HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140422 Ver 1_Year 4 Mitigation Report_Final_20200113ID#* 20140422 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 01/13/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/13/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jeremiah Dow
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20140422
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Hudson Property
County: Beaufort
Document Information
Email Address:*
jeremiah.dow@ncdenr.gov
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Hudson_ 95361_MY4_Final_2020-01-13.pdf 5.78MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*
Year 4 Monitoring Report
FINAL
Hudson Property
DMS Project ID #: 95361
DMS Contract #: 004638
USACE Action ID# SAW-2012-01394
Beaufort County, North Carolina
Submitted: January 2020
Submitted to/Prepared for:
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:
ALBEMARLE RESTORATIONS, LLC
P.O. Box 176
Fairfield, NC 27826
Tel (252) 333-0249 Fax (252) 926-9983
Ecotone, Inc. 410.420.2600 (P) 410.420.6983 (F)
129 Industry Lane Forest Hill, MD 21050
FOREST HILL
www.ecotoneinc.com
January 10, 2020
Mr. Jeremiah Dow
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
RE: Draft Year 4 Monitoring Report for Hudson Property Stream Restoration Project (95361)
Tar-Pamlico River Basin; CU 03020105; Beaufort County, NC
Contract No. 004638
Dear Mr. Dow,
Ecotone has received comments from NCDEQ dated December 30, 2019 pertaining to the Draft
Monitoring Year 4 Report for the Hudson Property. The accompanying submittal has been revised
to reflect our responses to all comments and all information requested. Below are Ecotone’s
responses below to the received comments.
1. Section 9.0
a. A sentence states that “Year 3 Monitoring identified some areas where woody survivability
was low; these areas were spot planted in October 2019.” These areas were not identified in
the MY3 report. Please identify the area(s) of low stem density on the CCPV.
ECOTONE RESPONSE: Only Vegetation Plot 6 and a few smaller areas along Reach 1 and 2
were identified as having marginally low woody survivability. These areas did not meet the
threshold for inclusion in the CCPV and therefore were not included in Year 3 or Year 4. The
report text has been revised.
2. Appendix B,
a. Table 6 – See comment 1 above. Please verify whether the low stem density area(s) trigger
any thresholds for inclusion in this table.
ECOTONE RESPONSE: The areas spot planted were not greater than 0.1 acres, and therefore
were not included in the CCPV. A note has been added to Table 6.
3. Appendix E
a. Table 9 – The verification of bankfull events table should be cumulative showing prior
years.
b. Table 12 – Please verify that Well 8 (Reach 5) achieved 30 consecutive days of flow.
c. Figure 10 – See “b” above. Please verify that Well 8 (Reach 5) achieved 30 consecutive
days of flow. It may be beneficial to call out with arrows and dates on the chart where 30
consecutive days was identified.
ECOTONE RESPONSE: Table 9 has been updated to include previous years’ data. Well 8 on
Reach 5 did have 30 consecutive days of flow. Though water occasionally dropped below the
streambed elevation for a few hours, each day between 1/21/19 and 3/21/19 did have some flow.
Figure 10 was updated with a note to identify that period of consecutive flow.
Hudson Year 4 - Response to Comments
January 10, 2020
Page 2 of 3
4. Digital Files a. Geodatabase features do not all match creditable assets. DMS needs
representative features for Reach 2 and Reach 4
ECOTONE RESPONSE: As per our email communication, the geodatabase includes files for the
stream alignments as designed.
Thank you very much for your continued attention to this project. If you have any questions,
please contact me at 410-420-2600.
Respectfully,
Marie Brady
Ecologist
Ecotone, Inc.
cc : Ed Temple, Albemarle Restorations, LLC
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary .......................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Project Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................... 1
3.0 Project Success Criteria ............................................................................................... 1
3.1 Stream Restoration Performance Standards................................................................. 1
3.2 Stream Channel Restoration Stability Performance Standards .................................... 2
3.3 Planted Vegetation Performance Standards ................................................................. 2
4.0 Site Conditions and Description .................................................................................. 2
5.0 Mitigation Components ............................................................................................... 2
6.0 Design Approach ......................................................................................................... 3
7.0 Construction and Planting Timeline ............................................................................ 3
8.0 Plan Deviations ............................................................................................................ 3
9.0 Project Performance .................................................................................................... 3
10.0 Methods and References ............................................................................................ 3
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................... 4
Appendix A – Background Tables ..................................................................................... 5
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits ..................................................... 6
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History ............................................................ 7
Table 3. Project Contacts ................................................................................................ 7
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes .................................................................. .8
Appendix B – CCPV and Photos ....................................................................................... 9
Current Condition Plan View........................................................................................ 10
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment (Reach 1-4) ...................... 16
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table ........................................................ 20
Site Photos .................................................................................................................... 21
Appendix C – Vegetation Plot Data................................................................................. 24
Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities ............................................................ 25
Appendix D – Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data ..................................... 27
Cross Sections with Annual Overlays (XS 1-11)
Table 8: Bank Pin Data ............................................................................................... 39
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Reach 1-4) ............................................ 40
Table 11a. Monitoring Data – Dimensional Morphology Summary .......................... 44
Table 11b. Monitoring Data – Stream Reach Data Summary (Reach 1-4) ................. 45
Appendix E – Hydrologic Data........................................................................................ 49
Table 9: Verification of Bankfull Events .................................................................... 50
Table 12: Verification of Baseflow ............................................................................. 50
Figure 2: Monthly Rainfall Data with Percentiles ....................................................... 51
Figures 3-12: Stream Surface Water Hydrology (Well 1-10) ..................................... 52
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
1
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The mitigation area is 13.49 acres located within a larger 106-acre property owned by Charles
Hudson. It is located in Beaufort County, NC and the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Mitigation
components include five stream reaches totalling 2,891 linear feet contained within a
Conservation Easement. Construction was completed in 2015 and planting completed in 2016.
