20140422 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2016_20170207

Year I Monitoring Report
FINAL
Hudson Property
DMS Project ID #: 95361
DMS Contract #: 004638
USACE Action ID# SAW -2012-01394
Beaufort County, North Carolina
Submitted: January 2017
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....................................................................................1
2.0 Project Goals and Objectives.................................................................1
3.0 Project Success Criteria.........................................................................1
3.1 Stream Restoration Performance Standards...........................................1
3.2 Stream Channel Restoration Stability Performance Standards..............2
3.3 Planted Vegetation Performance Standards...........................................2
4.0 Site Conditions and Description............................................................2
5.0 Mitigation Components.........................................................................2
6.0 Design Approach...................................................................................3
7.0 Construction and Planting Timeline......................................................3
8.0 Plan Deviations......................................................................................3
9.0 Project Performance..............................................................................3
10.0 Methods and References......................................................................3
Figure1 — Vicinity Map...............................................................................4
Appendix A — Background Tables...............................................................5
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits...............................6
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History......................................7
Table 3. Project Contacts..........................................................................7
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes.............................................8
Appendix B — CCPV and Photos.................................................................9
Current Condition Plan View..................................................................10
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment (Reach 1-4)
16
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table..................................20
SitePhotos..............................................................................................21
Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data...........................................................25
Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities......................................26
Appendix D — Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data ...............27
Cross Sections with Annual Overlays (XS 1-11)
Table8: Bank Pin Data.........................................................................39
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Reach 1-4) ......................40
Table 11 a. Monitoring Data — Dimensional Morphology Summary ....44
Table 11 b. Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary (Reach
1-4)
....................................................................................................................45
Appendix E — Hydrologic Data..................................................................49
Table 9: Verification of Bankfull Events..............................................50
Table 12: Verification of Baseflow.......................................................50
Figure 2: Monthly Rainfall Data with Percentiles.................................51
Figures 3-12: Stream Surface Water Hydrology (Well 1-10) ...............52

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.
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
monitoring period to maintain an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Field indicators
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
1

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 in 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: 644 If, for a total restored stream footage of 2,8911inear feet (Table
1).
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 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 11 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 September 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. 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 with goals with some
dieback of planted stems and introduction of other woody vegetation in 11 out of 13 vegetation
monitoring plots. Stream gauges indicated base flow and bankfull events at 10 out of 10
locations. Bank pin arrays have shown minimal erosion in 3 out of 3 locations. Stream cross
sections are meeting objectives in 10 out of 10 locations. At this point in time, no corrective
measures are necessary and monitoring will continue as scheduled.
10.0 METHODS AND REFERENCES
Monitoring methodology did not differ from the approved Mitigation Plan. Cross-section
dimensions were collected using standard survey methods. Bank Pin arrays were measured for
exposure in the bank and stream. 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 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
3

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.
Is
To Chocowinity
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Hudson Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project #95361
Beaufort County, NC
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
4

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 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
5

Table 1: Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Hudson Property, Beaufort County
EEP Project Number: 95361
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian wetland
Non -riparian Buffer Nitrogen Phosphorous
wetland Nutrient Nutrient
Offset Offset
Type R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals 2,891
Project Components
Project
Component
or Reach ID
Stationing/Location
Existing
Footage/Acreage
Approach
(PI, PH 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
(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
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 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361

Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Hudson Property- EEP Project Number 95361
Hudson Property- EEP Project Number: 95361
Primary Project Design POC
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
P.O. Box 5, Jarrettsville, MD 21084
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
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]
P.O. Box 5, Jarrettsville, MD 21084
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]
P.O. Box 5, Jarrettsville, MD 21084
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361

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
AR-PAMLICO RIVER BASIN
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8
digit
03020104
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03020104010010
DWQSub-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
Vill
VIII Vill
VIII
Vill
Drainage area (acres)
40.51
74.63
35.21
150.35
190.86
NCDWR stream identification score
20.75
20.75
20.75
20.75
28
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C;NSW
C;NSW
C;NSW
C;NSW
C;NSW
Morphological Description (stream type)
G5 -G6
G5 -G6
G5 -G6
G5 -G6
G5 -G6
Evolutionary trend
Early (CEM)
Early (CEM)
Early (CEM)
Early (CEM)
Early (CEM)
Underlying mapped soils
GoA & CrB
CrB & Ly
CrB & Ly
CrB
CrB & Me
Drainage class
Mw
MW & SP
MW & SP
MW
MW & P
Soil Hydric status
Non -Hydric
Non -Hydric
Non -Hydric
Non -Hydric
Hydric
Slope (ft/ft)
0.009
0.006
0.008
0.004
0.003
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
AE/X
Native vegetation community
Pasture/Crop
Pasture/Crop
Pasture/Crop
Pasture/Crop
Pasture/Crop
Percent composition of exotic invasive
vegetation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.3 Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documents
Waters of the United States — Section 404
YES
YES
Supporting Documents
Waters of the United States — Section 401
YES
YES
SAW -2012-01394
Endangered Species Act
NO
YES
NA
Historic Preservation Act
NO
YES
NA
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
NO
YES
NA
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
NO
YES
NA
Essential Fisheries Habitat
NO
YES
NA
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 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 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
9

Hudson Stream Restoration Project Cross Sections Bank Pin Array - - Woody Riffles
Albemarle Restorations, LLC Stable In- Boundary
Current Condition Plan View Log Drops C Photo Point Stable In -Stream Structure
Wetland Restorationo--------- Top of Bank Veg Plot Condition Stream Gauges
Stream C
Restoration Project # 95361 Flow Station_ Criteria Met
Wildlife Habitat Jan. 11 2017 Access Road Hydrology Met
0 - I Stream Centerline Criteria Unmet

Hudson Stream Restoration Project 0 Flow Station Easement Boundary
Albemarle Restorations, LLC Current Condition Plan View © Photo Point
Wetland Restoration ---------Top of Bank Veg Plot Condition
strean, Restoration Project # 95361 _ Criteria Met Stream Gauges
Wildlife Habitat Jan. 11 2017 Access Road 0 Hydrology Met
- I I - I Stream Centerline Criteria Unmet

