Rebman Creek Evaluation of In-Stream Rehabilitation Structures

Similar documents
RE: Engineered Riffle Concepts for Sodom Dam Removal Grade Control Elements

Compensatory Mitigation Monitoring Report Aquatic Habitat Improvement City of Montrose Whitewater Park, Montrose County, Colorado March 6, 2014

San Juan River Watershed: Fish Passage Assessments

Whakapapa River: 2014 Drift Dive Survey. Author: Adam Daniel Publication date: June 6, 2014 Auckland/Waikato Fish and Game Hamilton New Zealand

Re: Survey of constructed cross section per Restoration Framework on Wind River, Fremont County, WY

Technical Memorandum ECO-7

East Chaska Creek Restoration Project

Memorandum. Application for Amendment to DNR Land Use Permit # LAS29209

Prepared for Humboldt County Gravel Operators. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences 850 G Street, Suite H Arcata, CA 95521

Tributary Access and Potential Fish Stranding

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. General Submission Requirements

Loy Gulch, Paint Pony, East Fork Paint Pony LOMR

KKR S. 6 th St. to I-94 Bridge Project Location. Expanded Floodplains

Guide to Developing a Stream Photograph Documentation Program

Table of Contents. Chapter 1.0 Purpose and Need

LOWER YUBA RIVER ACCORD MONITORING

B422 - PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS AND BOX SEWERS - OPSS 422

APPENDIX E - FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION

Make Your Own Monitoring Equipment

Pilot Project Ross Valley Watershed Geomorphology GIS Database Final Report August 30, 2010

The Basics. HECRAS Basis Input. Geometry Data - the basics. Geometry Data. Flow Data. Perform Hydraulic Computations. Viewing the Output

Methods for characterization of freshwater turtle nesting beaches in an urban environment

State Listed Threatened Mussels and Zebra Mussels: What You Need to Know

MAPPING YOUR STREAM. TIME REQUIRED 50 minutes in Field 50 minutes in Classroom 50 minutes Homework

FLOOD ESTIMATE FROM POSSIBLE DAM BREAK SCENARIO OF SUN KOSI LAND SLIDE DAM, NEPAL. O. P. GUPTA Director Central Water Commission

Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (FERC No )

ENSURING LONGITUDINAL CONNECTIVITY OF THE JIU RIVER NEAR ISALNITA DAM

Amgueddfa Cymru National Museum Wales. Collection Care & Conservation Policy

MONTHLY UPDATE REPORT - PRIMROSE SOUTH W4M OCTOBER 7, 2013

Tiered Species Habitats (Terrestrial and Aquatic)

Performance Monitoring

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION LAKE ODESSA HABITAT REHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL APPENDIX F

SITE: NAKWASINA RIVER BARANOF ISLAND, SOUTHEAST ALASKA

2/15/2015. Current will always try to return to its source. In order for there to be current, there must be a complete circuit

TECHNICAL NOTE - PARALLEL CHANNEL INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES - PYRAMAT 25

2011 Mountain Yellow-legged Frog Monitoring Plan Survey Results El Dorado Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 184

Black-crowned Night-heron Minnesota Conservation Summary

Supporting Guidance Note

REMOTE SENSING OF RIVERINE WATER BODIES

B. Project Summary: Audubon Arkansas will work on assessment and restoration of aquatic habitats in urban environments in Central Arkansas.

ATTACHMENT H TACOMA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT FEATURES

Log Scanning Trials. Peter Dyson Researcher FPInnovations Forest Operations Division. Location: Date: Bellingham

AERIAL SURVEY OF BIRDS AT MONO LAKE ON AUGUST 24, 1973

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus distribution and stonefly nymph availability in the Maligne Valley watershed a preliminary study

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Wetlands Program 2016 Grant Awards

Ecological Restoration Drafting & Design Guidelines

Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog Monitoring Plan

Mystic Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project Number Year Bald Eagle Monitoring Summary Report Public

Current Water Quality Conditions and Initial Documentation of Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) in Harveys Lake, Luzerne County, PA

CHARTER ON THE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE (1996)