The first of seven monitoring years was initiated in 2016. Year 4 monitoring was completed in
October 2019.
2.0 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The project goals of the Hudson property per the approved mitigation plan are as follows:
• Improve and sustain hydrologic connectivity/interaction and storm flow/flood
attenuation.
• Reduce nutrient and sediment stressors to the reach and receiving watershed.
• Provide uplift in water quality functions.
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats (complexity, quality).
• Improve and maintain riparian buffer habitat.
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Implement a sustainable, reference‐based, rehabilitation of the reach dimension, pattern,
and profile to provide needed capacity and competency.
• Support the removal of barriers to anadromous fish movement and to help improve
nursery and spawning habitats.
• Strategically install stream structures and plantings designed to maintain vertical and
lateral stability and improve habitat diversity/complexity.
• Provide a sustainable and functional bankfull floodplain feature.
• Enhance and maintain hydrologic connection between stream and adjacent
floodplain/riparian corridors.
• Utilize the additional width of the swamp runs to provide natural filters for sediment and
nutrients and diffuse flow from upstream runoff.
• Install, augment, and maintain appropriate riparian buffer with sufficient density and
robustness to support native forest succession.
• Water quality enhancement through riparian forest planting and woody material
installation, and increased floodplain interaction/overbank flooding.
• Restore the existing ditched streams to single and multi‐thread headwater systems with
forested riparian buffers.
• Provide ecologically sound construction techniques that will require minimal grading and
disturbance.
3.0 PROJECT SUCCESS CRITERIA
3.1 Stream Restoration Performance Standards
Single Thread Channels (Reaches 1 ‐ 4) and Swamp Run (Reach 5)
Groundwater monitoring wells are installed in and near the thalweg of all five reaches.
The wells are equipped with continuous–reading gauges capable of documenting
sustained flow. Per the approved Mitigation Plan, each reach must exhibit water flow for
at least 30 consecutive days during years with normal rainfall (demonstrating at least
intermittent stream status). All restored channels shall receive sufficient flow through the
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
2
monitoring period to maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM). Field indicators
of flow events include a natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in soil
characteristics; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; presence of litter and debris;
wracking; vegetation matted down, bent or absent; sediment sorting; leaf litter disturbed
or washed away; scour; deposition; bed and bank formation; water staining; or change in
plant community. In addition, two overbank flows shall be documented for each reach
during the monitoring period using continuously monitored pressure transducers and crest
gauges. All collected data and field indicators of water flow shall be documented in each
monitoring report. Seven flow monitoring stations are located on Reaches 1 – 4, three are
located on Reach 5.
3.2 Stream Channel Restoration Stability Performance Standards
Headwater System (Reach 5)
All stream areas shall remain stable with no areas of excessive erosion such as evidence of
bank sloughing or actively eroding banks due to the exceedance in critical bank height and
lack of deep-rooted stream bank vegetation.
Single Thread Channels (Reaches 1 ‐ 4)
1. Bank Height Ratio (BHR) shall not exceed 1.2 within restored reaches of the stream
channel.
2. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) shall be no less than 2.2 within restored reaches of the stream
channel.
3. The stream project shall remain stable and all other performance standards shall be met
through two separate bankfull events, occurring in separate years, during the 7-year post
construction monitoring period.
4. Three bank pin arrays and 11 cross sections are located on Reaches 1 - 4
3.3 Planted Vegetation Performance Standards
1. At least 320 three-year-old planted stems/acre must be present after year three. At year
five, density must be no less than 260 five-year‐old planted stems/acre. At year 7, density
must be no less than 210 seven-year‐old planted stems/acre.
2. If this performance standard is met by year 5 and stem density is trending toward success
(i.e., no less than 260 five-year‐old stems/acre) monitoring of vegetation on the site may
be terminated provided written approval is provided by the USACE in consultation with
the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT).
3. Thirteen vegetation plot samples are located within the project area.
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND DESCRIPTION
The Hudson property is 13.49 acres located in Beaufort County, NC and the Tar-Pamlico River
Basin. The majority of the site is used for crop production, primarily corn, soybeans and wheat.
As a result of the lowering of local water tables and in some cases the complete elimination of
ground and surface water interaction, the degradation of water quality and downstream
anadromous fish spawning and nursery habitat has occurred. Hydric soils are present on site,
meaning that the pre-existing site conditions were appropriate for raising the water table and re-
establishing normal base flow conditions (See Figure 1 -Vicinity Map).
5.0 MITIGATION COMPONENTS
Mitigation components are limited to five reaches: Reach 1: 833 lf; Reach 2: 532 lf; Reach 3: 445
lf; Reach 4: 437 lf; Reach 5: 644 lf, for a total restored stream footage of 2,891linear feet (Table
1).
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
3
6.0 DESIGN APPROACH
A natural design approach was used to restore the natural sinuosity and flow of the headwater
streams which existed prior to channelization. Grading was done to decrease sediment load and
erosion rate while allowing for floodplain connectivity and storage for overland flow. Banks were
graded down to distribute flow velocity and the banks and riparian buffers were planted to
stabilize the channel and create habitat. A combination of Priority 1 and Priority II restoration
types were used. Where the proposed channels tie into the existing, non-restored channels,
Priority II restoration was used.
7.0 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING TIMELINE
Construction commenced in December 2014 with the installation of recommended erosion
control practices and was completed in May 2015. Planting was officially concluded in early
January 2016. (Table 2 – Project History Table)
8.0 PLAN DEVIATIONS
There were no significant deviations between construction plans and the As-built conditions.
