20140422 Ver 2_Year 3 Monitoring Report 2018-Final_20190312

Mitigation
L.
Project
Information
UpI(
ID#*
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review 03/12/2019
Completed Date
Mitigation Project Submittal - 3/12/201, -
Version *
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? *
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r- Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Marie Brady
Project Information
Existing 20140422
(DWR) (nunbers only no dash)
ID#:*
Project Type: F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Hudson Property
County: Beaufort
Document Information
r Yes r
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Existing 2
Version: (nunbersonly)
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Hudson_95361_MY3_2018-Final.pdf 3.76MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Marie Brady
Signature:

Year 3 Monitoring Report
FINAL
Hudson Property
DMS Project ID #: 95361
DMS Contract #: 004638
USACE Action ID# SAW -2012-01394
Beaufort County, North Carolina
Submitted: March 2019
Submitted to/Prepared for:
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
UN
Prepared by:
ALBEMARLE RESTORATIONS, LLC
P.O. Box 176
Fairfield, NC 27826
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary.......................................................................................................... l
2.0 Project Goals and Objectives....................................................................................... l
3.0 Project Success Criteria...............................................................................................1
3.1 Stream Restoration Performance Standards................................................................. l
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
Table3. Project Contacts................................................................................................
7
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes...................................................................8
AppendixB — 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.................................................................................
23
Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities............................................................
24
Appendix D — Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data .....................................
26
Cross Sections with Annual Overlays (XS 1-11)
Table8: Bank Pin Data...............................................................................................
38
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Reach 1-4) ............................................
39
Table 11 a. Monitoring Data — Dimensional Morphology Summary ..........................
44
Table l lb. Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary (Reach 1-4) .................
44
Appendix E — Hydrologic Data........................................................................................
48
Table 9: Verification of Bankf ill Events....................................................................
49
Table 12: Verification of Baseflow.............................................................................
49
Figure 2: Monthly Rainfall Data with Percentiles.......................................................
50
Figures 3-12: Stream Surface Water Hydrology (Well 1-10) .....................................
51

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The mitigation area is 13.49 acres located within a larger 106 -acre property owned by Charles
Hudson. It is located in Beaufort County, NC and the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. Mitigation
components include five stream reaches totalling 2,891 linear feet contained within a
Conservation Easement. Construction was completed in 2015 and planting completed in 2016.
The first of seven monitoring years was initiated in 2016. Year 3 monitoring was completed in
October 2018.
2.0 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The project goals of the Hudson property per the approved mitigation plan are as follows:
• Improve and sustain hydrologic connectivity/interaction and storm flow/flood
attenuation.
• Reduce nutrient and sediment stressors to the reach and receiving watershed.
• Provide uplift in water quality functions.
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats (complexity, quality).
• Improve and maintain riparian buffer habitat.
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Implement a sustainable, reference -based, rehabilitation of the reach dimension, pattern,
and profile to provide needed capacity and competency.
• Support the removal of barriers to anadromous fish movement and to help improve
nursery and spawning habitats.
• Strategically install stream structures and plantings designed to maintain vertical and
lateral stability and improve habitat diversity/complexity.
• Provide a sustainable and functional bankfull floodplain feature.
• Enhance and maintain hydrologic connection between stream and adjacent
floodplain/riparian corridors.
• Utilize the additional width of the swamp runs to provide natural filters for sediment and
nutrients and diffuse flow from upstream runoff.
• Install, augment, and maintain appropriate riparian buffer with sufficient density and
robustness to support native forest succession.
• Water quality enhancement through riparian forest planting and woody material
installation, and increased floodplain interaction/overbank flooding.
• Restore the existing ditched streams to single and multi -thread headwater systems with
forested riparian buffers.
• Provide ecologically sound construction techniques that will require minimal grading and
disturbance.
3.0 PROJECT SUCCESS CRITERIA
3.1 Stream Restoration Performance Standards
Single Thread Channels (Reaches 1 - 4) and Swamp Run (Reach 5)
Groundwater monitoring wells are installed in and near the thalweg of all five reaches.
The wells are equipped with continuous—reading gauges capable of documenting
sustained flow. Per the approved Mitigation Plan, each reach must exhibit water flow for
at least 30 consecutive days during years with normal rainfall (demonstrating at least
intermittent stream status). All restored channels shall receive sufficient flow through the
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
1

