2016 monitoring report helmet creek restoration adak ... · • collect one water quality sample...

2016 Monitoring Report

Helmet Creek Restoration

Adak Petroleum Diesel Spill

September 29-31, 2016

i | P a g e

Prepared by:

U.S. Department of

Commerce - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

and

Polaris Applied Sciences: on behalf of Adak Petroleum LLC

In cooperation with:

The Adak Petroleum Diesel Spill Natural Resource Trustees:

State of Alaska

Department of Environmental Conservation,

Department of Fish and Game, Department

of Natural Resources,

and

Department of Law

U.S. Department of Interior – Fish and

Wildlife Service

This Compliance Inspection Report is timely submitted to the Trustee Council for approval in accordance

with paragraph 9 of the Consent Decree, No.3:13-cv-00121-HRH.

Administrative Record: Documents comprising the Administrative Record are

available at http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/

Copies: Copies are available at http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/


ii | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1

B. Monitoring ......................................................................................................................... 3

1. Fish Passage: ........................................................................................................................................ 4

i. Trash Racks ............................................................................................................................... 4

ii. Streambed Regrading Following Trash Rack Removal ............................................................. 6

iii. Spill Control Structures ............................................................................................................. 8

iv. Salmon Use Observation ........................................................................................................ 14

2. Creosote Piling Removal .................................................................................................................... 15

3. Floodplain Barrel Removal ................................................................................................................. 16

4. In-Stream Barrel Removal .................................................................................................................. 19

5. Capping of Upstream Culvert Barrel Complex ................................................................................... 23

6. Erosion /Revegetation ....................................................................................................................... 25

i. Trash Rack Removal Areas ...................................................................................................... 25

ii. Streambank Barrel Removal (Site #1) .................................................................................... 27

iii. In-Stream Barrel Removal (Site #2 and Site #3) ..................................................................... 30

iv. Culvert Plug (Site #4) .............................................................................................................. 35

C. Performance Standard Evaluation ......................................................................................37

1. Fish Passage ....................................................................................................................................... 37

2. Erosion/ Revegetation ....................................................................................................................... 38

3. Cap of Upstream Barrels .................................................................................................................... 39

D. Maintenance Review .........................................................................................................39

E. Conclusion .........................................................................................................................40

Tables

Table 1: Water Quality ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 2: Vegetation Cover Measurements – Trash Rack #1 ............................................................. 26

Table 3: Vegetation Cover Measurements – Barrel Removal Site #1 ............................................... 28




iii | P a g e

Figures

Figure 1: Lower Helmet Creek showing work areas ............................................................................ 2

Figure 2: Upper Helmet Creek showing work areas............................................................................ 2

Figure 3: Culvert #2 after restoration 2013 (L); 2014 (R) .................................................................... 5

Figure 4: Culvert #3 after trash rack removal 2013 (L); 2014 (R) ........................................................ 6

Figure 5: Post-Construction channel measurements (Culvert #2) ....................................................... 7

Figure 6: Post-Construction channel measurements (Culvert #3) ....................................................... 8

Figure 7: Spill control gate on Culvert #3 and new reference mark 2014. ....................................... 11

Figure 8: Spill control gate on Culvert #5 (lower and upper) 2014. .................................................. 14

Figure 9: Group of about a dozen pink salmon observed between Culverts #4 and #5 (2014) ........ 15

Figure 10: Location of instream (L) and upper bank pilings (R) in 2014. .......................................... 16

Figure 11: Site #1 – Post Construction 2013 looking upstream (L) and downstream (R) .................. 17


Figure 13: Site #1 – Barrel removal location 2013 (L) and 2014 (R) .................................................. 19

Figure 14: Site #1 – Post Construction channel width measurements (2013 and 2014) ................... 19

Figure 15: Site #2 – Post Construction 2013 looking upstream (L) and downstream (R) ................. 20

Figure 16: Site #2 – Post Construction 2014 looking upstream (L) and downstream (R) ................. 21



Figure 19: Site #2 – Post Construction channel measurements (2013 and 2014) ............................. 23

Figure 20: Site #4 – Post Construction (2013) looking upstream (L) and downstream (R) ............... 24

Figure 21: Site #4 – 2014 Monitoring looking directly at cap site (L) and downstream (R) .............. 24