9.0 PROJECT PERFORMANCE
The Hudson stream restoration project is currently meeting functional goals and objectives.
Annual monitoring took place in October and revealed the presence of bankfull events, floodplain
connectivity, and lateral and vertical stability. In-stream structures were observed to be
functioning as intended with minimal scouring of the channel’s banks or bed. Bankfull events
were observed Year 1 through Year 4 monitoring. The site is meeting the bankfull standard for
success. The entire length of the project is currently exhibiting fully vegetated banks with both
herbaceous and woody plants. Overall, woody plantings within the riparian buffer are meeting
project goals with some dieback of planted stems and introduction of other woody vegetation in
12 out of 13 vegetation monitoring plots. Year 1 Monitoring identified some areas where woody
survivability was low; these areas were spot planted in December 2017. Stream gauges indicated
base flow and bankfull events at 10 out of 10 locations. Bank pins could not be located due to
dense vegetative growth; erosion is therefore assumed to be minimal given the vegetative stability
of the reaches. Aggradation was noted on Reaches 2 and 3, however both reaches remain stable.
Stream cross sections are meeting objectives in 11 out of 11 locations. A field meeting with NC
Division of Mitigation Services and the USACE in June 2017, identified corrective measures
necessary on Reach 5 to raise the stream invert to create a wider swamp run. Regrading was
completed in October 2017. A field meeting with NC Division of Mitigation Services and the
USACE in April 2018, identified two monitoring wells that required repair; repair was
completed. In Year 3, Vegetation Plot 6 and some other small areas on Reach 1 and 2 appeared to
have slightly low woody survivability. These areas were spot planted in October 2019; these
areas were smaller than 0.1 acres and were not included in the CCPV. No additional corrective
measures are necessary; monitoring will continue as scheduled.
10.0 METHODS AND REFERENCES
Monitoring methodology did not differ from the approved Mitigation Plan. Cross-section
dimensions were collected using standard survey methods. Vegetation assessment was done
according to the Level 2 protocol specified by the Carolina Vegetation Survey. Hydrology
monitoring wells were installed per ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02 “Installing Monitoring
Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands” dated 2000. Groundwater levels were recorded using the U20-
001-01 water level data loggers manufactured by Onset Computer. The loggers were installed in
the wells per the manufacturer’s instructions.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
4
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Hudson Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project #95361
Beaufort County, NC
Hudson Project (Red)
Access (Yellow)
Drive south on US 17, 4.6
miles from its intersection
with NC 33. Turn left on
Possum Track Road.
Entrance to project is 1.1
miles on left.
N
To Chocowinity
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
5
APPENDIX A: PROJECT BACKGROUND TABLES
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
6
Table 1: Project Components and Mitigation Credits Hudson Property, Beaufort County
EEP Project Number: 95361
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian wetland Non-riparian
wetland Buffer Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient
Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE Totals 2,891
Project Components
Project
Component
or Reach ID
Stationing/Location Existing
Footage/Acreage Approach
(PI, PII etc.) Restoration
or
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Reach 1 766 LF PI 833 LF 1:1
Reach 2 516 LF PI/PII 532 LF 1:1
Reach 3 611 LF PI/PII 445 LF 1:1
Reach 4 503 LF PI/PII 437 LF 1:1
Reach 5 689 LF PI 644 LF 1:1
Total 3,085 LF 2,891 LF
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream
(linear feet) Riparian Wetland
(acres) Non-riparian
Wetland (acres) Buffer
(square feet) Upland
(acres)
Riverine Non-
riverine
Restoration 2,891 LF
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function Notes
FB Adjacent to stream Buffer
100 feet on either side of stream centerline
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
7
Table 3: Project Contacts
Hudson Property- EEP Project Number: 95361
Primary Project Design POC Ecotone, Inc.
Scott McGill (410) 420-2600
129 Industry Lane, Forest Hill, MD 21050
Construction Contractor POC Riverside Excavation, Inc.
Car Baynor (252) 943-8633
Survey Contractor POC True Line Surveying
Curk Lane (919) 359-0427
Planting and Seeding Contractor
POC
Carolina Silvics, Inc.
Mary Margaret McKinney (252) 482-8491
908 Indian Trail Road, Edenton, NC 27932
Seed Mix Sources Ernst Conservation Seeds, LLP, Meadville, PA
Nursery Stock Suppliers Carolina Silvics, Inc.
Monitoring Performers
Stream and Vegetation POC
Ecotone, Inc.