Hudson Stream Restoration Project I'll,.... Cross Sections Bank Pin Arra Woody Riffles
y Easement Boundary
Albemarle Restorations, LLC Current Condition Plan View Log Drops C Photo Point —Stable In -Stream Structure
Wetland Restorationo--------- Top of Bank Veg Plot Condition Stream Gauges
Stream O
Restoration Project # 95361 Flow Station_ Criteria Met
Wildlife Habitat Jan. 11 2017 Access Road Hydrology Met
0 - I Stream Centerline Criteria Unmet

Hudson Stream Restoration Project Bank Pin Arra Cross Sections y Woody Riffles
J Easement Boundary
Albemarle Restorations, LLC
Current Condition Plan View Log Drops C Photo Point Stable In -Stream Structure
Wetland Restorationo--------- Top of Bank Veg Plot Condition Stream Gauges
Stream O
Restoration Project # 95361 Flow Station_ Criteria Met
Wildlife Habitat Jan. 11 2017 Access Road Hydrology Met
0 - I Stream Centerline Criteria Unmet

Hudson Stream Restoration Project emission, Cross Sections Stream Centerline
@ Flow Station � Woody Riffles
Albemarle Restorations, LLC
Current Condition Plan View Easement Boundary
Wetland Restoration Bank Pin Array Veg Plot Condition
strean, Restoration Project # 95361 _ Criteria Met Stream Gauges
Wildlife Habitat
Jan. 11, 2017 Access Road F7 Criteria Unmet

Hudson Stream Restoration Project mission,e� Cross Sections m ■ ssm, Stream Centerline
@ Flow Station � Woody Riffles
Albemarle Restorations, LLC
Current Condition Plan View Easement Boundary
Wetland Restoration Bank Pin Array Veg Plot Condition
strean, Restoration Project # 95361 _ Criteria Met Stream Gauges
Wildlife Habitat
Jan. 11, 2017 Access Road F7 Criteria Unmet

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 1
Assessed Length 766
*Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavily vegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
16
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. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
deflectflow laterally(not to include point bars)
0
0
o
100/o
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
13
13
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
5
5
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
5
5
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA*
NA*
NA*
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide)
F
NA*
NA*
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 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, 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 extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
8
8
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%
bas a -flow.
*Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavily vegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
16

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 2
Assessed Length 516
Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavilyvegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
17
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-Cateqory
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 sufficientto significantly
deflectflow laterally(notto include point bars)
0
0
°
100/o
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
9
9
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
3
3
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head ofdownstrem riffle)
3
3
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA*
NA`
NA*
F2Thalweg 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%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extentthat 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 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. Habitat
Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
0
0
NA
base -flaw.
Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavilyvegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
17

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 3
Assessed Length 611
*Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavily vegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
18
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 suffcientto significantly
deflect flow laterally(not to include point bars)
0
0
o
100/o
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
7
7
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
3
3
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
3
3
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA*
NA*
NA'
r2Thalw.g centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA*
NA*
NA*
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simplyfrompoor 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, 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.
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 heavily vegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
18

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 4
Assessed Length 503
Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavi I y vegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
19
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. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
o
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
8
8
NA
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
-
3
3
NA
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
3
3
NA
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA*
NA*
NA
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA*
NA*
NA
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting 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 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 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
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 heavi I y vegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
19

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 12.42
Easement Acreage 13.5
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
%of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
S. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale
Pattern
Pattern
I and Color
0
0
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
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
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%
S. 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 with the exception of plots 3 and 10. Plot 3 had seven planted stems (283 stems per acrea) and plot 10 had five planted stems (202 stems per acre) atthe end of the
first growing season. Dueto thick herbaceous vegetation stems may be found during next survey in 2017. According to definition above, the plots are not yet considered a problem area.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
20

Photo 1: Highly vegetated restoration area along Reach 4 - View North
Photo 2: View Upstream on Reach 5
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
21

Photo 3: Bank Pin Array 2 — minimal exposure
Photo 4: Debris deposited above bankfull - Reach 5
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
22

Photo 5: Wrack lines above bankfull — Reach 1
Photos 6: Veg Plot 6 and floodprone area — Reach 2
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
23

APPENDIX C: VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
24

Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
EEP Project Code 0004638. Project Name: Hudson
EEP Project Code 0004638. Project Name: Hudson
Current Plot Data (MY1 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
0004638-01-0001
0004638-01-0002
0004638-01-0003
0004638-01-0004
0004638-01-0005
PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus bicolor
swamp white oak
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1 I
1
Quercus nigra
water oal<
ITree
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
13
13
13
10
10
10
7
7
7
10
10
10
10
10
10
1 1 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5
6 6 6 4 4�40
5
526 526 526 405 40283 283 283 405 405 405 405 405
405
EEP Project Code 0004638. Project Name: Hudson
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
25
Current Plot Data (MY1 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
0004638-01-0006
0004638-01-0007
0004638-01-0008
0004638-01-0009
0004638-01-0010
PnoLSTP-all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
6
6
6
5
5
5
2
2
2
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
Quercus bicolor
swamp white oak
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1 I
1
Quercus nigra
water oak
ITree
4
4
4
Quercus phellos
1willow oak
ITree
4
4
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
7
7
8
11
11
11
8
8
8
9
9
9
5
5
5
1 1 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 4 1 4 4 2 1 2
2
283 1 283 1 324 445 1 445 1 445 324 1 324 1 324 364 1364 1364 202 1202 1
202
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
25

Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities (Continued)
EEP Project Code 0004638. Project Name: Hudson
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
26
Current Plot Data (MY1 2016)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
0004638-01-0011
0004638-01-0012
0004638-01-0013
MYO (2016)
MY1 (2016)
Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all
T
Liriodendrontulipifera
tuIiptree
Tree
1
1
1
31
31
31
12
12
12
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
8
8
11
1
1
1
4
4
4
54
54
54
44
44
47
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
16
16
16
12
12
12
Quercus bicolor
swamp white oak
Tree
2
2
2
6
6
6
19
19
19
19
19
19
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
13
13
13
8
8
8
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
18
18
18
11
11
11
Quercus phellos
willowoak
Tree
1
1
1
33
33
33
24
24
25
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
14
14
17
13
13
13
13
13
13
184
184
184
130
130
134
1 1 1 13 13
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.32 0.32
4 1 4 4 7 7 73 3 3 7 7 7 7 7
567 567 688 526 526 526 526 526 526 573 573 573 405 405hfl
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
26

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 11 a. Monitoring Data — Dimensional Morphology Summary
Table l lb. Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary (Reach 1-4)
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
27

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
42.91
0+25
40.19
0+40
38.14
0+46.5
37.53
0+48
37.52
0+50
37.34
0+52
37.05
0+54
37.34
0+60
37.85
0+75
38.89
1+00
40.68
46
44
42
rn
_rt
40
O
38
36
34
Monitoring XS 1 (Pool) - REACH 3 STA 0+09
0 A0 0 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 0 60
LEGEND
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
— — — — — — — — — — FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
STREAM TYPE C5/6 Vertical Exaggeration:5x
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
37.57
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
2.17
BANKFULL WIDTH:
10.63
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
38.16
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
24.55
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.52
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.20
W/D RATIO:
NA
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
NA
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1
e4!
?"'oHUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
Ecotone YEAR 1 MONITORING XS 1
FORESTS• WETLANDS• RIVERS• WILDLIFE InC. PROJECT # 95361
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050 BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 11/7/2016 DRAWN BY: CSM ICHECKED BY: MVB
SHEET:
1of11

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
40
0+25
37.65
0+39
36.72
0+42
36.24
0+44
35.96
0+44.5
35.94
0+46
35.67
0+48
35.44
0+50
35.69
0+52
35.72
0+55
36.35
0+59
37.76
0+75
38.09
1+00
40.04
LEGEND
42
40
m 38
(D
v
0
=) 36
34
32
Monitoring XS 2 (Riffle) - REACH 3 STA 2+41
-JO 0 -40 0 -20 0 6 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
STREAM TYPE I C5/6
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
36.40
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
16.24
BANKFULL WIDTH:
14.44
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
37.35
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
36.68
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.96
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.48
W/D RATIO:
69.34
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
2.53
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1
HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
uEcotone YEAR 1 MONITORING XS 2
STS• WETLANDS• RIVERS• WILDLIFE PROJECT # 95361
Inc. BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 11/7/2016 DRAWN BY: CSM ICHECKED BY: MVB
SHEET:
2 of 11

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
37.28
0+20
35.96
0+44
34.61
0+46
34.45
0+47
34.25
0+48
34.26
0+50
32.88
0+52
34.27
0+54
34.55
0+70
35.75
1+00
38.01
40
38
m 36
=334
32
30
LEGEND
AS -BUILT GRADE STREAM TYPE C5/6
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
— — — — — — — — — — FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
Monitoring XS 3 (Riffle) - REACH 4 STA 0+24
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
34.50
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
4.31
BANKFULL WIDTH:
8.27
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
36.14
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
57.96
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
1.62
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.52
W/D RATIO:
15.86
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
7.01
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1
?"'oHUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
Ecotone YEAR 1 MONITORING XS 3
FORESTS• WETLANDS• RIVERS• WILDLIFE InC. PROJECT # 95361
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 11/7/2016 DRAWN BY: CSM ICHECKED BY: MVB
SHEET:
3 of 11

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
35.73
0+20
34.16
0+25
34.67
0+27
34.67
0+29
33.64
0+30
33.23
0+32
33.25
0+33
32.92
0+35
33.42
0+37
33.74
0+40
33.85
0+60
34.81
0+84
36.83
LEGEND
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
40
38
m 36
CD
rt
O
Z$ 34
32
30
Monitoring XS 4 (Pool) - REACH 4 STA 2+69
0 -40 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
STREAM TYPE C5/6
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
33.60
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
2.36
BANKFULL WIDTH:
7.03
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
34.28
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
30.15
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.68
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.34
W/D RATIO:
NA
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
NA
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1
HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
F�. Ecotone YEAR 1 MONITORING XS 4
STS• WETLANDS- RIVERS- WILDiInc. PROJECT # 95361
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland21050
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 11/7/2016 IDRAWN BY: CSM ICHECKED BY: MVB
SHEET:
4 of 11

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
38.98
0+25
37.66
0+50
35.42
0+53
34.91
0+55
34.77
0+57
35.45
0+70
36.44
0+75
36.82
1+00
38.85
LEGEND
42
40
rn 38
cn
v
rt
o'
=5 36
34
32
Monitoring XS 5 (Pool) - REACH 2 STA 3+95
0 -40 - 0 -10 0 -.0 10 20 30 40 0 60
AS -BUILT GRADE STREAM TYPE C5/6
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
- — — — — — — — — FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
_" HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
Ecotone YEAR 1 MONITORING XS 5
SHEET:
FORESTS• WETLANDS• RIVERS• WILDLIFE InC. PROJECT # 95361
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050 5of 11
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 11/7/2016 DRAWN BY: CSM ICHECKED BY: MVB
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
35.46
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
2.83
BANKFULL WIDTH:
7.58
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
36.15
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
24.33
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.69
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.37
W/D RATIO:
NA
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
NA
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1
_" HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
Ecotone YEAR 1 MONITORING XS 5
SHEET:
FORESTS• WETLANDS• RIVERS• WILDLIFE InC. PROJECT # 95361
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050 5of 11
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 11/7/2016 DRAWN BY: CSM ICHECKED BY: MVB

