APPENDIX H WRAP

Appendix H Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP)

Field Data Sheets

Several on-site evaluations were performed to determine the relative functional value of the wetland areas proposed for impact at the Choctaw Point Terminal project site. These evaluations were conducted on September 3, 4, and September 18, 2002 using the Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP), a standardized evaluation format developed by the South Florida Water Management District (Miller & Gunsalus 1999). The sites evaluated are shown on Figure H-1. Sites 1, 3, and 8 were evaluated by Volkert biologists on September 3 and 4, and sites 4 and 6 were evaluated on September 18 by Volkert biologists along with representatives of Federal and state environmental agencies. The WRAP scores are provided for information purposes only since they are not used to determined mitigation requirements for the proposed project. Two types of wetlands, fringing tidal marsh and emergent floodplain wetlands, are proposed for impact through dredge and fill activities at the Choctaw Point Terminal project site. In order to determine the relative functional values currently provided by these wetlands the WRAP evaluations were conducted within wetlands that are considered as being representative of the 24.3 acres of wetlands proposed for impact. During the standardized WRAP procedure, including review of maps, aerial photography, and identification of numerous physical conditions on-site, numeric ranking values between 0 and 3 were assigned for various parameters represented within the wetland areas. Specific variables that are considered for WRAP evaluation scores include: • Wildlife Utilization • Wetland Canopy • Wetland Ground Cover • Habitat Support/Buffer • Field Hydrology • Water Quality Input and Treatment

To produce the overall rating score, individual scores for each of these elements were totaled and divided by the number of applicable elements, to produce an average rating value for the wetlands.

During the evaluation on September 3, 2002, a representative portion of the fringing tidal marsh habitat (Site 1) was assigned a ranking value of ‘1.1’ by Volkert biologists. Specific element scores and justification for the wetlands are as follows:

Variable Evaluated Rating Score (0-3) Explanation of rating value Wildlife Utilization 1 Exhibits minimal evidence of wildlife use Wetland Canopy N.A. (canopy not typical within tidal marsh) Wetland Ground Cover 0 No desirable vegetative ground cover present Habitat Support/Buffer 1.5 Natural buffer less than 300 feet in width,

containing desirable plant species Field Hydrology 2 Hydrologic regime adequate, but hydrology

may be impacted by external features Water Quality Input and Treatment

1 Only dry-detention for stormwater, receives runoff from industrialized areas

WRAP Score (1 + 0 + 1.5 + 2 + 1) ÷ 5 = 1.1

The rating score of 1.1 out of a possible value of 3 indicates a poor functional value for the fringing tidal marsh wetlands at the Choctaw Point Terminal project site. During the evaluation on September 4, 2002, the forested/emergent floodplain wetlands (Site 3) were assigned a ranking value of ‘1.4.’ Specific element scores and justification for the wetlands are as follows: Variable Evaluated Rating Score (0-3) Explanation of rating value Wildlife Utilization 2 Exhibits moderate evidence of wildlife use Wetland Canopy 1.5 Minimal to moderate desirable canopy

species present Wetland Ground Cover 2 Moderate amount of desirable vegetative

ground cover present Habitat Support/Buffer .5 Natural buffer less than 30 feet in width,

containing desirable plant species Field Hydrology 2 Hydrologic regime adequate, but hydrology

may be impacted by external features Water Quality Input and Treatment

.5 No treatment, receives runoff from industrialized areas

WRAP Score (2 + 1.5 + 2 + .5 + 2 + .5) ÷ 6 = 1.4 The rating score of 1.4 out of a possible value of 3 indicates poor to moderate functional value for the existing emergent floodplain wetlands at the Choctaw Point Terminal project site.

During the evaluation on September 4, 2002, the floodplain marsh habitat (Site 8) was assigned a ranking value of ‘1.2.’ Specific element scores and justification for the wetlands are as follows:

Variable Evaluated Rating Score (0-3) Explanation of rating value Wildlife Utilization 1 Exhibits minimal evidence of wildlife use Wetland Canopy 1 Minimal canopy components present,

dominated by Chinese Tallow and Black Willow

Wetland Ground Cover 1.5 Species present include torpedo grass, big cord grass, common reed, and cattail

Habitat Support/Buffer 1 Contains significant amounts of invasive exotic species, debris, and contaminants present

Field Hydrology 2 Hydrologic regime adequate, but hydrology may be impacted by external features

Water Quality Input and Treatment

.5 No pre-treatment present, receives runoff from industrialized areas

WRAP Score (1 + 1 + 1.5 + 1 + 2 +.5) ÷ 6 = 1.17

The rating score of 1.2 out of a possible value of 3 indicates a poor functional value for existing floodplain marsh wetlands at the Choctaw Point Terminal project site. During the evaluation on September 18, 2002, the fringing tidal marsh habitat (Site 4) was assigned a ranking value of ‘2.2.’ Specific element scores and justification for the wetlands are as follows:

Variable Evaluated Rating Score (0-3) Explanation of rating value Wildlife Utilization 2 Exhibits moderate evidence of wildlife use Wetland Canopy N/A (canopy not typical within tidal marsh) Wetland Ground Cover 2.5 Moderate amount of desirable vegetative

ground cover present Habitat Support/Buffer 2 Natural buffer >30’ but less than 300’ width

contains desirable plant species Field Hydrology 3 Tidally influenced Water Quality Input and Treatment

1.24 No treatment of stormwater from Tennessee Street Drain. Runoff from vacant forested land.

WRAP Score (1 + 2.5 + 2 + 3 + 1.24) ÷ 5 = 2.15

The rating score of 2.2 out of a possible value of 3 indicates a moderate functional value for existing tidal marsh wetlands at the Choctaw Point Terminal project site.

During the evaluation on September 18, 2002, the fringing tidal marsh areas (Site 6) were assigned a ranking value of ‘2.0.’ Specific element scores and justification for the wetlands are as follows:

Variable Evaluated Rating Score (0-3) Explanation of rating value Wildlife Utilization 2 Exhibits moderate evidence of wildlife use Wetland Canopy N/A (canopy not typical within tidal marsh) Wetland Ground Cover 2 Few undesirable species present, lots of

debris and trash within area Habitat Support/Buffer 1.5 Buffer contains some desirable species, not

connected to wildlife corridors Field Hydrology 3 Tidally influenced Water Quality Input and Treatment

1.25 Grass swales

WRAP Score (2 + 2 + 1.5 + 3 + 1.25) ÷ 5 = 1.95

The rating score of 2.0 out of a possible value of 3 indicates a moderate functional value for existing tidal marsh wetlands at the Choctaw Point Terminal project site. The WRAP data sheets are included in this appendix.