monitoring period to maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM). Field indicators
of flow events include a natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in soil
characteristics; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; presence of litter and debris;
wracking; vegetation matted down, bent or absent; sediment sorting; leaf litter disturbed
or washed away; scour; deposition; bed and bank formation; water staining; or change in
plant community. In addition, two overbank flows shall be documented for each reach
during the monitoring period using continuously monitored pressure transducers and crest
gauges. All collected data and field indicators of water flow shall be documented in each
monitoring report. Seven flow monitoring stations are located on Reaches 1 — 4, three are
located on Reach 5.
3.2 Stream Channel Restoration Stability Performance Standards
Headwater System (Reach 5)
All stream areas shall remain stable with no areas of excessive erosion such as evidence of
bank sloughing or actively eroding banks due to the exceedance in critical bank height and
lack of deep rooted stream bank vegetation.
Single Thread Channels (Reaches 1 - 4)
1. Bank Height Ratio (BHR) shall not exceed 1.2 within restored reaches of the stream
channel.
2. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) shall be no less than 2.2 within restored reaches of the stream
channel.
3. The stream project shall remain stable and all other performance standards shall be met
through two separate bankfull events, occurring in separate years, during the 7 -year post
construction monitoring period.
4. Three bank pin arrays and 11 cross sections are located on Reaches 1 - 4
3.3 Planted Vegetation Performance Standards
1. At least 320 three-year-old planted stems/acre must be present after year three. At year
five, density must be no less than 260 five-year-old planted stems/acre. At year 7, density
must be no less than 210 seven-year-old planted stems/acre.
2. If this performance standard is met by year 5 and stem density is trending toward success
(i.e., no less than 260 five-year-old stems/acre) monitoring of vegetation on the site may
be terminated provided written approval is provided by the USACE in consultation with
the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT).
3. Thirteen vegetation plot samples are located within the project area.
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND DESCRIPTION
The Hudson property is 13.49 acres located in Beaufort County, NC and the Tar -Pamlico River
Basin. The majority of the site is used for crop production, primarily corn, soybeans and wheat.
As a result of the lowering of local water tables and in some cases the complete elimination of
ground and surface water interaction, the degradation of water quality and downstream
anadromous fish spawning and nursery habitat has occurred. Hydric soils are present on site,
meaning that the pre-existing site conditions were appropriate for raising the water table and re-
establishing normal base flow conditions (See Figure 1 -Vicinity Map).
5.0 MITIGATION COMPONENTS
Mitigation components are limited to five reaches: Reach 1: 833 If, Reach 2: 5321f-, Reach 3: 445
If, Reach 4: 437 If-, Reach 5: 644 If, for a total restored stream footage of 2,8911inear feet (Table
1).
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 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 October and revealed the presence of bankfull events, floodplain
connectivity, and lateral and vertical stability. In -stream structures were observed to be
functioning as intended with minimal scouring of the channel's banks or bed. Bankf ill events
were observed during Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3 monitoring. The site is meeting the bankfull
standard for success. The entire length of the project is currently exhibiting fully vegetated banks
with both herbaceous and woody plants. Overall, woody plantings within the riparian buffer are
meeting project goals with some dieback of planted stems and introduction of other woody
vegetation in 12 out of 13 vegetation monitoring plots. Year 1 Monitoring identified some areas
where woody survivability was low; these areas were spot planted in December 2017. Stream
gauges indicated base flow and bankfull events at 10 out of 10 locations. Bank pins could not be
located due to dense vegetative growth; erosion is therefore assumed to be minimal given the
vegetative stability of the reaches. Aggradation was noted on Reaches 2 and 3, however both
reaches remain stable. Stream cross sections are meeting objectives in 11 out of 11 locations. A
field meeting with NC Division of Mitigation Services and the USACE in June 2017, identified
corrective measures necessary on Reach 5 to raise the stream invert to create a wider swamp run.
Regrading was completed in October 2017. A field meeting with NC Division of Mitigation
Services and the USACE in April 2018, identified two monitoring wells that required repair;
repair was completed. No additional corrective measures are necessary; monitoring will continue
as scheduled.
10.0 METHODS AND REFERENCES
Monitoring methodology did not differ from the approved Mitigation Plan. Cross-section
dimensions were collected using standard survey methods. Vegetation assessment was done
according to the Level 2 protocol specified by the Carolina Vegetation Survey. Hydrology
monitoring wells were installed per ERDC TN -WRAP -00-02 "Installing Monitoring
Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands" dated 2000. Groundwater levels were recorded using the U20-
001-01 water level data loggers manufactured by Onset Computer. The loggers were installed in
the wells per the manufacturer's instructions.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
3

Stream Mitigation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361

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 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 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
wetland
Buffer Nitrogen Phosphorous
Nutrient Nutrient
Offset Offset
Type R
IRE
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 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 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
November 2017
Final: January 2018
Year 3 Monitoring
October 2018
Final: March 2019
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 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 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
Documents
Waters of the United States — Section 401
YES
YES
—Supporting
SAW -2012-01394
Endangered Species Act
NO
YES
NA
Historic Preservation Act
NO
YES
NA
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
NO
YES
NA
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
NO
YES
NA
Essential Fisheries Habitat
NO
YES
NA
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 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 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
9

13
9.
Reach �1#
-VJ E
} A,
�. • tij4`
a~
131) 2BD '&M 780 1,040 1,300
- }SS
t
Restoration
Footage
Reach 1
933 IF
Reach 2
532 IF
Reach 3
445 IF
Mich 4
4371.E
React 5
W IF
Total
2,891 IF
`A.
�. ;•
r ix�r��,ah
Re ch 1
' a , • 'in
}rr •, : �� � �v a _ �� �o ,,�ofi��:;'��:�,,��-.�
Teach4—
—Reach 2
nr
Af nrarle RestorallonE, LLC Hudson Stream Re&toratictn Project
Current Condition Flan View
Project #95361
Iti Dvembar2- 2018
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
10
Fin 9-" � Cram Eachrc = WDD* RRles %bp Plot GwOtler.
ear Pin Paray
hew Road 2k.i1~ Lag asps Cm ft r.1
— Tap of Ea51. MINE Wean Geffbhe 'GENA GaKJea
- abt"
•.v

Hll�.4m b�� ResTmtion Ptoject '1111 cx�9r,5',m � � �.b
A. LW
Aloe rrarle Reslora ioras, Ll Currentcondi#iou Mm few MOM � f mm
�u0SrrvnCrLdrr Flor81y1m sftwM1fiaxJes
Ab�amftrmdn. "ea # 45361 EM*M a EIWr UV # H"Dk W Md
lire ��'` irmeQ-� 8hrriic Cmdtlor�
+�� �'NIL����1� -0IF«y Ba•Jc Pln Map -N.r
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
11

a
i
I 11111111II& Al M
N
All
Albemarle Restorations, £L Hudson Stream Restoration Project F,�,b ,,, � a.4 Fin, y LIU� ,����
m onditioa Am View _ rr>a are&* �E.rrranl5--4 n strewn C--9- 0 ti 1WE re
jp ' M... Nv4IMIb!r 2, 2018 E UMM CWM rA .doer.. R..1 neer ahKhffe random
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
12

Hu&cn Sftezm Restola$oII Project � $ ear pn►,r.y L09� vea FU CW �M
AlbemarleRaslorations, LLQ � Carm. E.1
11iielYk OrII�it10II ��II mew _ ��a,,,k �F-�---�atir�a.rw ��
F*ext# 95361 woa Bnr mossomi Cronseawk 4P K 0 `Mb—L i
'EBO" " Nwomdmr2, 2G18 =■■I &Tom n.,fw Axftr R&W k-sh �awm.e CarKMm
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
13

' OL
i
i 2
■ 1�M
` fir, rJ �'��9r�x, - ��� .�� k -y �`�-•EF.E 5''k, ..>C -
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
14
Hudson Strewn Restoration Project
Lug Drum
4f arf Res�ararror�s,
�,� $,�� ar,k�
ftpiotGmcaivn
Curren# CmditlonPlan View
E--"8 d-
crn.�.rM
_TLporawk
mtrearn GaKff
,�_
Project ;.k 953-61
v�oow Rnr
• ►�f mr KW
-
"" flw Nahhm
Nati�nuh?s' 2, 2018
=■■■ �r .firu R�r1
h-We� GoWbon
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
14

