20140422 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2020-DRAFT_20201118

ID#* 20140422 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 11/18/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 11/18/2020
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:*
Marie Brady
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20140422
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Hudson Property
County: Beaufort
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Hudson_ 95361_MY5_2020- DRAFT. pdf 5.32MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Marie Brady
Signature:*

Year 5 Monitoring Report
DRAFT
Hudson Property
DMS Project ID #: 95361
DMS Contract #: 004638
USACE Action ID# SAW-2012-01394
Beaufort County, North Carolina
Submitted: December 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 [phone] Fax [phone]

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary .........................................................................
2.0 Project Goals and Objectives......................................................
3.0 Project Success Criteria..............................................................
3.1 Stream Restoration Performance Standards ................................
3.2 Stream Channel Restoration Stability Performance Standards...
3.3 Planted Vegetation Performance Standards ................................
4.0 Site Conditions and Description .................................................
5.0 Mitigation Components..............................................................
6.0 Design Approach........................................................................
7.0 Construction and Planting Timeline ...........................................
8.0 Plan Deviations...........................................................................
9.0 Project Performance...................................................................
10.0 Methods and References...........................................................
.............................. 1
.............................. 1
.............................. 1
..............................1
.............................. 2
.............................. 2
.............................. 2
.............................. 2
.............................. 3
.............................. 3
.............................. 3
.............................. 3
.............................. 3
Figure1 —Vicinity Map....................................................................................
Appendix A — 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 ..................................................
Appendix B — CCPV and Photos......................................................................
Current Condition Plan View.........................................................................
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment (Reach 1-4) .......
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table .........................................
SitePhotos.....................................................................................................
Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data..................................................................
Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities .............................................
Appendix D — Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data ......................
Cross Sections with Annual Overlays (XS 1-11)
Table 8- Bank Pin Data
............. 4
............. 5
............. 6
............. 7
............. 7
.............8
............. 9
...........10
...........16
........... 20
...........21
........... 24
........... 25
........... 27
........................................................................................
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Reach 1-4).....................................
Table 1 I a. Monitoring Data — Dimensional Morphology Summary ...................
Table 1 lb. Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary (Reach 1-4)..........
AppendixE — 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 I-10) ..............................
.... 39
.... 40
.... 44
.... 45
.... 49
.... 50
.... 50
.... 51
.... 52

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 5 monitoring was completed in
October 2020.
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 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
1

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 If, Reach 2: 5321f, Reach 3: 445
If, Reach 4: 437 If, Reach 5: 6441f, for a total restored stream footage of 2,8911inear feet (Table
1).
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
2

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 for Years 1 through Year 5. 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 all monitoring
plots. Tree heights range from 4-15 feet, with an approximate average of 10 feet. Stream gauges
indicated base flow and bankfull events at 9 out of 10 locations. Baseflow and bankfull events
could not be confirmed at Well 5 because of logger malfunction that didn't allow data download.
The logger was replaced and we suspect that base flow and bankfull events occurred based on
conditions seen during monitoring and information from adjacent wells. 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, though slightly
less than in MY 3; both reaches remain stable. Stream cross sections are meeting objectives in 11
out of 11 locations.
Previous corrective measures included regrading Reach 5 to raise the stream invert to create a
wider swamp run. This was identified during a field meeting with NC Division of Mitigation
Services and the USACE in June 2017 and 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. Year 1 Monitoring identified some areas where woody
survivability was low; these areas were spot planted in December 2017. In Year 3, Vegetation
Plot 6 and other small areas on Reach 1 and 2 appeared to have slightly low woody survivability.
These areas were spot planted in October 2019; 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.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
3

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 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
4

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.
To Chocowinity
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Hudson Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project #95361
Beaufort County, NC
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
5
i

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 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
6

Table 1: Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Hudson Property, Beaufort County
EEP Project Number: 95361
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparianwetland
Non -riparian
wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient
Offset
Type
R
RE
R
IRE
R
RE
Totals
2,891
Project Components
Project
Component
or Reach ID
Stationing/Location
Existing
Footage/Acreage
Approach
(PI, PH etc.)
Restoration
or
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Reach 1
766 LF
PI
833 LF
1:1
Reach 2
S16 LF
PI/PII
532 LF
1:1
Reach 3
611 LF
PI/PII
445 LF
1:1
Reach 4
S03 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
(linearfeet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non -riparian
Wetland (acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine Non-
riverine
Restoration
2,891 LF
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
AW
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 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361

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
October 2020
Draft: November 2020
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
Table 3: Project Contacts
Hudson Property- EEP Project Number: 95361
Primary Project Design POC
Ecotone, Inc.
Scott McGill [phone]
129 Industry Lane, Forest Hill, MD 21050
Construction Contractor POC
Riverside Excavation, Inc.
Car Baynor [phone]
Survey Contractor POC
True Line Surveying
Curk Lane [phone]
Planting and Seeding Contractor
Carolina Silvics, Inc.
POC
Mary Margaret McKinney [phone]
908 Indian Trail Road, Edenton, NC 27932
Seed Mix Sources
Ernst Conservation Seeds, LLP, Meadville, PA
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Carolina Silvics, Inc.
Monitoring Performers
Ecotone, Inc.
Stream and Vegetation POC
Scott McGill [phone]
129 Industry Lane, Forest Hill, MD 21050
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361