Figure 22: 2013 Photo Quadrats for Trash Rack #1 .......................................................................... 26

Figure 23: 2014 Photo Quadrats for Trash Rack #1 .......................................................................... 27

Figure 24: 2013 Photo Quadrats for Barrel Removal Site #1 ............................................................ 29



Figure 27: 2014 Photo Quadrats for Barrel Removal Site #2 ............................................................. 32



Figure 30: 2013 Photo Quadrats for Barrel Plug Site #4 ................................................................... 36

Figure 31: 2014 Photo Quadrats for Barrel Plug Site #4 ................................................................... 36

1 | P a g e

A. Executive Summary

Diesel fuel spilled into Helmet Creek on Adak Island, Alaska on January 11, 2010 injuring natural resources

in the creek and the nearby estuary, intertidal and nearshore marine habitats. Investigations performed by

the Responsible Party (RP), Adak Petroleum, LLC, and the federal and state natural resource trustees

(Trustees) during October 2010 and September 2011 identified restoration opportunities on Helmet Creek.

A detailed description of proposed restoration activities (Work Plan or HCRMP) was prepared1. The

restoration work focused on the improvement of fish passage, including the removal of in-stream barrels.

This work was completed between July 7 -11, 2013 by RP and Trustee staff and a compliance report was

prepared2. The 2013 report includes a description of all work that was completed along with baseline

(compliance) monitoring results which form the basis for post-monitoring comparisons. Restoration

included improvements to fish passage, water quality, stream and stream bank functions, main channel

flow, and riparian vegetation. Figures 1 and 2 identify specific locations in Helmet Creek where restoration

took place.

The first year of post-restoration monitoring occurred August 28-30, 2014 and the report for this can be

found at: http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/. The 2016 report summarizes the results of the second year of post-

restoration monitoring, which was conducted on September 29-31, 2016 by Erika Ammann from the NOAA

Restoration Center.

Overall, the functional objectives of the restoration action were achieved. No barrier to fish passage was

detected in 2016 monitoring. Elements that were evaluated included fish passage, erosion/revegetation,

capping of upstream barrels, and general maintenance. Performance standards as described in the

Helmet Creek Restoration & Monitoring Work Plan were met with minor exceptions at two locations that

did not impact functional objectives. It was also determined that all performance measures were

functionally met for intact habitat and fish passage at Helmet Creek. Additional monitoring will be

conducted in 2018.

1 Helmet Creek Restoration & Monitoring Work Plan, Adak Petroleum Diesel Spill. April 13, 2013.

2 Compliance Inspection Report, Helmet Creek Restoration, Adak Petroleum Diesel Spill. September 12, 2013.


2 | P a g e

Figure 1: Lower Helmet Creek showing work areas

Figure 2: Upper Helmet Creek showing work areas

3 | P a g e

B. Water Quality Sampling Soil samples collected in 2013 near Helmet Creek revealed a slightly elevated level of copper in the

vicinity of the restoration activities. The presence of copper was not related to the Adak Petroleum spill,

but rather were likely attributable to historical activities conducted in the area. However, because

copper levels in the water could be temporarily affected by sediment disturbance during and after the

restoration work(e.g., old barrel removal; soil or sediment movement), water samples were collected as

follows:

• Collect one water quality sample from Helmet Creek downstream of Site #1 immediately prior

to any restoration work being completed at Sites #1 - #4 (July 8, 2013).

• Collect one water quality sample from Helmet Creek downstream of Site #1 within one day after

restoration work is completed at Sites #1 - #4 (July 11, 2013).

• Collect one water quality sample during the 2016 monitoring visit (September 26, 2016).

Samples were collected near RK 0.55 during July 2013 and in the same location Sept 2016. Results of

the pre- and post-restoration water quality sampling are provided in Table 3.

Table 1: Water Quality Sample Results for Copper in Helmet Creek

Collection Date *Results (µg/L) Pre-Restoration: July 8, 2013; 2:30pm 3.15

Post-Restoration: July 11, 2013; 11:30am 3.64

Post-Restoration September 26, 2016 3.87

*Typical values required for the protection of aquatic life in freshwater range between 2.4 and 20 µg/L

Water quality testing indicated no significant increase in copper levels due to restoration activities. Current levels indicate no long term effects on fish or other freshwater aquatic life. In addition, the increased passibility of the stream allows for fish avoidance of copper and therefore has resulted in a net benefit. .

