20140422 Ver 1_Year 6 Monitoring Report - 2021_20220418

Year 6 Monitoring Report
Hudson Property
DMS Project ID #: 95361
DMS Contract #: 004638
DWR Project #: 20140422v1
USAGE Action ID# SAW-2012-01394
Beaufort County, North Carolina
r
~ - , . -^n
4 t 1. 6-- "#
? t fir-- •, zg
, w �,. r 1 x
il kt
__,.. ,....,,,,,Iftvitz7,.1..—i.r .i,t.,:i,v,, ,, __ _:. ,,, , .., , , ,, . „, ,
w y
*,,,,,. , .6,„_ , ,„.„ ,,,,,,„ ,.... ,, ,,,:„.. .. „_ot „3., _
,,x.„i„.8.- - -.- '
Submitted: February 2022
Submitted to/Prepared for:
NC Depailcuent of Environment and Natural Resources
D ivision of Mitigatn Servic
1652e Mail Service io Center es
Raleigh,NC 27699-1652
Environmental
Qualit
Prepared by:
ALBEMARLE RESTORATIONS, LLC
P.O. Box 176
Fairfield,NC 27826
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]

At
" eLUlUI1C
ecological restoration
Jeremiah Dow
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
RE: Hudson Monitoring Year 6 Report
Dear Mr. Dow,
Ecotone, Inc.
410.420.2600 (P)
410.420.6983 (F)
February 21, 2022
Ecotone LLC has addressed the comments made on January 11, 2022 by DMS for the above
referenced project. The following is a point -by -point response addressing those comments.
Additionally, an updated copy of the MY6 Report will be submitted.
1. CCPVs should be georeferenced PDFs in the report. Additionally, the resolution is low
on the CCPVs and some labels and features are difficult to read. Please submit higher
resolution, georeferenced CCPVs exported from ArcMap (or ArcGIS Pro) in the report.
Ecotone Response: All CCPVs have been updated with higher resolution images (pages
11-16).
2. DMS personnel walked the site on January 6 and observed dense pine in the upper
portion of Reach 1. Is there any plan to thin pine in this area in MY7?
Ecotone Response: This isolated stand of pine is a small percentage of the overall tree
coverage in the project site. Considering the hardwood stem survival count, there is not
an immediate need to thin the pine stand referenced here, but continued monitoring of
tree survival will inform possible need for action in the future.
3. Please submit a feature characterizing the 20 ft. of erosion located along Reach 3.
Ecotone Response: Erosion is now marked on CCPV of Reach 3 on page 14 of the report.
4. The figure for monitoring well 2 has numeric values on the x-axis instead of dates.
Ecotone Response: Figure 4 on page 56 has been corrected to show dates on the x-axis.
Thank you for your consideration of these monitoring report comments. We appreciate your
assistance with our project thus far, and we look forward to working with you to complete the
review process. Feel free to contact us at 410-420-2600.
Sincerely,
644 s 64(4,c
Laura S. Calvert
Ecologist
Ecotone, LLC
FOREST HILL
129 Industry Lane
Forest Hill. MD 21050
www.ecotoneinc.com

Table of Contents
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
10.0 METHODS AND REFERENCES 4
APPENDIX A: PROJECT BACKGROUND TABLES 6
APPENDIX B: VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA 10
APPENDIX C: MY 5 VEGETATION PLOT DATA (2020) 26
APPENDIX D: MY 5 STREAM MEASUREMENT AND GEOMORPHOLOGY 29
APPENDIX E: YEAR 6 HYDROLOGIC DATA 51
Figure 1: Vicinity Map 5
Figure 2: Monthly Rainfall Data with Percentiles 54
Figures 3-12: Stream Surface Water Hydrology (Wells 1-10) 55-63
Table 1: Project Components and Mitigation Credits 7
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History 8
Table 3: Project Contacts 8
Table 4: Project Information and Attributes 9
Table 5: Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment (Reach 1-4) 17
Table 6: Vegetation Condition Assessment Table 21
Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities 27
Table 8: Bank Pin Data 39
Table 10a: Baseline Stream Data Summary (Reach 1-4) 42-45
Table 1 la: Monitoring Data — Dimensional Morphology Summary 46
Table l lb: Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary (Reach 1-4) 47-50
Table 9: Verification of Bankfull Events 52
Table 12: Verification of Baseflow 53

