toward a comprehensive land and water
management plan; a plan designed to allow growth and to maintain, to the maximum
extent possible, the continued use of privately owned lands, particularly for
agriculture and cattle ranching, and to maintain the normal functions of the
natural resources. To facilitate this type of maximum land and water-management
planning, more exhaustive scientific studies and comprehensive management programs
are required at all levels of government. For example, the Southwest Florida Water
Management District in cooperation with the United States Geological Survey has
recently entered upon a comprehensive and intensive three-year study of the Green
Swamp area to develop additional data.

The remainder of this report is organized in the following manner. Section
II, "Location and Description of the Green Swamp Area," provides general informa-
tion necessary to identify resources of regional or state concern. Section III,
"Evaluation of the Green Swamp Area as an Area of Critical State Concern," identi-
fies the resources of state concern and provides discussions of the value and func-
tion, dangers from uncoordinated development and advantages from coordinated devel-
opment for each resource. Section IV, "Boundary Recommendations," explains the
approach taken to determine the recommended critical area boundary. Section V,
"Recommended Principles to Guide Development," provides a discussion of development
principles.













SECTION II


LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE GREEN SWAMP AREA



Purpose

The purpose of this section is to provide a general overview of the existing
natural and manmade physical conditions and trends in the Green Swamp area.
From this overview, resources of regional and state importance, located in the
Green Swamp area, can be identified. Resources identified as being of regional
and state importance will be discussed in greater detail in Section III of this
report.



Location

The Green Swamp area described below approximates the area described by the
United States Geological Survey in its 1966 report on the Hydrology of Green
Swamp Area in central Florida, published by the Florida Geological Survey.

The Green Swamp area encompasses parts of Lake, Polk, Pasco, Hernando and
Sumter Counties in central Florida (Figure 1). U.S. Highway 27 and State Road
33 are the major north-south routes in the eastern portion of the area.
U.S. Highway 301 and State Road 471 are the major north-south routes in the
western portion of the area. State Road 50 is the major east-west route in
the northern portion of the area. U.S. Highway 98 runs through the south-
western portion of the area and Interstate 4 runs through the southeastern
portion of the area. The Withlacoochee State Forest is located in the north-
western portion of the area. Cities in the area include; Clermont, Groveland
and Mascotte, located in the northern portion of the area; Dade City, located
in the western portion of the area; and Polk City and Haines City, located
in the southern portion of the area. Figure 2 is a detailed map of the Green
Swamp area.



Natural Physical Conditions

Topography

The Green Swamp area, located in the Central Highlands of the Florida
Peninsula, is called the "Green Swamp Area" although it is not a continuous
expanse of swamp. The area is a composite of swamps separated by flatwoods,
low hills and ridges and contains an abundance of sinkhole lakes. These
hills and ridges border the area on the east, south and west with altitudes
above mean sea level ranging from 200 feet on the eastern side to 75 feet on
























General

GREEN


Location Map

SWAMP AREA


0 GREEN SWAMP AREA


1
-N-


0 25 50 75 100
miles


"dv


41v
o0?, ^
b -^~d


Figure I. General Location of the Green Swamp Area


Pensacola
























































































I 0 L K














---t- uLiM-
101f-UI-M F~ S ta. W


0o23-
L 2 3 4 5


Figure 2. Detailed Map of the Green Swamp Area










the northwestern side. As a result of these landforms, the Green Swamp area
resembles an elevated trough that is nearly level and which gradually slopes
downward toward the northwest.

Climate

The Green Swamp area has a warm, humid climate. The average summer
temperature is 810F. and the average winter temperature is 610F. with winter
frosts occurring infrequently. The normal average annual rainfall is about
53 inches. Sixty percent of the annual rainfall occurs during the "wet"
season from June through September. This summer rainy season is typically
characterized by thundershowers which occur mostly in the late afternoon and
early evening.

During the period from 1961 through 1973, the Green Swamp area has had
eleven years of deficient rainfall. The area is presently more than 95 inches
below the normal cumulative rainfall over this thirteen-year period.

Geology

There are three distinct geologic units within the Green Swamp area.
Figure 3 is a cross section showing the interrelationship of these three units.
The cross section traverses, west to east, from Dade City to U.S. Highway 27.

The lowermost unit is comprised of limestones of the Floridan Aquifer.
This limestone unit underlies the entire Green Swamp area and is exposed at
the land surface in southern Sumter, eastern Pasco and northwestern Polk
counties. The limestone unit generally ranges from 1,000 to 1,400 feet in
thickness and has excellent water bearing characteristics. The limestones
of the Floridan Aquifer underlie all of the State of Florida and supply
approximately 70% of all ground water used within the state.

The intermediate unit in Figure 3 is composed of sandy clays with some
interbedded limestone layers. This unit is approximately 60 feet thick in
the eastern part of the area, thins out toward the central portion and is
altogether absent in much of the western part of the area. Where present,
this layer forms a semi-confining layer for the Floridan Aquifer. This unit
is referred to as the secondary artesian aquifer and due to the high clay
content is generally a very poor water-supply source within the Green
Swamp area.

The uppermost unit in Figure 3 is composed primarily of sands and
sandy clay layers and is referred to as the nonartesian (water-table) aquifer.
This unit generally ranges from 100 to 200 feet thick in the ridge areas but
thins out and is absent in portions of the western part of the area. This
unit is a poor water-supply source in the central portion of the area but is
a good shallow well water source in the ridge areas.






















Leve



-100



-200-


LimeMe of the 1 Inlrmdiale CeM F Ovwing Sandy Layer
SFioran Aqu Layr ( r-tbe aquifer)
Figure 3. Generalized Eat-West Geologic Cros Section Through Centrol Green Swamp Area


27
EAST


WEST


Figure 3a. Shetch Map of Green Swamp Area Showing Location of the Above Cross Section


EST EAST







Level





-200


5 miles-200
I I


w

too I









Hydrology

Of the 53 inches of rainfall per year that reaches the land surface in
the Green Swamp area, about 75% is lost to evapotranspiration. The remaining
25% replenishes lakes, ponds, swamps, streams, and recharges the underlying
aquifers.

Five major rivers originate in the Green Swamp area. Figure 4 shows the
surface water drainage divides of these river basins. The Withlacoochee and
Little Withlacoochee Rivers, which connect outside the area, drain approxi-
mately 79% of the surface water from the Green Swamp area, generally to the west
and northwest. The Oklawaha River basin drains approximately 15% of the surface
water from the Green Swamp area; this drainage is to the north through Palatlakaha
Creek and interconnected lakes. The Peace River basin drains surface water south-
ward from approximately 4 to 5% of the southern portion of the Green Swamp area.
Prior to the construction of Interstate 4 and other highway and drainage construc-
tions, the Lake Lowery and Lake Mattie area apparently drained both north and
south. At the present time, most of the land surface south of Interstate 4
appears to drain southward into the Peace River basin. The Hillsborough River
originates as overflow from the Withlacoochee River about one mile northeast of
U. S. Highway 98 where the Withlacoochee abruptly changes direction from south-
west to northwest. The drainage divide between the Oklawaha and Kissimmee River
basins generally follows U. S. Highway 27 with the Kissimnee River basin draining
less than one percent of the surface-water flow from the Green Swamp area to the
east.

Due to the gradual slope of the land and the dense vegetative cover, the
river basin systems drain surface waters from the Green Swamp area very slowly.
As a result of this slow drainage process, surface waters remain within the Green
Swamp area for extended periods beyond the rainy season. As surface water is
retained within the area, flooding downstream is reduced and there is more time
for the slow, downward percolation of surface water into the underlying aquifers.

Figure 5 is a generalized cross section of the Florida Peninsula. The
cross section traverses north to south and shows the relationship of the Floridan
Aquifer to the Green Swamp area. Figure 3 shows this same relationship in an
east-west cross section. These two figures show that the Floridan Aquifer resem-
bles a limestone hill underlying the Green Swamp area.

In the Green Swamp area, ground-water altitudes reach 120 feet above mean
sea level, the highest ground-water altitude in the Florida Peninsula, and is
referred to as the Green Swamp High. Under the influence of gravity this elevated
ground-water level creates a high head pressure which forces ground water to flow
downward to low pressure areas much in the same manner as it flows on the land
surface. Figures 5 and 6 show the outward and downward radial flow pattern of
ground water within the Floridan Aquifer.

The Green Swamp High maintains the ground-water pressure level in central
and southern Florida. The ground-water pressure level, the height to which water
will rise in tightly cased wells that penetrate the aquifer, is referred to as the


























































































fLat Am

- C- n.Mo u,.






-Utl-pftw q.^W

SMaoir Suh&w W M
D roglle o Dirloa


Ge6rol DctimoF a
Surftm Wer Flow


0 I 3 4 5
L


Figure 4. Major Surface Water Drainage Basins and General Direction of Surface Water Flow















00~"~


EVERGLADES


v-' GREEN
. SWAMP


OR'V
.0 ^


OKEFENOKEE


Permeable Surface Materials -- Ground Water r,.ovement in
'1 i Floridan Aquifer
I I I <-- Confining Layer
SConfing Layer Well Sketch map showing traverse
II of cross-section
_I I-I Floridan Aquifer Potentiometric Surface


Figure 5. Generalized Geologic Cross Section of the Florida Peninsula Showing the Relation of the Green Swamp Area to the Floridan Aquifer


SOUTH


NORTH


+ 200


+ 100


MEAN
SEA
LEVEL


- 100


- 200


- 300


- 400


- 500


- 600


- 700

ELEVATION
IN FEET


























































i C...Wy LAn
--- ce-. taMr k.,e I\/\


ma.. pena osin -n


-N-





I 2 ; / GREEN SWAMP AREA
so- -- LAKELAND



R21E R22E R23E R24E R25E


Figure 6. Potentionetric Map Showing the Rdial Flow Pattern of Ground ater from the Green Swamp High
Figure 6. Potentiometric Map Showing the Radial Flow Pattern of Ground ftter from the Green Swamp High









potentiometric surface (Figures 5 and 6). Where the potentiometric surface
is higher than the land surface free-flowing wells and springs, such as
Crystal Springs, occur.