C. Monitoring

Purpose: The objective of monitoring is to verify that all restoration goals, as described in the Work

Plan, are being met, and that any changes that need to be made to help achieve those goals are

identified and carried out in a timely manner. Monitoring staff returned to the site a year post

restoration to ensure that restoration is still intact and that revegetation in the restored areas has

taken hold. The main concern for this monitoring was to ensure that fish passage has been

accomplished and that the restoration did not have any unforeseen effects that would cause

damage to the health of the creek.

Date: Monitoring was carried out September 29-31, 2016.

Staff: The monitoring was conducted by Erika Ammann from NOAA Fisheries.

4 | P a g e

1. Fish Passage:

i. Trash Racks

Trash racks at Culvert #2 (Figure 3) and Culvert #3 (Figure 4) were removed to facilitate

upstream fish movement. The bed upstream of Culvert #2 was also regraded to reduce a

steep grade caused by an accumulation of material against the trash rack.

5 | P a g e

Figure 3: Culvert #2 after restoration 2013; 2014; 2016.

6 | P a g e

Figure 4: Culvert #3 after trash rack removal 2013; 2014; 2016.

ii. Streambed Regrading Following Trash Rack Removal

Transect measurements of in-stream parameters including stream channel width and bed

elevation were collected in 2014, only width was collected in 2016. Previous monitoring

included grade measurements, but was discontinued in favor of visual inspection.

Monitoring confirmed that the streambed upstream of both culverts was still in stable

condition with no jump heights in excess of 10-inches. While the beds had changed

somewhat, the change was within expected natural variability and did not cause an

adverse effect on fish passage.

In 2016, the streambank was stable and visual observations were made of salmon

migrating through the reach.

7 | P a g e

Figure 5: Post-Construction channel measurements (Culvert #2)

-20.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Bed

Ele

vati

on

(ft

)

Ch

ann

el W

idth

(ft

)

Distance (feet upstream of culvert inlet)

Channel Width and Bed Elevation Upstream of Culvert 2

Channel Width 2014 (ft)

Bed Elevation 2014 (ft)


8 | P a g e

Figure 6: Post-Construction channel measurements (Culvert #3)

iii. Spill Control Structures

Three spill control gates are located on Helmet Creek: one on the downstream end of

Culvert #3 and one each on the upstream and downstream ends of Culvert #5. The gates

were opened at least 6-inches during the restoration work in 2013. A mark showing the

adequate level of opening was added for future reference by monitoring personnel and

Adak Petroleum staff (Figure 7).

In 2014, the spill control structure on the downstream end of Culvert #3 was approximately

6 inches above the current water level. In 2016, the spill control structure on Culvert #3

was approximately 4 inches above the waterline and the demarcation line was extremely

faint (Figure 7).

In 2014, the upstream spill control structure on Culvert #5 was approximately 6 inches

above the current flow level. In 2016, the spill control structure on the upstream side of

Culvert #5 was removed (Figure 8).

In 2014, the spill control structure on the downstream end of Culvert #5 was approximately

4 inches above the current water level. In 2016, the spill control structure on the

downstream end of Culvert #5 was approximately 0 inches above the waterline (Figure 8).

During the 2016 monitoring visit, all three spill control gates allowed fish to enter the

culverts and adult pink salmon were observed upstream. Fish passage was not observed

as a concern, even at the downstream end of Culvert #5 where the spill control structure

was lowered to the waterline. Based on correspondence with the RP, it appears that the

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Bed

Ele

vati

on

(ft

)

Ch

ann

el W

idth

(ft

)

Distance (feet upstream of culvert inlet)

Channel Width and Bed Elevation Upstream of Culvert 3 Channel Width 2014 (ft)

Bed Elevation 2014 (ft)


9 | P a g e

spill control structure was inadvertently lowered at some point. The RP confirmed that no

spills had taken place that would have triggered the lowering of the spill control structure.

Following the monitoring visit, the RP has redoubled efforts to keep all spill control

structures fully raised.