Scott McGill (410) 420-2600
129 Industry Lane, Forest Hill, MD 21050
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Hudson Property- EEP Project Number 95361
Activity, Deliverable, or Milestone Data Collection Complete Actual Completion or Delivery
Project Institution N/A June 2012
Mitigation Plan July 2014 Oct 2014
Permits Issued March 2013 May 2014
Final Design Construction March 2013 May 2014
Construction N/A May 2015
Containerized, Bare Root, and B&B Planting N/A January 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 - Baseline) January 2016 August 2016
Year 1 Monitoring September 2016 Final: January 2017
Year 2 Monitoring November 2017 Final: January 2018
Year 3 Monitoring October 2018 Final: March 2019
Year 4 Monitoring October 2019 Final: January 2020
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
8
Table 4: Project information
Hudson Property- EEP Project Number: 95361 Project name HUDSON PROPERTY
County BEAUFORT
Project Area (ac) 13.4 AC
Project Coordinates (Lat and Long) 77˚ 06” 13.62’ W / 35˚ 26” 53.20’ N
4.1 Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic province INNER COASTAL PLAIN
River basin TAR-PAMLICO RIVER BASIN
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-
digit 03020104 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03020104010010
DWQ Sub-basin CHOCOWINITY CREEK – HORSE BRANCH
Project Drainage Area (acres) 190.86
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
Impervious Area 1.2 % (2.24 acres)
CGIA Land Use Classification 2.01.01.07 Annual Row Crop Rotation
4.2 Reach Summary Information
Parameters Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5
Length of reach (linear feet) 766 516 611 503 689
Valley classification VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII
Drainage area (acres) 40.51 74.63 35.21 150.35 190.86
NCDWR stream identification score 20.75 20.75 20.75 20.75 28
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C;NSW C;NSW C;NSW C;NSW C;NSW
Morphological Description (stream type) G5-G6 G5-G6 G5-G6 G5-G6 G5-G6
Evolutionary trend Early (CEM) Early (CEM) Early (CEM) Early (CEM) Early (CEM)
Underlying mapped soils GoA & CrB CrB & Ly CrB & Ly CrB CrB & Me
Drainage class MW MW & SP MW & SP MW MW & P
Soil Hydric status Non-Hydric Non-Hydric Non-Hydric Non-Hydric Hydric
Slope (ft/ft) 0.009 0.006 0.008 0.004 0.003
FEMA classification N/A N/A N/A N/A AE/X
Native vegetation community Pasture/Crop Pasture/Crop Pasture/Crop Pasture/Crop Pasture/Crop
Percent composition of exotic invasive
vegetation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4.3 Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting
Documents
Waters of the United States – Section 404 YES YES Supporting Documents
Waters of the United States – Section 401 YES YES SAW-2012-01394
Endangered Species Act NO YES NA
Historic Preservation Act NO YES NA
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) NO YES NA
FEMA Floodplain Compliance NO YES NA
Essential Fisheries Habitat NO YES NA
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
9
APPENDIX B: VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Current Condition Plan View
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment (Reach 1-4)
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Site Photos
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
10
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Vegetation Plot or Cross Section Survey. CCPV is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
11
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Vegetation Plot or Cross Section Survey. CCPV is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
12
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Vegetation Plot or Cross Section Survey. CCPV is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
13
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Vegetation Plot or Cross Section Survey. CCPV is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
14
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Vegetation Plot or Cross Section Survey. CCPV is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
15
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Vegetation Plot or Cross Section Survey. CCPV is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
16
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 1
Assessed Length 766
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 13 13 100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)5 5 100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)5 5 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)NA*NA*NA*
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)NA*NA*NA*
2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion 0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.8 8 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill. 8 8 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.8 8 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
8 8 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean
Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
base-flow.
8 8 100%
Totals
* Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavily vegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
17
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 2
Assessed Length 516
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 9 9 100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)3 3 100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)3 3 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)NA*NA*NA*
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)NA*NA*NA*
2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion 0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.0 0 NA
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill. 0 0 NA
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.0 0 NA
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
0 0 NA
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean
Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
base-flow.
0 0 NA
Totals
* Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavily vegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
18
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 3
Assessed Length 611
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 7 7 100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)3 3 100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)3 3 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)NA*NA*NA*
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)NA*NA*NA*
2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion 0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.0 0 NA
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill. 0 0 NA
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.0 0 NA
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
0 0 NA
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean
Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
base-flow.
0 0 NA
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
* Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavily vegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Totals
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
19
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 4
Assessed Length 503
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 8 8 NA
3. Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)3 3 NA
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)3 3 NA
4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)NA*NA*NA
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)NA*NA*NA
2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion 0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.3 3 NA
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill. 3 3 NA
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.3 3 NA
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
3 3 NA
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean
Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
base-flow.
3 3 NA
* Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavily vegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Totals
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
20
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 12.42
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.0.1 acres
Pattern
and Color 0 0 0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas*Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY 3, 4 or 5 stem count criteria 0.1 acres
Pattern
and Color 0 0 0.0%
Total:0 0 0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year 0.25 acres
Pattern
and Color 0 0 0.0%
Cumulative Total:0 0 0.0%
Easement Acreage 13.5
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale 1000 sf
Pattern
and Color 0 0 0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale none
Pattern
and Color 0 0 0.0%
No areas of concern are noted .
*Some small areas spot planted in 2019; these areas are smaller than 0.1 acres and not included in CCPV
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
21
Photo 1: Highly vegetated restoration area with wetland along Reach 1 - View South.
Photo 2: View of Cross Section 5 on Reach 2 – View Northeast.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
22
Photo 3: View of Cross Section 1 on Reach 3 – View Southeast.
Photo 4: View of Cross Section 3 on Reach 4 – water in stream – View Northeast.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
23
Photo 5: View downstream of Reach 5 Swamp Run.