Table 4: Project information
Hudson Property- EEP Project Number: 95361
Project name
HUDSON PROPERTY
County
BEAUFORT
Project Area (ac)
13.4AC
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
AR-PAMLICO RIVER BASIN
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-
digit
03020104
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
3020104010010
DWQSub-basin
CHOCOWINITYCREEK —HORSE BRANCH
Project Drainage Area (acres)
190.86
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
Impervious Area
1.2 % (2.24 acres)
CGIA Land Use Classification
1 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
Vill
Vill
Vill
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
Documents
Waters of the United States — Section 401
YES
YES
—Supporting
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 Flood lain Compliance
INO
YES
NA
Essential Fisheries Habitat
INO
YES
NA
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361

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 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
10

' 41
Reach
7e
-Re h
6 2
terr AA" er.
J
F.
A--iLim
Hudson She2m Restoration Project @ Fimsumn �cnsea� E—::JwDOdyRffk5 %bg FA a-KM-
Albmarle Rastorat7ons, LLIC Cuffent Condition Plan View f't Bank Fin Amrf &RMd N." UM Omp unw. MM
MINE 2bq3MCCnbfflnC MTW C-Z
pr%Ect#95361 rap Ur B" K -K-
Bce-�nt&MMM7 Hydl:4�WLM tFsvalm aftEtwe Qandnm
Nolmmbn- ll� 2020
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
11

.4fbarrfResoratior�s,LL Hudson StreaRestoration Project — Ia> �wa� �pu��,
Guurent Condition PLm Viewr� crn.n.rw.
=w 8bri9rYiRro Sn%wn Gagm
s..�,e...� Project # 95361 '
�T—�y�aw.c mimam11
lsmi f/dW. V lU[L!O 18, 2020 9Mk Rh 8n'3y 9ba.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
12

Albemarle Re tnrar�or�s, LAC Hudson Strewn Restoration Project A$u„ a" Pk ffjy s�.s L39a� ��Gw�
uffent Condition Plan view _ ToparBWR —ear B-ram an T C-aUgeE � crwn.rw
JIdh.fJU.k..ik.r Project P 45361 ok.a Rn.. crrsa Boni 0 Fy,dT;,,� nui 0
A%Er r NMEmbei 18, =MEN Er OtnrrkA A; Rmd aY�d.e rmauon
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
13

AlbemarleRes orations, LLB Hudson Strew Restoration Project $ a" pin" sus L39a� a5UPUCc caa,
G urent Condition Plan View —E-- I � crM.rw
— TapefarV[ adndrX 3h23fI' G3,iges
tJ�Jk....k. tT�Pro�peiafi . 453�6n1�n waaw Rnr Crrr.�wben. Ns r 0 "�•",•
it n lAVY Emb 19, iV3V =MEN E iT iorewrNA - no. 11mR�'AldaOf�
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
14

.4fbarrf Resoratior�s, LLB Hudson Stream Restoration ProjectilD$ B"� sus L39a� �PU��
G urent Cmdition Man View —E-- I � crM. rw
— rap erew� a"�'d'"+' She3f1' G3,Ige5
y"JO. Praje�rt 9361 waaw Rnr cnr �wben. HsNe Mel 0 "�• ", •
ism" NarmbH 18, 2020 =MEN E + cornurw A° FUM h stm 38h Kh. Ca dtbn
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
15

Hu&cn Stmam Restoration Project > LR9 Drys vbp pu ca mm
Albemarle Res�oratior�s, LLB G�urettlt Condition Plan View =... � Cir%i A� `f = Uw. ".1
t r am„ Prajea:N 95361 • µr+Dkm NM
n hre�awm.ccanauor
irk 1'illriM',H 18, 2424 `- 9Yk Rh 8n'3Y - no.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
16

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 1
Assessed Length 766
ge
Adjusted %
Number
h
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
izing
=nVe
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performingdy
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
ation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggregation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
deflectflow laterally(notto include pointbars)
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. Lenath appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head ofdownstrem riffle)
5
5
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
N4
NA
NP;
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
N4
NA
NP;
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simplyfrom poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
2. Undercut
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts thatare modest,
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
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 anysubstantial flow underneath sills or arms.
$
$
100%
Bank erosion within the structures extentof influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
$
$
100%
guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean
4. Habitat
Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
$
$
100%
base -flow.
*Stream's narrow width, layout, and heaviIyvegeta ted banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
17

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 2
Assessed Length 516
Number
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation -Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
deflectflow laterally (notto include point bars)
0
0
o
100/o
2. Degradation - Evidence ofdowncutting
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 ofdownstrem riffle)
3
3
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NP;
NP;
NP;
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NP;
NP;
NP;
2. Bank
1.Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resultingsimply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
2. Undercut
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving,orcollapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
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
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
0
0
NA
guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean
4.F
. Habitat
F
Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
0
0
NA
base -flow.
Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavily vegetated banks make this attribute notapplicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
18

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 3
Assessed Length 611
Number
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggregation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
deflectflow 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. Lenath 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)
NAB
NA*
NAB
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NAB
NA*
NAB
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simplyfrom poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
2. Undercut
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts thatare modest,
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Total s
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 anysubstantial flow underneath sills or arms.
0
0
NA
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
0
0
NA
guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean
4. Habitat
Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
0
0
NA
base -flow.
*Stream's narrow width, layout, and heaviIyvegeta ted banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
19

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 4
Assessed Length 503
Number
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggregation -Bar formation/growth sufficientto 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)
NP;
NP;
NA
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NP;
NP;
NA
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simplyfrom poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting
2. Undercut
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intactwith 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 anysubstantial flow underneath sills or arms.
3
3
NA
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
3
3
NA
guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean
4. Habitat
Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
3
3
NA
base -flow.
*Stream's narrow width, layout, and heaviIyvegeta ted banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
20