As ground water from the Floridan Aquifer is discharged or withdrawn from
wells, streams, lakes and springs, ground-water replenishment or recharge most
commonly occurs in high pressure or uphill areas in the aquifer. In the Green
Swamp area, recharge to the Floridan Aquifer occurs where the aquifer is hydro-
logically linked to surface waters and the water-table aquifer. These areas are
where the limestones of the aquifer are exposed at the land surface, where the
confining layer of the aquifer is thin or absent, through sinkhole lakes, where
the confining layer is semi-permeable, or where the confining layer is breached
such as in the ridge areas.

Vegetation and Soils

The vegetative associations and soil types in the Green Swamp area can
best be organized into three major categories: 1) wetlands, 2) flatwoods, and
3) uplands. Many portions of the upland and flatwood regions of the area have
been modified so as to accommodate agricultural practices. The various agri-
cultural systems, some containing plants from the former natural associations,
will be grouped accordingly within the three major systems.

Wetland plants and soils occur in low, wet areas which may be inundated
for varying portions of the year and, in the past, have rarely, if ever, been
burned by forest fires. Vegetative associations adapted to these site charac-
teristics contain more water-tolerant plants than the two other major categories.
Soils are poorly drained due to the lower, relative altitude and close proximity
of the water table to the land surface and therefore, act as retention areas for
run-off from higher soils. The soils in these areas are usually high in organic
matter and often have clayey subsoils. The wetland vegetative associations
within the Green Swamp area are river and creek floodplains, cypress heads,
bayheads, sloughs and freshwater marshes.

The flatwoods vegetative associations occur on low, nearly level areas
with sandy, strongly acid soils and a high water table. Periodic inundation
and saturation during the wet season and the occurrence of fire during certain
dry seasons have molded vegetative associations which are adapted to these
stresses. These associations, known as pine flatwoods, have three species of
pine as the predominant overstory; longleaf, slash and pond pine.

Much of the flatwoods association has been modified for cattle grazing
in the Green Swamp area. The agricultural modifications range in intensity
from rangeland, where much of the pine overstory and palmetto understory
remain, to improved pasture.

The majority of the upland soils are well to excessively drained, deep
sandy soils that are low in organic matter, strongly acid and low in
fertility. The natural vegetative associations found on these soils are









the sandhill communities with longleaf pine and various scrub oak species and
hammocks with live oak and laurel oak. Much of these areas in the eastern and
southeastern portions of the Green Swamp area have been developed as citrus groves.

Wildlife

Due to the abundance of natural food, water and shelter, a wide variety
of wildlife populations are found within the Green Swamp area. The area also
serves as a wintering ground and migratory stop-over for many birds that breed
elsewhere in North America. More than 55 different kinds of birds were observed
in the spring of 1972, including the bald eagle, osprey, limpkin, anhinga, barn
owl, great horned owl, screech owl, red-shouldered hawk, red-tailed hawk, sparrow
hawk, Cooper's hawk, white ibis, wood ibis, various herons and egrets and several
kinds of woodpeckers. Mammals living in the area include the river otter, raccon,
armadillo, flying squirrel, marsh rabbit, gray fox, opposum, bobcat, fox squirrel,
and Florida panther. Game animals present in the area are white-tail deer, wild
hog, wild turkey, gray squirrel, cottontail rabbit, bob white quail, mourning dove,
common snipe, American woodcock, wood duck, Florida duck and other water fowl.
Endangered or threatened species within the area include the American alligator,
bald eagle, osprey, and Florida panther.



Manmade Conditions

Land Use

At the present time, much of the land within the Green Swamp area is being
utilized for agricultural purposes. Elevated areas primarily east of State Road 33,
having well drained, deep soils, are used for citrus. Much of the lower lying areas,
generally referred to as flatwoods, have been modified for cattle grazing purposes.
Flatwoods modifications vary from natural rangeland to improved pasture. The remain-
ing areas, approximately 50%, are wetlands consisting of marshes, cypress swamps,
river swamps, and bayheads.

Residential and commercial areas are primarily located around the perimeter
of the Green Swamp area. Clermont, Groveland and Mascotte are located in the
northern portion of the Green Swamp area in Lake County along State Road 50.
Haines City and Polk City are located in the southern portion of the Green Swamp
area. Dade City is located on the western edge of the Green Swamp area. Some
commercial and residential strip development is occurring along U. S. Highway 27
in the eastern portion of the area. Residential development within the central
portion of the Green Swamp area is relatively scattered.

Public Improvements

In the eastern and western portions of the area there are four lane divided
highways; U. S. Highway 27 on the east and U. S. Highway 301 on the west. Inter-
state 4, the major route between Orlando and Tampa, runs through the southeastern
portion of the area. Two other major highways exist on the perimeter of the Green
Swamp area; State Road 50 in the northern portion and U. S. Highway 98 in the








southeastern portion of the area. State Road 192 is a recently built link to
Disneyworld which originates at the Lake-Polk County line on U. S. Highway 27.
In addition to these highways on the periphery of the Green Swamp area, State
Roads 471 and 33 traverse the area from north to south. There also exists a
number of smaller roads in the eastern and southern regions of the Green Swamp
area which are generally aligned with semi-elevated ridges.

A number of proposed improvements and new highways have been identified.
State Road 50 is scheduled to be upgraded to a four lane facility and improve-
ment to U. S. Highway 27 and the State Road 557-A exit from Interstate 4 are
planned within the next few years. In addition, there are three proposed new
roads identified in Florida's Highway and Street Construction Needs, 1972-1990
(Figure 7). The northern proposed highway would traverse east-west through a
previously roadless region. The southern proposed east-west highway and the
proposed new road extending north from the Interstate 4 and State Road 557-A
exit would upgrade regions now partially serviced by graded and secondary roads.

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and U. S. Soil Conservation Service are
in the process of installing water-management facilities within the Green Swamp
area. These facilities for the most part will be operated and maintained by the
Southwest Florida Water Management District.

The Corps projects are portions of the Four Rivers Basin Project which is
essentially a series of flood-detention areas designed to retain floodwaters in
the upper Withlacoochee and Hillsborough watersheds. The Soil Conservation
Service project is the Palatlakaha Watershed. This water-management facility
receives water from portions of the Oklawaha River drainage basin in the eastern
part of the Green Swamp area. In 1975, the responsibility for operating and
maintaining this facility probably will be transferred from the Southwest Florida
Water Management District to the newly legislated St. Johns Water Management
District.

Economic Conditions and Trends

The primary economic activity within the Green Swamp area is agriculture.
In Polk and Lake Counties the main agriculture interest is citrus production and
related industrial processing; Polk County is the sixth-largest producer of
citrus in the world. However, much of the area in Lake and Polk Counties within
the Green Swamp area has poorly drained soils which are unsuitable for citrus
production; in these areas cattle production is the primary economic interest.

There are some sand-mining operations scattered throughout the Green Swamp
area. The primary mining interest regionally, however, is phosphate. The
phosphate-mining operations are generally located just to the south of the Green
Swamp area in Polk County, however, there is some phosphate-mining in the extreme
southern portion of the Green Swamp area. The State of Florida annually produces
75% of the nation's, and 33% of the world's phosphate supply; and Polk County
produces 75% of this output.

Population Conditions and Trends

Until the last few years, population growth within the Green Swamp area
has been extremely limited. High water-table soils with severe limitations













































































~wt AM.
- CM*l Li







---- rn Hig(i PrnpMel

LUmds RtSgled fbr Seol md Recn Ond
E p srped Ne" Dvelmpfmni:
A *RM Wdn
B *Tow~t

C *Impvoned a Uimod Acrs
D *ComnrWsW Oher Use-
0 I i- i i


LAKELAND


Figure 7. Recent and Proposed Developments, Future Highway Proposals, and Land

Registered for Sale










on the suitability of septic tanks, occasional to frequent flooding, and
inaccessibility caused by the lack of highways penetrating the area have been
the major reasons for the lack of residential developments within the Green
Swamp area. As shown by the 1970 Census, (Table 1) only a small portion of the
counties' population resides in the Green Swamp area, however, significant popu-
lation increases have been predicted for the counties comprising the Green Swamp
area.

TABLE 1

POPULATION: EXISTING AND PROJECTED

Total County

County Green Swamp Area Existing Projected % Increase


N/A 1970 1970 1980 1970-1980


Lake 2,095 69,305 87,500 26%
Polk 6,850 228,026 319,000 500,000 40-119%
Pasco 1,044 75,955 176,500 132%
Sumter 750 14,839 20,800 40%
Hernando 962 17,004 30,700 80%



Other indications of the trend toward population growth are the ongoing and
proposed developments which have been identified in the Green Swamp area (Figure 7).
The three major residential developments shown along Interstate 4 comprise 5,315
acres. Two of these, the Trails and Meadow Wood Lakes, are under construction.
These three developments alone will add an additional 39,000 people to the Polk
County portion of the Green Swamp area. This will be a population increase of
470% over the 1970 population (approximately 6,850) in the Polk County portion
of the Green Swamp area.