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The Hudon Property stream restoration project 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 (USGS 03020104). 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
6 monitoring was completed on October 25, 2020.
2.0 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The project goals of the Hudson Property stream restoration project 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 an appropriate riparian buffer with sufficient density and
robustness to support native forest succession.
• Encourage 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
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project # 95361
1

intermittent stream status). All restored channels shall receive sufficient flow through the
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
Much of the site has been 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/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: 5321f; Reach 3: 445
lf; Reach 4: 4371f; Reach 5: 6441f, for a total restored stream footage of 2,891 if (Table 1).
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project # 95361
2

6.0 DESIGN APPROACH
A natural design approach was used to restore channel sinuosity and flow of headwater streams,
which existed prior to channelization. Grading was designed 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 bed or banks. Bankfull events were
observed for Years 1 through Year 6. 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.
Some dieback of planted stems occurred in previous years, but reintroduction of other woody
vegetation has been noted in all monitoring plots. Tree heights range from 4-15 feet, with an
approximate average of 10 feet (2020 data). Stream gauges indicated base flow and bankfull
events at 9 out of 10 locations. Baseflow and bankfull events could not be confirmed at Well 10
because the well cap and logger were disturbed; the base station also malfunctioned during the
monitoring effort, preventing download of the annual data. Base flow and bankfull events are
assumed to have occurred based on conditions seen during monitoring and information from
adjacent wells. During MY 5, 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 in MY 5, 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, though the areas were smaller than
0.1 acres and were not included in the CCPV. No additional corrective measures are necessary.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 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 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project # 95361
4

e:
•
•
Drive south on US 17, 4.6 ,, �a
' miles from its intersection ,
with NC 33. Turn left on .'le '' " r
Possum Track Road. -� . J '11
4
Entrance to project is 1.1
miles on left. - 4 •
, f
- liffi 4. ,.. .. .. ..
_. _ ,
..4"ff. NUCISO - 7"11)... k ,
a: - ca wan 19 d ._ / Sr;. • • '' tilt iii°5'‘ dtP!
. -4.1411
To Chocowinity " - .�,~ R
,
5. } i.
•
a 1
. -F -- Access (Yellow) , 1
® ro •
pos 4 - di �4
i ..•_--. f :el.??- -- s41rn-7•rack-Rtl -- _
P• ilir
i /41I.1 . hzT ); 1-A- ff p r Ir-,'. �201fi'GdagIe II
Goo`{I ear t Itom, -- , --- i 1s , ' [[77
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Hudson Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project #95361
Environmental Beaufort County, NC
Qualit
Hudson Stream Restoration Project—Year 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 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 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 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
V
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)
Rive4rinon-
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 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project # 95361
7

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
Final: December 2020
Year 6 Monitoring
October 2021
Draft: November 2021
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
POC
Carolina Silvics, Inc.
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
Stream and Vegetation POC
Ecotone, Inc.
Scott McGill [phone]
129 Industry Lane, Forest Hill, MD 21050
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 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
NCDWRWaterQualityClassification
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 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 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 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project # 95361
10