Hudsonhe-am Restoration Project —"Peary � � Laga� ++�uFro-tcWMM
AlbemarleRestorations, C' Current Condition Plan View M... StemCwtfid� aleRtEm s dknfixA,,,� """.""
Project # 9531 F-----W ewnerX Hylcfm rad
'ma4""am. Novmaba 2, 2018 BMW PMAM — � rmauor
Hudson Stream Restoration Project – Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
15

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 1
Assessed Length 766
Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavi I y vegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 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
deflect flow laterally(notto 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
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 simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
2. Undercut
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
appear sustainable and are provding 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.
8
8
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 heavi I y vegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
16

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 2
Assessed Length 516
Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavi ly vegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 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 -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aaaradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
9
9
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
-
3
3
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head 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 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 -flaw.
Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavi ly vegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 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 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 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
°
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*
F2Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA*
NA*
F 7N]
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 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 -flaw.
*Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavily vegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 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 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 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 sufficientto significantly
deflectflow laterally(notto 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
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
bas a -flow.
Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavi I y vegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 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
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale
Pattern
Pattern
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
1 0.1 acres
and Color
p
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 small given the monitoring year
10.25 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 smal I 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
0.05]/.
No areas of concern are noted .
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
20

Tom
FN
s
k, J
I M�
pl,
V -F
41

Photo 3: View of Reach 5 downstream — area of previous corrective measures
Photo 4: View of vegetation plot
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
22

APPENDIX C: VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
23

Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
EEP Project Code 0004638. Project Name: Htds
Current Plot Data (MY3 2018)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
4004fi38-91-0001
4444fi3841-4442
4444fi38-41-440.3
0004fi38-91-0004
0004638-01-0005
0004638-01-0006
0004638-01-0007
0004Fi38-41-0008
PnoLS
P -all T PnoLS
P -all T Pnol-S P -all T PnoLS P-arr T PnoLS
P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS
P -all T PnoLS P -all
T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree
MY3(3416}
MY2(2017)
MV1(3016}
WO l2016)
PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all
T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS
P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS Pall T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS
Pall T PnoLS Pall T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree
Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis Shrub
9
Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis Shrub
1
Ligustrum vulgare European privet Exotic
1
Ligustrum vulgare European privet Exotic
Liquidambarstyraciflu sweetgum Tree
1
1
3
2
1
3
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree
1
1
2
2 2
2
10
5
Morella cerifera wax myrtle shrub
Liriodendron tulipiferE tuliptree Tree
8
8
8
2
2
2
1
1
1
14
14
15
2
Pinus echinata shortleaf pine Tree
18
12
12
12
31
31
31
Morella cerifera wax myrtle shrub
2
Pinus taeda loblolly pine Tree
4
6
2
41
61
61
61
1
4
Platanus xcidentalis American sycamorE Tree
3
sl
si
4
4
4
4 4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2 2
2
6
5
5
5
5
5
Quercus alba white oak Tree
1
1
5
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
53
Platanus occidentalis American sycamorE Tree
5
5
5
Quercus bicolor swamp white oak Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
4
4
4
49
1
1
1
451
50
4
4
4
54
54
54
Quercus michauxiiswamp chestnut o Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
11
11
15
12
12
1
1
1
Quercus nigra water oak Tree
16
15
15
Quercus bicolor swampwhite oak Tree
2
2
2
2
2
3
15
15
16
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree
2
2
2
1
1
3
19
2 2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5 5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree
8
8
11
11
12
8
8
8
13
13
13
Quercus nigra water oak Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
Stem count
(ares)
(ACRES)
count
per ACRE
11
11
23
9
9
12
14
8 8
12
14
14
19
10
14
18
7 7
13
13
13
13size
2
2
E12j2
1 1size
4.42 4.42 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Species
5
5 7 4
4 533
4 3
35 4
4 6
2 2
3 3
3 3Stems
35
24
445
445 931 364
364 48fi
324 486445
445 769 445
445 728
283
526 526
526 526
tcv wo7ect r.00e uuuao. rrofect ru a m e: n u n
Annual Means
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
000463&01-0009
0004538-01-0010
4044538-01-0011
4004638-01-4412
0444638-01-4013
MY3(3416}
MY2(2017)
MV1(3016}
WO l2016)
PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all
T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS
P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS Pall T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS
Pall T PnoLS Pall T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree
9
Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis Shrub
1
1
Ligustrum vulgare European privet Exotic
1
Liquidambarstyraciflu sw eetgum Tree
10
5
Liriodendron tulipiferE tuliptree Tree
8
8
8
2
2
2
1
1
1
14
14
15
15
15
18
12
12
12
31
31
31
Morella cerifera wax myrtle shrub
2
4
2
Pinus echinata shortleaf pine Tree
1
1
Pinustaeda loblolly pine Tree
16
141
81
14
1
1
84
53
Platanus occidentalis American sycamorE Tree
5
5
5
10
10
10
1
1
1
4
4
4
49
49
50
45
451
50
44
44
47
54
54
54
Quercus alba white oak Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
11
11
15
12
12
15
12
12
12
16
15
15
Quercus bicolor swampwhite oak Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
15
15
16
17
17
17
19
19
19
19
19
19
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut o Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
8
8
8
11
11
12
8
8
8
13
13
13
Quercus nigra water oak Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
13
13
13
14
14
15
11
11
11
18
18
18
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
29
29
31
29
29
35
24
24
25
33
33
33
Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree
3
3
S
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
14
14 29
10
14
24
18
18 28
14
10 27
12
12
15
144
140
254
144
144
234
134
130
134
184
184
184
1 1 1 1 1 13 13 13 13
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.32 4.32 4.32 4.32
3 3
5 2 2 3 5
5
7 6 6
8 3
3 4 7
7 13 7 7 12 7 7 7 7
7
7
405 405
1174 405 945 971 328
728
1133 405 405
1093 486
486 647 436
436 791 448 448 728 4051 4051 417 573
573
573
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
24

Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities (Continued)
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
25

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 11b. Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary (Reach 1-4)
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
26

+9 Pool
44
43
42
41
c
40
0
> 39
W
38
37
36
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Width (ft)
MYO (1/2016) MY1(9/2016) tMY2 (11/2017) MY3 (10/2018) Ban kfuII
Cross Section 1 — Reach 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
27

2+41 Riffle
41
40
39
OOOOp-
38
0
m
n
w 37
►
36
35
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Width (ft)
t MYO ( 1/2016) MY1 (9/2016) t MY2 ( 11/2017) t MY3 ( 10/2018) Bankfull
Cross Section 2 — Reach 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
28