In addition to these major residential developments, more than 55,000 acres
within the Green Swamp area have been registered for sale with the Florida Division
of Land Sales since 1968 (Figure 7). These acres are usually sold in IA to 5 acre
lots as unimproved or improved acreage, meaning some drainage and graded roads are
provided. Also shown in Figure 7 are a number of proposed tourist attractions
and other major commercial proposals.

Regional Conditions and Trends

The Green Swamp area is nearly centered within a triangle formed by three
major highways (Figure 8). The Sunshine State Parkway is to the northeast,
Interstate 75 is to the west and northwest and Interstate 4 runs through the
southeastern Green Swamp area. In addition, the Green Swamp area is situated
between three of the fastest growing areas in the state. Orlando, Tampa-
St. Petersburg, and the Lakeland-Winter Haven area (Figure 8). The 1980










S.i :.Clermont-
.. ..": ''R E E N '"" '" :
':* :... 3'.
.C" .. .' : :: -
"- AR" A













Lakeland i


Wi


CITY


Green Swamp Area
Major Urban Areas

Major New Development


Development Corridors
(Shown for Disney
Area only) 5
0 5 K)


mwin


BAY


Figure 8. Regional Location of the Green Swamp Area


TAMPA


MllB


inter
Haven


L. J


I
-N-


yJ









population estimates for the Orlando Tri-County area are 740,100 and the Tampa-
Hillsborough area are 629,500, a population increase of 63% and 28% respectively
for the ten year period from 1970 to 1980.

An indication of the rate at which these two rapidly expanding areas are
growing is shown in Table II. This table shows the number of residential Devel-
opments of Regional Impact (DRI) applications for the Orlando and Tampa areas
from July 1, 1973 to June 1, 1974. These represent only the large-scale
development which would have an impact on more than one county. Collectively,
small-scale developments may have an even greater impact on growth and popula-
tion increase.

TABLE II


APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENTS OF REGIONAL IMPACT
July 1, 1973 to June 1, 1974


Location Number of Total Number of Projected Population
Residential DRI's Development Units Increase


Tampa Area 9 65,599 219,097

Orlando Area 15 68,011 238,039


The announcement of the Disneyworld complex, located on 27,443 acres less
than 5 miles east of the Green Swamp, has had the greatest impact on the alteration
of land use, economy and population growth in central Florida. Figure 8 shows the
area of major development activity associated with the Disney complex.

Since 1967 there has been more than 75,000 acres of agriculture and open
land purchased for development in the Disney area between Orlando and the Green
Swamp. These developments are primarily tourist and residential oriented. Major
tourists attractions underway include Sea World and Circus World. The largest
residential development underway is Poinciana, a 48,000 acre development with a
projected population of 250,000 (Figure 8).

This explosion of growth in central Florida has created an economic atmos-
phere capable of overcoming the existing physiographic restrictions in the Green
Swamp area. The closeness of the rapidly expanding areas of Orlando, Disney-
world, Tampa and Lakeland-Winter Haven has greatly increased the development
potential of the Green Swamp area.

Administrative Considerations

Municipalities located on the perimeter of and partially within the Green
Swamp area are Haines City, Clermont, Groveland, Mascotte and Dade City. Polk
City is the only community within the Green Swamp area. There are parts of five








counties within the Green Swamp area; Polk, Lake, Sumter, Hernando and Pasco.
All the counties have both zoning and subdivision regulations with the exception
of Pasco which currently has no zoning ordinance.

The entire Green Swamp area is within the Southwest Florida Water Management
District. Figure 9 shows the flood-detention areas, within or partially within the
Green Swamp area, currently under purchase by the Southwest Florida Water Manage-
ment District. Approximately 69,000 acres of the total 96,807 acres needed for the
three flood-detention areas are currently in state ownership. Other state owned
lands in the Green Swamp area (Figure 9) are Lake Louisia State Park (1,790 acres)
and the Withlacoochee State Forest (50,000 acres). Approximately 23,000 acres of
the Withlacoochee State Forest are included in the flood-detention areas.























































I I IPL
Sr P -- --- Cu- u
-e--- ^ }..sesnu





SWh FrlWO "eed o e
-- a ,r ^ Rr?





LAKLAN GREEN SWAMP AREJ
LAKELAND


IE R22E R23E R24E R25E



Figure 9. Existing and Proposed Public Owned Lands
in the Green Swamp Area











SECTION III


EVALUATION OF THE GREEN SWAMP AREA AS
AN AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN



Reasons For Critical Concern

The Green Swamp area contains natural resources and major public facilities
which are of regional and state importance. Specifically, these resources are:
1) the natural functions of the Floridan Aquifer; 2) the wetlands associated with
the origin of five major rivers; and, 3) the flood-detention areas, a major public
investment.

In the following subsections the reasons for state and regional concern of
each resource, the threats or dangers to the resource and the advantage to the
resource from coordinated development will be discussed.



Floridan Aquifer Resource Considerations

Discussion of Values and Functions

The Floridan Aquifer underlies all of the State and supplies approximately
70% of all the ground water used in the State of Florida. Figure 10 shows those
portions of the State that are potential natural recharge and discharge areas for
the Floridan Aquifer. Figure 10 also shows the location of the 3 major potentio-
metric highs of the Floridan Aquifer. These potentiometric highs have the greatest
potential for supplying recharge water to the Floridan Aquifer. The Green Swamp
high, at 120 feet above mean sea level, being the highest and largest, is the
most important potentiometric high in the State.

Figure 10 also shows two hydrologic divides extending generally east-west
across the state. The northern divide represents a hydrologic boundary across
which, north to south, no surface or ground-water system flows. The southern
divide represents a hydrologic boundary south of which the Floridan Aquifer is
too highly mineralized for use as public water supplies. The area between
these two hydrologic divides is dependent upon the Floridan Aquifer for more
than 90% of all the ground water used for public supplies, industry and irriga-
tion. Replenishment of water used from the Floridan Aquifer in this area can
only come from rain that falls on the potential recharge areas between the two
hydrologic divides. For purposes of this report, the area between these two
divides is referred to as the central Floridan Aquifer Basin. Figure 10 also
shows the four major ground-water basins and the general direction of ground
water flow from the Green Swamp Potentiometric High.

Ground water consumption from the Floridan Aquifer is increased daily due
to the addition of 6,000 new residents to the State of Florida each week. The
majority of these new residents are settling in central and south Florida.

























SPotential Recharge Areas of the Floridan Aquifer
SPotential Discharge Areas of the Floridan Aquifer

Hydrologic Divides
mm Major Ground Water Basin Boundaries

SPotentimern ric Highs

wo o General Direction of Ground Water Flow


4


0 25 50
miles


75 100


Figure 10. Hydrologic Characteristics of the Floridan Aquifer


oa o
a OP6









These new residents require an additional 15 billion gallons of water per year
from public water-supply systems. Since the amount of water which naturally
recharges the Floridan Aquifer is limited, and since water consumption from the
aquifer is increasing daily, there will come a time when the Floridan Aquifer
will no longer be able to meet the increasing demands for water-supply systems.
If the central Florida region continues to grow and consume ground water at the
current rates, then by about 1985 water withdrawn and used from the Floridan
Aquifer will equal that amount which is naturally recharged to the aquifer.
When this time is reached, where aquifer withdrawals equal aquifer recharge,
additional demands for fresh-water supplies will have to be provided by resources
other than the Floridan Aquifer. Should additional demands be placed on the
Floridan Aquifer at that time, then the water-supply situation for the central
Florida region will resemble the current energy crisis in that the demand for
the natural resource will exceed the available supply. When ground water with-
drawn from the Floridan Aquifer exceeds the amount of recharge water received
by the aquifer, additional problems arise. These problems are in the form of
reduced available fresh-water supply, lowering the ground-water levels and
further salt-water intrusion into the aquifer. Many municipalities and indus-
tries in the state of Florida, especially in the coastal areas, are already
faced with these problems.

The Floridan Aquifer receives recharge everywhere within the Green Swamp
area with the exception of manmade impermeable surfaces such as roads, parking
lots, and roof tops. The rate of recharge varies, however, depending upon the
ability of the overlying soil layers to transmit water, under the influence of
gravity, to the aquifer. In other words, recharge depends on the permeability
of the overlying soils, the rate at which the water percolates downward through
the soils and the length of time water is available for recharge. There must
be, however, water available at the surface before any recharge can occur.