Iowa Bridge Sensor Demonstration Project Phase I and Phase II Executive Summary Report. Floodplain Management Services Silver Jackets Pilot Study

Appendix C Photo Plates

King Road / CN Rail Grade Separation

Fall Trumpeter Swan Survey of the High Plains Flock

Bald Eagle Annual Report February 1, 2016

DS1 Storm - Sill System: ASSEMBLY MANUAL

Evaluation of an Electrical Gradient as a Seal Deterrent Puntledge River Study, April 10 24, 2007 Preliminary Results

Field Observations and One-Dimensional Flow Modeling of Summit Creek in Mack Park, Smithfield, Utah

NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF INVENTION I. INTRODUCTION

Analysis of Reference Tidal Channel Plan Form For the Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project

Introduction of The Iraqi Marshlands

STROLLING FOR CERULEANS & ASSOCIATED SPECIES AVIAN LINE TRANSECT PROTOCOL

GPS Surveying Procedures

A B C D E F G H SEE NOTE 1 EL (MIN.) 2 NEW UNCOMPACTED EL. VARIES EARTH EMBANKMENT 3 (MIN.) TYPICAL SECTION EMBANKMENT AND BORROW 6 (MIN.

Presented By: Todd Ward Project Manager

MARSH MONITORING PROGRAM: 2003 VOLUNTEER HABITAT WORKSHOP SUMMARY

TO: FROM SUBJECT: SRBA Jon Albright Technical Memorandum on Hydrologic Yields PROJECT: Sulphur River Basin Feasibility Study DATE: 08/26/2014 CC:

Population Estimate and Size Comparison of Orconectes propinquus in Riffle Habitats in Tenderfoot Creek

Black Lake SLELO-PRISM Water Chestnut & Hydrilla Surveillance 2012

Cattle-Free for 10 Years!

Freshwater Stream Conditions in the Patuxent River Basin

RADAR-BASED OPEN CHANNEL FLOW MEASUREMENT. Lawrence B. Marsh President Marsh-McBirney Inc Metropolitan Court Frederick, MD 21704

Electrical Procedure No E032. Procedure No: ELE 032

GEOPHYSICAL REPORT on the ZIP 1 MINERAL CLAIM ATLIN M.D.

GOODLIGHT LP Post Construction Monitoring Report Goodlight Solar Project

Example Application C H A P T E R 4. Contents

Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Conservation Program

British Columbia. Dancing Quilts 195B Birch Avenue 100 Mile House BC V0K 2G

MARINE GEOPHYSICAL PROVE-OUT AND SURVEY AT FLAG LAKE BOMBING RANGE BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, LOUISIANA

Marine Renewable-energy Application

2004 Ipswich River Herring Count by Ipswich River Watershed Association Kerry Mackin, Executive Director

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Field Studies Information Sheet

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT WASHINGTON, D.C October 23, 2003

How to Take RBV Site Photographs

ODFW Life Cycle Monitoring Project

Wood Stork Aerial Survey Trip Report. Lake Murray and Saluda River August 27, Aircraft: Fixed-Wing Cessna 210 Survey Duration: hrs

Anne Johnson U.S. Government Accountability Office. Association of Food and Drug Officials 116 th Annual Educational Conference June 3, 2012

Green Star Daylight and Views Hand Calculation Guide

Technical Requirements for Wireless Broadband Services (WBS) in the Band MHz

SUBMISSION ON PLAN CHANGE 34 (LAKE TAUPO EROSION AND FLOOD STRATEGY): BY NGATI KURAUIA HAPŪ.

erosion control HasTec KGW 400 advantages: usage: For surface protection and greening of slopes in landscaping and traffic route engineering.

In response to a request from Water Rights Branch, a short. In general, the sequence of post glacial events in the immediate. D. M.