10 | P a g e

11 | P a g e

Figure 7: Spill control gate on Culvert #3 and new reference mark in 2014 and 2016

12 | P a g e

13 | P a g e

14 | P a g e

Figure 8: Spill control gate on Culvert #5 (outlet and inlet) 2014, Outlet 2016 and inlet was

removed when visited in 2016

iv. Salmon Use Observation

On the August 2014 monitoring trip, pink and chum salmon were seen throughout Helmet

Creek up to the location of a natural fish passage barrier west of the tank farm at RK 2.1

(Figure 9). A count was conducted by the two field personnel walking the entire creek

from the mouth to the barrier. The count was approximate as a secondary focus of the

work, but roughly 1,626 salmon were seen which was a mix of mainly pink salmon and

some chum salmon. The count of fish above Culvert #5 was 141 salmon, indicating that

all barriers to fish passage have been removed.

15 | P a g e

In September 2016, pink and chum salmon were seen throughout Helmet Creek, but the

main run had already passed. Approximately 32 adult salmon and adult salmon carcasses

were seen. The majority were chum salmon. Evidence of carcasses and adults

throughout the system indicated that adults were not facing barriers to movement.

Figure 9: Group of about a dozen pink salmon observed between Culverts #4 and #5 (2014)

Active chum salmon moving between #4 and #5 (2016)

2. Creosote Piling Removal

Seven creosote treated piles in and near the creek were removed in 2013, the resulting

holes filled, and suitable revegetation measures applied.

In 2014, all piling areas were observed for revegetation. It was difficult to locate the

original in-stream pile location, but the approximate areas were surveyed using past

photos. It was determined that an inability to find the removal areas indicated that the

removal process had not left a footprint and that adequate revegetation had occurred at

each removal site. Figure 10 shows the locations of the piles that were in-stream near RK

0.5, and upstream of Culvert #5. These areas also no longer showed removal activity and

the bank area had good vegetation growth.

In 2016, similar results were seen where vegetation had completely covered the piling

removal sites.

16 | P a g e

Figure 10: Location of instream (L) and upper bank pilings (R) in 2014 and instream (L) and upper

bank pilings (R) in 2016.

3. Floodplain Barrel Removal

Restoration included removal of all barrels that could be removed without significant

disturbance to the channel, and revegetation of all disturbed areas on the banks. Photo

points were established in 2013 (Figure 11) and a visual assessment of streambed and

streambank integrity looking downstream and upstream over the area of removal was

17 | P a g e

completed. Stream width was measured through the restoration area.

In 2016, stream banks were found to be stable with no signs of unusual erosion. Even

though the area was heavily trampled during the 2013 restoration work, no evidence of this

activity was seen in 2016 (Figures 12 and 13). Revegetation showed root formation and

stable banks (Figure 13). There were some differences in the creek flow due to shifts of

some large rocks and the removal of constrictions; but none of these changes were

determined to be detrimental. Rather the shifts indicate that the creek is adjusting to a

more natural substrate and bank than was previously provided by the drums (Figure 14).

Channel widths over the three monitoring years showed some widening but nothing

greater than seen in other areas of the channel that had not been constrained. Multiple

juvenile salmonids were seen in the area.

Figure 11: Site #1 – Post Construction 2013 looking upstream (L) and downstream (R)

Figure 12: Site #1 – Post Construction 2014 -- looking upstream (L) and downstream (R)

18 | P a g e


19 | P a g e

Figure 14: Site #1 – Barrel removal location 2013, 2014 and 2016

Figure 15: Site #1 – Post Construction channel width measurements (2013, 2014 and 2016)

4. In-Stream Barrel Removal

In 2013, numerous instream barrels were removed at Site #2 (Figure 16, 17, 18) and a

single barrel was removed at Site #3 (Figure 19,20,21). A large rock present in the middle

of the stream at Site #2 created a small jump, but did not create a fish passage barrier. All

disturbed areas on the banks were revegetated and photo points were established. A

visual assessment of stream bed and stream bank integrity was completed -- looking

downstream and upstream over the area of removal. Transect measurements of in-stream

parameters were completed at Site #2, including stream width, depth, and grade. Only

minimal channel disturbance occurred at Site #3 and no physical channel measurements

were deemed necessary.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Site 1 - Channel Width

Width 2013 (ft)

Width 2014 ft

Width 2016

Distance (feet upstream of first barrel )