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
40.88
0+25
38.67
0+46
36.75
0+47
36.92
0+48
36.57
0+50
36.7
0+52
36.65
0+54
36.7
0+56
36.67
0+58
36.63
0+75
37.8
1+00
40.15
LEGEND
44
42
40
M
CD
v 38
rt
0
36
34
32
Monitoring XS 6 (Riffle) - REACH 2 STA 0+68
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
— — — — FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
STREAM TYPE C5/6 Vertical Exaggeration:5x F
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
36.78
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
1.39
BANKFULL WIDTH:
12.51
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
37.13
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
25.00
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.21
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.11
W/D RATIO:
112.26
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
2.00
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1
Adjusted
B
nkfull- MY
1
Baseline Bankfull
10 10
0
0
0
t 10 20
30 40
0 60
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
— — — — FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
STREAM TYPE C5/6 Vertical Exaggeration:5x F
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
36.78
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
1.39
BANKFULL WIDTH:
12.51
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
37.13
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
25.00
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.21
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.11
W/D RATIO:
112.26
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
2.00
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1
HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
Ecotone YEAR 1 MONITORING XS 6
FORESTS -WETLANDS -RIVERS- WILDLIFE InC. PROJECT # 95361
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050 BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
[phone]•Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 11/7/2016 1 DRAWN BY: CSM ICHECKED BY: MVB
SHEET:
6 of 11

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
38.31
0+25
37.32
0+28
37.17
0+42
36.75
0+44
36.7
0+45
36.53
0+46
36.38
0+48
35.87
0+50
36.12
0+52
36.66
0+70
36.68
0+97
37.13
1+00
37.27
LEGEND
42
40
M
m
v 38
o'
D
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
36
34
Monitoring XS 7 (Pool) - REACH 1 STA 6+47
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
• 0 0 _50 _A0 - 0 0 0 6 10 20 30 40 so 6
STREAM TYPE I C5/6
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
36.56
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
2.47
BANKFULL WIDTH:
6.81
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
37.21
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
71.00
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.69
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.36
W/D RATIO:
NA
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
NA
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1
o HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
EcotoneYEAR 1 MONITORING XS 7 SHEET:
FORESTS- WETLANDS- RIVERS• WILDi Inc. PROJECT # 95361
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050 BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 7 of i 11
i
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 11/7/2016 IDRAWN BY: CSM ICHECKED BY: MVB

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
38.41
0+25
38.12
0+40
38.05
0+46
37.77
0+47
37.71
0+48
37.58
0+50
37.45
0+52
37.74
0+54
37.41
0+56
37.5
0+58
37.68
0+60
37.81
0+75
38.31
1+00
38.53
LEGEND
42
40
rn
36
34
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
"'o
Ecotone
FORESTS• WETLANDS• RIVERS• WILDLIFE InC.
Monitoring XS 8 (Riffle) - REACH 1 STA 4+43
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 0 60
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
STREAM TYPE I C5/6
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
37.91
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
4.77
BANKFULL WIDTH:
20.00
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
38.41
86.26
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.50
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
W/D RATIO:
0.24
83.95
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
4.31
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1
HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269
YEAR 1 MONITORING XS 8
PROJECT # 95361
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: 11/7/2016 1 DRAWN BY: CSM
CHECKED BY: MVB
SHEET:
8 of 11

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
39.94
0+25
39.81
0+35
39.56
0+40
39.32
0+46
38.94
0+48
38.63
0+49
38.32
0+50
38.59
0+52
38.85
0+54
39.03
0+70
39.55
1+00
39.92
44
42
rn
CD
o<i 40
rt
0
38
36
Monitoring XS 9 (Pool) - REACH 1 STA 2+73
n n n n An An An f� n In -1n an rn c
LEGEND STREAM TYPE C5/6
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
- - - - - - - - - -
FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
39.00
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
2.21
BANKFULL WIDTH:
8.61
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
39.68
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
49.57
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.68
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.26
W/D RATIO:
NA
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
NA
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1
u
HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
ECOto n e YEAR 1 MONITORING XS 9
FORESTS -WETLANDS -RIVERS- WILDLIFE InC. PROJECT # 95361
2120 High Point Road •Forest Hill, Maryland 21050 BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
[phone] -Fax [phone]• www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 11/7/2016 1 DRAWN BY: CSM ICHECKED BY: MVB
I ,'
SHEET:
9 of 11

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
39.94
0+20
39.81
0+34
39.56
0+42
39.32
0+44
38.94
0+46
38.63
0+48
38.32
0+50
38.59
0+52
38.85
0+54
39.03
0+75
39.55
1+00
39.92
LEGEND
46
44
rn 42
O
40
38
36 6
0
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
Monitoring XS 10 (Riffle) - REACH 1 STA 0+64
-JV _amu 'JV -LV
STREAM TYPE I C5/6
'1V V lV Lu
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
40.26
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
3.25
BANKFULL WIDTH:
11.46
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
40.72
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
58.28
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.49
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.28
W/D RATIO:
40.49
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
5.08
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1
JV Zu
?"'oHUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
Ecotone YEAR 1 MONITORING XS 10
FORESTS• WETLANDS• RIVERS• WILDLIFE InC. PROD ECT # 95361
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 11/7/2016 DRAWN BY: CSM ICHECKED BY: MVB
JV VV
SHEET:
70
10 of 11

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
36.82
0+08
35.07
0+10.5
34.68
0+14
33.88
0+16
33.21
0+18
32.55
0+20
32.7
0+22
32.85
0+24
32.7
0+26
32.7
0+28
32.68
0+30
32.68
0+32
32.61
0+34
32.63
0+36
32.61
0+38
32.62
0+40
32.57
0+42
31.91
0+44
33.19
0+46
33.36
0+60
34.03
0+75
35.66
LEGEND
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
— — — — — — — — — — FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
40
38
m 36
v
0
=3 34
32
30
Monitoring XS 11 REACH 1 STA 8+14 & Reach 4 (Station 4+28)
------------------
- 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 0
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
STREAM TYPE I C5/6
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
33.42
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
22.13
BANKFULL WIDTH:
31.88
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
34.94
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
59.59
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
1.51
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.69
W / D RATIO:
NA
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
NA
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1
HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
ECOto n e YEAR 1 MONITORING XS 11 SHEET:
FORESTS -WETLANDS -RIVERS- WILDLIFE InC, PROJECT # 95361
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050 BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA i i O f
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 11/7/2016 DRAWN BY: CSM CHECKED BY: MVB 11 1 1