Photopoint Identification Sheet Page 1 of 2

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Field Studies Information Sheet

French Fire Contaminants Assessment: Preliminary Report, September 2005

Project Title: Lewis Woodpecker Nesting Box FWCP: COL-F17-W Prepared for: Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program. Prepared by: Richard Hoar

SECTION DEWATERING TANKAGE PART 1 - GENERAL 1.1 RELATED DOCUMENTS

Environmental Working Group. Monthly Report

Relicensing Study 3.5.1

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Field Studies Information Sheet

Transcription:

Rebman Creek Evaluation of In-Stream Rehabilitation Structures Draft Report Prepared for: Weldwood of Canada Ltd. Quesnel, BC by: G3 Consulting Ltd. 4508 Beedie Street Burnaby, BC V5J 5L2 December 2000

Weldwood of Canada Ltd. Rebman Creek Structures Evaluation Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 STUDY AREA & ACCESS 1 3.0 RESULTS 1 3.1 Riffles 1 3.2 LWD structures 1 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2 5.0 LITERATURE SOURCES 3 APPENDICES Appendix 1 Figures Appendix 2 Assessment From Appendix 3 Photo Plates i G3 Consulting Ltd.

Weldwood of Canada Ltd. Rebman Creek Structures Evaluation 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP), Ministry of Forests (MOF), and Weldwood of Canada Ltd., Quesnel Division (Weldwood), under the BC Watershed Restoration Program (WRP), selected the Willow River Watershed for rehabilitation of fish habitat impaired by logging and related activities. LGL (Ferguson and Bocking, 1998) applied a Level 1 Fish Habitat Assessment Procedure (FHAP) to selected reaches in the Willow River watershed in 1997. A sub-watershed, that of tributary Rebman Creek, was identified as having been heavily impacted and of high priority for restoration. In 1999, LGL and Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (Gaboury et al., 1999) followed up with a Level 2 FHAP of Rebman Creek. Restoration efforts were carried out in Rebman Creek on two occasions (LGL and Erosion Control, 1999): in 1998, riffles were constructed along Reach 4; and, in 1999, at a total of 19 sites in Reach 2 and Reach 4, riffle construction continued, pools were excavated upstream of the riffles, and LWD structures built to provide cover and scour at the excavated pools. Under direction from MELP, Weldwood requested G3 Consulting Ltd. (G3) undertake a Site- Based Evaluation of 19 structures built in 1999, following the methodology developed by MELP (Parker, 2000). Results of this audit are reported below. 2.0 STUDY AREA & ACCESS Rebman Creek is a tributary of the Willow River and its watershed has a total area of approximately 21 km 2 (Appendix 1, Figure 1). Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is a dominant fish species in Rebman Creek and the target of restoration works. The 19 restored sites along Reaches 2 and 4 were accessed by foot from the partially deactivated 900A road that parallels the north (right) bank of Rebman Creek. The access point for Sites 1 to 14 (Reach 2) is situated at approximately UTM 10.55452.5914833, and approximately UTM 10.568300.5914098 for sites 15 to 19 (Reach 4) (Appendix 1, Figure 2). 3.0 RESULTS G3 visited each site during bankfull flow, October 23 and 24, 2000. The evaluation form used for these assessments is provided in Appendix 2. 3.1 Riffles Riffles investigated appeared functional in high flow, as each was stable and passable by adult fish. Bank erosion was not evident. Only the riffle downstream of Site 13 was not well keyed into the right bank and a portion of flow went around the top of the riffle. It is recommended that this site be further monitored and boulders be added should erosion continue. No definitive evaluation of functionality under low flow conditions could be made. Some riffles may be too wide and not adequately V-shaped to ensure sufficient water under low flow conditions. 3.2 LWD structures LWD structures investigated appeared stable and firmly anchored. As such, detailed graphic comparisons of such parameters as percent of structures removed, shifted", and in-place to such attributes as stream order and structure location were not deemed necessary.