Wid

th (

ft)

20 | P a g e

2014 Monitoring - Site #2: Observation of the stream channel at Site #2 showed that the

stream substrate had less fine sediment than previously observed. Observers thought that

the stream was able to move through areas where the drums had previously been --

thereby carrying away some of the fine sediment It was also noted that the large boulder

was not seen and may have dropped into one of the holes created by removal of the

barrels, perhaps during spring high flows. In general, the stream seemed to be adjusting to

the absence of the barrels and other debris and the banks are stable (Figure 18). The

stream depth and width changed a little, but not in any significant or harmful way (Figure

22). The largest change was due to movement of the large rock.

2014 Monitoring - Site 3: At this site, a barrel was removed and afterwards, the vegetation

mat that had been growing over the barrel was laid over the bare bank. Monitoring

revealed that the vegetation had taken root and no major shifts had taken place in the

channel (Figures 19 and 20).

2016 Monitoring: Banks were stable and revegetation was continuing. Fines in the creek

were less than initially upon restoration. Juvenile and possibly adult trout were seen using

the area.


21 | P a g e



22 | P a g e

Figure 19: Site #3 – Post Construction 2013 looking upstream (L) and downstream (R)



23 | P a g e

Figure 22: Site #2 – Post Construction channel measurements (2013, 2014 and 2016)

5. Capping of Upstream Culvert Barrel Complex (Site 4)

The mouth of the culvert complex was plugged in 2013 and covered with a vegetation mat

(Figure 23). All disturbed areas on the banks were revegetated. A photo point and visual

assessment of stream bed and stream bank integrity was made.

2014 Monitoring: The cap site was functioning and seemed to be diverting almost all of the

flow to the main channel. Revegetation over the top of the capped culvert was taking root

(Figure 24).

2016 Monitoring: the cap site was functioning and diverting the majority of the flow to the

main channel. Revegetation was rooted and rock base was secure (Figure 25).

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Elev

atio

n (

in)

Channel Width 2013 (ft) Bed Elevation 2013 (in) Channel Width 2014 (ft)

Bed Elevation 2014 (in) Channel width 2016 ( ft)

Site 2 - Channel Width and Bed Elevation C

han

nel

Wid

th (

ft)

Distance (feet upstream of first barrel)

24 | P a g e

Figure 23: Site #4 – Post Construction (2013) -- looking upstream (L) and downstream (R)

Figure 24: Site #4 – 2014 Monitoring -- looking directly at cap site (L) and downstream (R)

Figure 25: Site #4 – 2016 Monitoring -- looking directly at cap site (L) and downstream (R)

25 | P a g e

6. Erosion /Revegetation

Representative photos, including detailed photo quadrats, were taken at each area

where streambanks were disturbed. Observers used these photos during monitoring to

ensure that stated performance measures were being met. Percent cover and

vegetation makeup were compared to post-restoration pictures or to undisturbed areas.

(Percent Cover is defined as the amount of living vegetation measured as if the

vegetation was upright.) During the initial data collection, observers flagged areas being

monitored, while notes were taken on location to enable the Trustees to identify the

areas that would be resampled. On return, monitoring and reassessment occurs as close

as possible to the original data collection areas using the 2013 flagging (reflagged in 2014

and 2016), photos, and notes.

i. Trash Rack Removal Areas

Bank disturbance that occurred during removal of the wooden timber and pipe near Trash

Rack #1 was revegetated using vegetation plugs and seed mix. Photo quadrats for 2013-

2016 are provided in Figure 26-28.

No bank disturbance occurred near Trash Rack #2 and no restoration or monitoring was

required.

Vegetation makeup: In 2013, 2014, and 2016 dominant grasses are most likely

‘Norcoast’ Bering Hairgrass.3

Percent cover by photo: Percent cover estimates are provided in Table 2 for 2013, 2014,

and 2016. Percent cover benchmarks made prior to monitoring are as follows: 2014-

greater than 50%, 2015 greater than 75% and 2017 greater than 95%. Since changes were

made in sampling times from 2014 to 2016, the 2015 benchmark will be substituted for

2016 observations. Observers noted that the sample picture did not meet the benchmark

criteria, but no bank instability was observed. Because sluffing is considered a natural

occurrence in healthy banks and has been observed in reaches where no restoration has

occurred, the Trustees recommend that the 2018 monitoring visit confirm only that banks in

restoration areas remain stable and do not degrade fish habitat.