The total normal water budget for the Green Swamp area is 53 inches of
rainfall per year. That portion of the water budget that goes to groundwater
recharge is determined by subtracting the amount of rainfall that is lost in
evapotranspiration and the amount that is discharged to surface runoff by
river-drainage systems. In the Withlacoochee drainage basin (Figure 4) approxi-
mately 75% of this rainfall is lost to evapotranspiration, 15% is discharged
to surface runoff and the remaining 10% goes to aquifer recharge. In the
Oklawaha drainage basin, approximately 75% is lost to evapotranspiration, 10%
is discharged to surface runoff and 15% goes to aquifer recharge. In the
Oklawaha drainage basin, 5% more of the annual rainfall goes to recharge the
Floridan Aquifer, in the Green Swamp area, than in the Withlacoochee drainage
basin. In terms of recharge quantity, the Withlacoochee drainage basin provides
annually some 92 million gallons of recharge water per square mile surface area
to the Floridan Aquifer. This amounts to a yearly recharge total, from the
Withlacoochee basin in the Green Swamp area, of some 63 billion gallons of water
per year. The Oklawaha basin provides some 138 million gallons of aquifer
recharge per year per square mile for an annual total recharge contribution of
over 18 billion gallons of water. On an equal basis, the Oklawaha drainage
basin provides about 50% more recharge to the Floridan Aquifer than does the
Withlacoochee drainage basin. The total annual recharge contribution to the
Floridan Aquifer from both drainage basins is over 81 billion gallons. By
comparison, the City of Orlando pumps approximately 12.5 billion gallons of
water per year from the Floridan Aquifer.








The importance of this recharge to the Floridan Aquifer in the Green Swamp
area is two fold: 1) it helps to replenish ground water used by municipalities,
industries, agriculture, rivers and springs in and surrounding the Green Swamp
area in central Florida and 2) it provides for the maintenance of the high poten-
tiometric head pressure of the Green Swamp High.

The Green Swamp area is not the only aquifer recharge area within central
Florida. The Green Swamp Potentiometric High, however, is the highest ground
water altitude in the state of Florida. The Green Swamp Potentiometric High
influences ground-water users in central Florida from Ocala on the north to
Lake Okeechobee on the south. Due to the pressure from the Green Swamp High,
water levels in wells in central Florida rise close to or above the land surface.
This allows for easy withdrawal of ground water from the Floridan Aquifer. This
high potentiometric head pressure also helps to prevent heavier salt water,
which underlies the Floridan Aquifer nearly everywhere, from intruding further
into the aquifer.

In summary, the reasons why the Green Swamp area is of regional and state
importance with regard to the Floridan Aquifer are:

1) the Floridan Aquifer supplies 70% of all ground water used in the state
of Florida, and 90% of all ground water used in the central Florida
region;

2) the Green Swamp area annually supplies over 81 billion gallons of
ground-water recharge to the Floridan Aquifer;

3) the Green Swamp High, the most important ground water high in the state
of Florida, underlies the Green Swamp area; and

4) the Green Swamp High provides pressures which help maintain free-
flowing springs and rivers, allows easy withdrawal of ground water from
the aquifer and helps prevent further salt-water intrusion into the
aquifer.

Dangers That Would Result From
Uncoordinated Development of the Area

Any land use change within the Green Swamp area will have some affect on
the hydrology of the Floridan Aquifer. Land use changes associated with
urbanization are potentially the most harmful to the functions of the
aquifer.

Due to the natural "wetness" within the Green Swamp area, it will be
necessary to drain the land surface to allow major developments. Drainage of
the land surface lowers the ground-water level and increases surface-water
runoff. Increasing surface-water runoff removes water from the area which
would normally supply recharge to the aquifer. If recharge water quantity is
decreased, water levels in the Green Swamp Potentiometric High will subse-
quently be lowered.

Construction of impermeable surfaces, such as roads, rooftops and parking
lots, not only increases surface-water runoff, but also prevents water from
percolating downward, thereby decreasing aquifer recharge quantity. This would
also result in increased lowering of the water levels in the Green Swamp
Potentiometric High.








Increases in surface-water runoff and disposal of treated or untreated
sewage associated with urbanization degrades water quality. If surface-water
quality is degraded, then surface waters which do percolate downward to become
aquifer recharge may become poorer in quality.

Decreasing the amount of aquifer recharge to the Floridan Aquifer within
the Green Swamp area will adversely affect all of central Florida. Not only
will the supply of ground water be decreased, but even more important, the
pressure levels of the Green Swamp Potentiometric High will be decreased.
Regardless of the amount of recharge received, water will continue to flow from
the Green Swamp Potentiometric High to areas of lower potentiometric pressure.
However, as the potentiometric high pressures are lowered, water levels in
wells drop, the danger of advancing salt-water intrusion increases and the flow
of rivers and springs is reduced throughout central Florida.

Many of the land-use activities in and around the Green Swamp area are
dependent on the availability of large quantities of fresh water. Polk County
alone uses approximately 500 million gallons per day (mgd). The phosphate and
citrus industries in Polk County use about 400 mgd of the total 500 mgd used.
Land-use activities which would decrease recharge to the Floridan Aquifer or
decrease the Green Swamp Potentiometric High could adversely affect the economy
of industries such as phosphate and citrus, as well as-municipalities, in and
around the Green Swamp area.

In summary, the dangers to the Floridan Aquifer functions from uncoordinated
development in the Green Swamp area are:

1) decrease of available aquifer recharge water;

2) decrease in quality of aquifer recharge water;

3) decrease of water levels in the Green Swamp Potentiometric High;

4) decrease of available ground-water supply;

5) decrease of river and spring flows; and

6) potential increase of further salt-water intrusion.

Advantages Achieved From the Development
of the Area in a Coordinated Manner

Coordinated development means development designed to be compatible with
natural systems and which will not place more stress upon the natural system
than it can accept and still perform its beneficial function.

Coordinated development can provide for the optimum maintenance of the
functions of the Floridan Aquifer in the Green Swamp area. Any land-use change
within the area will, to some degree, adversely affect the functions of the
aquifer. The adverse effects can, however, be minimized through coordinated
development.









Coordinated development within the Green Swamp area which will minimize
the dangers to the natural functions of the Floridan Aquifer requires:

1) providing protection against alterations of the natural drainage
systems;

2) providing protection against excessive coverage of natural recharge
areas with impermeable surfaces; and

3) providing for proper treatment of urban storm water and sanitary
sewage disposal.



Wetlands Resource Considerations

Discussion of Values and Functions

Wetland areas, in general, are important natural resources because of their
effect upon the quality and quantity of the water resources. The wetlands within
the Green Swamp area have added significance because of their relationship to
major public investments and aquifer recharge. The wetlands in the Green Swamp
area comprise approximately 50% of the total area (Figure 11). These wetland
areas normally have water on or at the soil surface seven to twelve months of
the year at least seven out of every ten years. The numerous cypress swamps,
bayheads and creeks within the area are the origin for five major rivers;
Withlacoochee, Hillsborough, Peace, Oklawaha, and to a lesser extent, the
Kissimmee. These rivers provide valuable recreational resources such as fishing,
hunting, boating, canoeing and swimming, as well as providing cover, food and
protection for wildlife. The Hillsborough River State Park and Withlacoochee
State Forest are situated on their respective rivers downstream within their
drainage basins. Water is also drawn from these rivers for agricultural,
industrial and municipal supply and as the demand on water-supply systems
increases, these rivers represent a potential water-supply source.

Wetlands, functioning as retention areas for surface-water runoff, reduce
runoff velocities thereby reducing flood peaks, flood magnitudes and sedimentation
downstream; additionally they utilize nutrients in the runoff waters thus improv-
ing the quality of the runoff. The wetlands also increase retention of water
volumes thereby allowing greater percolation of water into the Floridan Aquifer
and maintaining water flow in the rivers during the dry season. The water-
quantity management aspects such as water volume and velocity are vitally
important to the functioning of the public water-management facilities. Wetlands
are important to water quality because of their capability to filter and settle
out suspended solids and nutrients.

Wetlands are essential for certain unique ecological systems and their
associated vegetation, fish and wildlife. They are the most valuable type of
wildlife habitat in the Green Swamp area. This wildlife habitat is essential to
many species residing in the area as well as to many migratory species which pass
through the region on a seasonal basis.

To summarize, the wetland areas within the Green Swamp area are an important
regional and state resource because they:












































































SC..a elW I i


.


Figure II. Major Wetland Areas of the Withlacoochee, Little Withlocoochee,

Oklawoha, and HiHlsborough Rivers in the Green Swamp Area


0 1- I S 4 *









1) are the origin for five major rivers which provide valuable recreation
as well as water for agricultural, industrial and municipal supply;

2) retain surface waters thereby decreasing the magnitude of floods, increas-
ing aquifer recharge and maintaining seasonal river flows;

3) reduce surface-water runoff velocities thereby reducing flood peaks
and erosion;

4) are important for the functioning of the public water-management
facilities;

5) improve water quality through natural filtering characteristics;

6) are the most valuable wildlife habitat in the area;

7) represent a potential water-supply source.

Dangers That Would Result
From Uncoordinated Development

Urban development in most portions of the Green Swamp area will require some
form of on-site drainage facilities. If these drainage facilities are not well-
planned and regionally coordinated, the effects upon the function and value of the
wetlands could be severe.

Improper and uncoordinated draining and filling of wetlands would eliminate
or severely inhibit the ability of the wetlands to continue valuable functions.
For example, drainage of wetlands would eliminate their use as retention areas
thereby increasing the velocity and volume of surface-water runoff and decreasing
the amount of water available for recharging the Floridan Aquifer. Excessive
drainage would make the seasonal flood-drought cycle in the five rivers more
extreme and would lower the ground-water levels. The lowering of the ground-
water levels would increase the frequency, intensity and susceptibility of
damaging fires in the wetland areas. Draining and filling of wetlands would also
eliminate their ability to function as biological filters and would damage the
vegetative communities upon which the fish and wildlife depend. The effects of
uncoordinated development in wetlands and the relationship to the function of
public water-management facilities is important also and will be thoroughly dis-
cussed under the public investments section.