W•. "� �' h Asset Restoration
' • c:-ti ;,..,,' + •
�; Footage
��'• • r _. .... ,4 • - , A Reach 1 833 LF
- 41 , Reach 2 532 LF
9�..,fjiti•r .''i.ar '�' ';�.. _ _ -_, .r, , Reach 3 445 LF
:� •
..4 -r.._ -' Reach 4 437 LF
-- r x • .:► ,�, �'I 1“.'h -. Reach 5 644 LF
s,; �rz +.
., �pr{�� : `'`h•,' ;�„`�" + y '. • Total 2,891 LF
:.. '..4 v.. ----, .r I.-his ,<, a `ti
eitit--_. -
,1r - '' i }'_`'-tiAC"x' 1. :' •• -.41`i,,L .T
_3•• max.i':',,.C•;::',__�.' 1 ±.
ti' _ 1 f., ���#;,° •-� - o,. .•,.; -
ter
r .
, _. .....,,...,,, _
.,"7 , .
.1.tlit
.- '' 'itk,, = -, 4:-..\,-..- - . 1 .. Nt.. . . .
.gg
4 f .'. - -., r _ Feet
p .a rr_ '.7aiarc:r�;r-sri.'i:!dlxid CT:::E;•e, ja •s`iar Geno�C �-. �i �c' ., ©% li.,i�5.,':en:Gr I[l.li3(ti.
�n a is' wCilViscr'.:Dr°:."t ai,is •C s�._ :'; s c(;usc•-•
likliiLI
HUDSON STREAM NMI Log Drops - Flow Stations Easement Boundary Criteria Unmet
Albemarle Restorations, LL(' RESTORATION PROJECT Erosion Top Of Bank Woody Riffles
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
,rrvlRryh,rori•,rr Cross Sections Access Road - Criteria Met
...,X..u.„ti,r,,,, PROJECT#9 5361 �f►Yyy
rrrrri/:,hrrar FEBRUARY 21,2022 0 Bank Pin Array ^-, Stream Centerline
Note: Year 6 Monitoring did not require Vegetation Plot or Cross Section Survey. CCPV is based on 2020 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project—Year 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project#95361
11

.. r •' 3 lit r Y.- "r
}
-t-.r,r • .i ' '
_ .,t y .aep
te cL.Y a '7
•
i • • �". o .i ,
, cisk.• • ..,„
cX - [i •_-:,:-.-:,..1'-..'.4,...,.. . . ....-• • .•• ,- . ,
` ,. •• ' • . - .fir' � Y.•i•. .. •+i,:d •r:. - •.4 .=.ry
•
..'--T::7 . '';: :.7 7' x,.. 4, ,L. .. .. .__._. . 4., , .
.,. .1" -.,...4 .-, 'rile.....,., 0
Cif 0:0
� 't • ni X, .:•,4 .f.. .K: , Feet-
!' r "a .c.i; ,' ,r-q,'" - . Snurl:e:Esri,A•lnxnr.CesEye,Earthstar Geagraphir.s,ONES.+Airbus OS USDA,USGS;Aerr 7IC). Ii' i
■ ... -
■ "� nc^te GIS User Comr-r,ar•t Esn.HERE.•Garrr•n.{c O erlStreet•Mao contributors.and the i=i;
r, Y 1 P
HUDSON STREAM Log Drops - Flow Stations Easement Boundary Criteria Unmet
Albemarle Restorations, LL( RESTORATION PROJECT Erosion Top Of Bank Woody Riffles
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
rli•rhm,f Rvrrnn+rinrr Cross Sections Access Road - Criteria Met
.SO rwx Faxrwrulue PROJECT 495361
rrildli,frt iMrar FEBRUARY 21,2022 CO Bank Pin Array Stream Centerline
Note: Year 6 Monitoring did not require Vegetation Plot or Cross Section Survey. CCPV is based on 2020 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project—Year 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project#95361
12

17 4
. 1 NeiC\' ' ... ''
., '' N 2
_- - .- :4-4C
I I - '411.."1"14/.." :
t Pr
r ,
,. 0 Q ,t"Ij g ,N. \\5.
Ni,,, • • . LI d2k§' •;....._ .
,. n A . •+e. �. , }.jfa
i' ' 7
*
, . : `-r
• r• 01 I 200
r' Feet
f
...- ;I-. ,ii.,:.Fsrr.A4�ix:c '.. ;,.1r:,E�3rihslar Cenoraphirs,C'J-3rl',rlii S i5� ikrfl..... ,.,S neiuC;Rl7 li)`J
:ric-I-;•'.:;I[:.J..:r I ..r'--.ir ty.Esri.HERE.Garrr h.![:1 Op i` r....
Yf BI..[rc+eiPaa:�:'ar`^bii'::'�: ir:;•1.l'u !_IcS.ise.
■ l
HUDSON STREAM Log Drops _Flow Stations Easement Boundary Criteria Unmet
Albemarle ReNtorntion 1. LLt RESTORATION PROJECT Erasion Top Of Bank Woody Riffles
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
.1.1 Relp.or inn Cross Sections Access Road -Criteria Met
"R.•.•r,ii.u,„" PROJECT#95361
n hlra! FEBRUARY 21,2022 0 Bank Pin Array Stream Centerline
Note: Year 6 Monitoring did not require Vegetation Plot or Cross Section Survey. CCPV is based on 2020 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project—Year 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project#95361
13