3 Information on Bearing Hairgrass can be found online at http://plants.alaska.gov/publications/pdf/plant-

flyers/NorcoastBeringHairgrass.pdf

http://plants.alaska.gov/publications/pdf/plant-flyers/NorcoastBeringHairgrass.pdf

http://plants.alaska.gov/publications/pdf/plant-flyers/NorcoastBeringHairgrass.pdf

26 | P a g e

Table 2: Vegetation Cover Measurements – Trash Rack #1

Bank Location Percent Cover Estimate

2013 2014 2016

a 30 80 85

b 90 85 80

c 85 90 75

d 55* 90 75

e 5* 85 70

f 90 90 85

g 10* 80 85

h 5* 90 75

Average - 46 86 79 * Dead material was present and placed on mats at this location to keep the underlying soil moist.

Figure 26: 2013 Photo Quadrats for Trash Rack #1

27 | P a g e



ii. Streambank Barrel Removal (Site #1)

Photo quadrat and visual assessment of stream bank integrity was conducted. Post-

construction bank condition for areas of bank disturbance that occurred during removal of

the barrels was recorded for Site #1. In addition to recording percent cover, the photos were

taken so that visual comparisons of the bank could be made. Some of the bank instability is

natural and pre-existing. Photo quadrats for 2013, 2014 and 2016 are provided in Figure 29-

31.

Vegetation makeup: Grasses dominant most likely ‘Norcoast’ Bering Hairgrass,

geranium, fireweed (both years).

28 | P a g e

Percent cover by photo: Percent cover estimates are provided in Table 3 for 2013, 2014, and

2016.

Table 3: Vegetation Cover Measurements – Barrel Removal Site #1


2013 2014 2016

a 6 75 80

b 4 a 70 85

c 20 b 90 85

d 5 a, b 80 90

e 10 a 80 75

f 2 c 90 75

g 6 d 90 80

h 5 a, c 70 c 75

I 15 d 70 c 75

J 7 a, b 80 80

k 7 b, c 80 80

l 7 b, c 80 c 75

Average - 8 80 80 a Dead material was present;

b Photo includes

open space;c

goal is for growth at base of steep

slope;d photo includes stream.

29 | P a g e

Figure 29: 2013 Photo Quadrats for Barrel Removal Site #1

-Monitoring Photo quadrats Barrel Removal Site 1


30 | P a g e


iii. In-Stream Barrel Removal (Site #2 and Site #3)


construction bank condition for areas of bank disturbance that occurred during removal of

the barrels was recorded for Site #2 (Figure 32-34) and Site #3 (Figure 35-37). Photo

31 | P a g e

quadrats for 2016are provided in Figure 34 (Site #2) and Figure 37 (Site #3).

Vegetation makeup (Site #2): (2013,2014, 2016) Dominant: Grasses, most likely

‘Norcoast’ Bering Hairgrass. Non dominant: devils club, wild geranium, Sitka Burnett,

Chocolate lily, Cinquefoil, fireweed, lupine, twisted stalk.

Percent cover by photo: (2013 , 2014,2016) Percent cover estimates are provided for Site #2

in Table 4.



2013 2014 2016

a 10 80 65

b 40 75 70

c 3 75 65

d 40 80 80

e 25 75 65

f 30 75 80

g 25 80 70

h 40 75 65

I 35 75 65

j 15 70 60

Average - 26 76 69

32 | P a g e



33 | P a g e


Vegetation Makeup (Site #3): (2013, 2014 and 2016): Dominant: Grasses, most likely

‘Norcoast’ Bering Hairgrass. Non dominant: devils club, wild geranium, Sitka Burnett.

Percent cover by photo: 2013, 2014 and 2016 Percent cover estimates are provided for Site #3

in Table 5.

34 | P a g e



2013 2014 2016

a 25 75 60*

b 30 80 80

c 40 70 75

d 20 75 80

e 35 65 90

f 15 50* 80

Average - 27 69 78 * photo taken to show bank open area, should not affect compliance with success criteria.