In summary, the values and functions of the wetlands will be endangered by
uncoordinated development in the following manner:

1) reduce water-retention capabilities;

2) reduce water available for recharge;

3) reduce biological filtering ability;

4) accentuate seasonal flood and drought cycle;









5) destroy valuable wildlife habitat;


6) reduce the potential as a water-supply source.

Advantages Achieved From The Development
Of The Area In A Coordinated Manner

Development of the Green Swamp area in a coordinated manner could greatly
mitigate adverse effects upon the value and functions of wetlands by incorpora-
tion of the wetlands into the development design. This would help to minimize
disruption of the natural systems within the wetlands and allow them to continue
their valuable functions.

The functions of the wetlands in the Green Swamp area can be both protected
from and beneficial to development if they are allowed to continue to act as:

1) retention areas for stormwater runoff;

2) drainage pathways and filters for storm drainage waters;

3) reservoirs of high quality fish and wildlife habitat.



Public Investment Considerations

Discussion of Values and Functions

A number of water-management facilities which control surface water flowing
out of the Green Swamp area have been or are in the process of being constructed
in and around the Green Swamp area. These are the U. S. Corps of Engineers Four
River Basins Projects and the U. S. Soil Conservation Service's Palatlakaha Water-
shed improvements.

The Corps projects that are directly related to the surface waters in the
Green Swamp area are those on the Withlacoochee and Hillsborough Rivers. These
projects are designed to temporarily retain floodwater through the use of four
major flood-detention areas placed strategically within the watershed. Three of
these, located in the upper portions of the watershed, are in the Green Swamp
area (Figure 12). The fourth detention area is located just upstream from the
Tampa urban area.

The flood-detention areas will be diked impoundments with water-control
structures located where the dike crosses the rivers. These impoundments will
temporarily retain surface waters during times of flood and slowly release the
water into the rivers in a manner approximating the normal flow. This manage-
ment plan greatly minimizes the degree of possible ecological disruption to the
vegetative associations and wildlife while at the same time providing the needed
flood protection.

In addition to the flood-control capabilities, comprehensive outdoor recrea-
tion plans are being developed for the lands within the flood-detention areas.







































S Detention Area









< ,I i ;
-i-







: Upper

o Hillsbowogh

Detention Area
-- Co-- i \ U



mw.u-lamI.wae N.gehy
\Flood Dei o Ae
"" iM \ "



F-N-
LUrba Area



SLAKA GREEN SWAMP ARI
LAKELAND


R 21E R 22E R 23E R24E R25E




Figure 12. Flood Detention Areas









Recreation activities range from fishing, hunting, canoeing and camping to nature
interpretive centers such as the outdoor classroom presently operated in the
Lower Hillsborough detention area by the Hillsborough County Public School System.
The Withlacoochee and Green Swamp detention areas were utilized this year as a
wildlife management area and opened to the public for hunting. The recreational
opportunities provided by the flood-detention areas will no doubt be greatly
utilized by residents from the Orlando and Tampa urban areas.

The U. S. Soil Conservation Service's Palatlakaha Watershed project is the
other public investment which receives significant surface-water drainage from
the Green Swamp area. The existing surface-water flow is through a system of
lakes and marshes with interconnecting canals and eventually flows north into
Lake Harris. This project involves the improvement of some of the interconnecting
canals and the construction of water-control and grade-stabilization structures.
The project purpose is flood protection for citrus groves, improved pasture and
rangeland in the area, which are damaged by flooding at the rate of once every 10
years. The design of the project is to allow for a management scheme which would
maintain water levels within marshes and lakes during dry periods and removal of
floodwaters during wet periods.

Public investment for these water-management facilities is quite considerable.
An estimated 43 million dollars has already been spent on the Corps Four River
Basins Projects with an additional estimate of 69 million dollars to be spent for
completion. The estimated total cost of the Palatlakaha project involving land
treatment and structural measures is approximately two million dollars.

To summarize, the public water-management facilities within and affected by
the Green Swamp area are important regional and state resources because they:

1) control flooding in the urban areas along the Hillsborough, Withlacoochee
and Upper Oklawaha Rivers, including Tampa and agricultural areas;

2) represent an estimated public investment of 114 million dollars;

3) provide a wide variety of outdoor recreation for expanding urban centers
in Tampa, Orlando and the rest of the state.

Dangers That Would Result From
Uncoordinated Development Of The Area

The water-management capabilities and recreational uses of the public water
management facilities could be endangered by uncontrolled development in the Green
Swamp area. Changes in land-use, which would eliminate wetlands, alter character-
istic hydrology and increase pollutants, would have adverse effects upon the public
facilities.

The flood-control projects were designed in the Pre-Disney era for drainage
basins in which the land-use was almost entirely agricultural which generates
much less surface runoff than urbanized areas. Surface water naturally drains
very slowly in the Green Swamp area due to flatter slopes and a high percentage
of lake and swamp areas, wetlands, which detain storm volumes in the basin for a










long period. Urbanization causes changes in peak-flow characteristics, total
runoff and water quality. Uncoordinated development could transform the charac-
teristic hydrology to rapid runoff concentration, little surface storage and
quick runoff. This change in the hydrologic characteristics of the upper water-
shed could necessitate major redesigning and rebuilding of the Four River Basins
and Palatlakaha projects with a significant addition of local, state and federal
funds.

Drainage and filling of wetland areas above the flood-detention areas coupled
with the increase in pollution, a characteristic of urbanizing areas, would have
an adverse effect upon the recreational utilization of the flood-detention areas.
Increased runoff volumes and decreased upper watershed retention would increase
flood depth and duration in the flood-detention areas. This cduld damage vegeta-
tive communities thereby affecting the wildlife and recreation values. Drainage
and filling of wetlands would eliminate their filtering function, which, coupled
with pollution in the form of sewage effluent and storm-drainage water, would
greatly increase the amount of pollution which reaches the flood-detention areas.
Lower velocities and increased detention time would precipitate and concentrate
pollutants in the detention area thereby increasing the amount of waste deposits
and the possibility of obnoxious odors and algae blooms which would upset the
ecological balance and greatly detract from the aesthetic values.

To summarize, the values and functions of the public water-management facili-
ties could be endangered by uncoordinated development in the following ways:

1) changes in the hydrologic characteristics of the drainage basins within
the Green Swamp area could cause major redesigning and rebuilding of
projects with a significant addition of local, state and federal funds;

2) increased flood depth, frequency and duration could damage vegetative
communities in the flood-detention areas thereby affecting wildlife
and recreational values;

3) degradation of water quality and increased concentration of pollutants
would damage ecologic balance and aesthetic value within the flood-
detention areas.

Advantages From Development Of The
Area In A Coordinated Manner

Development in a coordinated manner could allow for the utilization of many
wetland areas for retention and filtering of surface-water runoff and together with
adequate planning for the treatment of domestic sewage and other urban wastes, would
greatly minimize the effects of development upon the water-management projects.

In summary, coordinated development could:

1) insure the long-range adequacy of the flood-control projects and reduce
the need for governmental expenditures for the provision of additional
flood-control facilities or the redesign of the projects;

2) minimize adverse effects upon the environmental quality and recreational
utilizations within the flood-detention areas.












SECTION IV


BOUNDARY RECOMMENDATIONS



In accordance with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the Division of State
Planning recommends that the boundary discussed within this section of the report
and legally described in Appendix B, be adopted by the Administration Commission
by rule pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, as a definitive boundary for
the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. The recommended critical area is
approximately 322,690 acres, and is located in southern Lake and northern Polk
counties. Figure 13 shows the recommended critical area and Table III below shows
the approximate acreage and percent of each county in the recommended critical
area.

TABLE III

COUNTY ACREAGE IN THE RECOMMENDED CRITICAL AREA

Acres In Recommended % Of County In Recommended
County Total Acres Critical Area Critical Area

Lake 744,320 114,434 15.37%
Polk 1,310,720 208,256 15.88%
Total 2,055,040 322,690 N/A

The basis for the selection of the recommended boundary is discussed below.



Existing County Regulatory Considerations

A review of the zoning and development regulations for Lake and Polk Counties
indicates that existing ordinances are not oriented toward the protection of the
resources of regional and state importance as identified in this report. Some of
the ordinances have applicability to the Green Swamp Critical Area, but lack
guidelines for implementation.

The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) has broadly-written
statutory authority to protect water resources throughout their district, which
includes the Green Swamp Critical Area. The existing SWFWMD rules are unlikely
to meet all the requirements of a regulatory program for the protection of
resources of state concern in the Green Swamp Critical Area. The District will
be proposing further rules in 1974 which,hopefully, will complement the critical
area resource protection program for the Green Swamp area. A more exhaustive
legal analysis is included in Appendix C.






























































Count LIm

---- ta o U- *At ml U


toe R ompmo.s.. d Cristit AtM lie ry


i P. urOu A" I.M
eD **** ***~ CI***n u-*
BB 1 **** *** 1 W


0 0 0 5


RECOMMENDED GREEN SWAMP

CRITICAL AREA


Figure 13. Recommended Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern








Regional and State Resource Considerations


After an investigation of the Green Swamp area and identification of resources
of regional and state concern within the area, three important factors emerge;
first, all of the resources of concern are not separate systems but are directly
interconnected with and related to each other; second, all the resources of concern
are hydrologically linked together; and third, the major portion of the natural
functions performed by the resources are contained in the eastern part of the
Green Swamp area. In the remainder of this subsection, the geographic area affect-
ing each resource, the interrelationships of each resource and a discussion of the
boundary recommendation are presented.