k4ciN f�V
,AI, Pale, +
L• 'fir K'. �.
..41....../.. ..441Li10114....- —‘, :•
f + CO
i � �• r2
.r r r!• -.
Y i , i •~ _
..
t.... ii
i f
lity, ,� ► .i
ri "
.. .:.t\''..\. B. .
'AO ' • ate•". �3 , , a,.
r.°_ rw. - - q _ '16::
wig
•
+!
r
e
0 it 200
1 :- - Feet
i n,rce:Esri-M.ax:ar.Ge:,Eye,Earlhslar Ceoorr:ptscs,CNES:�!irFi.ir:i:S ..1:sEt•..I,5:. .AEnr,i,RIJ,ION
t' ( r:>::r.l:: ,I..r.` u-J the GIS user
1 -nr,:he.G15 User ty.Esri,HERE.Garm n. ]�l,,.r�• _
lt
i t Oyr.nibr73t.1rt=. y: _
+pp
HUDSON STREAM Log Drops -Flow Stations Easement Boundary Criteria Unmet
-3!fheniarfeRestorattons. LLB RESTORATION PROJECT Erosion Top Of Bank Woody Riffles
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
nor Rr*ri,r,,ri.,n — Cross Sections Access Road Criteria Met
PROJECT#95361 0 Bank Pin Array Stream Centerline
FEBRUARY 21,2022
Note: Year 6 Monitoring did not require Vegetation Plot or Cross Section Survey. CCPV is based on 2020 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project Year 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project#95361
14

, A,
.....„ „op...A,....„ , yis. ,, , __ .
,I,Loi,... 4.4f: AL..' •'' : .- • --' -- • .-- .-..1. ..•f' . .' - '.'. •---.--,:-“- S.- .-
�r .4
1! ' ..:•••'.4icSir
Vr4:1'7:.'..414%;°•1. . „ .........c607
it"�' a lli 7 \....\ ._ ._
•Y2 + _ �►,bw
• r
' et 4 ii
NV
W I -• max-- - -:,na^ i rr es.�. • r
Y i y .4 iri �3
. 44-4 cy
}, .
1
: ;.- •
4+• , Feet t
! :61-'T, �C.] JG'•`Je NIt dO 2K.:MCAL CS AeroGRID.ION
• r {Lrf51- ©T ',[ I'I ek' •ndtheOISuser"; '� L •.
w
+z
HUDSON STREAM WM Log Drops Mi Flow Stations Easement Boundary Criteria Unmet
Albemarle Restorations. LLL RESTORATION PROJECT Erosion Top Of Bank Woody Riffles
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
.unr Rrrnuurirrrr - Cross Sections Access Road Criteria Met
Ire Rea!uwl..h PROJECT#95361 �+r�
r,If drew, FEBRUARY 21,2022 lei Bank Pin Array .^r•, Stream Centerline
Note: Year 6 Monitoring did not require Vegetation Plot or Cross Section Survey. CCPV is based on 2020 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project—Year 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project#95361
15

TR
. .44040..1/14, 1./. 3.
1 r f..-t
�►
N.
► A
•
• 4 . .
t �.
*Pt"
' •
+' •i I•••...• 1, ,• .04. '• Itp,44"ii," . .0.-....... .
•
Alb 1
Ilk, .. •••..
41.
-4. .).,,..e. ..,.... •
. ...,. ;,,.... . _ .
..
_., ,,, .."; ''....-,'
M R r�
'4
le
fi - - ►► • +
44
r- lip'
y r.
- lair „0 150 f. 300
.e..et. ., ..� eet
•
soiI re,e:Esri. Ir4ar [[?l e Egagikp nt rgi,111EVIN.PA-1,104eroGRID.ICN.
anr..-.he GIS Use, C .fhA nrm b, g >i4 a .,h ris user
cor r ini rrty r
HUDSON STREAM Log Drops -Flow Stations Easement Boundary Criteria Unmet
,41/iernarle Restorations. LLC RESTORATION PROJECT Erosion Top Of Bank Woody Riffles
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
tti•avid 7ir:m urvnn Cross Sections Access Road _ Criteria Met
.Srrenw lir,roorinun PROJECT#95361
kildt frlfWAfrnr FEBRUARY 21,2022 0 Bank Pin Array Stream Centerline
Note: Year 6 Monitoring did not require Vegetation Plot or Cross Section Survey. CCPV is based on 2020 information.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project—Year 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project#95361
16