Photo 6: View upstream on Reach 5 Swamp Run.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
24
APPENDIX C: VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
25
Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Vegetation Plot Survey. Tables are based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
26
Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities (Continued)
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
27
APPENDIX D: STREAM MEASUREMENT AND
GEOMORPHOLOGY DATA
Cross Sections with Annual Overlays (XS 1-11)
Table 8: Bank Pin Data
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Reach 1-4)
Table 11a. Monitoring Data – Dimensional Morphology Summary
Table 11b. Monitoring Data – Stream Reach Data Summary (Reach 1-4)
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
28
Cross Section 1 – Reach 3
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Cross Section Survey. Graph is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
29
Cross Section 2 – Reach 3
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Cross Section Survey. Graph is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
30
Cross Section 3 – Reach 4
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Cross Section Survey. Graph is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
31
Cross Section 4 – Reach 4
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Cross Section Survey. Graph is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
32
Cross Section 5 – Reach 2
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Cross Section Survey. Graph is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
33
Cross Section 6 – Reach 2
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Cross Section Survey. Graph is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
34
Cross Section 7 – Reach 1
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Cross Section Survey. Graph is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
35
Cross Section 8 – Reach 1
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Cross Section Survey. Graph is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
36
Cross Section 9 – Reach 1
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Cross Section Survey. Graph is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
37
Cross Section 10 – Reach 1
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Cross Section Survey. Graph is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
38
Cross Section 11 – Reach 1 & 4 Confluence
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Cross Section Survey. Graph is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
39
Table 8: Monitoring Year 3 - Bank Pin Data
Pins arrays consist of three pins located in the middle of stream banks along meander bends
Bank Pin Array #1 @ XS 5 - Reach 2 – Station 2+69
Pin Exposure
Upstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation & dense vegetation
Middle Pin Could not find- minor aggradation & dense vegetation
Downstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation & dense vegetation
Bank Pin Array #2 @ XS 4 - Reach 2 – Station 3+95
Pin Exposure
Upstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation & dense vegetation
Middle Pin Could not find- minor aggradation & dense vegetation
Downstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation & dense vegetation
Bank Pin Array #1 @ XS 9 - Reach 1 – Station 2+73
Pin Exposure
Upstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation & dense vegetation
Middle Pin Could not find- minor aggradation & dense vegetation
Downstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation & dense vegetation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
40
Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)3.36 3.83 6.02 19.74 21.97 24.2 9.02 11.5 16.2 2
Floodprone Width (ft)6.47 6.91 10.5 44 64.5 85 18.06 26.74 34.89 57 83.33 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.45 0.52 0.6 0.7 0.75 0.82 0.42 0.22 0.26 2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.56 0.87 1.07 0.85 1.02 1.18 0.44 0.53 0.61 0.4 0.51 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.99 2 2.68 16.09 16.49 16.89 3.8 2.58 4.26 2
Width/Depth Ratio 5.64 7.37 13.52 24.22 29.27 34.67 21.4 52.27 62.31 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.74 1.8 1.93 2 2.94 3.87 2 2.94 3.87 4.96 5.14 2
1Bank Height Ratio 1 1 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)N/A*12 46.5 81 4.93 19.09 33.25
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)N/A*0.004 0.011 0.017 0.006 0.016 0.025
Pool Length (ft)N/A*21 30.5 40 4.72 8.41 14.98
Pool Max depth (ft)N/A*1.4 1.65 1.9 0.72 0.93 1.15
Pool Spacing (ft)N/A*40 59 78 16.42 26.95 35.63
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)N/A*27 49 76 11.08 20.11 31.19
Radius of Curvature (ft)N/A*90 92 95 36.94 37.76 38.99
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)N/A*4.10 4.19 4.32
Meander Wavelength (ft)N/A*12.43 15.07 18.25 112.1 135.9 164.6
Meander Width Ratio N/A*1.23 2.23 3.46
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) - Segment/Reach: Reach 1
0.006
1.04
0.007 0.004 0.007
1.01 1 1.04
846 264 833 850
840 264
5.6
C5/6G5-G6 C5-C6 C5-C6
0.56 0.14
0.26 0.18
Monitoring BaselineRegional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
41
Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)5.97 6.87 7.2 19.74 21.97 24.2 14.83 11.78 1
Floodprone Width (ft)10.03 12.03 13.47 44 64.5 85 29.71 43.55 57.39 28.2 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.91 0.92 0.94 0.7 0.75 0.82 0.67 0.45 1
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.38 1.42 1.54 0.85 1.02 1.18 0.7 0.84 0.98 0.86 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)5.59 6.32 6.58 16.09 16.49 16.89 10 5.28 1
Width/Depth Ratio 6.38 7.47 7.88 24.22 29.27 34.67 22 26.18 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.67 1.68 1.96 2 2.94 3.87 2.94 2.39 1
1Bank Height Ratio 1 1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)N/A*12 46.5 81 8.1 31.39 54.68
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)N/A*0.004 0.011 0.017 0.003 0.008 0.012
Pool Length (ft)N/A*21 30.5 40 14.18 20.59 27
Pool Max depth (ft)N/A*1.4 1.65 1.9 1.16 1.48 1.84
Pool Spacing (ft)N/A*40 59 78 27 44.33 58.61