Weldwood of Canada Ltd. Rebman Creek Structures Evaluation Most structures appeared to be functioning as intended (i.e. formation of primary pools [PP] and provision of cover [C]; LGL and Erosion Control, 1999). Residual pools varied from relatively deep (~0.8 m) to shallow (~0.15 m), and in many cases pools could not be assessed as being primary pools according to standard Fish Habitat Assessment Procedures (Johnston and Slaney, 1996). At some sites only an estimate of the number of ballast boulders was possible given high water that increased the safety hazard, high turbidity (low water visibility), and presence of foam. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS This audit was conducted during high flows, thereby limiting the ability to evaluate functionality of some structures. It is recommended that similar audits be performed under low flow conditions following at least one high flow event to enable riffle performance to be better assessed and residual pool depths to be more accurately measured. Rehabilitation sites were well marked and documented with photographs. Clearly labelled flagging tape attached to branches indicated vantage points of photos. Unfortunately, UTM coordinates of sites were not provided in previous reports. As coordinates would facilitate later monitoring after markings have deteriorated, it is suggested that coordinates be recorded for future such projects. This audit provided an opportunity to field-test the new audit methodology by Parker (2000), and some modifications may be warranted. In particular, the Assessment Form provided (Appendix 2) was inconsistent with the procedural text and it is therefore recommended that forms and text be adjusted accordingly. It is also recommended that additional information be identified as necessary for collection (as outlined below): 1. Column Structure Location : stream bank (i.e., left or right bank) should be noted with which structures were associated to facilitate future site identification; 2. Column Keyed into Bank (y or n) : as some of the LWD may be keyed into the bank in multilog structures and some may not, it is recommended that the number of keyed-in LWD pieces per structure be recorded. In this audit a y indicates that at least one piece of LWD was keyed into the bank; 3. Column # LWD (<2m & 15 cm) : the heading should read "# LWD >2 m long & >15 cm diameter" (Johnston and Slaney, 1996); 4. Column Associated Scour : the form provides a choice of codes (H, M, L) to describe the extent of the scour, whereas text methodology refers to type of scour pool (Primary, Tertiary, or No). In this audit, both indicators were noted; and 5. the data form should request assessment date, auditor initials, UTM coordinates, and photo documentation records.

Weldwood of Canada Ltd. Rebman Creek Structures Evaluation 5.0 LITERATURE SOURCES Johnston, N.T., and P.A. Slaney. 1996. Fish Habitat Assessment Procedures. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 8. MELP and MOF. Victoria; 97 pp. Ferguson, J., and R. Bocking. 1998. Willow River Level 1 fish habitat assessment and rehabilitation opportunities. Prepared for Weldwood of Canada Ltd., Quesnel. LGL Limited Environmental Research Associates, Sidney, BC. Gaboury, M., B. Bocking, and K. Rood. 1999. Willow River Watershed Restoration Program. Fish habitat prescriptions for Rebman Creek. Prepared for Weldwood of Canada Ltd., Quesnel. LGL Limited Environmental Research Associates, Sidney, BC and Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd., North Vancouver, BC. 13 pp. + app. LGL Limited Environmental Research Associates and Erosion Control Inc. 1999. Willow River Watershed Restoration Program. Stream rehabilitation 1999, as-built report for Rebman Creek. Prepared for MELP, Williams Lake. Sidney, BC (LGL) and Quesnel, BC (ECI); 3 pp. + app. Parker, M.A. 2000. Cariboo Region in stream structures evaluation, durability and habitat. MELP. Williams Lake; 8 pp. + app.

APPENDICES Appendix 1 Figures Appendix 2 Assessment Form Appendix 3 Photo Plates

Appendix 1 Figures

Figure 1: Level 2 FHAP Reaches in Rebman Creek (Gaboury et al., 1999).

3 1 2 4 8 6 5 10 9 7 11 12 13 14 15 17 16 Rebman Creek Rehabilitation Sites 1999 1. Left bank LWD structure at 1,440 m and riffle at 1,432 m. 11. Right bank LWD structure at 2,070 m and riffle at 2,065 m. 2. Left bank LWD structure at 1,505 m and riffle at 1,499 m. 12. Left bank LWD structure at 2,096 m and riffle at 2,091 m. 3. Right bank LWD structure at 1,525 m and riffle at 1,520 m. 13. Left bank LWD structure at 2,160 m and riffle at 2,156 m. 4. Right bank LWD structure at 1,590 m and riffle at 1,585 m. 14. Left bank LWD structure at 2,250 m and riffle at 2,249 m. 5. Left bank LWD structure at 1,640 m and riffle at 1,625 m. 15. Right bank LWD structure at 370 m and riffle at 363 m. 6. Right bank LWD structure at 1,660 m and riffle at 1,655 m. 16. Left bank LWD structure at 440 m and riffle at 430 m. 7. Left bank LWD structure at 1,680 m and riffle at 1,675 m. 17. Right bank LWD structure at 466 m and riffle at 458 m. 8. Right bank LWD structure at 1,756 m and riffle at 1,749 m. 18. Right bank LWD structure at 508 m and riffle at 439 m. 9. Left bank LWD structure at 1,930 m and riffle at 1,919 m. 19. Right bank LWD structure at 542 m and riffle at 534 m. 10. Right bank LWD structure at 1,980 m and riffle at 1,975 m. Chainage (m) starting at 0 m from the downstream end of each reach. Chainage (m) in Rebman Creek is based on a 0 m reference at the Rebman Creek Willow River confluence. Figure 2: Rebman Creek Rehabilitation Sites, 1999 (LGL and Erosion Control, 1999). 18 19