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 12.42
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
%of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Pattern
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
and Color
0
0
0.0%
Pattern
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
I and Color
0
0
0.0%
Total:
0
0
0.0%
Pattern
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously smaI I given the monitoring year
0.25 acres
I 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
I 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 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
21

Photo 1: Highly vegetated stream area with wetland along Reach 1 - View South.
Photo 2: View of Cross Section 5 on Reach 2 — View Northwest.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
22

Photo 3: View of Cross Section 1 on Reach 3 — View North.
Photo 4: View of Cross Section 3 on Reach 4 —View Northeast.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 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 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
24

APPENDIX C: VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
25

Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
EEP Project Code 0004638. Project Name: Hudson
Current Plot Data (MYS 20201
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
0004638-01-0001
0004638-01-0002
0004638-01-0003
0004638-01-0004
0004638-01-0005
0004638-01-0006
0004638-01-0007
0004638-01-0008
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
2
5
1
2
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
Ligustrum vulgare
European privet
Exotic
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
Morelia cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
1
1
11
11 1
Pinus echinata
shortleaf pine
Tree
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
14
5
6
10
5
13
Plata nus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
6
4
4
4
4
4
5
3
3
3
2
2
2
2 2
2
6
6
6
5
5
5
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus bicolor
swamp white oak
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
21
21
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
31647.51:404:7]:4044
5
5
5
4
4
4
4 4
4
3
3
6
6
6
6
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
1
1
1
1 1
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
per ACRE
11
11
32
8
8
17
7
7
10
10
27
10
10
17
7 7
22
11
11
17
11
11
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
5 5
9
4
4
7
2
2
7
5
5
7
3
3
5Stems
445.2
1295
.7
323.7
688
283.3
1093
404.7
404.7
688
283.3
890.3
445.2
445.2
688
445.2
445.2
607
EEP Proiect Code 0004638. Proiect Name: Hudson
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
0004638-03-0009
0004638-03-0010
0004638-01-0011
0004638-03-0012
0004638-03-0013
MY5 (2020)
MY3 (2018)
MY2 (2017)
MYl (2016)
MYO (2016)
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoL
P-all
T
Pnol-
P-all
T
Pnol-
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
2
9
Bacchans halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
1
2
3
18
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
1 1
1
1
1
1
Ligustrum vulgare
European privet
Exotic
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
3
15
3
32
10
6
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2 2
2
1
1
1
1
4
4
5
14
14
15
15
15
18
12
12
12
31
31
31
Morelia cerfera
wax myrtle
shrub
3
4
2
Pinus echinata
shortleaf pine
Tree
1
1
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
14
12
3
1
83
84
1
53
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
5
5
5
1
10
10
10
1
1
1
4
4
4
49
49
54
49
49
50
46
46
50
44
44
47
54
54
54
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
11
11
11
11
11
15
12
12
16
12
12
12
16
16
16
Quercus bicolor
swamp white oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
11
11
11
16
16
16
17
17
17
19
19
19
19
19
19
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1 1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
6
6
6
8
8
8
11
11
12
8
8
8
13
13
13
Quercus nigra
wateroak
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
8
8
8
13
13
13
14
14
15
11
11
11
18
18
18
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
32
32
39
29
29
31
29
29
35
24
24
25
33
3
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
2
3
2
2
7
6
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
1 1
1
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
10
10
26
7
7
25
16
16
20
8
8
31
10
10
18
126
126
283
140
140
254
144
144
234
130
130
134
184�18�4184
1
1
1
1
1
13
13
13
13
13
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
3
31
6
51
5F
9
4
4
6
6
6
10
3
3
7
11
11
17
7
7
13
7
7
12
7
7
7
7
7
7
404.7
404.7
1052
283.3
1012
647
647
809
324
324
1255
405
405
728
392
392
881
436
791
448
728
405
405
417
5731
573
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 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 morethan 10%
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 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 1 la. Monitoring Data — Dimensional Morphology Summary
Table 1 lb. Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary (Reach 1-4)
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
28

+9 Pool
44
43
42
41
40
C
O
m 39
n
a�
w 38
37
36
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
+MYO (V2016) MY1(9/2016) MY2 (11/2017) MY3 (10/2018) -4- MY5 (10/2020) —Bankfull
Cross Section 1 — Reach 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
29

2+41 Riffle
41
39
0
r�
>
37
LU
35
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 S0 90 100
Width (ft)
+ MYO (1/2016) MY1(9/2016) MY2 (11/2017) t MY3 (10/2018) 0 MY5 (10 j2020) Bankfull
Cross Section 2 — Reach 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
30

+24 Riffle
38
36
0
M
m
u, 34
32
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
� MYO (1/2016) - MY1 (9j2016) 0 MY2 (11/2017) 4 MY3 (10/2018) MY5 (10/2020) Bankfu l l
Cross Section 3 — Reach 4
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
31

2+69 Pool
39
38
37
36
a 35
34
4,
33
32
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 S0 90 100
Width (ft)
� MYO (1/2016) MY1(9/2016) f MY2 (11/2017) --#-- MY3 (10/2018) MY5 (1012020) Baukfull
Cross Section 4 — Reach 4
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
32

+fib Pool
40
39
38
$
37
c
0
ra
a'i 36
LU
35
34
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 So 90 100
Width (ft)
--0-- MYO (V2016) MY1(9/2016) — MY2 (11j2017) —40-- MY3 (10j2018) MY5 (1012020) Bankfull
Cross Section 5 — Reach 2
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
33