+24 Riffle
39
38
37
36
0
.r 35
r�
-- --
a�
777�!,
"'
34
t\�
33
32
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
t MYO ( 1/2016) MY1 (9/2016) t MY2 ( 1112017) t MY3 ( 10/2018) Bankfull
Cross Section 3 — Reach 4
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
29

2+69 Pool
39
38
37
36
0
.r 35
>
a�
"'
34
33
32
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
t MYO ( 1/2016) MY1 (9/2016) t MY2 ( 1112017) t MY3 ( 10/2018) Bankfull
Cross Section 4 — Reach 4
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
30

+68 Pool
40
39
38
37
0
r�
°J36
W
35
34
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
MYO ( 1/2016) MY1 (9/2016) + MY2 ( 11/2017) * MY3 ( 10/2018) Bankfull Floodprone Area
Cross Section 5 — Reach 2
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
31

3+95 Riffle
42
41
40
39
0
.r 38
m
n
d
"'
37
s
36
35
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Width (ft)
t MYO (1/2016) t MY1(9/2016) t MY2 (1112017) t MY3 (10/2018) Ban kfuII
Cross Section 6 — Reach 2
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
32

6+47 Pool
39
38
37
0
m
n
d
LU
36
35
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Width (ft)
t MYO ( 1/2016) MY1 (9/2016) t MY2 ( 11/2017) t MY3 ( 10/2018) Bankfull Floodprone Area
Cross Section 7 — Reach 1
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
33

4+43 Riffle
39.0
38.5
38.0
0
>
a�
LU
37.5
37.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Width (ft)
t MYO (1/2016) t MY1(9/2016) t MY2 (1112017) t MY3 (10/2018) Ban kfuII
Cross Section 8 — Reach 1
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
34

Z+73 Pool
40.5
40.0
39.5
0
39.0
d
UJ
38.5
38.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Width (ft)
MYO (1/2016) MY1 (9/2016) MY2 ( 11/2017) t MY3 ( 10/2018) Bankfull
Cross Section 9 Reach 1
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
35

+64 Riffle
41.5
41.0
40.5
0
r�
a�
LU
40.0
39.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Width (ft)
t MYO ( 1/2016) MY1 (9/2016) MY2 (11/2017) t MY3 ( 10/2018) Bankfull
Cross Section 10 Reach 1
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
36

8+14 Riffle
38
37
36
35
c
0
34
.r
>
a�
"' 33
32
31
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
t MYO ( 1/2016) MY1 (9/2016) MY2 ( 1112017) t MY3 ( 10/2018) Bankfull
Cross Section ] ] Reach 1 & 4 Confluence
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
37

Table 8: Monitoring Year 3 - Bank Pin Data
Pins arrays consist of three pins located in the middle of stream banks along meander bends
Bank Pin Arra #1 XS 5 - Reach 2 — Station 2+69
Pin Exposure
Upstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation & dense vegetation
Middle Pin Could not find- minor aggradation & dense vegetation
Downstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation & dense vegetation
Bank Pin Arra #2 XS 4 - Reach 2 — Station 3+95
Pin Exposure
Upstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation & dense vegetation
Middle Pin Could not find- minor aggradation & dense vegetation
Downstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation & dense vegetation
Bank Pin Arra #1 XS 9 - Reach 1— Station 2+73
Pin Exposure
Upstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation & dense vegetation
Middle Pin Could not find- minor aggradation & dense vegetation
Downstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation & dense vegetation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
38

Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
39
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Pro'ect Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:::: 361) - Segment/Reach: Reach 1
Parameter Gauge2
Regional Curve
Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL UL Eq. Min
-Pre-Existing
Mean
Med Max SDS
n Min
Mean Med Max SDS n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean Med Max SD'
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(ft)
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 Hei ht 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 1 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
Transport parameters
N/A*
1.23
2.23
3.46
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ f
0.26
0.18
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport ca acit W/mZ
0.56
0.14
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5-G6
C5-C6
C5-C6
C5/6
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
5.6
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
'Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
39

Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
40
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Pro'ect Name/Number Hudson/ DMS::: 361) - Segment/Reach: Reach 2
Parameter Gauge2
Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
JL
LL UL Eq. Min
Mean
Med Max SDS
n Min
Mean Med Max SDS n
Min
Med
Max Min
Mean Med Max SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.97
6.87 7.2
19.74
21.97 24.2
14.83
11.78
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
10.03
12.03 13.47
44
64.5 85
29.71
43.55
57.39
28.2
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.91
0.92 0.94
0.7
0.75 0.82
0.67
0.45
1
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.38
1.42 1.54
0.85
1.02 1.18
0.7
0.84
0.98
0.86
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft)
5.59
6.32 6.58
16.09
16.49 16.89
10
5.28
1
Width/Depth Ratio
6.38
7.47 7.88
24.22
1 29.271 34.67
1
1 22 1
1
1 26.18
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.67
1.68 1.96
2
2.94 3.87
2.94
2.39
1
'Bank Hei ht Ratio
1
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A*
12159
81
8.1
31.39
54.68
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
N/A*
0.0040.017
0.003
0.008
0.012
Pool Length (ft)
N/A*
21
40
14.18
20.59
27
Pool Max depth (ft)
N/A*
1.4
1.9
1.16
1.48
1.84
Pool Spacing (ft)
N/A*
4078
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
Transport parameters
N/A*
1.23
2.23
3.46
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ f
0.42
0.11
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport ca acit W/mZ
1.25
0.18
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5-G6
C5-C6
C5-C6
C 5/6
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
17.2
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
'Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
40

Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
41
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Pro'ect Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:::: 361) - Segment/Reach: Reach 3
Parameter Gauge2
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL UL Eq. Min
Mean
Med Max SDS
n Min
Mean Med Max SDS n
Min
Med
Max Min
Mean Med Max SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
3.55
4.03 5.05
19.74
21.97 24.2
10
12.5
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
5.97
6.44 9.13
44
64.5 85
20.03
29.36
38.69
32.9
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.55
0.79 0.84
0.7
0.75 0.82
0.5
0.57
1
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.88
1.15 1.44
0.85
1.02 1.18
0.52
0.63
0.72
0.85
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft)
1 1.94
3.17 4.26
16.09
16.49 16.89
5
7.07
1
Width/Depth Ratio
5.12
1 5.99 1 6.5
24.22
29.27 34.67
20
21.95
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
1.68 1.8
2
2.94 3.87
2
2.94
3.87
2.63
1
Bank Hei ht Ratio
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A*
12
46.5 81
5.46
21.17
36.87
1
1
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
29.891
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
Transport parameters
N/A*
=
ML
I
1.23
2.23
3.46
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ f
0.37
0.14
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport ca acit W/mZ
1.02
0.18
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5 -G6
C5-C6
C5-C6
C 5/6
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
8
442
Elm
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
'Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
41

Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
42
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Pro'ect Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:::: 361) - Segment/Reach: Reach 4
Parameter Gauge2
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL UL Eq. Min
Mean Med Max SDS
n Min
Mean Med Max SDS n
Min
Med
Max Min
Mean Med Max SD'
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(ft)
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 Hei ht 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
Transport parameters
N/A*
1.23
2.23
3.46
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ f
0.48
0.16
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport ca acit W/mZ
1.01
0.22
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5 -G6
C5-C6
C5-C6
C 5/6
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
26.2
434
Elm
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
'Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
42

Table 11a. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) Segment/Reach: Reach 1-4 (2200 feet)
Cross Section 1 (Pool - Reach 3)
Cross Section 2 (Riffle -Reach 3) Cross Section 3 (Riffle - Reach 4) Cross Section 4 (Pool - Reach 4) Cross Section 5 (Pool - Reach 2)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY, Base MY1 I MY2 I MY3 MY4 M15 I MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
36.40 36.36 36.55 36.42 134.50134.34 34.60 34.62
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull' Area
1.00 1.00 0.77 0.88 1.00 1.14 0.77 0.65
Thalweg Elevation 36.33 37.05 37.54 38.28
35.55 35.44 35.52 35.51 33.76 32.88 33.96 34.06 33.00 32.92 32.90 33.20 34.56 34.77 34.89 35.19
LTOB2 Elevation 37.57 37.53 38.05 38.65
36.40 36.36 36.31 36.311 34.50 34.55 34.45 34.42 33.60 33.64 33.60 33.75 35.46 35.42 35.44 36.15
LTOB2 Max Depth ft 1.24 0.48 0.51 0.37
0.85 0.92 0.79 0.80 0.74 1.67 0.49 0.36 0.60 0.72 0.70 0.55 1 0.90 0.65 0.55 0.96
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area R2 3.90 1.50 1.40 1.80
7.07 7.07 2.90 5.60 1 3.17 14.40 2.00 1.70 3.19 2.30 1.80 2.50 1 3.70 4.90 2.00 3.40
Cross Section 6 (Riffle - Reach 2)
Cross Section 7 (Pool - Reach 1) Cross Section 8 (Riffle - Reach 1) Cross Section 9 (Pool - Reach 1) Cross Section 10 (Riffle - Reach 1)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY- Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area 36.53 37.13 37.75 37.84
37.91 37.90 37.97 37.93 40.26 40.22 40.27 40.28
Bank Height Ratio Based on AB Bankfull' Area 1.00 0.63 0.47 0.74
1.00 1.30 1.09 0.88 1.00 1.13 1.04 1.00
Thalweg Elevation 35.67 36.57 36.97 37.01
35.91 35.87 35.70 35.96 37.40 37.41 37.33 37.44 38.41 38.32 38.05 38.43 39.86 39.77 39.82 39.87
LTOB2 Elevation 36.53 36.92 37.34 37.62
36.56 36.66 36.25 36.70 37.91 38.05 38.03 37.87 39.00 39.03 39.21 39.05 40.26 40.28 40.29 40.28
LTOB2 Max Depth ft 0.86 0.35 0.37 0.61
0.65 0.79 0.55 0.74 0.51 0.64 0.70 0.43 0.59 0.71 1.16 0.62 0.40 0.51 0.47 0.41
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft) 5.25 2.82 1.60 2.66
2.30 3.10 2.30 3.20 4.28 7.20 5.01 3.80 2.20 2.40 5.20 2.40 2.40 3.30 2.90 2.40
Cross Section 11 (Confluence -Reach l)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation ft -Based on AB-Bankfull'Area 33.42 33.44 33.49 33.52
Bank Height Ratio Based on AS Bankfull' Area 1.00 0.84 0.73 0.71
Thalweg Elevation 32.51 31.91 32.56 32.58
LTOB2Elevation33.42 33.19 33.24 33.25
LTOB2MaxDethR 0.91 1.28 0.68 0.67
LTOB' Cross Sectional Area ft2 22.54 14.68 14-13F13-851 I I
Theabove morphology parameters reflectthe 2018 guidance that arose fromthe mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRTand industry mitigation
providers/practitioners. The outcome resulted i n the focus on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel change moving forward. They are
the bank height ratio using a constant As-built bankfull area and the cross sectional area and max depth based on each years lowtop of bank. These are calculatedas follows:
1 -Bank Height Ratio(BHR)takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adj usti ng each subsequent years bankfull elevation. For example if the As-built bankfull area was 30 ft2, then
the MY1 bankfull elevation would be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey =10 ft2. The BHR would then be calculated with the difference
between the lowtop of bank (LTOB) elevation for MY1 and the thalweg elevation for MY1 in the numeratorwith the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg
elevation inthedenominator. This same process is then carried out in each successive year.
2 - LTOB Area and Max depth-These are based on the LTOB elevation foreach years survey (The same elevation used forthe LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area belowthe LTOBelevation
will be used and tracked for each year as above. The difference between the LTOBelevation and the thalweg elevation (same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above
as LTOB max depth.
Note: The smallerihe channel the closer the surveymeasunon-Is are to 11heirlimilo1re1iable detection, therefore inter -annual variation in morphological measurement(as a percentage) is by default magnified as channel size decereases. Some of the variabilityabove is the result of this factor and some is due to the large
amount of deposifional sediments observed.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
43