Appendix 2 Assessment Form

TABLE 1 Rebman Creek Site Based Evaluation System Stream Order Site Identifier Months Since Installation Structure Location Structure Size Structure Type Ballasted/ Anchored # of boulders/ Ballast Keyed into bank # LWD (>2m & 15 cm) Total LWD Stability Intended Function Intended Functionality Current Function Associated Erosion Associated Scour Habitat Unit Residual Pool (m) Notes Rebman Creek 3 1 13 E (LB) H AWD Y ~ 2 Y 3 3 I PP/C S C L P (L) P 0.3 Shallow pool (does not qualify as primary habitat unit) UTM 10.566553.5914594 3 2 13 E (LB) H MWD Y 6 Y 4 5 I PP/C S IN L P (H) P 0.5 2 existing LWD, 2 LWD added 3 3 13 E (RB) H AWD Y 4 Y 2 2 I PP/C I BS, RB eroding between logs, sedimentation M P (L) P 0.15 C, CN inside AWD LWD submerged, one sill log d/s of 3 4 13 E (RB) H AWD Y ~ 4 Y 2 3 I PP/C S IN L P (H) P 0.6 structure may be newly deposited (not in as-built photo) 3 5 13 E (LB) H MWD Y 10 Y 4 4 I PP/C S C L P (L) P 0.3 Though pool shallow, structure sorts grav el well 3 6 13 E (RB) H AWD Y 4 Y 2 2 I PP/C S IN M P (H) P 0.8 Erosion between logs on RB 3 7 13 E (LB) H AWD Y 4 Y 3 3 I PP/C S IN L P (H) P 0.6 Cable on u/s log loose and log not held by ballast rock; structure may have shifted 3 8 13 E (RB) H MWD Y 7 Y 4 4 I PP/C S IN L P (H) P 0.5 UTM 10.56800.5914641 3 9 13 E (LB) H AWD Y 4 Y 2 2 I PP/C S IN L P (M) P 0.4 UTM 10.567009.5914557 3 10 13 E (RB) H MWD Y 10 Y 5 6 I PP/C S C L P (L) P 0.3 shallow pool 3 11 13 E (RB) H AWD Y ~ 3 Y 3 3 I PP/C S IN L P (H) P 0.7 3 12 13 E (LB) H AWD Y ~ 2 Y 2 4 I PP/C S IN L P (H) P 0.9 3 13 13 E (LB) H AWD Y 4 Y 3 3 I PP/C S IN L P (H) P 0.6 some flow around top of riffle (RB): riffle 3 14 13 E (LB) H MWD Y 12 Y 5 5 I PP/C S C L P (L) P 0.3 not well keyed in to the RB Log jam d/s of riffle backwatering riffle, UTM 10.567343.5914505 3 15 13 E (RB) H AWD Y 4 Y 2 2 I PP/C S C L P (L) P 0.3 shallow pool, UTM 10.568301.5914034 3 16 13 E (LB) H MDW Y 12 Y 6 6 I PP/C S IN L P (H) P 0.5 3 17 13 E (RB) H AWD Y ~ 3 Y 3 3 I PP/C S IN L P (H) P 0.7 3 18 13 E (RB) H AWD Y 4 Y 3 3 I PP/C S IN L P (H) P 0.6 3 19 13 E (RB) H MWD Y ~ 8 Y 5 5 I PP/C S IN L P (H) P 0.6 structure totally submerged, BO hard to see!, UTM 10.568408.5913996

Appendix 3 Photo Plates

Photo 1: Rebman Creek Site 1: left bank LWD structure, Reach 2 at ~1,440 m. Photo 2: Rebman Creek Site 1: view upstream toward constructed riffle, Reach 2 at ~1,432 m.