3+95 Riffle
42
41
40
39
38
+�
ak
W 37
36
35
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 SO 90 100
Width (ft)
—4—MYO (112016) MY1(9/2016) MY2 (11/2017) —4— MY3 (10/2018) — MY5 (1012020) Sankfull
Cross Section 6 — Reach 2
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
34

39
WA
35 +
0
6+47 Pool
10 20 30 40 5o 60 70 SO 90
Width (ft)
MYO (1/2016) 1— MY1(9/2016) . MY2 (11/2017) f MY3 (10/2018) 0 MY5 (10/2020) sankfull
Cross Section 7 — Reach 1
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
35
O

4+43 Riffle
39.0
38.5
$ 38.0
a
a
a
"' 37.5
37.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 SO 90 100
Width (ft)
MY0 (1J2016) MY1 (9J2016) MY2 (11/2017) +MY3 (10j2018) —0--MY5 (10j2020) Bankfull
Cross Section 8 — Reach 1
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
36

2+73 Pool
40.5
40.0
39.5
0
39.0
AMW-
+-
m
aV
w
38.5
38.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
MYO (1/2016) MY1 (9/2016) MY2 (11/2017) --0.—MY3 (1012018) MY5 (10/2020) Bankfull
Cross Section 9 — Reach 1
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
37

+64 Riffle
41.5
41.0
40.5
0
r�
a�
"'
40.0
39.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width {ft}
+ MY0 (1f 2016) a~ MY1(9/2016) —' MY2 (11/2017) t MY3 (10 f 2018) 9 MY5 (10/2020) Bankfull
Cross Section 10 —Reach 1
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
38

8+14 Riffle
38
37
36
35
34
n
LU 33
32
31
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
MYO (112016) MY1(9/2016) MY2 (11/2017) MY3 (1012018) MY5 (1012020) Bankfull
Cross Section 11 — Reach 1 & 4 Confluence
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
39

Table 8: Monitoring Year 5 - 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 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
40

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:95361 - Segment/Reach: Reach 1
Parameter
GaugeZ
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es)
Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and S;Bankfull
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD5
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD5
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD5
n
3.36
3.83
6.02
19.74
21.97
24.2
9.02
11.5
16.2
2
7Depth
6.47
6.91
10.5
44
64.5
85
18.06
26.74
34.89
57
83.33
2
0.45
0.52
0.6
0.7
0.75
0.82
0.42
0.22
0.26
2
0.56
0.87
1.07
0.85
1.02
1.18
0.44
0.53
0.61
0.4
0.51
2
Bankfull
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 Ratiol
1
11.74
1.8
1.93
2
2.94
3.87
2
2.94
3.87
4.96
5.14
2
'Bank Height Ratiol
I
1
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
Re: 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) Ib/f2
0.26
0.18
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/rn'l
1
1 0.56
0.14
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5-G6
C5-C6
C5-C6
C5/6
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
5.6
Valley length (ft)
840
264
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
846
264
833
850
Sinuosity (ft)
1.01
1
1.04
1.04
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fVft)
0.007
0.004
0.007
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.006
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4 k of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Otherl
I
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
41

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:95361 - Segment/Reach: Reach 2
Parameter
GaugeZ
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
I Reference Reach(es)
Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - I
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
116.09
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
'Bankfull 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 ff
5.59
6.32
6.58
16.49
16.89
10
5.28
1
Width/Depth Ratiol
I
I
1
1 6.38
7.47
7.88
24.22
29.27
34.67
22
26.18
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.67
1.68
96
2
2.94
3.87
2.94#�I
2.39
1
'Bank Hei ht Ratio
1
1
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A'
12
46.5
81
8.1 31.39 4.68
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
N/A`
0.004
0.011
0.017
0.003 0.008.012
Pool Length (ft)
N/A`
21
30.5
40
14.18 20.5927
Pool Max depth (ft)
N/A`
1.4
1.65
1.9
1.16 1.481.84
158.61
Pool Spacing (ft)
N/A*
40
59
78
27 44.33
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
Re: 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) Ib/f2
0.42
0.11
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/M21
1
1 1.25
0.18
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5-G6
C5-C6
C5-C6
C 5/6
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
17.2
Valley length (ft)
486
264
EM
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
516
264
532
541
Sinuosity (ft)
1.06
1
1.05
1.05
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fVft)
0.003
0.004
0.003
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0035
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4 k of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
42

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:95361 - Segment/Reach: Reach 3
Parameter
GaugeZ
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es)
Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Ri
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
9.74
21.97
24.2
10
12.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
5.97
6.44
9.13
44
64.5
85
20.03
29.36
38.69
32.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.55
0.79
0.84
0.7
0.75
0.82
0.5
0.57
1
'Bankfull Max De h 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 ftZ
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 Ratiol
I
I
1
1 1.6
1.68
1.8
2
2.94
3.87
2
2.94
3.87
2.63
1
'Bank Hei ht Ratiol
I
I
I
1
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A*
12
46.5
81
5.46
21.17
36.87
Riffle Slope (ftfft)
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
Re: Bankfull width (ff/ft)
N/A*
4.10 4.19 4.32
]ILI
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) Ib/f2
0.37
0.14
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/M21
1
1 1.02
0.18
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5-G6
C5-C6
C5-C6
C 5/6
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
8
Valley length (ft)
442
264
EM
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
460
264
445
446
Sinuosity (ft)
1.04
1
1.01
1.08
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fVft)
0.007
0.004
0.007
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.005
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4 k of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
43