Table 8: Monitoring Year 1 - Bank Pin Data
Pins arrays consist of three pins located in the middle of stream banks along meander bends
Bank Pin Arra #1 XS 5 - Reach 2 — Station 2+69
Pin Exposure
Upstream Pin Minimal exposure (<1/4 inch)
Middle Pin Minor aggradation
Downstream Pin Minor aggradation
Bank Pin Arra #2 XS 4 - Reach 2 — Station 3+95
Pin Exposure
Upstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation
Middle Pin Minor aggradation
Downstream Pin Minimal exposure (<1/4 inch)
Bank Pin Arra #1 XS 9 - Reach 1— Station 2+73
Pin Exposure
Upstream Pin Minimal exposure (<1/2 inch)
Middle Pin Minimal exposure (<1/4 inch)
Downstream Pin Minimal exposure (<1/4 inch)
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
39

Hudson Stream Restoration Project- Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
40
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:95361 - Se ment/Reach: Reach 1
Parameter Gaug7,
Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL UL Eq. Nin
Mean
Med Max SDS
n Min
Mean Med Max SDS n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean Med Max SD5
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
3.36
3.83 6.02
19.74
21.97 24.2
9.02
11.5
16.2
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
6.47
6.91 10.5
44
64.5 85
18.06
26.74
34.89
57
83.33
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.45
0.52 0.6
0.7
0.75 0.82
0.42
0.22
0.26
2
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.56
0.87 1.07
0.85
1.02 1.18
0.44
0.53
0.61
0.4
0.51
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
1.99
2 2.68
16.09
16.49 16.89
3.8
2.58
4.26
2
Width/Depth Ratio
5.64
7.37 13.52
24.22
29.27 34.67
21.4
52.27
62.31
2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.74
1.8 1.93
2
2.94 3.87
2
2.94
3.87
4.96
5.14
2
'Bank Height Ratio
1
1
2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A*
12
46.5 81
4.93
19.09
33.25
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
N/A*
0.004
0.011 0.017
0.006
0.016
0.025
Pool Length (ft)
N/A*
21
30.5 40
4.72
8.41
14.98
Pool Max depth (ft)
N/A*
1.4
1.65 1.9
0.72
0.93
1.15
Pool Spacing (ft)
N/A*
40
59 78
16.42
26.95
35.63
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A*
27
49 76
11.08
20.11
31.19
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A*
90
92 95
36.94
37.76
38.99
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
N/A*
4.10
4.19
4.32
Meander Wavelength (ft)
N/A*
12.43
15.07 18.25
112.1
135.9
164.6
Meander Width Ratio
N/A*
1.23
2.23
3.46
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
0.26
0.18
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/M21 I
1
0.56
1
1
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) (ft/ft)
0.007
0.004
0.007
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.006
3Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Otherl I
I
I
I
Hudson Stream Restoration Project- Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
40

Hudson Stream Restoration Project- Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
41
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:95361 - Se ment/Reach: Reach 2
Parameter Gaug7,
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
Mean
Med Max SDS
n Min
Mean Med Max SDS n
Min
Med
Max
Min Mean Med Max SDS
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.87 7.2
19.74
21.97 24.2
14.83
11.78
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
12.03 13.47
44
64.5 85
29.71
43.55
57.39
28.2
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
116.38
0.92 0.94
0.7
0.75 0.82
0.67
0.45
1
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.42 1.54
0.85
1.02 1.18
0.7
0.84
0.98
0.86
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
6.32 6.58
16.09
16.49 16.89
10
5.28
1
Width/Depth Ratio
7.47 7.88
24.22
29.27 34.67
22
26.18
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1 1 1.67
1.68 1.96
2
2.94 3.87
2.94
2.39
1
'Bank Height Ratio
1
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A*
12
46.5 81
8.1
31.39
54.68
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
N/A*
0.004
0.011 0.017
0.003
0.008
0.012
Pool Length (ft)
N/A*
21
30.5 40
14.18
20.59
27
Pool Max depth (ft)
N/A*
1.4
1.65 1.9
1.16
1.48
1.84
Pool Spacing (ft)
N/A*
40
59 78
27
44.33
58.61
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A*
27
49 76
18.23
33.08
51.31
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A*
90
92 95
60.76
62.11
64.14
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
N/A*
4.10
4.19
4.32
Meander Wavelength (ft)
N/A*
12.43
15.07 18.25
184.3
223.5
270.7
Meander Width Ratio
N/A*
1.23
2.23
3.46
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2I 1
1
0.42
0.11
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W M21 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
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
516
264
532
541
Sinuosity (ft)
1.06
1
1.05
1.05
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.003
0.004
0.003
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0035
3Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Hudson Stream Restoration Project- Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
41

Hudson Stream Restoration Project- Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
42
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:95361 - Se ment/Reach: Reach 3
Parameter Gaug7,
Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
Mean
Med Max SDS
n Min
Mean Med Max SDS n
Min
Med
Max
Min Mean Med Max SDS
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.03 5.05
19.74
21.97 24.2
10
12.5
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
6.44 9.13
44
64.5 85
20.03
29.36
38.69
32.9
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
115.12
0.79 0.84
0.7
0.75 0.82
0.5
0.57
1
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.15 1.44
0.85
1.02 1.18
0.52
0.63
0.72
0.85
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
3.17 4.26
16.09
16.49 16.89
5
7.07
1
Width/Depth Ratio
5.99 6.5
24.22
29.27 34.67
20
21.95
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1 1 1.6
1.68 1.8
2
2.94 3.87
2
2.94
3.87
2.63
1
'Bank Height Ratio
HI I
I
I I I I1
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A*
12
46.5 81
5.46
21.17
36.87
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
N/A*
0.004
0.011 0.017
0.005
0.014
0.021
Pool Length (ft)
N/A*
21
30.5 40
9.56
13.88
18.21
Pool Max depth (ft)
N/A*
1.4
1.65 1.9
0.86
1.1
1.36
Pool Spacing (ft)
N/A*
40
59 78
18.21
29.89
39.51
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A*
27
49 76
12.29
22.3
24.59
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A*
90
92 95
40.96
41.88
43.24
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
N/A*
4.10
4.19
4.32
Meander Wavelength (ft)
N/A*
12.43
15.07 18.25
124.3
150.7
182.5
Meander Width Ratio
N/A*
1.23
2.23
3.46
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2I 1
1
0.37
0.14
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W M21 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
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
460
264
445
446
Sinuosity (ft)
1.04
1
1.01
1.08
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.007
0.004
0.007
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.005
3Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Otherl I
I
I
I
Hudson Stream Restoration Project- Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
42