xs 6
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 mach exhibiting banks that am eroding based on the Nsual suney from Wsual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max page, disp = max subpave
4. = of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
44
Exhibit Table 11 b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:95361 Se ment/Reach: Reach 1
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY -2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min
Bankfull Width (ft) 11.50
Mean Med Max
16.20
SD4 n Mn
2 11.46
Mean Med Max
20.00
SD4 n
2
Mn
11.19
Mean Med Max SD4 n Mn Mean Med Max SD4 n Nin Mean Med Max SD4 n Mn Mean Med Max SD4 n
16.10 2 11.24 17.33 2
Floodprone Width (ft) 57.00
83.30
2 58.28
86.26
2
53.80
97.70 2 57.38 74.01 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.22
0.26
2 0.24
0.28
2
0.23
0.26 2 0.25 0.26 2
'Bankfull Max Depth ft 0.40
0.51
2 0.49
0.50
2
0.42
0.57 2 0.40 0.45 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 2.58
4.26
2 3.25
4.77
2
2.58
4.26 2 2.58 4.26 2
Width/Depth Ratio 52.27
62.31
2 40.49
83.95
2
48.60
60.83 2 38.10 38.50 2
Entrenchment Ratio 4.96
5.14
2 4.31
5.08
2
5.21
5.36 2 14.27 5.10 1 2
'Bank Height Ratio 1.00
1.00
2 1.00
1.00
2
1.12
0.88 2 0.91 1.10 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)EtEEEL
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless Nsual data, dimensional data orNdata
indicate significant shifts from Vaseline
Wander W frith Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C 5/6
C 5/6
C 5/6 C 5/6
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
850
850
850 850
Sinuosity (ft)
1.04
1.04
1.04 1.04
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ff/ft)
0.006
0.006
0.006 0.006
xs 6
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 mach exhibiting banks that am eroding based on the Nsual suney from Wsual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max page, disp = max subpave
4. = of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
44

Shade tl cells indicate that these WIII 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 suney from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Slit/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpaw
4. = Of �alue/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
45
Exhibit Table 11b. ... Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) Segment/Reach: Reach 2
Dimension and Substrate -Riffle only
Bankfull Width (ft)
Entrenchment RatioMMMMM
Rifne Slope
Pool Length
Pool Spacing
Pattern
71
Channel Beltidth (ft)
Wander Wavelength (ft)
0- awn
indicate significant shifts from �­elms mmmmmmmm
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
r
r r
on -
Shade tl cells indicate that these WIII 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 suney from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Slit/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpaw
4. = Of �alue/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 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 Hsusl suney from Nsual assessment table
3 = Rifle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpa%
4. = Of value needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
46
Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring Data Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) Segment/Reach: Reach 3
•
®�mm�0®�mm�0®�mm�0®�mm�0®�mm�0®gym®�0
FiwdproneWidth
Bankfull Man Depth
'Bankfull Max Depth
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area
Riffle Length
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or prolle data
indicate signilicant shifts from baseline
Additional Reach Paraimeters
Rosgen Classification
..r
r rr
I t, •.r
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 Hsusl suney from Nsual assessment table
3 = Rifle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpa%
4. = Of value needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 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 dsual surrey from nual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Growl, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pate, disp = max subpaw
4. = Of wlue/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
47
Exhibit Table 11b. ... Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) Segment/Reach: Reach 4
Dimension and Substrate -Riffle only
Bankfull Cross
mm®mm0mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Riffle Length
Pool N11ax depth (ft)
Radius ofCurvature
indicate significant shifts from baseline
Rc:='1'.(11
Wan
Wander Width Ratio
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fUft)
BF slope (ft/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 dsual surrey from nual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Growl, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pate, disp = max subpaw
4. = Of wlue/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
47

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 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
48

Table 9: Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of
Dates of Occurance
Method
Greater than
Notes
Observation
1 (Reach 3)
Various
Qbkf Stage?
On-site data logger
2 (Reach 3)
12/8/17-4/6/18,5/05-5/10,5/30-
Y
On-site data logger
3 (Reach 4)
10/5/18
6/6, 6/14, 7/24-8/8, 8/22-8/26,
On -Site data logger
Y
Reach 1 (Well 5, 6)
Y
9/13-9/20
5 (Reach 1)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
1/7-1/16/18, 1/25-2/23, 2/27,
Various
Y
On-site data logger
10/5/18
3/24-3/27, 3/21, 4/9-4/15, 8/2-
On -Site data logger
Y
Reach 2 (Well 7)
Various
8/5, 9/13-9/20
On-site data logger
9 (Reach 5)
Various
10/5/18
12/27/17,1/1/18,1/6 , 1/16,
On -Site data logger
Y
Reach 3 ( Well 1, 2)
On-site data logger
1/25-2/5,3/27,9/13-9/18
10/5/18
11/9, 11/17-11/22/17, 3/24-
On -Site data logger
Y
Reach 4 (Well 3)
4/24/18, 5/22-6/10, 9/11-9/19
11/13, 11/17, 12/12, 12/26,
10/5/18
12/31/17, 1/10/18, 2/13-2/15,
On -Site data logger
Y
Reach 1& 4
3/24-3/26, 4/22, 5/31, 6/1,
Confluence (Well 4)
7/24,7/29,8/8,9/12,9/16
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
49
Table 12: Verification of Baseflow
Well (Reach)
Dates of Occurrence
30 Consecutive Days
Minimum Flow
Requirement Met?
Notes
1 (Reach 3)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
2 (Reach 3)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
3 (Reach 4)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
4 (Confluence R1&4)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
5 (Reach 1)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
6 (Reach 1)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
7 (Reach 2)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
8 (Reach 5)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
9 (Reach 5)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
10 (Reach 5)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
49

10
9
8
7
r- 6
3
2
1
0
Nov 17' Dec 17'
An 18'
Figure 2: Monthly Rainfall Data
Feb 18' Mar 18' Apr 18' May 18' Jun 18' Jul 18'
Date
Rainfall (in) -30 percentile -70 percentile
Aug 18' Sept 18' Oct 18'
Rainfall Data collected from Washington WW 1P in Beaufort County, NC. Data obtained from USDA-NRCS Agricultural Applied Climate
Information System. Percentiles calculated from 1997-2018 data.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
50