Photo 3: Rebman Creek Site 2: left bank LWD structure, Reach 2 at ~1,505 m.

Photo 4: Rebman Creek Site 2: view upstream toward constructed riffle, Reach 2 at ~1,499 m.

Photo 5: Rebman Creek Site 3: view upstream toward LWD structure, Reach 2 at ~1,525 m. Photo 6: Rebman Creek Site 3: view upstream toward constructed riffle, Reach 2 at ~1,520 m.

Photo 7: Rebman Creek Site 4: view toward left bank LWD structure, Reach 2 at ~1,590 m. Photo 8: Rebman Creek Site 4: view upstream toward constructed riffle, Reach 2 at 1590 m.

Photo 9: Rebman Creek Site 5: view downstream toward LWD structure, Reach 2 at ~1,640 m. Photo 10: Rebman Creek Site 5: view upstream toward constructed riffle, Reach 2 at ~1,625 m.

Photo 11: Rebman Creek Site 6: view upstream toward LWD structure, Reach 2 at ~1,660 m. Photo 12: Rebman Creek Site 6: view upstream toward constructed riffle and LWD structure, Reach 2 at ~1,655 m.

Photo 13: Rebman Creek Site 7: left bank LWD structure, Reach 2 at ~1,680 m. Photo 14: Rebman Creek Site 7: view upstream toward constructed riffle, Reach 2 at ~1,675 m.

Photo 15: Rebman Creek Site 8: view upstream toward LWD structure, Reach 2 at ~1,756 m. Photo 16: Rebman Creek Site 8: view upstream toward constructed riffle, Reach 2 at ~1,749 m.

Photo 17: Rebman Creek Site 9: view upstream toward LWD structure, Reach 2 at ~1,930 m. Photo 18: Rebman Creek Site 9: view upstream toward constructed riffle, Reach 2 at ~1,920 m.

Photo 19: Rebman Creek Site 10: view downstream toward LWD structure, Reach 2 at ~1,980 m.

Photo 20: Rebman Creek Site 10: view upstream toward constructed riffle, Reach 2 at ~1,975 m.

Photo 21: Rebman Creek Site 11: view upstream toward LWD structure, Reach 2 at ~2,070 m. Photo 22: Rebman Creek Site 11: view upstream toward constructed riffle, Reach 2 at ~2,065 m.

Photo 23: Rebman Creek Site 12: left bank LWD structure, Reach 2 at ~2,096 m. Photo 24: Rebman Creek Site 12: view upstream toward constructed riffle, Reach 2 at ~2,091 m.

Photo 25: Rebman Creek Site 13: left bank LWD structure, Reach 2 at ~2,160 m. Photo 26: Rebman Creek Site 13: view upstream toward constructed riffle, Reach 2 at ~2,156 m.

Photo 27: Rebman Creek Site 14: view upstream toward LWD structure, Reach 2 at ~2,250 m. Photo 28: Rebman Creek Site 15: view downstream toward LWD structure, Reach 4 at ~370 m.

Photo 29: Rebman Creek Site 16 (downstream part): view upstream toward constructed riffle, Reach 4 at ~430 m. Photo 30: Rebman Creek Site 16 (downstream part): view upstream toward LWD structure, Reach 4 at ~440 m.

Photo 31: Rebman Creek Site 16 (upstream part): view upstream toward LWD structure, Reach 4 at ~445 m. Photo 32: Rebman Creek Site 17: view upstream toward LWD structure, Reach 4 at ~466 m.

Photo 33: Rebman Creek Site 18: view upstream toward LWD structure, Reach 4 at ~508 m. Photo 34: Rebman Creek Site 19: view upstream toward LWD structure, Reach 4 at ~542 m.