Hudson Stream Restoration Project- Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
43
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:95361 - Se ment/Reach: Reach 4
Parameter Gaug7,
Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL UL Eq. Nin
Mean Med Max SDS
n Min
Mean Med Max SDS 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 (ft2)
7.49
7.69 8.58
16.09
16.49 16.89
17
3.17
1
Width/Depth Ratio
7.01
7.47 9.11
24.22
29.27 34.67
28
30.9
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.63
1.84 1.88
2
2.94 3.87
2
2.94
3.87
3.17
1
'Bank Height Ratio
1
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A*
12
46.5 81
11.92
46.18
80.44
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
N/A*
0.004
0.011 0.017
0.006
0.016
0.025
Pool Length (ft)
N/A*
21
30.5 40
20.85
30.29
39.72
Pool Max depth (ft)
N/A*
1.4
1.65 1.9
1.34
1.71
2.12
Pool Spacing (ft)
N/A*
40
59 78
39.72
65.21
86.21
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A*
27
49 76
26.8
48.66
75.47
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A*
90
92 95
89.37
91.36
94.34
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
N/A*
4.096
4.188
4.324
Meander Wavelength (ft)
N/A*
12.43
15.07 18.25
271.1
328.7
398.2
Meander Width Ratio
N/A*
1.23
2.23
3.46
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f'I 1
0.48
0.16
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'I 1
1.01
1
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) (ft/ft)
0.003
0.004
0.003
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0035
3Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Otherl I
I
I
I
Hudson Stream Restoration Project- Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
43

Table Ila. 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)
1 Cross Section 3 (Riffle - Reach 4)
1 Cross Section 4 (Pool - Reach 4)
Cross Section 5 (Pool - Reach 2)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY- Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 37.57 37.57 1
36.40 36.40
34.50 34.50
33.60 33.60
35.46 35.46
Bankfull Width (ft) 6.30 10.63
12.50 14.44
9.90 8.27
9.79 7.03
7.55 7.58
Floodprone Width (ft) 21.50 24.55
32.90 36.68
31.36 57.96
23.40 30.15
32.50 24.33
Bankfull MeanDepth (ft) 0.64 0.20
0.57 0.48
0.32 0.52
0.33 0.34
0.53 0.37
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.24 0.52
0.85 0.96
0.74 1.62
0.60 0.68
0.90 0.69
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 4.00 1 2.1
1 7.07 116.24
3.17 4.31 1
3.19 2.36 1
4.00 2.83
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio N/A N/A
21.95 69.34 1 1 1
130.90,15.86 1 1
1 N/A I WA I
I N/A I N/A
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio N/A N/A 1
2.63 2.53 1 1
3.17 7.01
N/A N/A
N/A WA
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Cross Sectional Area between end pins ft2::4�
d50 (mm)
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)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1' MY2 MY3 MY41 MY5 MY- Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY, Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY, Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 36.53 36.78
36.56 36.56
37.91 37.91
39.00 39.00
40.26 40.26
Bankfull Width (ft) 11.78 12.51
7.00 6.81
16.20 20.00
8.00 8.61
11.50 11.46
Floodprone Width (ft) 28.20 25.00
69.00 71.00
83.33 86.26
37.37 49.57
57.00 58.28
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.45 0.11
0.33 0.36
0.26 0.24
0.27 0.26
022 0.28
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.86 0.21
0.65 0.69
0.51 0.50
0.59 0.68
0.40 0.49
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area Ifi2 5.28 1 1.39
2.37 2.47
4.26 4.77
2.19 2.21
2.58 3.25
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 26.18 112.26
N/A N/A
62.31 83.95
N/A WA
52.27 40.49
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2.39 2.00
N/A N/A
5.14 4.31
N/A WA
4.96 5.08
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Cross Sectional Area between end pins ftZ
d50 (mm)
Cross Section 11 (Confluence - Reach 1)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation) Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY41 MY5 MY -
Record elevation (datum) used 33.42 33.42
Bankfull Width (ft) 32.00 31.88
Floodprone Width (ft) 50.34 59.59
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.70 0.69
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.91 1.51
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 22.54 22.13
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio N/A N/A
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio N/A N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.00 1.00
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
1 =Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and
cannot acquire the datum used for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years reportsubmission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence
calculated values. Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a cons is tent datum if determined to be necessary."
2 = Bankfull for XS 6 recalculated 2016.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project- Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
44

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 - Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the dsual surwy from Nsual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gmtel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max page, disp = max subpaw
4. = Of.lalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
45
Exhibit Table 11 b. Monitoring Data Data Summary
Project Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:95361 L_Segment/Reach: Reach I
Dirmension and Substrate - Riffle onlyBandull
Channel Stability or Habitat Wtric
Biological or Other
Width
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Wan Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (fUft)
indicate significant shifts from baseline
Wander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parannisters
Water Surface Slope (Ch�)
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 - Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the dsual surwy from Nsual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gmtel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max page, disp = max subpaw
4. = Of.lalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
45
Channel Stability or Habitat Wtric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 - Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the dsual surwy from Nsual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gmtel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max page, disp = max subpaw
4. = Of.lalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
45