Figure 3
39.0
$ 38.0
0
O
m 37.0
a
d
w 36.0
35.0
Figure 4
38.0
37.0
z
C
36.0
m
a
d
W
35.0
Stream Surface (Nater Hydrology Monitoring - MY 3
Monitoring Well 1- Reach 3
n n n n r__ � r__ r` r` w cc M cc 00 00 M cd CO cc CO cc CO CO CO cc CO cc 00 00 00 cd oc 00 M 00 cc 00 00 00 CO CO CO CO cc CO cc 00 00 M cc M cc DO cc 00 00 M cc CO cc CO cc CO CO CO
mc14omo�ommmmmnn n�_;�r _;�r _�4u14ooninn�nn n���u14iou14iou14ou14ic u14_2 arnamamamamammmrvnn n_�4������
O O 1i 1i N N O O 1i 1i N N O O 1i 1i N N rn O 1i 1i N N O O 1i 1-I N N O O rl "1 N N rn O 1i 1i N N rn O O 1i 1i N N O O 1i 1i N N O O 1i 1i N N O O 1i 1i N N O
1144 1144 1144 1144 1144 1141 N N N N N N 1144 1141 1144 1141 1144 1144 1144N N N N N M f 1 M M M f�r1 '14� � 4 �+_"1 � 1 �+Z Z 1
1-I 1-I 1-I 1-I 1-I 1-I 1-I 1-I 1-I 1-I 1-I 1-I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1-I
Date
Water Elevation -Bankiull Datum Thalweg Elevation
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 3
Monitoring Well 2 - Reach 3
34.0
.Z v1 m a a1 m m ;:T r� na m m m m m 1v n .� � ,:"ir .: _176 o v1 o v1 o a m 'n m m m m n 1v n r� n ,: v1 0 Z;� o .n o m m m m 'n m r�
L,? 2O& c N N& O O 6- & N N O
N V1 V1 V1 N V1 N �O i� �O �O �O �O 1� n� n n n m m m m m m m 6i 61 61 Q1 Q1 6� O
Date
-Water Elevation Banktull Datum -Thalweg Elevation
Figure 5
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
51

37.0
$ 36.0
c
35.0
m
ai 34.0
W
33.0
Figure 6
NMQ
. 34.0
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 3
Monitoring Well 3 - Reach 4
r-_ r-_ r-_ r-_ r-_ cd cd 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 cd cd od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od
m rn o�� n m rn o i o N n Noma rn-L?� m oma o��'113� N rz m rn-L?� oo '11-3� N n Noma m rn-L?� 4'113� N m rn o L? 4 n -4 n m rn 4 o0
O O r-1 N N O O r-1 r-1 N rn 0 r -I r -I N N O O r-1 r-1 N O O r-1 N N rn O r-1 r-1 N N O r-1 r-1 N N O O r-1 r-1 N O O r-1 r-1 N N O r-1 r-1 N N O O r-1 r-1 N ro
rr rr rr r r41 N N N N N N 1 r41 r r41 -r4 N N N N N [_Y1 m m m m [_Y1 L? L? L? L? L? [gyp [gyp [gyp [gyp [gyp n n rz rz rz rz o—a o—a o—a o—a o—a rn rn rn rn rn rn
r -I r -I r -I r -I r -I r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Date
Water Elevation Bankfull Datum Thalweg Elevation
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 3
Monitoring Well 4 - Confluence Reaches 1&4
W 32.0
31.0
IM1 M1 M1 n n n n n n M1 M1 M1 M1 00 00 0O CQ CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CQ 00 CO CO CQ W W 00 00 00 CO CO m CQ CQ CO 00 W W W 00 cd CO CQ CQ CO CO CO W CO CO CO CO CQ CQ CQ CO 00 W W 00 00 00 00
ri ri ri ri a -I a -I r -I ri ri ri ri ri ri ri a -I a -I r -I ri ri ri ri ri ri ri a -I a -I a -I ri ri ri rl r -I rl rl a --I ri ri a -I a -I r -I ri ri rl r -I rl ri rl a --I a -I a -I ri ri ri ri ri ri ri a -I a -I a -I r -I ri ri rl r -I rl rl rl r -I
RC33- nil n N n N n N n N '115� '.�:r O N O 3
_9 O M 3 M6E� f�YY 030 u�'] O Q_] Q_i R 0_0 [�Y1 0�0 N n N n N n N n r_ -I �+_'] O N O N O u_9 Q_] Q_i '-Zr 6_i nil 0�0 M n N n r_i 3 r- ' O
O O .-I .-I N N O O -4 -4 N N rn O a -I a -I N N M O O r -I .-I N N O a --I -4 -4 N N O O .--I a -I N N O O r -I r -I N N rn O -4 -4 N N M O O -4 r -I N N O O a --I a -I N N O O -4 -4 N N M
r4i 1 r�-I r�-I N N N N N N N r4i r_i r_ -I 1 r_i r_i N N N N N N rr rr f i m m I_�i 4 4 N N N u�'] u�'] N N r r r r r r W
ri ri ri ri r -I r -I r -I ri ri ri ri ri ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Date
Water Elevation — Bankfull Datum —Thalweg Elevation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
52

40
39
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 3
Monitoring Well 5 - Reach 1
4R
n n r r r n n n r n n n oo ca ca ca ca ca ca oo ca ca ca ca ca ca oo ca oo ca oo ca as ca oa oa ca oo ca ca ca ca as ca oo ca oa ca oa oa ca ca ca oo ca ca ca oa ca ca oo ca ca ca oo ca ca o0
m moommcaN.� No Nn_NT nN .� oOn O 0 pm"mmnNr -14 rn
O 0NNO C, N N00N NM0N N O O N N00N N [ 0 N NKO 0 N NO CN NO 0 N N00NN 0
�-I r_-1 1, 1,4 _14 _1,4 N N N N N N 14 _;4 1, I L4 1, .' ;4 N N N N NM M r l M M M '� 1 ] ] �+�'] 1] 1.2_Z_6 _Z2� IL_D Ii n n n n n n 0�0 -car 0�0 -car C_0 06 8 Q�1 Q_1 Q�1 6�5 T O
Date
-Water Elevation-Banktull Datum Thalweg Elevation
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 3
Monitoring Well 6 - Reach 1
42.0
_ 41.0w Y y j V ''�j Y' Y v b 11�+�.rv,mh„ ,f 'IJ 1hh f "'$
40.0
° �9
a 39.0
d
W
38.0
37.0
n r- r- r- CO od CO o© m oc m oc m w oc w w od M M w M M M M cd M M w cd w o0 M M M M x oc w cd w cd w cd od w od w w oc M w M M M M
O ] a L_D 1 r r_i L_O N r N W N Wf_Y7 0 .4_-I L_D N rf-;7 0_0 N W � 5 Q_1 � 3 O ] r_i r_i � r_i N rz M W I l Z4� O O_'] �: O_'] r_ -I l r_ -I r_ -I r N
O O ri ri N M O ri ri N IV O O r- 1-1 N N O O r -I 1-1 N O O 1- ri N N O O �_i N N O r- ri N N M O ri ri N N o 0 rq ri N M O O ri N N M O ri rl N N O
,;:r 1;:r 1;:r ;:r N N N N N r_i r_i 1 r_i 1 r_i N N N N N m m m m m m ;�_ ; u`'] u_'] u_'] u_'] u_'] u_: [_D [_D [_D [_D [_D r r r r r r 0_0 0_0 W W W W & Q_] Q_1 Q_1 Q_1 O
ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri HOCDOO CDCDCDC CDCDCDC CDCOO O O O O O 0000 0000 CDCDCDCD CDCOO 00000 0000 COCO C11
Date
Water Elevation Banktull Datum Thalweg Elevation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
53