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:95361 - Segment/Reach: Reach 4
Parameter
GaugeZ
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es)
Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - I
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
'Bankfull 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 ff
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 Ratiol
1
1
1.63
1.84
1.88
2
2.94
3.87
2
2.94
3.87
3.17
1
'Bank Height Ratiol
I
I1
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
Re: 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) Ib/f2
0.48
0.16
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/M21
I
1 1.01
0.22
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5-G6
C5-C6
C5-C6
C 5/6
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
26.2
Valley length (ft)
434
264
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
503
264
437
447
Sinuosity (ft)
1.16
1
1.01
1.01
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fVft)
0.003
0.004
0.003
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0035
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4 k of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
44

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)
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY
MY,
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
36.40
36.36
36.55
36.42
36.43
34.50
34.34
34.60
34.62
34.63
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull' Area
1.00
1.00
0.77
0.88
0.79
1.00
1.14
0.77
0.65
0.90
Thalweg Elevation
36.33
37.05
37.54
38.28
38.08
35.55
35.44
35.52
35.51
35.51
33.76
32.88
33.96
34.06
33.85
33.00
32.92
32.90
33.20
33.02
34.56
34.77
34.89
35.19
35.02
LTOB' Elevation
37.57
37.53
38.05
38.65
38.49
36.40
36.36
36.31
36.31
36.24
34.50
34.55
34.45
34.42
34.52
33.60
33.64
33.60
33.75
33.73
35.46
35.42
35.44
36.15
35.41
LTOB' N1ax Depth ft
1.24
0.48
0.51
0.37
0.50
0.85
0.92
0.79
0.80
0.70
0.74
1.67
1 0.49
0.36
0.70
0.60
0.72
0.70
1 0.55
0.60
0.90
0.65
0.55
0.96
0.60
L
LTOB' Cross Sectional Area (le)
3.90
1 1.50
1.40
1.80
1.80
7.07
7.07
2.90
5.60
4.60
3.17
4.40
2.00
1.70
2.30
3.19
2.30
1.80
2.50
2.50
3.70
4.90
2.00
3.40
3.401
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)
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
36.53
37.13
37.75
37.84
37.49
37.91
37.90
37.97
37.93
37.91
40.26
40.22
40.27
40.28
40.29
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull' Area
1.00
0.63
0.47
0.74
1.60
1.00
1.30
1.09
0.88
0.80
1 1.00
1.13
1.04
1.00
10.90
Thalweg Elevation
35.67
36.57
36.97
37.01
37.02
35.91
35.87
35.70
35.96
35.93
37.40
37.41
37.33
37.44
37.36
38.41
38.32
38.05
38.43
38.52
39.86
39.77
39.82
39.87
39.90
LTOB' Elevation
36.53
36.92
37.34
37.62
37.78
36.56
36.66
36.25
36.70
36.58
37.91
38.05
38.03
37.87
37.81
39.00
39.03
39.21
39.05
39.09
40.26
40.28
40.29
40.28
40.25
LTOB' Max Depth ft
0.86
0.35
0.37
0.61
0.80
0.65
0.79
0.55
0.74
0.70
0.51
0.64
0.70
0.43
0.50
0.59
0.71
1.16
0.62
0.60
0.40
0.51
0.47
0.41
0.40
LTOB' Cross Sectional Area (le)
2.82
1.60
2.66
13.89
2.30
3.10
2.30
3.20
3.20
4.28
7.20
5.01
3.80
2.77
2.20
2.40
5.20
2.40
2.40
2.40
3.30
2.90
2.40
2.00
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 an 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
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation ft - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
Bank Height Ratio Based on AB Bankfull' Area
33.42
1.00
33.44
0.84
33.49
0.73
33.52
0.71
33.53
0.79
Thalweg Elevation
32.51
31.91
32.56
32.58
32.60
LTOB' Elevation
33.42
33.19
33.24
33.25
33.33
LTOB' Max Depth ft
0.91
1.28
0.68
0.67
0.50
LTOB' Cross Sectional Area
22.54
14.68
14.13
13.85
16.54
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 vanabilityabove is the result of this factor and some is due to the large amount of depositional
sediments observed.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
45

Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Surnrnary
Pro'ect Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:95361 Segment/Reach: Reach 1
Parameter
Baseline
MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 5
MY- 7
Dimension and Substrate -Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
in
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SO
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
1124
17.33
2
111-201
14.90
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
57.00
83.30
2
58.28
86.26
2
53.80
97.70
2
57.38
74.01
2
54.00
>100
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
0.20
0.60
2
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.40
0.51
2
0.49
0.50
2
0.42
0.57
2
0.40
0.45
2
0.40
0.60
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fte)
2.58
4.26
2
3.25
4.77
2
2.58
4.26
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
52.20
52.80
2
Entrenchment Ratio!
atio
4.96
5.14
1
1 2
1 4.31
1
1
1 5.08
1
2
5.21
5.36
2
4.27
5.10
2
4.80
2
'Bank Height Rtiol
1.00
1
1
1 1.00
1
1 2
1 1.00
1
1
1 1.00
1
2
1.12
0.88
2
0.91
1.10
2
0.80
0.90
2
Profit
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)
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Re Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C 5/6
C 5/6
C 5/6
C 5/6
C 517
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
850
850
850
850
850
Sinuosity (ft)
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
2 = 6anleull for XS 6 recalculated
'Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
'SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
#
'd16/ d35/ d50/ d84/ d95 I
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 = Proporflon of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 =Riffle, Run, Pod, Gide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gavel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; di = max pave, dis = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
46

Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring .. Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:96361) Segment/Reach: Reach 2
Dimension and Substrate -Riffle only
mmmmmomm®mmomm®mmomm�mmommmmmommmmmm
Flood...-•mmmmmommmmmommmmmommmmmommmmmommmmmm
mmmmmommmmmommmmmomm�mmommmmmommmmmm
..-.mmmmmommmmmommmmmommmmmommmmmommmmmm
-.mm�mmommmmmomm�mmomm�mmomm�mmommmmmm
':-:.mmmmmomm®mmomm�mmommmmmomm®mmommmmmm
FIT
---..mmmmmomm©mmomm©mmommmmmomm®mmommmmmm
data, dimensional data or profile data
..be significantbaseline
.. .sual
Additional Reach Parameters-
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
r
r
r
r
r
-
r rr
r rr
r rr
r rr
r rr
'' 'r'
. :' ..
�mmmmmmmm■
■mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
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 e#iibiing banks that are coding based on the visual surrey from visual assessment table
3 - Riffle, tun, Pod, Gide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpa e
4. = Of valuelneeded only if the in exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
47

Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring .. Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:96361) Segment/Reach: Reach 3
MIR MI.
Pool Length
Pool Max depth (ft)
MMMMMMMMM
significant shifts from baseline
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
= BanMull for XS 6
'Ri% I Ru% I P% I G% I S%
'SC% I Be% I G% I C% I B% I Be %
ad161 d351 d501 d841 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 =rtiThe distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal rofile.
2 - Pr oon of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual surrey from tisual assessment table
3 Riffle, Run, Pod, Glide, Step; SiWClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
48

Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring .. Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:96361) Segment/Reach: Reach 4
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
Pool Length
Pool Max depth (ft)
be colle sual data, dimensional data or profile data
..significantbaseline
.. .
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio==MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Additional Reach Parameters
MENEWil
r
r
r
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (fUft)
r rr
r rr
r rr
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these Will typically not be tilled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from bolls the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual surrey from usual assessment table
E,,3 = Riffle, Run, Pod, Glide, Step; Sift/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4 = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 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 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
50

Table 9: Verification of Bankfull
Events
Date of
Greaterthan
Observation
Dates ofoccurence
Method
QbkfStage?
Notes
10/28/2020
Various, including: 11/11-12/22/19, 1/4-4/26/20,5/20-
Datalogger
y
Reach 1 (We 116)
6/24, 9/15-9/21
*Well 5 malfunction
10/23/19
Various, including:11/11/18-4/6/19, 6/7-6/15/19
Data logger
Y
Reach 1(We 11 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-
Data logger
Y
Reach 1(We 11 5, 6)
8/26,9/13-9/20
11/17/17
9/29/2016-10/17/2016, 10/21-10/24, 7/16-7/17, 8/11,
Data logger
Y
Reach 1 (We 11 5, 6)
8/13-8/14, 9/6- 9/8/2017
9/29/16
2/7-2/13/16, 3/7-3/9/16
Data logger
Y
Reach 1(We 11 5, 6)
10/28/20
Various, including:11/24/19-6/23/20, 9/18-10/28
Data logger
Reach 2 (Well 7)
10/23/19
Various, including:10/5/18-5/5/19, 6/7-7/2, 7/12-7/25,
Data logger
Y
Reach 2 (Well 7)
8/16-8/24,9/6-9/14,10/22
10/5/18
1/7-1/16/18, 1/25-2/23, 2/27, 3/24-3/27, 3/21, 4/9-4/15,
Data logger
Y
Reach 2 (Well 7)
8/2-8/5,9/13-9/20
9/29/2016-10/16/2016,10/25,12/18-12/28,12/30-1/3,1/5
11/17/17
1/19, 1/30-1/31, 2/1-2/6, 2/20-2/21, 3/3-3/6, 3/19-3/27,
Data logger
Y
Reach 2 (Well 7)
3/29-3/30, 4/1-4/3, 4/13, 4/18-4/20, 4/28-4/30, 5/30/2017
9/29/16
1/29-2/1/16, 2/2-2/8/16
Data logger
Y
Reach 2 (Well 7)
10/28/20
Various, including between 12/14/19-3/10/20
Data logger
Y
Reach 3 ( Well 1, 2)
Various, including: 11/4/18, 11/11-11/15,12/24-12/28,
10/23/19
12/30-12/31, 1/7/19, 1/15-1/23, 1/31-2/02. 3/13, 3/19-21,
Data logger
Y
Reach 3 ( Well 1, 2)
3/27-3/28
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)
Various, including between 12/7-12/22/19,1/8-1/22/20, 2/6
Data logger
Y
Reach 4 (Well 3)
10/28/20
2/24
Various, including: 10/17-10/26/18, 11/4,11/9, 11/11-
10/23/19
11/23, 12/5-12/16, 12/25-1/2/19, 1/21-2/4, 2/8-2/11, 2-16-
Data logger
Y
Reach 4 (Well 3)
3/14,3-19-3/21,3/25-3/31,4/1-4/7,9/6/18
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)
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-
11/17/17
1/3, 1/6-1/17, 2/2-2/6, 2/10-2/11, 2/21, 3/2-3/31, 4/2-4/3,
Data logger
Y
Reach 4 (Well 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
9/29/16
2/4/16, 2/18/16, 5/3/16, 6/7/16
Data logger
Y
Reach 4 (Well 3)
Various, including between 12/19-12/22/19,1/8-1/23/20,
Data logger
Reach 1& 4
10/28/20
2/14-2/24, 3/7-3/23
Confluence (Well 4)
Various,including: 10/18/18,11/3,11/8,11/11-11/18,
Reach 1& 4
10/23/19
11/21-11/23, 12/5-12/15, 12/24-12/31, 1/31/19-2/2, 2/18-
Data logger
Y
2/27, 3/6-3/14, 4/1-4/5, 6/10, 7/12, 9/5
Confluence (W211 4)
10/5/18
11/13, 11/17, 12/12, 12/26, 12/31/17, 1/10/18, 2/13-2/15,
Data logger
Y
Reach 1& 4
3/24-3/26, 4/22, 5/31, 6/1, 7/24, 7/29, 8/8, 9/12, 9/16
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
Data logger
Y
Reach 1& 4
3/24, 4/24-4/25, 5/5, 5/23, 5/25, 6/24, 9/6/2017
Confluence (Well 4)
Data logger
Reach 1& 4
9/29/16
2/4/16, 2/18/16, 5/3/16, 6/7/16
y
Confluence Well 4
Hudson Stream Restoration Project- Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 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
to
9
8
7
6
0
is 3
.Q
a
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 2: Monthly Rainfall Data
Nov 19' Dec 19' Jan 20' Feb 20' Mar 20' Apr 20' May 20' Jun 20' Jul 20' Aug 20' Sept 20' Oct 20'
Date
Rainfall (in) —30 percentile —70 percentile
Rainfall Data collected from Washington W WTP in BeaufortCounty, NC. Data obtained from USDA-NRCSAgricultural Applied Climate
Information System, Percentiles calculated from 1997-2020 data.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
52