Shaded cells Indicate that these Will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gmw'T Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpase
4. = Of velue/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
46
ExhibitTable 11b. ... Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) Segment/Reach; Reach 2
m�m0�0®�m0�0®�m0�0®�m0�0®�mm�0®�mm�0
Bankfull Width
==M==0��®��0������������������������
Floodprone Width
NEENIMEN MEN
NEEN®ENNE0NEEMENEINEENNEENNEEN
MEN INIESEEN NESE INNEENEINEEN
Width/Depth Ratiom
IN M MINE
ME IN IN M IN
IN ME IN NEEN MINE IN IN MINE EINE IN IN MINE MINE IN IN MINE MINE IN
Pool Length
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pattern
71
Channel Beltidth (ft)
Wander Wavelength
NEENNEEMENININE
indicate significant shifts from baseline
Wander Width
NOSE
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Shaded cells Indicate that these Will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gmw'T Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpase
4. = Of velue/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
46

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 - Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual surrey from mual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Gay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max page, disp = max subpaw
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
47
Exhibit Table 11b. ... Data Summary
Dirrension and Substrate -Riffle only
®�mm�0®�mm�Om�mm�0®�mm�0®�mm�Om�mm�0
Ba*full Width
Width/Depth Ratio
'Bank Height Ratio��
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (fUft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Wx depth (ft)
indicate significant shifisfiroon baseline
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Wander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Chanrel Thalweg length (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fUft)
BF slope
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 - Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual surrey from mual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Gay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max page, disp = max subpaw
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
47

2 = Bankfull for XS S recalculated
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not re filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual suney from Jsual assessment table
3 = Riffle , Run, Pool, Glide, Step; SiIUCIay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pate, disp = max subpaw
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
48
Exhibit Table 11 b. Monitoring Data Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) Segment/Reach: Reach 4
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Bankfull Width
Floodprone Width ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment •
��®��0�����0������������������������
Pool Nlax depth (ft)
Pool Spacing
Channel Beftwidth (ft)
c:Bankfull width (fUft)
-=WaWve�ength (ft)
indicate significant shifts from baseline
or
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
2 = Bankfull for XS S recalculated
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not re filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual suney from Jsual assessment table
3 = Riffle , Run, Pool, Glide, Step; SiIUCIay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pate, disp = max subpaw
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
48

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 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
49

Table 12: Verification
Table 9: Verification of Bankfull Events
Well (Reach)
Date of
Observation
Date of Occurance
Method
Greater than
Qbkf Stage?
Notes
9/29/16
2/7-2/13/16, 3/7-3/9/16
On -Site data logger
y
Reach 1(Well 5, 6)
9/29/16
1/29-2/1/16, 2/2-2/8/16
On -Site data logger
y
Reach 2 (Well 7)
9/29/16
2/5-6/16, 2/18/16, 5/29/16, 6/7/16 On -Site data logger
y
Reach 3 ( Well 1, 2)
9/29/16
2/4/16,2/18/16,5/3/16,6/7/16
On -Site data logger
Y
Reach 4 (Well 3)
9/29/16
2/4/16,2/18/16,5/3/16,6/7/16
On -Site data logger
y
Reach 1& 4 Confluence (Well 4)
9/29/16
2/4/16,7/13/16
On -Site data logger
Y
Reach 5 (Well 8, 9, 10)
9/29/16
Unknown
Photographed on site
y
Debris/ Wrack lines on Reach 5
9/30/16
Unknown
Photographed on site
y
Wrack lines on Reach 1
9/29/16
Unknown
Photographed on site
y
Flow Lines along Reach 2 -
Vegetation bent
Table 12: Verification
of Baseflow
Well (Reach)
Dates of Occurrence
30 Consecutive Days Minimum
Flow Requirement Met?
Notes
1(Reach 3)
1/29/16 - 4/2/16
Y
2 (Reach 3)
1/29/16-4/27/16
y
3 (Reach 4)
12/30/15-8/11/16
y
4(Confluence R1&4)
1/29/16-5/27/16
Y
5 (Reach 1)
1/29/16- 4/19/16
Y
6 ( Reach 1)
2/16/16 - 3/14/16
N
Head of Reach 1
7 (Reach 2)
1/29/16 - 3/14/16
y
8 ( Reach 5)
12/30/15 —6/15/16
Y
9 (Reach 5)
12/30/15-8/11/16
y
10 ( Reach 5)
12/30/15 —8/11/16
y
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
50

Figure 2; Monthly Rainfall Data
No-) 1LI' uoC S4' Ian Ih' FOh 1W Mavlw kpr.15' May IU Jun 16' Jul'w Aulg IE' Sept -IV
Dake
� Rainfall (ink—30puFrvntile — 10 perte blp
Rainfall [)ata collected rrom WarShingSon W4NTPin Beaulur[ County, INC. Data obtained from USDA-NKSAgrirvltural Appkid
(Timate IMckmation"P.m.NFcentk-,ralculatedfrom 2t)jf�J".7 data.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
51

Figure 3
3v"0
3&5
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 1
Monitoring Well 1- Reach 3
366,0
35.5
ap +P �i ep u3 ti1 vo nLL* W �O +9 W e6, Q 'tie Op 115v7 Lo oP 49 %0 vO aP sA .a 4 ra 1b 4D It r* + o+n 4 1bss`s •m � ,ry tO rP ee. Fp tp w � a'F �i i6 �G +u ra � 4'* YJ ,b b
$ZZWcc
"r k. i W re
Mt LM1 `Fl r5 V` +11 5A 4P '-P Y.'+ "" P P-- h + M1 P:
Figure 4
3a,s
37.0
36,5
36.0
M
35:0
34.!
Water Elevation—&ankfuN Datum—YharweRErevation
Stream Surface Water HVdrology Monitoring -Icy 1
Monitoring Well 2 - Reach 3
34.0
bw,a10ID1r ,a 1010 4 4 u4 � W a c a k�S � nw ou7 c =a r m �`�' ��aa101w4P V 4AcaM�
W,aler5InZi4n—OankrODaturn— ThalviNFlovatirn
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
52