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)N/A*27 49 76 18.23 33.08 51.31
Radius of Curvature (ft)N/A*90 92 95 60.76 62.11 64.14
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)N/A*4.10 4.19 4.32
Meander Wavelength (ft)N/A*12.43 15.07 18.25 184.3 223.5 270.7
Meander Width Ratio N/A*1.23 2.23 3.46
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) - Segment/Reach: Reach 2
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline
0.42 0.11
1.25 0.18
G5-G6 C5-C6 C5-C6 C 5/6
17.2
516 264 532 541
486 264
0.003 0.004 0.003
1.06 1 1.05 1.05
0.0035
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
42
Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)3.55 4.03 5.05 19.74 21.97 24.2 10 12.5 1
Floodprone Width (ft)5.97 6.44 9.13 44 64.5 85 20.03 29.36 38.69 32.9 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.55 0.79 0.84 0.7 0.75 0.82 0.5 0.57 1
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.88 1.15 1.44 0.85 1.02 1.18 0.52 0.63 0.72 0.85 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.94 3.17 4.26 16.09 16.49 16.89 5 7.07 1
Width/Depth Ratio 5.12 5.99 6.5 24.22 29.27 34.67 20 21.95 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 1.68 1.8 2 2.94 3.87 2 2.94 3.87 2.63 1
1Bank Height Ratio 1 1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)N/A*12 46.5 81 5.46 21.17 36.87
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)N/A*0.004 0.011 0.017 0.005 0.014 0.021
Pool Length (ft)N/A*21 30.5 40 9.56 13.88 18.21
Pool Max depth (ft)N/A*1.4 1.65 1.9 0.86 1.1 1.36
Pool Spacing (ft)N/A*40 59 78 18.21 29.89 39.51
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)N/A*27 49 76 12.29 22.3 24.59
Radius of Curvature (ft)N/A*90 92 95 40.96 41.88 43.24
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)N/A*4.10 4.19 4.32
Meander Wavelength (ft)N/A*12.43 15.07 18.25 124.3 150.7 182.5
Meander Width Ratio N/A*1.23 2.23 3.46
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) - Segment/Reach: Reach 3
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline
0.37 0.14
1.02 0.18
G5-G6 C5-C6 C5-C6 C 5/6
8
460 264 445 446
442 264
0.007 0.004 0.007
1.04 1 1.01 1.08
0.005
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
43
Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)7.34 7.48 8.84 19.74 21.97 24.2 21.82 9.9 1
Floodprone Width (ft)12.21 13.83 16.28 44 64.5 85 43.69 64.05 84.41 31.36 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.97 1 1.05 0.7 0.75 0.82 0.78 0.32 1
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.47 1.51 1.82 0.85 1.02 1.18 0.81 0.98 1.13 0.74 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)7.49 7.69 8.58 16.09 16.49 16.89 17 3.17 1
Width/Depth Ratio 7.01 7.47 9.11 24.22 29.27 34.67 28 30.9 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.63 1.84 1.88 2 2.94 3.87 2 2.94 3.87 3.17 1
1Bank Height Ratio 1 1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)N/A*12 46.5 81 11.92 46.18 80.44
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)N/A*0.004 0.011 0.017 0.006 0.016 0.025
Pool Length (ft)N/A*21 30.5 40 20.85 30.29 39.72
Pool Max depth (ft)N/A*1.4 1.65 1.9 1.34 1.71 2.12
Pool Spacing (ft)N/A*40 59 78 39.72 65.21 86.21
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)N/A*27 49 76 26.8 48.66 75.47
Radius of Curvature (ft)N/A*90 92 95 89.37 91.36 94.34
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)N/A*4.096 4.188 4.324
Meander Wavelength (ft)N/A*12.43 15.07 18.25 271.1 328.7 398.2
Meander Width Ratio N/A*1.23 2.23 3.46
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) - Segment/Reach: Reach 4
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline
0.48 0.16
1.01 0.22
G5-G6 C5-C6 C5-C6 C 5/6
26.2
503 264 437 447
434 264
0.003 0.004 0.003
1.16 1 1.01 1.01
0.0035
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
44
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 36.40 36.36 36.55 36.42 34.50 34.34 34.60 34.62
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.88 1.00 1.14 0.77 0.65
Thalweg Elevation 36.33 37.05 37.54 38.28 35.55 35.44 35.52 35.51 33.76 32.88 33.96 34.06 33.00 32.92 32.90 33.20 34.56 34.77 34.89 35.19
LTOB 2 Elevation 37.57 37.53 38.05 38.65 36.40 36.36 36.31 36.31 `34.50 34.55 34.45 34.42 33.60 33.64 33.60 33.75 35.46 35.42 35.44 36.15
LTOB 2 Max Depth (ft)1.24 0.48 0.51 0.37 0.85 0.92 0.79 0.80 0.74 1.67 0.49 0.36 0.60 0.72 0.70 0.55 0.90 0.65 0.55 0.96
LTOB 2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.90 1.50 1.40 1.80 7.07 7.07 2.90 5.60 3.17 4.40 2.00 1.70 3.19 2.30 1.80 2.50 3.70 4.90 2.00 3.40
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 36.53 37.13 37.75 37.84 37.91 37.90 37.97 37.93 40.26 40.22 40.27 40.28
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 0.63 0.47 0.74 1.00 1.30 1.09 0.88 1.00 1.13 1.04 1.00
Thalweg Elevation 35.67 36.57 36.97 37.01 35.91 35.87 35.70 35.96 37.40 37.41 37.33 37.44 38.41 38.32 38.05 38.43 39.86 39.77 39.82 39.87
LTOB 2 Elevation 36.53 36.92 37.34 37.62 36.56 36.66 36.25 36.70 37.91 38.05 38.03 37.87 39.00 39.03 39.21 39.05 40.26 40.28 40.29 40.28
LTOB 2 Max Depth (ft)0.86 0.35 0.37 0.61 0.65 0.79 0.55 0.74 0.51 0.64 0.70 0.43 0.59 0.71 1.16 0.62 0.40 0.51 0.47 0.41
LTOB 2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)5.25 2.82 1.60 2.66 2.30 3.10 2.30 3.20 4.28 7.20 5.01 3.80 2.20 2.40 5.20 2.40 2.40 3.30 2.90 2.40
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 33.42 33.44 33.49 33.52
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 0.84 0.73 0.71
Thalweg Elevation 32.51 31.91 32.56 32.58
LTOB 2 Elevation 33.42 33.19 33.24 33.25
LTOB 2 Max Depth (ft)0.91 1.28 0.68 0.67
LTOB 2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)22.54 14.68 14.13 13.85
Table 11a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) Segment/Reach: Reach 1-4 (2200 feet)
Cross Section 1 (Pool - Reach 3)Cross Section 2 (Riffle - Reach 3)Cross Section 3 (Riffle - Reach 4)Cross Section 4 (Pool - Reach 4)Cross Section 5 (Pool - Reach 2)
Note: The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection, therefore inter-annual variation in morphological measurement (as a percentage) is by default magnified as channel size decereases. Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is due to the large
amount of depositional sediments observed.