38.5
$ 37.5
C
36.5
m
a
d
W 35.5
34.5
Figure 10
35.0
$ 34.0
c
2 33.0
M
a
ai
UJ
32.0
31.0
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 3
Monitoring Well 7 - Reach 2
r-_ r-_ r-_ r-_ r-_ od cd cd od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od cd o© od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od od
rq r-1 r- r-1 r-1 r-1 rq rq rq rq rq rq rq rq rq r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 rq rq rq rq rq rq rq rq rq r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r- r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 rq rq rq rq rq rq rq
m rn o'113� 4 rz m rn 4 o-L?� o N N O rn m oma 4 o'11-3� 4'113� N rz m rn-L?� oo '115� N n N oma 4 rn-L?� '4 N o—a m rn 4 o-L?� 4 n 4 n m rn 4 o0
O O r-1 N N O CD r -I r -I N rn CD r -I r -I N N O O r-1 r-1 N O O r-1 N N rn O r-1 r-1 N N O r-1 r-1 N N O O r-1 r-1 N O O r-1 r-1 N N O r-1 r-1 N N O O r-1 r-1 N ro
rr rr rr 14 N N N N N N r41 r r41 r r N N N N N f_f) m m m m [_Y1 L? L? L? L? L? [gyp [gyp [gyp [gyp [gyp n n rz rz rz rz o—a o—a o—a o—a o—a rn rn rn rn rn rn
r -I r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r -I r -I r -I r-1 r-1 r-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Date
Water Elevation Bankfull Datum Thalweg Elevation
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 3
Monitoring Well S - Reach 5
r� n' n' � � n' � � � � � � oo cd oo cd cd o0 0o Dd cd cd oo cd cd cd cd cd oo Dd o0 00 0o cd cd oo cd cd cd cd oo cd cd cd o0 0o cd cd cd cd oo cd cd rd oo cd cd cd cd cd cd cd and rd cd cd cd o0
CD I= M 00 n'1 00 M CD N f r14 r1J CD CD �A A N n CD CD rr1J rq CD CD A 12ri CD ri CD O �.�] O u'] N CD N n N n CD CD O ur14 CD CD �A A O rq O rO I= O �.�] O " O CD M CD I= Q] Qt CD CD CD Q1 4 CA M C14 r4 I= CD N n N n CD aD ri �D r -I lD rD
CD CD r1J CD
ri r -I ri ri r -I ri N N N N N N cD cD cD cD cD cD cD N N N N N f= cD cD cD cD f'�7 cD cD Im cD cD cD cD cD cD N cD N N cD ZD cD cD ZD cD cD cD cD n cD cD DD DD DD DD DD DD 61 6] cD CI Q1 Q1 O
ri r -I ri ri r -I ri ri ri ri r -I ri ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ri
Date
Water Elevation — Streambed Surface Elevation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
54

34.0
33.0
V_
- 32.0
0
Y
31.0
m
W
30.0
29.0
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 3
Monitoring Well 9 - Reach 5
n n n n n n n n n n n n m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m oo m oa ca o0 0o m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m oo m m m ca
m m ren am D_a r_n m m m N n; X 1 1 _-i -1ir '�:r i o a N n N n N n 1_Ii�; _Ii� a o o o o s 4 rn 4 m 4 rn 4 m 4 rn m ac r_n n N n -;:r 1'�:r _Ii_Ii�;
O O .-I .--I N N O O .-i .-i N N O O .--I .--I N N rn O .-i .-I N N O O .--I r -I N N O O rl r -I N N rn O .--I r -I N N rn O O .-I .--I N N O O r -I .-i N N O O .-I .--I N N O O .-i .-i N N O
r_i ;_ r_ -I r_i ._i r_ -I N N N N N N e_i r_ -I r_i r_i r_i r_ -I r_i N N N N N m M R R R M Q Z �'14� Z '14� j u_'� N N u_'� _'y e r r r r r r co m m m m m & && T O
ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri "4 1-1 OC O COO O COO COO O 00 CDC 00 CDC O COO COO O 00 CDC 00 cc O OCC COC O COC O CDC cc O ri
Date
Water Elevation Streambed Surface Elevation
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 3
Monitoring Well 10 - Reach 5
33.0
$ 32.0
c
31.0 111601
30.0
m
y 29.0
uJ 28.0
27.0
n n r~ r~ 1__: r_ r_ cd cd cd od cd cd cd Dd cd cd cd cd w cd cd cd w cd cd cd cd w cd cd cd w cd cd cd cd w cd cd cd od cd cd Dd Dd o0 od cd cd oo cd cd cd cd o0 od cd cd od cd cd Dd
mo_Dmo�om-ca-mo�Dm-ca-Nnr4 —14 ��nou�iou�iNnrzinNn-14 -14.i u-8— u�iou�iou�io rn4m _Ci �rn mmo_omn�vn�������
cc .-I r -I N NCO r -i r i N N O O r-1 r-1 N N M O .-I r -I N NCO r -I r -I N N O O r-1 1.1 N N M O e -I r -I N N M O O r- r-1 N N O O .--1 r-1 N N O O r -I r -I N N O O r -I 1.1 N N O
r_-1 ._i ._-I r_ -I r_ -I r_ -I N N N N N N r_-1 ;4 ;4 ;4 ;4 r_ -I r_-1 r_ -I N N N N N P m m m m m a _12� 'Ii� r r r r r r m D_0 D_D c C_0 D_0
Date
—Water Elevation Streambed Surface Elevation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 3 Monitoring Report FINAL
March 2019 DMS Project # 95361
55