Figure 5
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 1
Monitoring Well 3 m Reach 4
3&0
5
t+„amwWg.,o �gs+�m,a+�lrrvrtio-oW.o,o 66 Wtc+w .y�u%0ua�ae�r'tu�a 0,a 60,010,ng¢�:�s°+o�sw+n6sa.oww,o,u.o,o 1.4 .G Waw,au+.o� 0�m.t+mua
m'n , mQt Ctz s v zs:� SOL'
M PI M � N+ •+I �i i4 #'J PP IYl +v N Rv m IA's m m a V' v +l a' +b 111 Y'Y �T9 4d SG iG! �3 vD <D Io M M r+ r~ c4 M1 f�
Figure 6
35`0'
34.0
315
33.0
32.5
32.0
11.5
—water Elevation—Ban'kfull tiatum—ThaKveA Elevation
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 1
Monitoring' Well 4 - Confluence Reaches 1&4
w0 ,a 0 wr} w+ ��w -Z �� Y} � .tl a �. � `Yi N � � �L+ w 0 � .0 W. � W k 1.; 10i b � �n 10 YO �O' W me nta w. 66 kb eb kD � g ra na UD
lg
Cafl+�Z r�twwQ 4 4��s�o�wq� cy
:a :. �:. .. � � r`7 r7 +. -ti "` � k fn ,if k � 4.. �' i+�`y-, ,�.a m � s v v v eo '�7 ri w�i k t_ � --. � .a +a � 7u' �i +�r m � is ,�i r. r- r} r: r.=. rte- i. f:.- rv..m .m ec•
— Ware rElevation —MnkfullDatum —ThaWeaElevation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
53

Figure 7
X9.5
WO
3&s
a
37.0
I&S
36-0
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 1
Monitoring Well, 5 - Reach 1
., M 8 .-i. 1.,
4 b Q 8 iS o o �s o rR b ta� [3 4 e3 gcyr {g 35
1': 1, 1`d N ��aa N N� Fi+I N 'ti. i '*•. "-. !+Y N N kt '+s Nf TY dY ,( N N� iHp� l �iil fL HG itl F:4 1l M1h iY +. i �y 1�1 (iii hY #Y @ 1l 1 N
� - � � +iY � � N � +F ~ .a `+�' � a5 � � a � M � `� .•n N `b +� +� � � � W M: N �.
m�� ua vma � e`7a�rrw;wry Va va•...e�'�.
+O --�
Uti s� off@ � '� � LL�i e�
Figure 8
Dww
Waw €levaaian—Banklull Dmium — ThOWLIK Elevaliurk
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring MY 1
Monitoring Well 6 - Reach I
MD
C✓` �a .nm E� °Tw" �L" r w cz�" -Fm`15-a
-Wolve Flewa[inn-Mankiul Ewum -Th91w Z1in U*r)
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
54

Figure 9
:dao
L
34.5
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 1
Monitoring Well 7 - Reach 2
*J I- To A 'IN" i IN� T
l
3•A.{1
*i =4 C� "' k '1 0 `y O 8 rP.�14
y
N rV rxrfl fii +S +3 W JY •ri + !+ r'• r~ 1
N 1'al r`,r PJ N MF T f�5 T T e[I '4 4 R 4' �S W ZR Vi art IR lii 4C �3 5D LO M1 M1 1Z�
W
Da"
Figure 10
34,s
34.Q
31'3.5
33,0
32.5
.V-0
310
305
W:11A1',EI#YY[iOn E4:1r1k41aI1C?aEum - ThahvrgrE". "linea
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 1
Monitoring Well 8 Reach .5
3d.0
�v .a �a � � ra rK r. r• r = C ��'`. C. C C". � C{ C T.",. +v r+ �a $* C � r. ry � r4 `" � �" '"' � r' t� "i L`i
ci r`i .ri as' .� � 4� � � r� ;� r`a r`• $ � $ r•, � n �i s� ns p1 wP e� ra ✓� �i +� d r, � i� o *� 1�- qq�� +� rs o` ,�`a w a` �' uti .ems r� tri
si +� xti �'s '+.��'r rH F`4 � � �-.� � AA nr 11 ��-. � Q T ��k.. M 4l ✓1 � k. '�� � �' YO '+�� �k r4 F+ '+.. '�4. "r i.. '+. 'Y9 m
ts$ .•f rw rr ry r.r I'M1 � �F "? u5 u9 siti u1 +P � W u� W •k5 +P F F F• f. n d. a+.
Walor Ek -mi m-Siwarnbed Surface E]OrMiM
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
55

Figure 11
aau
ISLO
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 1
Monitoring Well 9 - Reach 5
p�+p buy! uaay .�yb �igGap ��pGy •6 r'1 wS .o qui � �a uF pyy s'� r�j � up5�m_ /Q�� �py6-
O g G G+. q C& 2R ON, V'_ 1 �1�'1 w N'+.•r
+x'J :v rva rcu N r-1 N i'Y +M i+.l Fe •'4 i -I QQ N N
-+ .rta Ni' rl M1 .M1-9 py M1 Fry4 re } .T fa 0+ N /pyo +sl+ �F �f6 �du5 t/yy
! �yffi +-
ri !i' N a ��ii% eeii Y !9�D 5P +r��.6
�
Nb 'W u7 DWM
-Water Elevation-Strearnhed Strface Elevation
Figure 12
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 1
Monitoring Well 10 - Reach 5
29LO
w
2;i_U
AID
25'a
� +O iC 0N0+ -a ,a sD 60 w �b 0 0 � .fir �O 64 to A w 0 'a b 5i4 w •O w 0 't+ ib 40 '0 va 0 0 «a w w w ,0 w � 0 %a 0 Q W ? .o ,[a tit} a r. z z C z UD aG sc
Iti Lis I(� :fl m F"+ fl T'I ��yj Ably 11 M P'• I`s �i iTi �y flA a0 i1'� iVl Ol' Pi I4'1 +Y °� iw rt iti 94 !C] PR M1 fl'7 IA +1 4
r1
f*R ."1 Yl t'i ri M t} fY fv 1.4 r1 �} �n IKI �
Diu
Water Erova[ion _VMambed Swtaa)eCrevatipn
Hudson Stream Restoration Project— Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL
January 2017 DMS Project # 95361
56