Cross Section 6 (Riffle - Reach 2)Cross Section 7 (Pool - Reach 1)Cross Section 8 (Riffle - Reach 1)Cross Section 9 (Pool - Reach 1)Cross Section 10 (Riffle - Reach 1)
Cross Section 11 (Confluence - Reach 1)The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS,the IRT and industry mitigation
providers/practitioners. The outcome resulted in the focus on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel change moving forward. They are
the bank height ratio using a constant As-built bankfull area and the cross sectional area and max depth based on each years low top of bank. These are calculated as follows:
1 -Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. For example if the As-built bankfull area was 10 ft2, then
the MY1 bankfull elevation would be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey = 10 ft2.The BHR would then be calculated with the difference
between the low top of bank (LTOB) elevation for MY1 and the thalweg elevation for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg
elevation in the denominator. This same process is then carried out in each successive year.
2 -LTOB Area and Max depth -These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the LTOB elevation
will be used and tracked for each year as above. The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation (same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above
as LTOB max depth.
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Cross Section Survey. Table is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
45
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft)11.50 16.20 2 11.46 20.00 2 11.19 16.10 2 11.24 17.33 2
Floodprone Width (ft)57.00 83.30 2 58.28 86.26 2 53.80 97.70 2 57.38 74.01 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.22 0.26 2 0.24 0.28 2 0.23 0.26 2 0.25 0.26 2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.40 0.51 2 0.49 0.50 2 0.42 0.57 2 0.40 0.45 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.58 4.26 2 3.25 4.77 2 2.58 4.26 2 2.58 4.26 2
Width/Depth Ratio 52.27 62.31 2 40.49 83.95 2 48.60 60.83 2 38.10 38.50 2
Entrenchment Ratio 4.96 5.14 2 4.31 5.08 2 5.21 5.36 2 4.27 5.10 2
1Bank Height Ratio 1.00 1.00 2 1.00 1.00 2 1.12 0.88 2 0.91 1.10 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
2 = Bankfull for XS 6 recalculated
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
C 5/6
850
1.04
0.006
C 5/6
850
1.04
0.006
MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5BaselineMY-1
Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) Segment/Reach: Reach 1
C 5/6 C 5/6
850 850
1.04 1.04
0.006 0.006
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data
indicate significant shifts from baseline
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Cross Section Survey. Table is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
46
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft)11.8 1 12.5 1 12.5 1 26.2 1
Floodprone Width (ft)28.2 1 25 1 42.3 1 48.3 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.45 1 0.11 1 0.42 1 0.22 1
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.86 1 0.21 1 0.54 1 0.64 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)5.28 1 1.39 1 5.28 1 5.28 1
Width/Depth Ratio 26.2 1 112 1 29.6 1 40.9 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2.39 1 2 1 2 1 1.8 1
1Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pattern 71
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
2 = Bankfull for XS 6 recalculated
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
1.05
0.0035
C 5/5
541
1.05
0.0035 0.0035
1.05
C 5/5 C 5/5
541 541
Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) Segment/Reach: Reach 2
Baseline MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
C 5/5
541
1.05
0.0035
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data
indicate significant shifts from baseline
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Cross Section Survey. Table is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
47
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft)12.50 1 14.44 1 16.33 1 14.80 1
Floodprone Width (ft)32.90 1 36.68 1 42.80 1 36.01 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.57 1 0.48 1 0.43 1 0.47 1
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.85 1 0.96 1 1.04 1 0.88 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)7.07 1 16.24 1 7.07 1 7.07 1
Width/Depth Ratio 21.95 1 69.34 1 37.73 1 16.80 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2.63 1 2.53 1 2.25 1 2.42 1
1Bank Height Ratio 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.45 1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
2 = Bankfull for XS 6 recalculated
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
C 5/6
446
1.08
0.005
1.08 1.08
0.005 0.005
C 5/6 C 5/6
446 446
Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) Segment/Reach: Reach 3
Baseline MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
C 5/6
446
1.08
0.005
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data
indicate significant shifts from baseline
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Cross Section Survey. Table is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
48
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft)9.90 1 8.27 1 10.59 1 10.00 1
Floodprone Width (ft)31.36 1 57.96 1 29.01 1 25.46 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.32 1 0.52 1 0.30 1 0.30 1
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.74 1 1.62 1 0.62 1 0.52 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.17 1 4.31 1 3.17 1 3.17 1
Width/Depth Ratio 30.90 1 15.86 1 35.39 1 19.23 1
Entrenchment Ratio 3.17 1 7.01 1 5.47 1 2.55 1
1Bank Height Ratio 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.70 1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pattern .