Figure 14 shows the geographic areas affecting each resource of regional and
state importance in the Green Swamp area. The Floridan Aquifer underlies the
entire area and receives varying amounts of recharge from the entire area, The
best recharge area is, however, the eastern part of the Green Swamp area and is
included within the recommended critical area boundary (Figure 14). This critical
area portion of the Green Swamp area provides approximately 70% (over 55 billion
gallons per year) of the recharge to the Floridan Aquifer from the Green Swamp
area. This amount of recharge water is enough to supply 1.2 million people with
daily public-water supplies. By conservative estimates, and with coordinated
development, this area has the potential to supply more than 2.4 million people
with daily public-water supplies. The Green Swamp Potentiometric High is centered
in the southeastern portion of the Green Swamp area (Figure 14) and is included
within the recommended critical area boundary. The wetlands that affect the
flood-detention areas, major public investments, are located in the eastern portion
of the Green Swamp area and are included within the recommended critical area
boundary. The flood-detention areas have not been completely purchased and those
proposed purchase areas are included in the recommended critical area boundary.

The key that ties these resources together is the naturally slow drainage
pattern within the entire Green Swamp area. Surface waters are naturally
retained within the area due to the slow, sluggish drainage provided by the five
river basins which originate within the Green Swamp area. The natural retention
of surface waters within the Green Swamp area allows time for the slow, downward
percolation of surface waters to recharge the Floridan Aquifer. The flood-
detention areas within the Withlacoochee River Basin and the Oklawaha Basin are
designed to provide flood protection by temporarily retaining some of this sur-
face water. If these naturally slow drainage systems were made more efficient
through drainage and site alteration, then the flood-detention areas could not
perform their designated functions because flood peaks and flood frequencies
would increase due to faster drainage rates provided by these alterations.
Increased drainage within the Green Swamp area would also reduce the amount of
surface water available for aquifer recharge and reduce the level of the high
potentiometric head pressure.

The areas included within the boundary of the recommended Green Swamp Area
of Critical State Concern are included because they contain those areas which
directly affect all the regional and state resources identified in the Green
Swamp area. Specifically, the recommended critical area contains the portion






















































' e. -- t A.*As mmom


-N-
a mi -






he "" -'" 7l GREEN 8 MP AP
Dm ha u s .







*. F.i .EEN SWAMP
I. LAKELAND


IE R22E R 2E R24E R25E



Figure 14. Gegrphi Areas Affecting Resources of Regionol or State Concern










of the Green Swamp area that; 1) provides the most recharge to the Floridan
Aquifer; 2) contains the central portion of the Green Swamp Potentiometric High;
3) includes the wetlands that affect the flood-detention areas; 4) includes the
proposed purchase areas within the flood-detention areas; and 5) includes the
areas which are currently receiving the most intensive development pressures and
are thereby threatening the identified resources of state concern.

Those areas within the Green Swamp area which have not been included within
the proposed Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern boundary have been excluded
because: 1) the Withlacoochee State Forest is managed by the State Division of
Forestry, Lake Louisia State Park is managed by the Division of Recreation and Parks
and land-use activities are restricted to forestry and recreational uses and there-
fore have little adverse effects upon the resources of regional and state concern;
2) land-use activity in the flood-detention areas are recreational and flood-deten-
tion; the latter would have a positive affect on the recharge capability of the
area; 3) the remaining excluded areas within the Green Swamp area are not currently
receiving development pressures; and 4) existing municipalities and urbanizing
areas are excluded because of pre-existing development and their commitment to
urbanization. These excluded urban areas include Mascotte, Groveland and Clermont
along State Highway 50 in the northern section, Polk City in the southern section
and Haines City in the southeastern corner of the recommended critical area.
Figure 13 shows the recommended critical area boundary for the Green Swamp area
and also shows those areas excluded from critical area designation within the
Green Swamp area.

If additional information indicates the necessity of amending the proposed
Green Swamp area of critical state concern boundary, the Division of State
Planning will analyze this information and, if appropriate, submit additional
recommendations to the Administration Commission.











SECTION V


RECOMMENDED PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING
DEVELOPMENT



Pursuant to Section 380.05, Florida Statutes, the principles, outlined in
Table IV below, for guiding development within the proposed area of critical
state concern are recommended for adoption by the Administration Commission by
rule pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. These principles, when adopted,
become the basis for the county jurisdictions of Lake and Polk to prepare land
development regulations for the designated area of critical state concern. The
recommended principles, identified in Table IV, specify:

I) a variety of objectives to be achieved through the adoption and
enforcement of critical area development regulations, and;

II) a listing of elements requiring regulation and regulatory guidelines
related to land-development activities which must be considered when
preparing regulations;

III) a general section stating that these guidelines should be supplemental
to existing regulations; and requesting the Southwest Florida Water
Management District to provide assistance to Lake and Polk Counties.

When the principles are properly implemented by the adoption and enforcement
of regulations, then the advantages of coordinating development in the area of
critical state concern, as identified in Section III of this report, should be
achieved.

To the extent possible, the Division of State Planning will provide technical
assistance to local governments in the preparation of land-development regulations
for areas of critical state concern.

TABLE IV

RECOMMENDED PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT

I. Objectives To Be Achieved

1. Minimize the adverse impacts of development on resources of the Floridan
Aquifer, wetlands, and flood-detention areas.

2. Protect the normal quantity, quality and flow of ground water and surface
water which are necessary for the protection of resources of state and
regional concern.

3. Protect the water available for aquifer recharge.










TABLE IV (Continued)


RECOMMENDED PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT


I. Objectives To Be Achieved


4. Protect the functions of the Green Swamp Potentiometric High of the Floridan
Aquifer.

5. Protect the normal supply of ground and surface water.

6. Prevent further salt-water intrusion into the Floridan Aquifer.

7. Protect or improve existing ground and surface-water quality.

8. Protect the water-retention capabilities of wetlands.

9. Protect the biological-filtering capabilities of wetlands.

10. Protect the natural flow regime of drainage basins.

11. Protect the design capacity of flood-detention areas and the water-manage-
ment objectives of these areas through the maintenance of hydrologic
characteristics of drainage basins.




II. Elements Requiring Regulation Regulatory Guidelines


- Site Platting -








- Site Alteration -


- The platting of land should be permitted
only when such platting commits develop-
ment to a pattern which will not result
in the alteration of the natural surface
water flow regime and which will not
reduce the natural recharge rate of the
platted site.

- Site alteration should be permitted only
when such alteration will not adversely
affect the natural surface-water flow
regime or natural recharge capabilities
of the site.

- Site alteration should be permitted only
when such alteration will not cause silta-
tion of wetlands or reduce the natural
retention and filtering capabilities of
wetlands.











TABLE IV (Continued)


RECOMMENDED PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT


II. Elements Requiring Regulation


Regulatory Guidelines


- Site Alteration -


- Soils -


- Ground Water -





- Storm Water Runoff -



- Solid Waste -




- Structures -


- All site alteration activities should
provide for water retention and settling
facilities; should maintain an overall
site runoff equivalent to the natural
flow regime prior to alteration and
should maintain a runoff rate which does
not cause erosion.

- All soil exposed as a result of site
alteration or development activities
should be located and stabilized in a
manner to prevent the alteration of the
natural flow regime.

- All soil exposed as a result of site
alteration or development activities
should be restored with suitable
vegetation.

- Ground water withdrawal should not
exceed the safe yield per acre as
determined by the Southwest Florida
Water Management District.

- Storm-water runoff should be released
into the wetlands in a manner approxi-
mating the natural flow regime.

- Solid waste disposal facilities should
be located in areas and operated in a
manner that will not adversely affect
the ground-water system.

-Structures should be placed in a manner
which will not adversely affect the
natural flow regime and which will not
reduce the recharge capabilities.

- Placement of structures should be
consistent with sound flood plain
management practices such as compliance
with the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973.


r










TABLE IV (Continued)


RECOMMENDED PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT


II. Elements Requiring Regulation Regulatory Guidelines


Administration and To the extent possible, regulations
Planning should be performance oriented, and
should differentiate between the
natural development suitability of the
wetlands, flatwoods and uplands.

All land-development regulations adopted
pursuant to these guidelines should be
administered by the local government.




III. General


1. The above guidelines are oriented towards protection of natural resources and
public investments of regional and state importance. The regulations developed
from these guidelines should be supplemental to existing county land-use
regulations.

2. In developing appropriate regulations for the Green Swamp Critical Area, the
Southwest Florida Water Management District is hereby requested to assist the
counties of Lake and Polk.

3. Commencing 15 days after adoption by the Administration Commission, the princi-
ples for guiding development contained herein shall apply to all development
undertaken in the critical area.












APPENDIX A


SUMMARY OF THE FLORIDA ENVIRONMENTAL LAND
AND WATER MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972,
SECTION 380.05, FLORIDA STATUTES, "AREAS OF
CRITICAL STATE CONCERN"



The Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972, Chepter 380, Florida
Statutes, established a method for designating areas of critical state concern.

The Act states that the Division of State Planning .may from time to
time recommend to the Administration Commission, specific areas of critical state
concern." This recommendation is to include principles formulated for each such
area which will guide development in a proper manner. Areas for consideration
may be suggested by public agencies, private organizations, or even individual
citizens. Each must be carefully considered by the Division, since not more than
5% of the State's land (approximately 1.8 million acres) may be designated as
critical under the Act.