Figure 3
40.0
39.0
c 35.0
O
37.0
a
u+ 36.0
Oxf.
Figure 4
37.0
c 36.0
0
m
w
W 35.0
34.0
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 5
Monitoring Well 1- Reach 3
rn rn rn rn m rn m rn m a rn a rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 00 0 0 0 00 CD C 0 0 0 C 00 O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
M Q_1 r 1 0) M u�'� CD N O r_-I r,M T CDun r_-I N �DN r, M 0�0 0) ' j CD CD CD M r_i n N 0�0 M 0) CD CD 'n r_-I � ._-I M_ N n M 0_0 Q_i l O
r �rq � N �� rn M �rq �� u1 Ln rDro 00 1-1 rq O a,
O O r-I ri .-I a -I .-I ri rl N N N N r-I ri ri ri N N N N M M M M Ln Ln Ln Ln �D �D �D �D n r- r, r, co W co W O m O O r-I r-I O O O
ri rl ri ri rl ri rl ri ri 14 ri rl
Date
Water Elevation Bankfull Datum -Thalweg Elevation
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 5
Monitoring Well 2 - Reach 3
m m m a� m rn m rn a m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rl ri .-i rl ri rl r-I .-i rl ri a -I rl ri N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N " " N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
r_n 6_1 ro 0_0 Lr' -I r- N n N r N WM W! M Ln ._-I IDa_-I r_I 100 N r- N M W M M 0_1 M M N CD�! r_-1 100 ._-I r- ._-I N r- N 0_0 N n M M M M C M
M C Ln Ln l0 to f� W W M O B O O
O M M M M M V LnLnuf1 V1 l0 10 l0 10 r- r.. r.. r- W W W W 0) Ol M O .--I a --I O O O
rl ri .-i rl .--I .-i rl ri rl ri rl ri rl
Date
Water Elevation-Bankfull Datum Thalweg Elevation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
53

Figure 5
36.5
,F 35.5
c
0
y 34.5
m
W
33.5
32.5
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 5
Monitoring Well 3 - Reach 4
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ry N N N N N ry N N N N N
�f1 W ND_ONO COWMW -O M6M W Nrn-rlNOaW MNr -D�ONOry ry MN nN NN nN-QN a T M _D0 M r NN hN N.1M W O N
�O
O O .-.-.1 .1 .1N N N N N Z N N ���� �➢ �➢ ����r r m m M Qi O O ��`�
Figure 6
35.0
F 34.0
c
33.0
m
7
w
ur 32.0
31.0
Date
—Water Elevation—Bankiull Datum — Thalweg Elevation
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 5
Monitoring Well 4 - Confluence Reaches 1&4
m rn rn rn rn rn m m m m m m rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
[_rn Q_1 fr D_0 Q_1 N O u�'n e_i N r N r N co I_n T furl W Q_1 N e�-I r N r ro ec_ f_'rl W ro a) O N 14 � r_i r�-I r N r m D_D 6�1 N O u_'n _-I N_i tD r_-I r e�-I N co m D_0 a) u�'n O N
N m N r�-I a�—I ��11 N N 1 M M ��11 7 7 1 �� Vn �� lD lD 1 � rIjf� f� 1111 m 1 ��� [A [A 111
O O r-I rl r-I r-I ri ri rl N N N N r-I ri ri ri N N N M M rn rn u'n u'n L+n u'n kD LD ED �D r, r, r" r" ec eD DD DD 6] 6] Cn a) r-I r-I Or ar O
rl �--I �-I �i ri ri ri rl r-i r—I �i ri ri
Date
-Water Elevation-BanOill Datum Thalweg Elevation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
54