35 | P a g e



iv. Culvert Plug (Site #4)


construction bank condition for areas of bank disturbance that occurred during plugging of

the barrel complex was recorded in 2013 for Site #4 (Figure 36). 2016 monitoring photos

36 | P a g e

are provided in Figure 38.

Vegetation Makeup: (2013, 2014 and 2016) Dominant: Grasses, most likely ‘Norcoast’

Bering Hairgrass. Non dominant: devils club, wild geranium, Sitka Burnett, equisetum,

twisted stalk, non-native veg dandelion.

Percent cover by photo: 2013, 2014 and 2016 Percent cover estimates are provided for Site #4

in Table 6.



2013 2014 2016

a 25 80 85

b 30 80 85

c 25 65* 80

Average - 27 75 83 * some open space because of quadrat placement.

Figure 36: 2013 Photo Quadrats for Barrel Plug Site #4


37 | P a g e


D. Performance Standard Evaluation All performance standards described in Section E of the HCRMP are listed here. Data collected during the

2016 monitoring survey are summarized, along with an evaluation of whether the performance standards

were met. In the HCRMP, the original monitoring was scheduled for the years of 2014, 2015 and 2017.

Due to the greater number of pinks seen in even years in Helmet Creek, the monitoring years were set to

2014, 2016, and 2018. The Trustees have applied the 2015 performance standards outlined in the HCRMP

to the conditions observed during the 2016 monitoring visit.

1. Fish Passage 2016 Upstream fish migration access shall be considered unblocked if the following conditions are met:

• No accumulation of debris that blocks greater than 10 percent of the opening (upstream or

downstream) or interior of any culvert or spill control gate.

• No accumulation of debris at either opening or in the interior of any culvert that creates a

vertical drop in-water surface elevation of greater than four inches.

Both ends and the interiors of all five culverts were examined. No accumulation of debris was

noted. A small amount of debris was removed during the 2016 monitoring, but none created a

blockage. No drops were observed within any of the culverts. These performance standards

were met.

• No changes in streambed configuration between Culverts #3 and #4 or at in-stream barrel

removal locations that result in a significant increase in the slope of the stream, or the

creation of jump heights in excess of 10-inches which can be barriers for the passage of weak

swimming fish species.

All streambed configurations within and adjacent to previous work areas were examined in

detail. There were slight changes noticed in the graph of the stream widths. These changes

were not noticeable in the field and are not substantial enough to indicate harm to the system.

There is either a small amount of widening or the changes are due to difference in the

measuring location from monitoring year to year. No jump heights exceeding 10-inches were

present. This performance standard was met.

38 | P a g e

• The spill control gates are maintained in a position no less than six inches above the peak

water surface elevation.

All three spill control gates were examined. The spill control structure on Culvert #3 was raised

and allowed light to penetrate into the culvert. The spill control structure on the downstream

end of Culvert #5 was lowered to just beneath the water level. On observation, fish were

passing through the culvert, despite the lack of light penetration. The performance measure

for this spill control structure was not met, but monitoring of the structure determined that the

ultimate goal of passing fish superseded this measure and therefore deemed acceptable.

The spill control structure on the upper portion of Culvert #5 was removed and allowed full

light penetration and fish passage. This performance standard was met.

• Following removal of the barrels, in-stream hydrology of the creek must still allow for fish

passage.

Water depths within and adjacent to previous work areas were examined. No extreme

velocities, shallow areas, or other configurations were observed that might block fish passage.

This performance standard was met.

2. Erosion/ Revegetation

Shoreline areas disturbed during the restoration process were revegetated. Restoration shall be

considered stable if the following conditions are met.

• Year 2016: There is no more than minor erosion in or directly adjacent to locations where

barrels were removed after bank settles. There is no erosion where equipment was located.

Very little to no new erosion was observed near or adjacent to any of the work areas. Areas of

existing erosion had not increased significantly if at all. Nothing was observed that could be

considered more than minor erosion. This performance standard was met.