The three criteria outlined by the Act for designating a critical area are
that it must:

(a) contain, or have a significant impact upon, environmental, historical,
natural, or archaeological resources of regional or statewide impor-
tance; or,

(b) be significantly affected by, or have a significant effect upon, an
existing or proposed major public facility or other area of major
public investment; or,

(c) be of major development potential as defined in the State Land Develop-
ment Plan.

The recommendations of the Division of State Planning must be submitted to
the Administration Commission, accompanied by the following documentation:

(a) the boundaries of the proposed area;

(b) the reasons why the proposed area is of critical concern to the state
or region;

(c) the dangers that would result from uncontrolled or inadequate develop-
ment of the area;

(d) the advantages that would be achieved from the development of the area
in a coordinated manner; and,









(e) the specific recommended principles for guiding the development of
the area.

The Administration Commission must decide to accept, amend or reject the
recommendations and hold a public hearing within 45 days following receipt of
the recommendation from the Division of State Planning. Those areas which are
adopted become "Areas of Critical State Concern." Local governments with juris-
diction over an area so designated may submit to the state land planning agency
its existing land development regulations for the area, if any, or shall prepare,
adopt and submit new or modified regulations, taking into consideration the prin-
ciples set forth in the rule designating the area as well as the factors that it
would normally consider. The local government then becomes responsible for
administering these regulations. In the event that a local government fails to
act, the State government is required to develop the regulations within 120 days.
In all cases, regulations are administered locally.

Whenever any local government issues any development order in any area of
critical state concern, a copy of such order shall be transmitted to the state
land planning agency and the owner or developer of the property affected by such
order. Within thirty days after the order is rendered, either the owner, devel-
oper, an appropriate regional planning agency, or the state land planning agency
may appeal the order to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission.












APPENDIX B


LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE
GREEN SWAMP CRITICAL AREA



All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in
Lake and Polk Counties in the State of Florida being more particularly bounded
and described as follows:

Beginning at a point in Polk County in Section 36, Township 27 South,
Range 23 East which point is the point of intersection of the southeasterly
right-of-way line of United States Route 98 (State Road 700) and the northwesterly
right-of-way line of Interstate Highway 4, (State Road 400) and running thence:

(1) In a northerly direction along the easterly right-of-way line of United
States Route 98 a distance of approximately eleven (11) miles to the point of
intersection of United States Route 98 with the westerly boundary line of Section
16 in Township 26 South, Range 23 East; thence

(2) North along the west boundary of Sections 16, 9 and 4 in Township 26
South, Range 23 East a distance of 2.75 miles more or less; thence

(3) North along the west boundary of Sections 33, 28, 21, 16 and 9 in
Township 25 South, Range 23 East to a point in the thread of the Withlacoochee
River, which point is the boundary between Polk County and Sumter County, a dis-
tance of 4.5 miles more or less; thence

(4) In an easterly direction along the thread of the Withlacoochee River
to a point, which point is the point of intersection of the thread of the
Withlacoochee River and the north boundary line of Section 18, Township 25 South,
Range 24 East; thence

(5) East along the north boundary line of Sections 18, 17 and 16 in Town-
ship 25 South, Range 24 East, a distance of 2.75 miles more or less; thence

(6) North along the west boundary line of Sections 10 and 3 in Township 25
South, Range 24 East, a distance of two miles, to a point of intersection of the
north boundary of Polk County and the south boundary of Lake County; thence

(7) In Lake County, still north along the west boundary line of Sections
34, 27 and 22 in Township 24 South, Range 24 East, a distance of three (3) miles;
thence

(8) Turning and running east along the north boundary line of Section 22
in Township 24 South, Range 24 East, to the point of intersection of the north
boundary line of said Section 22 and the westerly right-of-way line of the
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad; thence










(9) Northwesterly along the westerly right-of-way line of the Seaboard
Coast Line Railroad to a point in the north boundary line of Section 4, in
Township 24 South, Range 24 East, a distance of 3.5 miles, more or less; thence

(10) Turning and running west along the boundary between Townships 23 and
24 South, which boundary is the south boundary line of Sections 33 and 32 in
Township 23 South, Range 24 East; thence

(11) Turning and running north along the west boundary of Section 32 in
Township 23 South, Range 24 East, a distance of one mile; thence

(12) Turning and running east along the north boundary line of Sections 32
and 33 in Township 23 South, Range 24 East to a point in the westerly right-of
way line of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad; thence

(13) Turning and running northwesterly along the westerly right-of-way
line of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad to a point, which point is in the boundary
between Ranges 23 East and 24 East, which point is also in the west boundary of
Section 31 in Township 22 South, Range 24 East, a distance of six miles more or
less; thence

(14) Turning and running north along the boundary between Range 23 East
and Range 24 East to a point in the southerly right-of-way line of the Seaboard
Coast Line Railroad, a distance of 3.25 miles, more or less; thence

(15) Turning and running east along the south right-of-way line of said
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad to a point in the east boundary line of Section 16
in Township 22 South, Range 24 East; thence

(16) Turning and running south along the east boundary line of Section 16,
in Township 22 South, Range 24 East, a distance of one-half mile, more or less;
thence

(17) Turning and running east along the north boundary line of Section 22
in Township 22 South, Range 24 East, a distance of one mile; thence

(18) Turning and running south along the east boundary line of Section 22
in Township 22 South, Range 24 East, a distance of one mile; thence

(19) Turning and running east along the north boundary line of Sections 26
and 25 in Township 22 South, Range 24 East and Section 30 in Township 22 South,
Range 25 East, a distance of three miles; thence

(20) Turning and running north along the west boundary of Section 20,
Township 22 South, Range 25 East to a point in the south right-of-way line of
State Road 50, a distance of one-half mile, more or less; thence

(21) Turning and running east along the south right-of-way line of State
Road 50 to a point in Section 23, Township 22 South, Range 25 East, which point
is the point of intersection of State Road 50 and the east boundary of the canal
which connects Lake Minnehaha and Lake Minneola; thence










(22) Turning and running south, then east, then south along the northeast,
north and east shoreline of Lake Minnehaha to a point in the north boundary line
of Section 31 in Township 22 South, Range 26 East; thence

(23) East along the north boundary line of Sections 31 and 32 in Township 22
South, Range 26 East to a point in the west right-of-way line of United States
Route 27 (State Road 25); thence

(24) South along the west right-of-way line of United States Route 27 in
Lake and Polk Counties to a point in the south boundary line of Section 8 in
Township 27 South, Range 27 East, a distance of approximately 30 miles; thence

(25) Turning and running west along the south boundary line of Sections 8
and 7 in Township 27 South, Range 27 East, a distance of 1.25 miles, more or
less; thence

(26) West along the south boundary line of Section 12 in Township 27 South,
Range 26 East, to a point, which point is the southwest corner of the aforesaid
Section 12; thence

(27) Turning and running south along the west boundary line of Section 13 in
Township 27 South, Range 26 East, to the point of intersection of the west boundary
line of Section 13 in Township 27 South, Range 26 East and the north shore line of
Lake Lowery; thence

(28) Turning and running east, south and west along the shore line of Lake
Lowery to its point of intersection with the east boundary line of Section 23 in
Township 27 South, Range 26 East; thence

(29) Turning and running south along the east boundary line of Section 23
in Township 27 South, Range 26 East to the southeast corner of the aforesaid
Section 23; thence

(30) Turning and running west in Township 27 South along the south boundary
lines of Sections 23, 22, 21, 20 and 19 in Range 26 East, Sections 24, 23, 22, 21,
20 and 19 in Range 25 East, Sections 24, 23, 22, 21 and 20 in Range 24 East to a
point in the northwesterly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway 4, a distance
of 16 miles, more or less; thence

(31) Turniing and rnniing southwesterly along the northwesterly right-of-way
line of Interstate Highway 4, a distance of approximately three miles to the point
of beginning.

Specifically excluding and exempting herefrom the following:

(1) Lake Louisa State Park

(2) The south half of Sections 28 and 29 and all of Sections 32 and 33 in
Township 26 South, Range 25 East.













APPENDIX C


LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS



The two counties having jurisdiction within the Green Swamp Critical Area
have adopted zoning ordinances. Over 90% of the critical area in Lake County is
zoned agricultural and almost 95% of the Polk County portion of the critical area
is zoned RC, Rural Conservation, which is primarily an agricultural classification.

Agricultural uses, Section 60, Lake County Zoning Regulations, are permitted
under Lake County's agricultural classification provided a density of one dwelling
unit per five acres is maintained. Other uses which are allowable after public
hearing and granting of a Conditional Use Permit include residential greater than
one dwelling unit per five acres, cluster housing, PUD's, airports, utilization
and extraction of natural resources, and major recreational facilities.

Polk County's Rural Conservation (RC) classification, Section 3-2.1, Polk
County Development Regulations, permits all customary activities related to agri-
cultural uses and single family dwellings provided an average density not exceed-
ing one family per acre is maintained. Special exceptions which may be authorized
by the Board of Adjustment include airports, mobile home parks, phosphate and sand
mining, and PUD's.

Certain additional ordinances have applicability to a critical area. However,
these ordinances lack guidelines for implementation. For example, Subsection 70.37
of the Lake County Zoning Regulations prohibits building "on land subject to peri-
odic or frequent flooding," but no criteria for delineating these areas is outlined.
Polk County requires an Impact Assessment Statement to be provided for residential
classifications allowing more than 200 dwelling units and/or involving 50 acres or
having a density in excess of six dwelling units per acre.1 Industrial or commer-
cial classifications greater than five acres or with impervious surfaces greater
than 60 percent also require Impact Assessment Statement.