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
2 = Bankfull for XS 6 recalculated
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
1.01 1.01
0.0035 0.0035
C 5/6 C 5/6
447 447
Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) Segment/Reach: Reach 4
Baseline MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
C 5/6
447
1.01
0.0035
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data
indicate significant shifts from baseline
Note: Year 4 Monitoring did not require Cross Section Survey. Table is based on 2018 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
49
APPENDIX E: HYDROLOGIC DATA
Table 9: Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 12: Verification of Baseflow
Figure 2: Monthly Rainfall Data with Percentiles
Figures 3-12: Stream Surface Water Hydrology (Well 1-10)
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
50
Date of
Observation Dates of Occurence Method Greater than
Qbkf Stage?Notes
10/23/19 Various, including: 11/11/18-4/6/19, 6/7-6/15/19 Data logger Y Reach 1 (Well 5, 6)
10/5/18 12/8-4/6/18, 5/05-5/10, 5/30-6/6, 6/14, 7/24-8/8, 8/22-
8/26, 9/13-9/20 Data logger Y Reach 1 (Well 5, 6)
11/17/17 9/29/2016-10/17/2016, 10/21-10/24, 7/16-7/17, 8/11,
8/13-8/14, 9/6- 9/8/2017 Data logger Y Reach 1 (Well 5, 6)
9/29/16 2/7-2/13/16, 3/7-3/9/16 Data logger Y Reach 1 (Well 5, 6)
10/23/19 Various, including: 10/5/18-5/5/19, 6/7-7/2, 7/12-7/25,
8/16-8/24, 9/6-9/14, 10/22 Data logger Y Reach 2 (Well 7)
10/5/18 1/7-1/16/18, 1/25-2/23, 2/27, 3/24-3/27, 3/21, 4/9-
4/15, 8/2-8/5, 9/13-9/20 Data logger Y Reach 2 (Well 7)
11/17/17
9/29/2016-10/16/2016, 10/25, 12/18-12/28, 12/30-1/3,
1/5-1/19, 1/30-1/31, 2/1-2/6, 2/20-2/21, 3/3-3/6, 3/19-
3/27, 3/29-3/30, 4/1-4/3, 4/13, 4/18-4/20, 4/28-4/30,
5/30/2017,
Data logger Y Reach 2 (Well 7)
9/29/16 1/29-2/1/16, 2/2-2/8/16 Data logger Y Reach 2 (Well 7)
10/23/19
Various, including: 11/4/18, 11/11-11/15, 12/24-12/28,
12/30-12/31, 1/7/19, 1/15-1/23, 1/31-2/02. 3/13, 3/19-
21, 3/27-3/28
Data logger Y Reach 3 ( Well 1, 2)
10/5/18 12/27/2017, 1/1/18, 1/6, 1/16, 1/25-2/5, 3/27, 9/13-
9/18 Data logger Y Reach 3 ( Well 1, 2)
11/17/17 9/29/2016-11/3/2017 Data logger Y Reach 3 ( Well 1, 2)
9/29/16 2/5-6/16, 2/18/16, 5/29/16, 6/7/16 Data logger Y Reach 3 ( Well 1, 2)
10/23/19
Various, including: 10/17-10/26/18, 11/4, 11/9, 11/11-
11/23, 12/5-12/16, 12/25-1/2/19, 1/21-2/4, 2/8-2/11, 2-
16-3/14, 3-19-3/21, 3/25-3/31, 4/1-4/7 , 9/6/18
Data logger Y Reach 4 (Well 3)
10/5/18 11/9, 11/17-11/22/17, 3/24-4/24/18, 5/22-6/10, 9/11-
9/19 Data logger Y Reach 4 (Well 3)
11/17/17
9/29/2016-10/2, 10/6-10/12, 10/14-10/16, 10/25-10/29,
11/1-11/2, 11/5-11/8, 11/12, 12/4-12/5, 12/9-12/28,
12/30-1/3, 1/6-1/17, 2/2-2/6, 2/10-2/11, 2/21, 3/2-3/31,
4/2-4/3, 4/9-4/20, 4/24-4/26, 4/29-4/30, 5/5, 5/25,
5/30, 6/21, 6/24-6/25, 7/5, 7/18, 8/13-8/14, 9/9-
9/11/2017
Data logger Y Reach 4 (Well 3)
9/29/16 2/4/16, 2/18/16, 5/3/16, 6/7/16 Data logger Y Reach 4 (Well 3)
10/23/19
Various, including: 10/18/18, 11/3, 11/8, 11/11-11/18,
11/21-11/23, 12/5-12/15, 12/24-12/31, 1/31/19-2/2,
2/18-2/27, 3/6-3/14, 4/1-4/5, 6/10, 7/12, 9/5
Data logger Y Reach 1& 4
Confluence (Well 4)
10/5/18
11/13, 11/17, 12/12, 12/26, 12/31/17, 1/10/18, 2/13-
2/15, 3/24-3/26, 4/22, 5/31, 6/1, 7/24, 7/29, 8/8, 9/12,
9/16
Data logger Y Reach 1& 4
Confluence (Well 4)
11/17/17 10/7-10/9, 12/19-12/20, 1/2, 1/7-1/10, 1/13-1/14, 3/5,
3/23-3/24, 4/24-4/25, 5/5, 5/23, 5/25, 6/24, 9/6/2017 Data logger Y Reach 1& 4
Confluence (Well 4)
9/29/16 2/4/16, 2/18/16, 5/3/16, 6/7/16 Data logger Y
Reach 1& 4
Confluence (Well 4)
Table 9: Verification of Bankfull Events
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
51
Table 12: Verification of Baseflow
Well (Reach) Dates of Occurrence
30 Consecutive Days
Minimum Flow
Requirement Met? Notes
1 (Reach 3) Various Y On-site data logger
2 (Reach 3) Various Y On-site data logger
3 (Reach 4) Various Y On-site data logger
4 (Confluence R1&4) Various Y On-site data logger
5 (Reach 1) Various Y On-site data logger
6 (Reach 1) Various Y On-site data logger
7 (Reach 2) Various Y On-site data logger
8 (Reach 5) Various Y On-site data logger
9 (Reach 5) Various Y On-site data logger
10 (Reach 5) Various Y On-site data logger
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
52
Figure 3
Figure 4
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
53
Figure 5
Figure 6
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
54
Figure 7
Figure 8
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
55
Figure 9
Figure 10
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 4 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2020 DMS Project # 95361
56
Figure 11
Figure 12