Figure 7
Figure 8
42.0
41.0
40.0
0
7 39.0
w
Monitoring Well 5 — Reach 1
Logger Malfunction; unable to download MY 5 data.
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 5
Monitoring Well 6 - Reach 1
37.0
m m a m rn m rn m rn rn m rn m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�--I a -I rl ri rl ri rl ri rl ri rl ri rl N N N N [V N fV N N N N IV fV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N. N. N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N O N OHO M Q_1 Q_1 v_j O r N W M Q_1 M m 0_1 N O _-I n N W N r M W M N O S r_-I r-
ro
�� ��� N ���
O O �-y �--� .-I .-I .-I .-I ry N N N N �--I ry ry ry N N N M M M M W 00 00 00 6] 61 Q1
Date
Water Elevation-Bankiull Datum-Thalweg Elevation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
55

Figure 9
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 5
Monitoring Well 7 - Reach 2
39.0
38.0
c 37.0
0
7 36.0
a�
uJ 35.0
34.0
M M M M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r1 rl rl rl rl r-I rl 1-1 rl 1-1 rl 1-1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
M Off'] u_'] r_I n m O L_D N G�0 r�l N Q_1 r_i [- Q_1 N N 6�1 u�'] r_i n M Q�1 Ln r_i m OO L_D m m OO r- m 6 N N w O N 0_0 r_i N 0_0 Ln r_1 r-
M
�� ri �� N m m �� sJ] ��� rD ���� n -'--I -M- 00 �� �� rn O] ��� O O �
�
O O rl r1 rl rl rl rl N N N N r-I rl r-1 rl N N N rn rn rn '� �n Ln �n u] ID LD rD LD r1 r..f� r..00 00 CO 00 Q7 M Q7 rl r1 O O O
r-I r-I r- -I r- -I -I r-I -- r r-I r-I rl
Date
Water Elevation Bankfull Datum ! Thalweg Elevation
Figure 10
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 5
Monitoring Well 8 - Reach 5
34.0
Y 33.0
r
2 32.0 VW Ir \ FT 7
W
U Water occasional) drops below streambed for art of the day; there
w 31.0 Y p p V�
are 30+consecutive days of flaw between 1/5 and 2/25/20_
30.0
m m rn am m 0) a am am m a a 0) o 0 0 0 0 C0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N fJ N rV rV rV N N N N fV fV rV N fV N N N N fJ N N rV N N M fJ N N N N N N N N N fV fV N N N N M N fJ N N N N N N N rV fV rV N N N N N N N N
Y_n M O_1 O_-I M1 N c_0 Q�i 6_i N O S r_-I N n M M N_-I L_D N r N m m O_-I r N w N 0_0 m Ln O N r f 7 0_c M O Ln _-I N_-1 N N 0_0 m m O
m 7 7 � �� � h � �� �� �� n �� �� W 00 � �� 6] ---- O O
O O r-I a -I rl ri ri rl r-I N N N N ri ri ri N N N N rn m m m ' n un Ln Ln cD cD cD 10 n n r, r, cc
00 00 00 M M M M r-1 r-I o o O
ri ri a -I ri ri rl rl rl a --I rl r-I rl
Date
Water Elevation -Streamhed Surface Elevation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
56

Figure 11
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 5
Monitoring Well 9 - Reach 5
33.0
320
c 310
0
M
j 30, 0
m Y
ru 29.0
28.0
0) a 0) a 0) a 0) m a a a m M 0 0 0 CDC CDCO CDO CDC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CDO 0 0 0 CDOC 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L1 L J -J ri ri J r-I rJ L J rJ L1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ly r.j N N N N N N N N N Ly N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N Q�i M 0_'� ._-I N n N 0_0 M W C Obi LnO N O LSD ._-I n M 0�] O N a_ -I N ._-I N n M W 7 M Ln O N O L_D ._-I r- N 0�0 rn M 7 0 O L 1 1_-4 L_D r�-I N n rO 0 0)
N N r_i r_-I i �� N N � �� r_-I r_i �� 11 N �1 M rn 1� 1 1�� N Ln 1� 1� LO � 1 N N n P �� 1� 0c � 1 N 1 0) M
i � O O ��
O O ', rri ri r-I ri L1 N N N N r-I ri rri N N N N M M r COCOM M N un uI Ln LD LD LO LD r- rr r- Oc CO CO 0) 0) 0l (n ri i LO O O
Li Li Li ri L1 ri 1i ri L1 ri ri L1
Date
Figure 12
32.0
$ 31.0
30.0
0 29.0
M 28.0
y 27.0
W
—Water Elevation — Streambed Surface Elevation
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 5
Monitoring Well 10 - Reach 5
M M M M M M M M M m M 0 0 0 p p 0 0 p 0 p 0 p 0 p p 0 p p 0 p 0 p 0 p 0 0 p p 0 0 0 p 0 p 0 0 p p 0 0 p 0 0 p p 0 p p
r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
p p p O p p O p p O p 0 0 0 p O 0 0 p p p O 0 0 0 0 0 p p O p O 0 0 0 0 0 p p O 0 0 0 0 p O 0 0 p O O p p p p p 0 p p
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
r�iy O Lf r4l � O rl ri a CAD r�-I O C_D N W r_-I n -q n r_o O L_r -q 00 4 _CD ro a) CO r_-I � � CD � M 6�7 Ln N 000 N O C_D N a) � CD n r_o a) CO
�� : ���� N �� r-I r-I —�� N N ��� M �� �� � �� �� Ln �� cD cD ��� r• rl- ��� 00 ���� M
p O r-I 1 r-I r-I r-I r-I N N N r-I r-I r-I N N N rn M rn ro � � 4 Ln Ln Ln CD CD [D t• n rn 00 00 00 00 a) 0) a) a) _q O p p
Water Elevation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 5 Monitoring Report DRAFT
December 2020 DMS Project # 95361
57
Date
Streambed Surface Elevation