20180784 Ver 1_As-built Site Visit_20200521

Strickland, Bev
From: Davis, Erin B
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 9:53 AM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
(Kim [e-mail]); Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
([e-mail])
Cc: Mac Haupt ([e-mail])
Subject: Arabia Bay As -built Site Visit
Kim/Todd,
The Arabia Bay site visit went well. We discussed the IRT comments and IRS plans to address them in the MY1 report.
They will be including 2-3 random veg plots within the habitat pools. Loblolly pine will not be counted toward success.
The location and depth of habitat pools was driven by good clay content needed for ditch plugs. Seeing the site DWR is
not as concerned as we were reviewing the as -built drawing by the size, depth or locations of the habitat pools.
The site was dry, although soil in the habitat pools was moist (wouldn't call it fully saturated). Mac augered a few soil
samples. There was a well -established herbaceous cover and leafed out stems could be located. Overall, it looked ok for
as -built. The habitat pools, while deeper than designed, were not concerning (at this time) due to gentle sloping and veg
establishment. Wood debris was scattered within the site (and looked good). The single outlet across the road to the
northeast appeared stable; it would definitely allow the site to fill with standing water during a significant storm event
(natural disaster scale). Mac did questioned the N/NW site boundary regarding stability and overflow concerns based on
the topography surrounding the site (N/NW area 224-225', W/S/E area 227-229', outfall 221').
Things to watch —The two ditches that crossed the site were backfilled an additional —6 inches anticipating settling.
However, these areas are definitely higher ground and depending on the settlement rate, they could end up at -risk.
Additionally, the old road strip and site edges appeared drier with a bit less veg cover. Generally concern: will the site be
too wet or too dry... time will tell.
Let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Erin