Table 5
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach 1
766
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
0 0
100%
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
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
5
5
100%
upstream riffle and head ofdownstrem riffle)
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 simplyfrom poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100% 1
1
11' .
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% 1
1
11' .
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100% 1
1
1 10° 0
Totals
0
0
100% 1
1
1 10
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.
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 Rootwadsltogs providing some cover at
base -flow.
8
8
100%
` Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavily vegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project # 95361
17

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 2
Assessed Length 516
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
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradaton - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
0
0
100%
deflect flow laterally(notto include point bars)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
9
9
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
3
3
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
3
3
100%
upstream riffle and head ofdownstrem riffle)
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 sim ply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
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.
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
g y
Structures physically dislodgedg
P ysicall intact with no boulders or logs.
0
0
NA
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill.
0
0
NA
NA
2a. Piping
Structures lacking anysubstantial flow underneath sills or arms.
0
0
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
* Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavilyvegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project # 95361
18

Table 5
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach 3
611
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
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
0
0
100%
deflectflow laterally(notto include point bars)
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. Lenoth appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
3
3
100%
upstream riffle and head ofdownstrem riffle)
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 simplyfrom poor growthir
and/or scour and erosion
0
20
98%
0
0
98%
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
20
98%
0
0
98%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
0
0
1
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
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
* Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavilyvegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project # 95361
19

Table 5
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach 4
503
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
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Pgaradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
0
0
100%
deflectflow laterally (not to include point bars)
2. Degradation - Evidenceofdowncutting
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
3
3
NA
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
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%
Totals
0
0
IP
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
t 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 anysubstantial flow underneath sills or arms.
3
3
NA
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does notI.
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.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project # 95361
20

Table 6
Planted Acreage
Vegetation Condition Assessment
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 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project # 95361
21

q° f \i \ ' 'y i r r ` 1
, , i,, , lf,,,,14' /: 4 -`4:g '' 1_''
,A4
kilt
f �.
_ ,..:-.- f.,45......;--1.,', t: . .4--, --,:-'.wk.
F�
•
it
rr a ,{j�
�r xr A lye+ ittt,, ' , 2,y. sp y— l r
'� fA}w � �,�-.-��� �' of e ! i' '�kV Y w 1��i " 'C __
ikO
i `{ ,P•
'?�� � •:� rAI T•i�`�. f:. Y^� tl^ F L �,j Ik fir..,.„-:,
k '�C�
�' -tea , �•�rti Z` i ,1 ' " a 11 11; L
� � 3 }�','. { •_ �,,WAIL
e mas i `j • ,- S , >•P ..•; . 4 , 5
` , ' .- �- 'tt". A a e �' 'it " 4 p"" '� dry
�tk 1 �� f� �� �+'u �. -�r� 'x,(m�tij���� Las K, St�=�l �-.I� �� }- _ � a.s„
it
‘Ilk
Photo 1: Highly vegetated stream area with wetland along Reach 1 View Northwest.
w 4 I r k _x t i a - ` i 95 .,..
0.
Ee y� wl ! - rf v, f
F 2 .T i .. � 3 S4 4 / � Y R r�k T
�_`� ,, �iya CCr``a I *� `� � �,"� �.ewe, ,3ti' �" �
L'4 3 l � S `'k k Y T k J g �9
7
I x
•f��d. 6 ,- f,✓ }L �� � �k L ° i , r �/ � 1,r,�,f I
•
$, y� f w t�,�, ' '
i,.. ..„,,,,„,:iit.,.
� f � .�• Y� �A r F..C' � �L�+F,� � i' �1��"At�a+R�£ eR�
nl'‘.:S.--G:5* 't'ri A"S' '
WAI
'�y.�yyp���-vot�„'ay �`�� ��p-:'-'- '4P21:44 ic,--%411-40M. '' .(f �� '—ay k � �I it L �' 4
iii
Photo 2: Near Cross Section 6 on Reach 2-View Northwest.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project-Year
6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project#95361
22