In sum, local framework for protection of natural resources of critical con-
cern exists, however, there is a need to establish more definitive principles and
evaluation tools to aid in the local government land-use decision making process
with respect to these resources.

The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) has broadly written
statutory authorities to protect water resources. At the direction of the Legisla-
ture, SWFWMD has established a Basin (or subdistrict) for the Green Swamp. Because
of the area's hydrologic importance, the District Governing Board was directed by
the Legislature in the enabling act to act directly as the Board for the Green
Swamp Basin.



1Rezoning Policy Statement, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners,
July 3, 1973.












The statutory authority of SWFWMD has been implemented by administrative
rule. SWFWMD has promulgated two sets of rules. Chapter 16CC, Florida Adminis-
trative Code, regulates water well drilling and licensing of drillers and has
little direct application to the regulation of problems of the Green Swamp area.
Chapter 16CB-1, FAC, requires permits for actions which may impair the ability
of the existing or planned works of the District to accomplish the purpose for
which they were intended. The rule and permits issued pursuant to it, "estab-
lish procedures to be followed by those who find it necessary to connect to,
withdraw water from, discharge water into, place construction within or across
or otherwise make use of the works ." For the purposes of the Chapter, the
"Works of the District" are defined to include in part: The Hillsborough River,
the Oklawaha River, the Withlacoochee River and the Peace River and their natural
floodways and tributaries, connecting channels, canals and lakes and the autho-
rized Green Swamp Basin reservoirs, connecting channels, control structures and
discharge channels. (The land areas of the three reservoirs in the Four River
Basins project are especially noted as requiring protection "against encroachment
by private or public works .").

Even broadly interpreted, these rules are unlikely to meet all the require-
ments of a regulatory program for the protection of resources of state concern in
the Green Swamp area. However, the District will be proposing further rules this
year to implement Chapter 378 responsibilities and hopefully, such rules will
complement the critical area resource protection program for the Green Swamp.

In 1975, the St. Johns Water Management District as created by the 1972
Water Resources Act is scheduled to obtain jurisdiction over the Okalawaha
part of the Green Swamp basin.

In addition to SWFWMD, the Oklawaha Basin Recreation and Water Conservation
and Control Authority was established by special act in 1953 for the purpose of
water resource development in Lake County. The Authority built and maintained
a number of canals and structures throughout Lake County. In 1963, an agreement
with SWFWMD transferred the responsibility for operation and maintenance of the
Authority's works went to SWFWMD. The Authority retained control of the
Palatlakaha River until completion of the Soil Conservation Service project, at
which time SWFWMD will assume responsibility. By statute, the Authority's role
in water management is public-improvement oriented not regulatory.











BIBLIOGRAPHY


Adley Associates, Inc., 1968, Lake County, Florida: Economic Analysis and
Projections.

Adley Associates, Inc., 1968, Lake County, Florida: Land Development Analysis.

Adley Associates, Inc., 1968, Lake County, Florida: Land Use Plan.

Brown, T. W., 1963, The Ecology of Cypress Heads in North Central Florida.
University of Florida Master's Thesis.

Bush, P. W., 1972, A Hydrologic Description of Lake Minnehaha at Clermont,
Florida: Florida Geological Survey Map Series No. 54.

Doolittle, Jack D., 1973, Projections of Florida Population, 1975-2010.
University of Florida, Division of Population Studies Bulletin No. 26.

East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, 1973, Water Quality Manage-
ment Upper Oklawaha River Basin.

Ecolmpact, Inc., 1973, Cypress Landing Ecoplan.

Economics Research Associates, 1967, Economic Impact of Disneyworld, Florida.

Edmisten, J. A., 1963, The Ecology of Florida Pine Flatwoods, University of
Florida Ph.D. Dissertation.

Florida Board of Conservation, 1966, Florida Land and Water Resources, South-
west Florida. Florida Department of Natural Resources.

Florida Defenders of the Environment, 1970, Environmental Impact of the Cross-
Florida Barge Canal With Special Emphasis on the Oklawaha River System.

Healy, H. G., 1962, Piezometric Surface and Areas of Artesian Flow of the
Floridan Aquifer in Florida, July 6-17, 1961. Florida Geological Survey Map
Series 4.

Healy, H. G., 1968, Water Levels in Artesian and Nonartesian Aquifers of
Florida, 1963-64, Florida Geological Survey I. C. No. 52.

Healy, H. G., 1972, Water Levels in Artesian and Nonartesian Aquifers of
Florida, 1969-70, Florida Geological Survey I. C. No. 73.

Heath, R. C., 1961, Surface-water Resources of Polk County, Florida. Florida
Geological Survey I. C. No. 25.












Johnson, Lamar, 1961, Preliminary Investigation and Report on Proposed
Impoundment Areas in Southeast Green Swamp, Polk County, Florida. Lamar
Johnson Consulting Engineers.

Kaufman, M. I., 1967, Hydrologic Effects of Ground-water Pumpage in the Peace
and Alafia River Basins, Florida, 1934-1965. Florida Geological Survey R. I.
No. 49.

Klein, Howard, 1971, Depth to Base of Potable Water in the Floridan Aquifer.
Florida Geological Survey Map Series No. 42.

Knochenmus, D. D., 1971, Groundwater in Lake County, Florida. Florida
Geological Survey Map Series No. 44.

Leopold, L. B., 1968, Hydrology for Urban Land Planning A Guidebook on the
Hydrologic Effects of Land Use. U. S. Geological Survey Circular 554,
Washington, D. C.

Lichter, W. F., 1972, Appraisal of Water Resources in the East Central Florida
Region. Florida Geological Survey R. I. No. 61.

Mackenthun, K. M., 1969, The Practice of Water Pollution Biology. U.S.D.I.,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.

McHarg, lan, 1969, Design With Nature. Doubleday Natural History Press.

McPherson, W. K., 1961, Water Conservation and Florida's Green Swamp. Economic
Leaflets, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Vol. XX,
No. 1.

Odum, Eugene P., 1971, Fundamentals of Ecology. Third Edition. W. B. Saunders
and Company.

Parker, Garald G., 1973, On Saving The Big Cypress and The Green Swamps of
Florida. The Hydroscope, Vol, 3, No. 11. Southwest Florida Water Management
District, Brooksville, Florida.

Parker, Garald G., 1973, The Green Swamp: Should It Be In Public Ownership?
The Hydroscope, Vol, 4, No. 5 (Part 1) and Vol. 4, No. 6 (Part 2), Southwest
Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, Florida.

Pettry, et al., 1973, Soil Pollution and Environmental Health. Health Services
Reports. Vol. 88, No. 4.

Polk County Blue Ribbon Cammittee, 1973, Preliminary Report of the Polk County
Blue Ribbon Committee to the Polk County Board of County Commissioners.

Pride, R. W., Meyer, F. W., and Cherry, R. N., 1971, Interim Report on the
Hydrologic Features of the Green Swamp Area of Central Florida. Florida
Geological Survey I. C. No. 26.










Pride, R. W., 1973, Estimated Use of Water in Florida, 1970: Florida Geolog-
ical Survey, I. C. No. 83.

Robertson, A. F., 1971, A Preliminary Evaluation of Hydrologic Conditions of
the Lakeland Ridge Area of Polk County, Florida. U. S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 71007.

Robertson, A. F., 1973, Hydrologic Conditions in the Lakeland Ridge Area of
Polk County, Florida. Florida Geological Survey R. I. No. 64.

Stewart, H. G., Jr., 1966, Ground-Water Resources of Polk County. Florida
Geological Survey, R. I. No. 44.

Stewart, H. G., Jr., 1963, Records of Wells and Other Water Resources Data in
Polk County, Florida. Florida Geological Survey I. C. No. 38.

Stewart, H. G., Jr., Mills, L. R., Knochenmus, D. D., and Faulkner, G. L.,
1971, Potentiometric Surface and Areas of Artesian Flow, May, 1969, and Change
of Potentiometric Surface 1964 to 1969, Floridan Aquifer, Southwest Florida
Water Management District, Florida. U. S. Geological Survey Hydrol. Inv.
Atlas HA-440.

Southwest Florida Water Management District, 1972, Green Swamp Environmental
Statement.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1961, Comprehensive Report on the Four Rivers
Basin.

U. S. Bureau of Census, 1970, Population Data.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1972, Water Project Planning and Analysis.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife River Basin Studies Manual.

U. S. Geological Survey, 1967, Water Resources Data for Florida, Part I,
Surface Water. Tallahassee Water Resources Division.

U. S. Geological Survey, 1971, Water Resources Data For Florida. Part I,
Surface Water Records, V. 2, Streams.

U. S. Soil Conservation Service, 1965, Water and Related Land Resources,
Florida West Coast Tributaries. U.S.D.A. River Basin Studies.

U. S. Soil Conservation Service, 1973, Palatlakaha River Watershed, Lake
County Florida, Final Environmental Impact Statement.

U. S. Conservation Service, 1973, Soil Survey, Lake County Area, Florida.
Advance.

Visher, F. N., and Hughes, G. H., 1969, The Difference Between Rainfall and
Potential Evaporation in Florida. Florida Geological Survey Map Series
No. 32.




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