• Percent Cover (seeded areas): 2016 – greater than 75% (2015 measurement criteria)

Average percent vegetation coverage for previously disturbed work locations where seed was

placed ranged from 69% to 80%. Barrel removal site #2 did not meet the performance measure

set for 75% vegetation coverage. However, at the time of monitoring, the root system was

firmly intact at this location, and it was determined that the lack of vegetation coverage was

likely due to the later date of monitoring (September versus August). Percent cover would

likely have been higher if the monitoring had occurred prior to the onset of fall. The intact root

system indicates that the revegetation and planting is achieving the overall goal of securing

bank soils. It should also be noted that erosion is a naturally occurring process, and future

monitoring of this system may fail to meet the prescribed criteria of 75% and 95% cover.

Despite the fact that the performance measure was not strictly met at barrel removal site #2,

39 | P a g e

the Trustees have concluded that this performance standard was functionally met for all sites,

the restoration is functioning as designed, and the work was deemed sound.

• Percent Cover for Vegetation Mats: Year 2016 – greater than 95% coverage of mat with live

vegetation.

Areas previously covered with mats had recovered so well that it was difficult to identify

specific locations where mats were used. Mats were firmly rooted and providing appropriate

function. This performance standard was met.

• Native species dominance 2016: Areas revegetated should be dominated by native species

with non-natives not exceeding 5% of the total plot.

Vegetation species makeup at each site appeared to be identical to post-construction

conditions. There was no evidence that new or exotic species had been introduced. This

performance standard was met.

3. Cap of Upstream Barrels

The culvert vegetation plugs are to be considered successful if the following conditions are met:

• Plugs should be present and stable, and effectively diverting the vast majority of the flow into

the natural channel.

2016: Rocks and vegetation mats used to create the plugs were still present and relatively

unchanged. No signs of instability or potential failure were noted. The amount of water

coming out of the culvert at the downstream end was insignificant (estimated at around 1-2

gallons per minute). Much of this excess water could have been leakage into the pipe at

locations other than the plug. This performance standard was met.

• No unexpected repercussions from diverting the water should occur.

2016: This was the reach that has experienced higher instream flows since the culvert was

plugged in 2013. The channel was walked from the plug downstream to the culvert return. No

signs of new erosion, bank stability, or other potential problems were noted. This performance

standard was met.

E. Maintenance Review The following maintenance items were reported in 2014 and/or 2016 or completed during the monitoring

site visits:

• Several dozen pieces of anthropogenic material were removed from the channel during the

2014 monitoring survey. These consisted primarily of pieces of sheet plastic.

• In 2016, debris was removed consisting of a bucket, a large metal sheet and various pieces of

plywood by NOAA trustee.

40 | P a g e

• In 2014, small boulders placed inside Culvert #2 as velocity breaks had been washed out. It was

decided not to replace the rocks. The chance of maintaining the boulders inside the culvert is

low given the smooth concrete culvert bed, and given the presence of several hundred pink

salmon observed upstream of Culvert #2, their presence is unnecessary.

• In 2016, one of the spill control structures was lower than prescribed in the HCRMP. Upon

observation, it was determined that gate level did not impair fish passage, sediment transport

or any biological function observed. Further observations will occur to ensure that this holds

true.

F. Conclusion This report summarizes the restoration monitoring for 2016.

The 2016 monitoring found that efforts to improve upstream fish passage were successful -- as

evidenced by the amount of pink and chum salmon that were using the upper reaches of Helmet Creek.

Pink salmon are not known to be strong swimmers and their presence verified the absence of barriers.

Additionally, the movement of fine sediment following the in-stream barrel removal seemed to add to

usable habitat by juvenile trout in the upper watershed. The habitat also included increased

overhanging vegetation, as well as ample juvenile and possibly adult trout were seen in this area which

previously had been deep, slow moving and full of fines. The monitoring did not detect any drastic

changes harmful to fish that were a direct response to the restoration work done --with exception to the

positive increase in fish passage and presence of salmon above previous barriers.

Overall, the functional objectives of the restoration action were achieved. As part of the monitoring for

the slope calculations conducted in 2014, and again in 2016, observers concluded there was no need to

reinstate slope calculations. No barrier to fish passage was detected in 2016 monitoring. Minus the one

spill control structure, and percent cover at site #2, performance standards as described in the Helmet

Creek Restoration & Monitoring Work Plan were met. It was also determined that functionally all

performance measures were met for intact habitat and fish passage at Helmet Creek. Additional

monitoring will be conducted in 2018. If a barrier to fish passage is detected during future monitoring

visits, further investigation will take place.