, .._ ..
1 i w
18ti
F
h
�q, L Y . ` E'
`i
aa a :' f� b "k � t � C� +ery ; @e°' 4 , y � 2rF
ffer
PP4
Iti
Photo 3: View of Cross Section 1 on Reach 3 —View Northeast.
d
5.
alf , ., '-• "'.,ltik" '4'7,A:14' ',, ' -;."." ' , t'' 4t: '."-'..g.!,4.,?. 'N.-'71._ %,
� t � r.�.,� m' �sa�'�.. µ 'isty k� �v.04 ���µ I _
`
4 l �
1
g.
1/J4 ..-:.' ,..14,./'-,A1,,,it IF:e- —r ''' '' k ' "'-.1 t-1*-,, '). .'. ,i.7;;,1•2 ----,:
SPwS ,
vii4t,
Photo 5: View near Cross Section 4 on Reach 4—View Southeast
Hudson Stream Restoration Project—Year 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project#95361
23

�. f� � �it * f r` ' IF �'tart��� ' r xS* � $ $ rY.
.41
,,,...,,. .,"
‘,,p;"4-\„',,,,,..-;P,:--...is.
4
4r-
t';„4.1.P.104-.,!•..,s . f ':�si,3.,,,7!..i.' ',',."-A.:-'=-1 .q. r , y1t�1 i r. -a . '�...,_f - `�,,
IA
oaf CA{ Y • It r .R_ ,
/ 4 x7 c ,? gr, r 1
N-'� �.� �� �.� f�_°. � r -sue'' � [
tt
3i, .o4v 1RR �!,7z 'tea •. . ,_� 1' ;g•
_+
. h`,, tt.� . . •"fit d �'r' 45 'S ��"'• �. \�_
,� ' _ A..day ` .�, -'- -c _ .� g F,.. .
Aii .ice`:N
— ..:-, `ti - '.Q?Y;�- .j�'r is a .A `� y� — ..
lije
a r` \ r vrC�a, ll��
Photo 5: View near Cross Section 4 on Reach 4—View Southeast (Piping).
T-fr.A,
x • nr,
�yNO P _ rn
l Z�l 7�ta - 1` ` YSY ,'r
V p
1;,
k L iT .3.h f
sue..` x 7
•
•
gr. • :; ..." - - - -
y 1
\p J r`
�s•
��F. j� r I i}i F j. m"T S \,5 �i °43'-t
I u� w
' i 1.' .:? :.-?'' ` ' : tea' r t t ''.
Ajf� % 11� 4 r r 4 v�,�,�A r.
Photo 6: View downstream of Reach 5 Swamp Run.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project—Year 6 Monitoring Report
February 2022 DMS Project#95361
24

t c "sat; ns++f" ,°+try'!,/ i�
. ;ate .-_-�
a gr ° . E s u•
.,..--:.r",ik:''.411lit, .
1 y:?� a:
1Q1Q 4 ►/
ij
� y�1l ik ,': 3 Y
` + r
am. . � : _ , �•
r
j1'41,11 x jrt; rat.,%',,, ''4Ie"i� d' n� � ! a ) !( '
X fll r•r`"�,� .✓ 'S a„� F n ,�z r- 3P +.ic Pg i rrtt"
1 '' F' a �iI .a "y r `�i ,� ,a ,„"r".. n [.. ry� k $ tee die
r 1 i lNV'�r 1:.� ' ': .cT I S :�q ' .41''./f'T 3 }°��,aS'�i°�',. �.�•`�' �F' �� �.:3 F�� . ��„k .:�Y'7�.'�.4.r:w s ? 1 a>
Photo 7: View upstream on Reach 5 Swamp Run.
Hudson Stream2022 Restoration Project—Year 6 Monitoring Report
Project#95361 February
25